Viernes, 30 de julio de 2010

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

?By Publius Huldah??Thursday, July 29, 2010

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don?t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.


Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction?

?Original? jurisdiction means the power to conduct the ?trial? of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a ?trial? is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, ?State of Arizona?? And ?Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity??? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court ?original Jurisdiction?, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ?in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.? Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal?.[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law ?extraordinary writ?: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

....the fact still remains that ?only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ?usurpation of power? will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.?...(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors - Go for it! PH


Publius Huldah ?Bio
Publius Huldah Most recent columns

Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA.? She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).?
Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.? She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.

Publius can be reached at: [email protected]


Publius Huldah ?Bio
Publius Huldah Most recent columns

Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA.? She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).?
Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.? She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.

Publius can be reached at: [email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 27 de julio de 2010

Republican controlled House of Representatives uncovering Obama?s corrupt dealings and exposing this man as unworthy of the office of President

From the White House to the Big House: 25 Impeachable Crimes and Counting

?By Fred Dardick??Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Last week Rep. Michelle Bachmann was asked what Republicans had in mind should they retake the House of Representatives this November, she replied ?I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that is going on.?

Considering the sheer volume of illegal and impeachable offences committed by Obama and his cohorts over the past couple of years, the House will be very busy indeed.

Putting aside Obama?s inept leadership, weakening of our national defenses and transparent attempt to socialize our great nation, there are a number of more practical crimes that once investigated could lead to Obama?s impeachment and perhaps even his well deserved imprisonment.

25 Obama Crimes the House Should Investigate in 2011

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

Something to Look Forward to

These 25 crimes are just what I?ve been able to dig up over the past couple of weeks. No doubt there are many more that I have missed or still as yet undiscovered. While any one may be sufficient to impeach Obama, taken as a whole it demonstrates that Obama has little to no regard for the rule of law.

I look forward to a Republican controlled House of Representatives uncovering Obama?s corrupt dealings and exposing this man as unworthy of the office of President.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 25 de julio de 2010

We are the Masters of our Fate and Captains of our Soul



by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.)


William Ernest Henley was the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's "Long John Silver" in "Treasure Island" because he had a wooden leg

(Jul. 25, 2010) ? ?I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.? From the Poem Invictus by English poet William Ernest Henley (1849?1903) that was penned in 1875. Yes, America, you are watching while Washington burns and self-destructs before our very eyes. What does a country and its citizens do as their nation continues to collapse from weak and misdirected Leadership? What are you going to do? The Declaration of Independence states:

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 affect their Safety and Happiness.

We cannot permit the current leaders in the White House and Halls of Congress to continue in their efforts to lead us down the road of Progressive Socialism. This is the current battle that we Constitutionalists face and we must be aggressive in our efforts. Of notice is the Arrogance Incompetence and Dishonesty of officials as relates to Legislation, National Security, Economy, and is the rationale for multiple resignations and a serious change of government. The Fate of the country is now in our hands and the plea from the majority of our citizens is to enforce our Constitutional and Existing Laws. There is a growing list of documented violations by current elected and appointed government officials of the Constitution and their Oath of Office. The 2010 November elections will be the most pivotal mid-term elections in our history.

Lincoln issued this warning in his inaugural address, ?Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one.? This is a most valuable and sacred right ? a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.?? Being a representative republic, not a democracy, and ?rising up? means other than revolution by use of arms. The people must ?rise up? (Stand Up as we say now) from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations. We are limited in the peaceful transfer of power?resignation, elections, and impeachment.

The oath is simple and reads:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Sadly, we have seen them violate their oath.? Fraud, lying, and corruption are rampant and some have engaged in treasonous activities, and they effectively thumb their noses at us and have sold you to the highest bidder.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution, which granted the federal government enough authority to cultivate, promote and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The balance of authority and individual liberty was understood. Power was confined to that which was enumerated in the Constitution with a certain and meaningful intent for check and balances.

Article One, S5, CII and the 10th Amendment provide the authority, but this has been trumped by a system that rewards the powerful. In 1803 each congressional district averaged 38,476 people. In 2010 it is forecast to exceed 710,000. These numbers indicate power growth, and it effectively grew eight-fold in the 20th century alone. No wonder our representatives seek to stay in office so long. Power, money and benefits beyond the reach of most Americans are the basis now for many politicians and revolving-door appointees staying in office. They must be termed out. With incumbency comes power. The party in the majority assigns power, so a long-term sitting representative can expect such power. A representative expected to stay in office in the 3rd Congress for approximately two years now expects 12 years, or 6 terms ? so much for a ?citizen government.? But this can be changed through grass roots organization and discourse. We must make it a local imperative and movement?.of the People?by the People? and For the People.

?We, the People? have had enough.? Enough is Enough. The Obama White House and identifiable Members of Congress are now on a progressive, socialist and treasonous death march and are bankrupting the country beyond expectations.? We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. ?We, the People? cannot solely depend on the results of the? elections.? It is now that many of these public servants (and you know who they are) must put the people and country interests above self-interest by resigning immediately.? ?A civil uprising is still not out of the question as ?pain? grips the country more each day. I am confident many more resignations and new representation will be forthcoming based on the efforts of the people. This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers, and friends. Be the Captains of your Souls. I pray for another George Washington to appear within the year and lead us.

Paul Vallely is Chairman of Stand Up America.

? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:29
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 23 de julio de 2010

Friday, July 23, 2010


Bobby Jindahl on Moratorium: Louisiana Wants None of Obama's Community Organizing

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindah speaks forcefully without a teleprompter or notes in sight. He demonstrates how out of touch with Americans, Obama and his administration are. The president is trying to organize Louisiana workers, like the community organizer he is, and they want none of it. See the video below.

Bobby Jindahl

Jindahl quotes Obama saying, "Governor, if people lose their jobs because of the [drilling] moratorium, they can file a BP claim. I said, with all due respect, what if BP doesn't pay. He said don't worry Governor, they can file an unemployment claim. I said with all due respect Mr. President, we don't want a BP check or an unemployment check, we want to go back to work."

Obama also told Jindahl if the drilling rigs leave, meaning if they are taken to other locations because of a lack of operation in the Gulf of Mexico, "the rigs will just come back." Jindahl tells the crowd - "as if you can turn it on and off like a switch."?Jindahl said the rigs are gone for years, two are on their way to Africa right now.

Has there ever been a president in our history, besides Obama, who equates an unemployment check with a "real" check?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl (video)

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Help Block Obama's Lawsuit Against Arizona

A very important and worthy amendment was just defeated in the Senate by a 55-43 vote. Senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment designed to stop the Obama Administration?s lawsuit against the State of Arizona and its taxpayers for SB 1070, the immigration bill that was recently passed and goes into effect July 29. Click on the second image (below) of Senator DeMint to view a five-minute video of an interview with him on this topic.

Amendment #4464 would have prohibited President Obama, the Department of Justice, and other agencies from participating in lawsuits seeking to invalidate the Arizona law by defunding those efforts. DeMint sought to attach the amendment to legislation extending unemployment benefits, a measure that was certain to pass, but the amendment was rejected. The pertinent but simple part of the text reads:

No funds made available in any provision of law may be used to participate in any lawsuit that seeks to invalidate those provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd. Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az 6 2010) (as amended by Arizona House bill 2162, 49th 7 Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess, Ch. 211 (Az. 2010)).

After a phone conversation with both Senators? offices, it appears that the 55-43 vote has not left them deflated or defeated. In fact, Senator DeMint?s office was rather pleased with the vote.? After all, the Senate is controlled by very liberal Democrats and a 55-43 vote, with two not voting -- one being Vitter who was unexpectedly called out of town --? gives some hope that this amendment can be revived and perhaps brought up again and attached to another piece of legislation. order to renew interest in this very effective method of stopping the Obama Administration from using taxpayer money against its own citizens in an effort to circumvent the will of the people and the Constitution, we need to become proactive. We can immediately contact our senators and representative and encourage them to take part in protecting Arizona?s actions to reestablish the correct ground rules for legal admission into this country, helping to control the anarchy on the border as well.

First, check the roll call vote and see how your senators voted. (Two Republicans voted against the block, Mike Johann of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio, while five Democrats were in favor of the amendment.) Then, click here to send an email message to your senators and representative. If one or both senators voted ?Nay,? let them know they have transgressed the will of the people in this matter. Next, within the same message, encourage your representative to introduce, cosponsor, and support a similar measure in the House.

Then, get to work by passing this information on to all in your circle of life who are concerned about the illegal immigration, and about the extent that the Obama Administration will go to dictate policies and conditions for individual states, all in direct contradiction of the Constitution of the United States.


Your friends at The John Birch Society

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Friday, July 23, 2010


Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached
'We have man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office'

Posted: July 23, 2010
3:05 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh



President Obama bowing to Japan's emperor

A former congressman and GOP presidential candidate says for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath of office that includes the defense of the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to be filing impeachment charges against Barack Obama.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., joined what has become a growing surge of those recommending the ultimate solution for a president they believe not only has disagreeable policies, but is participating in actions that damage the nation.

Tancredo wrote in a opinion piece in the Washington Times that, "Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office ? which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion ? requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."

The ultimate guide to Obama's radical agenda ? and how to stop it!

Tancredo is not the first to raise the idea of impeachment against Obama, who has implemented legislation and policies effectively nationalizing financial institutions, automobile companies, health care and many other previously private interests.

(Story continues below)


In fact, he was not even the only person on this particular day. Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote at the same time, "President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."

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

Tancredo's arguments aren't complicated. During his brief presidential run in 2008 he focused on the border security issue of the United States, and he still is concerned that the failure to secure the U.S. boundary ? especially with Mexico ? will lead to tragic consequences at the hands of border-crossing terrorists.

Tancredo appeared on Fox News today to defend his position from skeptics, saying Obama's responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States, not "fundamentally transform" them.

"Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms," Tancredo warns, affirming his belief that Obama is more dangerous for the United States than al-Qaida.

"He is more dangerous simply because he is inside," he said. "Few people took him seriously about fundamentally transforming America. That is what he is all about. That is what he has set about doing. He is a committed ideologue. When you have someone like that in the White House, it is a scary proposition."


Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian leader

He cited the president's lack of action to adequately secure the border with Mexico.

"He's putting his country in danger," Tancredo said. "The country the Founders put together, that's what's in jeopardy."

"Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles," Tancredo wrote in his op-ed.

"To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or 'transcended' through international agreements or 'norms.'"

Tancredo wrote that the "dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House" holds power over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and health care. As such, "his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it ? all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

"Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaida. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents."

Tancredo, who served five terms representing Colorado and now is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, was joined by Kuhner, who accused Obama of abusing his office and violating his oath.

Kuhner cited Obama's demand that all Americans buy health insurance.

"The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power," he wrote. "Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens."

He further cited Obama's actions regarding the BP oil spill.

"There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda."

He also wrote about the takeovers in the auto and financial industries, and the New Black Panther case.

"Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper," he said. "As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site."

Tancredo nearly two months ago broached the subject of impeachment, suggesting an "impeachment file."

"I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate," he wrote at the time.

And the suggestion even has come from onlookers at a presidential appearance. CNN has documented when Obama made a surprise visit to a crowd on a shuttle bus, one onlooker shouted, "When are you going to quit. When are you going to be impeached?"

The issue even has appeared among online gamers, when Microsoft told an Xbox user the signon name "Impeach Obama" was not allowed because, "If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?"

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a column on WND, discussed the that they launched.

They reported that many, instead of examining the evidence, attacked the messengers.

"We expected these attacks," they reported. But they said the unresolved issues include:

  • "Obama repeatedly lies to the American people when he says we can keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation will inevitably drive private insurers out of business.

  • "Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Obama did not like Walpin's investigation and findings, whereupon he vindictively fired Walpin to cover for his friend, Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin's judgment in the matter.

  • "Barack Obama oversaw the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), General Motors and Chrysler ? the bulk of the U.S. auto industry ? thus stripping bondholders, shareholders and others of their personal property.

  • "Barack Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it will instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale, giving the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses. Those taxed businesses will then pass the fees onto the American people.

  • "Spending American citizens' money, Barack Hussein Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just the nine months since Obama assumed office, our national debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush eight years to add $4.8 trillion to the national debt.

  • "And, to add insult to injury, Obama is printing money like it's going out of style. The effect will be hyperinflation, a crippling of our economy and, quite possibly, personal hardship on a scale that has not been experienced since the Great Depression.

  • "Barack Hussein Obama appointed countless "czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These czars don't have to be approved by the Senate. The czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-constitutional excrescences. Sen. Robert Byrd said: "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Rep. Jack Kingston called the czars a "parallel government."

  • "And finally, Obama consistently refuses to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records. Is he trying to hide something that will threaten his presidency?"


Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely

Retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, told WND he would like Obama to resign.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) ? based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution."

"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he has warned.

"'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We, the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said.

Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation.

"I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 19 de julio de 2010

The Preponderance of the Evidence or The Seriousness of the?Charge

Another newspaper article has emerged that in not one quote but two point to Kenya as the birthplace of Barack Hussein Obama.?

The Tanzania Daima published an article in Swahili dated September 2, 2006, which, using Google Translator, seems to state that Barack Hussein Obama was born in the country of Kenya. ?continued at link(s) below.

First significant quote:
?Government here imemshambulia U.S. senator, born here, Barack Obama, Kenyans and kubeza ikimtuhumu kuwatukana yojipatia success when they tour here in nature.?

Second significant quote:

?He?s born here, who live in the U.S. during his visit every whither he was received with great reception of thousands of Kenyans and was gumzo country, including places he visits the town of his grandmother on his father?s village.?

The fact remains that it was only after one speech at the Democratic Party Convention in 2004, that Barack Hussein Obama can onto the scene. Till that time as a Senator his place of birth did not matter, just like others that have been documented as Mel Martinez, former US Senator born in Cuba.

As a junior State Senator from Illinois is when he traveled to Africa, it was these newspaper references that have been posted and noted state that he was born in Kenya, even the AP wires.

Until he was running for the Presidency, He had only 130+ days as a US Senator before starting to campaign for the Presidency and as such not much outside contact that afforded him a cover story of being born in Hawaii.

The preponderance of the evidence, or in laymans terms; the greater weight of the evidence has numerous statements both on official records and in print that in fact Barack Hussein bama was born in Kenya. In absence of a valid, certified, and authentic long form birth certificate from any hospital, doctor, or birthing facility in the United States all evidence points to a foreign birth.?

?The mountain of evidence that is emerging that Barack Hussein Obama is not who and what he portrayed himself to be to?the American?electorate,?the deception goes beyond using forged douments and a?farbricated past to swindle the American public into believing that he was Constitutionally ?eligible as per the United States Constitution. That same evidence is exposing the corruption in the United States Congress and the Judicial Branch and those that were complicit in the crime of treason against the United States Constitution, which they swore to uphold and protect and the citizens of this nation.

After repeated attempts to have their concerns redressed and investigated and properly handled, they have willingly and with malice and forethought?forfeited their obligation, no different the the United States government deciding what laws to enforce when it comes to immigration or cases involving voter intimidation.? Willingly neglecting their oath and obligation is mocking civil government, it?s rules and laws, and the United States Constitution. May God have mercy on their souls, as he will be their final judge.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 18 de julio de 2010

Obama Must be Impeached: He?s Either Incompetent, or Purposely Failing

?By Kelly O'Connell??Sunday, July 18, 2010

Is there a single American who secretly thinks Obama?s up to the task of the presidency? Or, does anyone believe Barack does not take bad situations and worsen them to magnify his power? These are rhetorical questions, of course. The only way Barack is an acceptable president is if you?re an opponent of America?s greatest achievements.


Therefore, if you support Obama it means you want to revolutionize the US. But no democratic country knowingly elects leaders to debase their country, give away power, bankrupt the treasury, incorporate socialism, dissolve constitutional rights, cripple capitalism, and menace every citizen with reckless policies. That would be ridiculous and anti-American. Barack has done all these things. Therefore, he must be impeached.

Obama?s habit of casually blaming all problems on the sins of his predecessor recalls a quote by Joseph Conrad, ?The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.? Similarly, Barack has revealed enough willful stupidity, ignorance, and crafty sabotage to explain every lingering crisis in America; he no longer need invoke the Devil Bush.

Probably most persons presently believe the current occupant of 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue can?t be impeached for anything he has done. Those persons would be wrong. According to a recent book, ?The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,? by Michael J. Gerhardt, impeachment is ultimately a political question which cannot be framed off a simple criminal analysis. This essay offers a brief overview of the federal impeachment process and proposes an analysis of Obama?s actions which place them into the impeachable category.

General Impeachment Process

Impeachment, according to the ABA website: ?Is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. ?

The standard route that an impeachment follows is well-established. Here is a brief explanation from the Legal Information Institute:

The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, ?all civil officers,? includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

  1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
  2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
  3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
  4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, ?impeached??that is subject to trial in the Senate.
  5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
  6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
  7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

Reasons for Impeachment

A. Political Crimes

Gerhardt?s book ?The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,? is an excellent source to begin analyzing the proper foundation of impeachment. Gerhardt?s work arguably centers on chapter 9, titled ?The Scope Of Impeachable Offenses.? He sums up the issue: ?The major disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the range of non-indictable offenses on which an impeachment may be based.? In other words, outside of a clear instance of serious crime, the question of whether an official can be impeached rests upon one question. This is?What kinds of acts, which would not normally lead to an arrest, could still form a basis for an impeachment?

Gerhardt?s study focuses upon the fact that impeachment is inevitably a ?political? undertaking, as understood by how the old British system viewed the term ?political.? Raoul Berger, in his Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, studied instances of impeachment procedure occurring before the US Constitution was written. He found the British viewed the process as involving ?high crimes and misdemeanors as a category of political crimes against the state.? Further, Berger isolated the use of ?political,? in this sense, and ?against the state? as being identical in meaning. In essence, when the Brits called an action ?politically suspect,? it was meant as an injury to the state, that is?an attack against England.

William Blackstone, chronicler of the British common law, differentiates ?high treason? from ?low treason,? the latter being disloyalty to an equal or lesser. So high treason was disloyalty to a superior person or entity. According to Arthur Bestor, this differentiation between high and low treason was a key concept to understand for a proper impeachment analysis. Bestor describes how a fair impeachment proceeding would be founded upon a profound assault to the state itself.

The American constitutional Framers understood this difference between high and low treason, according to Gerhardt, believing impeachment dealt with high treasons in the form of attacks against the state. For example, Signator George Mason felt impeachments should be limited to acts that ?attempt to subvert the Constitution,? among which he felt should include ?maladministration.? While James Madison felt this term was too vague, Gerhardt claims all the Founders believed impeachment was not simply a process to deal with straightforward crimes. He writes, ?In short, the debates at the constitutional convention show at least that impeachable offenses were not limited to indictable offenses, but included offenses against the state.?

The ratification debates on the Constitution certainly compassed beyond mere crimes as reason for impeachment. ?Great? offenses included when an executive ?deviates from his duty? or that he ?dare to abuse the power vested in him by the people.? Framer, Signator and First US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote upon this topic in Federalist 65, writing:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Founder, Signator and US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson agreed with Hamilton?s assessment, calling impeachable offenses? ?political crimes and misdemeanors.? Harvard Constitutional scholar and US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story?and impeachment authority?agreed, according to the record in ?Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachment of Charles Robinson, et al?? He wrote,

The subject (of impeachment) is full of intrinsic difficulty in a government purely elective. The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses which are committed by public men in violation of their public trusts and duties. Those duties are, in many cases, political; and, indeed, in other cases, to which the power of impeachment will probably be applied?the power partakes of a political character? Political injuries to be of such kinds of misdeeds?as to peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust.

Justice Story also stated that a particular action did not have to have a previously existing law against the impeachable offense, writing ? previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.? This was considered crucial since no exhaustive statutes could ever be drafted so well as to foresee every single future event threatening the Republic. He said, ?Political offenses are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not absurd to attempt it.? According to Gerhardt, this means Story and Hamilton agreed future generations ?would have to define on a case-by-case basis the political crimes comprising impeachable offenses to replace the federal common law of crimes that never developed.?

B. Non-Indictable Impeachable Offenses

The hardest category for impeachments is defining actions that are not obvious crimes, but reveal such a lack of character or such ill-will or indifference to America?s safety that they become impeachable offenses, ipso facto. Lawrence Tribe, in his ?American Constitutional Law? mentions some such examples, writing ?...a deliberate presidential decision to emasculate our national defenses or to conduct a private war in circumvention of the Constitution? could form the basis for a non-indictable, impeachable action against the state. Now, simple un-indictable crimes such as jaywalking, smoking in a restaurant, or failing to use a turn signal are examples of actions that would not support an impeachment.

III. Do Obama?s Crimes Rise to Impeachment?

Do any of Obama?s actions rise to the level of his being impeached? Following are Barack acts that various persons believe are illegal, treasonous, or clearly impeachable. (Forgive the omission of many other serious Obama offenses)

A. Environmental Disaster

Gulf Oil Spill: Barack could have moved much more quickly to sop up the oil in the Gulf. His actions were obviously dilatory, especially refusing foreign aid and not using, to this day, 4 months after the spill started, all of America?s 2,000 oil skimmers. How many millions of gallons of petroleum did this add to Louisiana?s and Mississippi?s and Alabama?s fragile wetlands? And Obama is ?dedicated? to the environment? Please!

Barck also battled various governors when they tried to protect their states, like LA?s Bobby Jindal, a potential future political opponent. This ridiculous foot-dragging greatly exaggerated the oil pollution?s effects, presumably to strengthen Barack?s political hand against future petroleum use. In fact, one could claim Obama is the least environmentally sound US president ever. So, does this rise to an impeachable offense? See how Incompetence has turned the Gulf oil tragedy into ?Obama???s Katrina.?

B. Economic Failure

  1. Socialism: Socialism is not an American ideology because it destroys capitalism, which the Founders chose as our model. But we know Obama opposes this when he said to Joe the Plumber: ?I think when you spread the wealth around, it???s good for everybody.?
  2. Government Bailouts: The Constitution protects private property, especially the Contracts Clause. Obama?s people unfairly favored the unions in the Detroit auto bailout, breaking this clause. Further, Obama had no mandate to bailout Detroit in general.
  3. ?Stimulus? Lies: Barack said if the Stimulus was not passed the economy would tank (some disagreed), despite not having helped draft it or even knowing what was in the bill. Stimulus Bill Too Lengthy to Read?But Not To Sign. Is a president touting a bill he doesn?t know impeachable conduct?
  4. Unparalleled Deficit Spending: Just because Keynes had a theory about deficit spending does not make this the answer to all problems. Barack seems to wantonly waste money. Why? Plus, it would appear a great deal of TARP/bailout/stimulus money has been stolen, undoubtedly given for political gifts. Is this not, at least, impeachable?
  5. Obama is demanding Cap?n-Trade, even after Global Warming has been proved a hoax. That?s theft.
  6. Reason Magazine Lists Obama?s ?Five Lies About the American Economy?

C. Republican Form of Government Under Attack

  1. Representative Government: The Declaration of Independence says: ?Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?? Yet Obama continually passes legislation without support of a majority, like Obamacare. Is this impeachable conduct?
  2. Attempts to Throw Out Filibuster. God forbid anything in the US government not be based upon pure democracy so to make it easier for mob rule! Read about Biden?s hypocrisy!

D. Sovereignty

  1. Should America hand over sovereignty to world bodies? America cedes sovereignty at Copenhagen?
  2. Should Obama honor deals made with our allies? Canceling Polish Missiles for Russia
  3. Should Barack bow to every despot in the world? If so, why? Bowing to Foreign Leadership.
  4. Should Obama use foreign leaders as proxies to attack American state?s policies? Obama Brings Foreign Leaders to Talk Down America

E. Political Crimes

Can the White House dictate who runs for office?

  1. Did WH Sestak Cabinet offer break law? Was Sestak offered a job to not run? Is that election tampering?
  2. Did the WH break the law when CO?s Romanof was offered a job to drop out?
  3. Did Obama try to get Valerie Jarret in his old senate seat?
  4. Where did Obama?s Internet election millions come from?
  5. Isn?t appointing un-vetted, Marxist czars simple un-American? Isn?t it impeachable?

F. Bill of Rights

  1. Free Speech. Obama thugs were disrupting town hall meetings before the Obamacare vote. Also, Obama has a problem with free speech he?d like the Court to address. And Elena ?Mister? Kagan, Obama?s candidate for the SCOTUS opening, thinks free speech should be curtailed.
  2. Property Right: Obama salivates on thinking of wealth redistribution!
  3. Internet Freedom: Obama plans to limit free speech on the Net and now will have a
  4. ?kill switch? to turn it off during ?emergencies.?

  5. Religious Freedom: Some critics don?t think Obama cares about any religious freedom but Islamic.

G. Supporting Global Democracy:

Bearing in mind American policy was always to support greater global freedom and democracy, to make the world better and safer, should Obama unilaterally change this policy? Isn?t that impeachable?

  1. Obama is an enormous critic of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. But Barack claims Israelis don?t like him because of his Muslim name, as opposed to his dreadful policies!
  2. Barack refused to take a strong stand against the Iranian democracy crackdown. Why? Doesn?t Obama care about Iranian freedom advocates?
  3. Obama refused to stand up for Honduran constitutionalism. But why not? Isn?t he a US constitutional scholar? Barack even terminated aid to Honduras for defending their constitution!

H. Illegal Immigration

  1. Obama refuses to strongly support border security, despite grave dangers.
  2. But when individual states act to stop illegal entries, Barack attacks their laws and sues them.
  3. Barack lashes out self-righteously against the law which mirrors his own federal statutes.
  4. Obama?s dense attorney general also rages, despite admitting never having read the law.

I. Pro Islam

  1. Obama is Refusing to Call Jihadists ?Muslim Terrorists.? Barack believes if he is ?polite? to murderous Islam they will leave us alone.
  2. Using NASA to Help Islam. This may be Barack?s all-time craziest idea: Announce the American?s space program?s real mission is to help promote Islam. Wow!
  3. Obama once practiced Islam, according to Islam expert Daniel Pipes.

J. Honesty, Religion & Political Beliefs

Barack has transparently lied about many important topics. Is being a habitual liar impeachable?

  1. Obama religious beliefs: His 20-year ?minister? Rev Wright is a Marxist radical who hates Whites and Jews. Note the emergence of President Obama?s Muslim Roots.
  2. Obama?s political views: He used to be a garden variety Marxist at Occidental College! More? In an interview with Dr John C. Drew, Obama was described as a vain, stylish, gay socialist who hung out with another male student who footed his bills.
  3. Barack says he?s not a socialist, but he only makes government bigger and more expensive.

IV Bonus Section: Barack Birth Certificate

I don?t claim to know where Barack Obama was born. But the fact the guy cannot produce an original birth certificate, yet refuses to admit this obvious fact?is strange. I mean, why does he post a replacement certificate online as if it were the original? That?s an idiotic maneuver. Further, wasting millions of tax payer of dollars fighting Birther lawsuits gives one no confidence in his origins.

But the real importance of the Birther movement is to continually highlight the very alien nature of Obama, and how opposed he is to everything traditionally American. Undoubtedly, the desire to fend off strange and un-American personalities who did not grow up in the US and therefore cannot hope to identify with our history of rugged individualism and freedom-loving ways was key to the Founders not allowing foreign-born presidents. And Obama is an alien to American ideals and freedoms, regardless of where he was born.


Should Obama be impeached? Each reader must work through the issues for themselves on this key question. The argument for doing so is to protect America, knowing each successive day Barack stays in office, is another day of rape, humiliation and plunder of this great land. It seems certain Obama is at least a socialist, and further, a lawless individual who will do anything he wants to break America?s institutions to force Americans into accepting Marxism. Undoubtedly, he believes he would be helping the world to do so. But sincerity does not cure the great harm he is inflicting by his socialist delusions.

Therefore, because Barack is clearly doing many things to unilaterally harm and ?change? America towards more socialism, and perhaps communism?he must be impeached. This is not just for purposely sabotaging our economy like a good Marxist, but for the wicked human rights disasters that have occurred in all far-leftist countries. Further, we can see quite clearly if a US president is obviously trying to harm America, for whatever reason, they can be impeached based upon the historic meaning of the process. All we need conclude is the president is doing a ?political? attack?that is a purposeful assault against the US to harm the country. And Obama surely is doing so.

But we must wait for the November 2010 elections and see the fear in Democrat eyes, after they suffer historic defeat, and then pounce on the opportunity to drive this leftist maniac from power forever. We may never have another chance to save the home of global freedom. As Reagan once said, ?Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.? ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967.

Thank you and shalom.



Kelly O'Connell ?Bio
Kelly O'Connell Most recent columns

Kelly O?Connell is a writer 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 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 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 @ 9:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 14 de julio de 2010

Supreme Court: Why are you not traitors to the Constitution?



Dear Editor:? The following letter was sent to the United States Supreme Court today:

?The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith.? ? Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
Cornerstone Address, Supreme Court Building

July 14, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court building is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Justices serve as long as they demonstrate "during good Behaviour." Are they doing so right now?

Supreme Court of the United States
US Supreme Court Building
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Honorable Chief Justice Roberts:

Perhaps you and the rest of the justices have not noticed, but there is a war going on here. ?We the people are having a pretty hard time trying to understand just what it is the Supreme Court is doing these days. ?Would you care to fill us in?

Maybe you should consider a press conference where you could not only clarify the matter in which Mr. Obama attempted to discredit the Supreme Court but also maybe even rein in this rogue government. ?Speaking for most of the people in the United States, we would sure appreciate a fine demonstration of how the separation of powers protects all of us from an overly abusive regime.? We would welcome such a demonstration at any time you can arrange for it to happen.? Like now.

By the way, Justice Roberts, the complaints we raise are not political in nature. ?The usurper who is currently being illegally entertained as our president and his cohorts have conveniently managed to blur the line between politics and subversion so effectively that it appears even members of your illustrious judicial body have also fallen for this ruse.

Based on my daily monitoring of events to insure the safety of the Constitution, I can only imagine you might have noticed that our government has been seized by Communists and other progressives, ?The Constitution has been totally ignored, Congress and the everyone in the regime are violating their oaths of office, and, from what I can tell, bouncing off the walls with bribes and illegal deals that are being funded by ?we? the taxpayers. ?It would seem that conflicts of interest abound and are the rule as opposed to the exception.

This rogue ?administration? is being run by what I believe is an Islamic fundamentalist?you know, we used to call those guys ?terrorists,? that is, until the main terrorist himself, ?with the help of his friends,? seized control and dumbed up the terms used to describe our enemies.

He is now acting illegally as the president because the Congress and you have turned your back on the Constitution. Now perhaps you all are too embarrassed to admit the nature of your folly and maybe I am totally off-base? here, but this is how I see the matter. ?If I am incorrect in my opinion as expressed, I would greatly appreciate your setting the record straight.

While I wait for your response, let me comment that Americans have always been characterized by our generosity, but, geeze, Justice Roberts, I am sure even the members of the Supreme Court could appreciate the bizarre circumstances of actually having invited a domestic enemy dedicated to destroying our country to assume command of our economy, our resources and the most powerful military in the world. ?So am I right about this, or is it my imagination?

OK, so let?s get down to brass tacks! ?The information below clarifies the issue about which we as citizens have been agonizing for the last 18 or so months. ?This one sentence says it all:

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

So let?s knock off this foot-dragging to settle this issue of Obama?s eligibility. ?The responsibility is yours and yours alone. ?All of these divisive ?No Standing? roadblocks are instruments of your doing. ?As I see it, your deliberate judicial shenanigans serve to delay the resolution of this Constitutional crisis and are aiding and abetting our enemy. ?We are losing thousands of productive man-days due to your failure to act.

As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, in my view, you have failed your responsibility miserably. ?You have permitted this problem to persist in violation of your oath of office. ?Justice Roberts, just what part of the following is not clear?

The Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law.


These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

As I see it, when a person runs for public office, he is no longer a private citizen. ?He has an obligation and a compelling duty to provide any reasonable background information. How can you possibly deny the public access to this information without incriminating yourself?

The purpose of the constitutional requirement for eligibility is perfectly clear. ?What is not clear is if indeed the founding documents must be applied in whole, how is it possible for any one or any entity to circumvent satisfying the requirements as it may become convenient? ?Certainly this practice comes under the purview of the courts and is not negotiable. ?So tell me, Justice Roberts, on what basis have you permitted this constitutional violation to occur?

Considering your oath of office, your responsibility is ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice. ?Your responsibility does not permit you the luxury to decide to what degree you will comply with this responsibility. As I see it, Justice Roberts, you and the rest of the Supreme Court have failed the American people.

We as a people are respectful of the rule of law and we honor the principles laid out in the Constitution. ?As you are well aware, every day we find new abuses aimed at further destruction of the Republic that has been built over the last 200 years. ?Many of us resent the treatment we have received and warn of limitations to our patience. ?The anger of the people is palpable. ?If you do not feel it, you had better work at it harder.

Additionally, recent evidence has emerged and many are led to believe this whole conspiracy has been orchestrated by puppet masters?behind the politicians who are so powerful that they can arbitrarily change the course of history based on a handshake. ?So tell me, Justice Roberts, is the Supreme Court in a position to go along with this type of an ?election deal?? A deal between two potential candidates, neither of whom were and still are not qualified to hold the office of the president?? And even though they still might not be qualified, how is it that one of them was capable of fraudulently distorting the outcome of an election and disenfranchising the citizens of the United States?

The most damming part, Justice Roberts?all of this on your watch!

Maybe a few pages out of the Foreign Affairs Manual ??7 FAM 1131.6-2? might explain things. ?Let?s face it:? neither candidate could possibly have qualified, so why the games? ?Are all of those engaged in this conspiracy so unpatriotic and lacking in ethics and morality as to permit the wholesale slaughter of the American republic for the sake of a power grab or some individual profiteering?

How could such a devious plan by a group of government/private officials be permitted? ?How could it be possible that such a conspiracy of this magnitude be carried out by such a broad group of people and entities and yet be kept secret from the American people?

My point here, Justice Roberts, is that your duty to assume an active role as the guardian of the Constitution is long overdue. ?On many occasions you have been invited to participate. ?However, at each occurrence, you chose to ignore the opportunity to join.

  • Just when do we the people see the application of the safety net so ingeniously devised by the founding fathers to stop just this type of abusive tyranny?
  • When does the Supreme Court assert its responsibility to nullify this gross and arrogant abuse of executive power?
  • Just when do we see the rule of law enforced and the separation of powers by the three branches invoked?
  • What is the key here, Justice Roberts? ?What is the trigger?



    Editor?s Note: The quote at the top of this article from the website of the U.S. Supreme Court was taken from Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, who served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1930-1941.? In 1916, he ran for president against the incumbent, Woodrow Wilson, but did not meet the Framers? definition of ?natural born Citizen,? according to Democrat attorney and ambassador to Italy under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Breckinridge Long.

    Notarized Treason Complaint against Obama

    List of Treasonous Acts of which Obama is accused

    Page 1 of Treason Complaint addressed to the writer's local FBI office

    Page 2 of Treason Complaint sent to FBI




    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:13
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Recent Press Releases

    July 14, 2010

    DeMint-Vitter Amendment Would Stop Obama Administration Attempts to Sue Arizona Over Immigration Law

    Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, and David Vitter (R-Louisiana), chairman of the U.S. Senate Border Security Caucus, announced the introduction of an amendment that would prohibit President Obama?s administration, including the Department of Justice and other agencies, from participating in lawsuits seeking to invalidate the recently enacted Arizona immigration law. The DeMint-Vitter amendment (#4464) could be voted on next week as part of the debate on the small business bill on the Senate floor.

    ?States like Arizona shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so,? said Senator DeMint. ?The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe. Instead of suing states for doing his job, the President should get serious and stop holding border security hostage to pass amnesty and score points with his liberal base.?

    ?The state of Arizona is simply taking responsibility for a problem that the federal government has neglected for years, but Washington?s only response is to oppose these new enforcement efforts and take them to court.? The Obama administration should not use taxpayers? money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose,? said Senator Vitter.

    Arizona?s new law, SB 1070, grants state law enforcement officials the authority to enforce federal immigration laws by allowing them to inquire about immigration status of individuals who are lawfully stopped for other crimes. The law explicitly forbids racial profiling. As many as 18 states are considering similar laws, as reported by the Associated Press, including: Florida, South Carolina, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Michigan.


and Share

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:20
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Obama is trying to surround us with Islam

    ?By Dr. Laurie Roth??Tuesday, July 13, 2010

    We already know that we aren?t fighting a war with Islamic radicals or terrorists anymore.? We are fighting an overseas contingency operation.? Just recently our Commander in Chief Barack Hussein Obama,? removed the terms ?Islamic extremism? from the main document which describes our national security strategy.? Islamic extremism,? radicalism,? fundamentalism is not to be used with military operations and focus anymore.? After all,? that would be a kind of religious racism wouldn?t it??

    Obama is aggressively shifting and redirecting how we interact with Islam and Islamic nations.? We have seen Obama scrub honest and real national security and war terms from the book.? He is openly at odds with his new commander in Afghanistan,? General Petraeus, who has coined the Petraeus doctrine,? which defines the enemy as Islamic insurgents,? Islamic extremists,? and Islamic subversives.? He talks of endless connection and support between Muslim support groups and Islamic terrorists.? The obvious rolls on by Obama as usual.

    Obama has never been happy with the obvious,? that we are at war with Islamic radicals throughout the world.? So,? beyond changing the names and making everyone in the military,? media and country pretend we aren?t fighting Islam anyway,? he has made other notable changes.? He has appointed ?devout Muslims?? to critical Homeland Security positions.? Among this growing list are:? Kareen Shora,? ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council and Arif Alikhan,? Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.?

    Maybe if Obama can change all the honest names of who we are fighting with and appoint ?devout Muslims? into critical posts of power for national security he can put Islam and its power where he wants it over the American people.? After all,? it is a Religion of peace.? Don?t the American people realize that yet?

    Obama has to do more to manipulate Islam to power and control.? How about turning our historical and leading space program NASA into an Islamic apologist, with the main goal of honoring the scientific achievements and space interests of Islam?? Oh yeah,? he already did that.

    Along with all the name changes and appointments,? we see media intimidation,? compromise and controls regarding Obama,? his roots and agenda.? Doug Hagmann and Judi McLeod, editor of Canada Free Press,? investigated for over a year intimidation and threats into silence of some anchors and any staff that would have dared cover Obama?s eligibility story.? At least one,? major, national host was scared into silence and contacted Hagmann.

    Even with the intimidation and threats to media from the Obama administration for those who dare to question the holy one,? is the complicate and shameful sell out of most media itself.? Much of the media decided to ignore the sea of compromising voting records,? un-American and dangerous associations,? inconsistent statements and evidence regarding what Obama really believes in and operates from.? Our country is paying dearly for that disgraceful sell out today.

    Obama?s final strategy to elevate Islam,? the Religion he says he will side with in his own book and own words,? is to demonize,? patronize and minimize Israel,? thus lifting up the threatening Islamic nations and Islamic terrorists surrounding Israel.

    We have seen Obama give over a billion dollars to the Islamic serial killers,? Hamas,? who do nothing but attack, murder Israelis and plan more attacks while playing the persecuted victim.? We have seen Obama import Hamas ?victims?? to the U.S.?

    Naturally it is not enough to fund the enemy.? Therefore,? Obama has to insult and harass Israel the entire first two years he is in office.? Biden and Hillary had their knickers in a twist when Prime Minister Netanyahu wouldn?t stop building homes on their sovereign land,? per their mandate.?

    Obama also managed to support the lies and international distortion surrounding the Turkish flotilla incident,? where Israeli commandos were forced to stop ships heading straight for the Gaza.? It didn?t matter that Israel had already warned Turkey not to send any ships to Gaza.? It didn?t matter that over 50 people on terrorist watch lists were found on one of the boats.? It didn?t matter that Israel wasn?t trying or planning to hurt people on the boats but to re route them to another port where they could search them.? Why would the Israelis want to search boats full of aid and help???? Maybe because they had apprehended all kinds of terrorist equipment,? personnel and bombs going to the Gaza before.? Israel ended up being 100% right that this was more of the same.? Obama didn?t care.? He, along with the Islam worshipping,? UN rebuked Israel and demanded investigations?.bla bla bla.

    OK,? OK,? Islam is a Religion that wants peace.? They just have peppered through their teaching,? preaching, traditions and Holy books,? statements of hate for Jews and Christians,? agendas to conquer societies,? import Sharia law and have a world wide caliphate again.? Jihad is really just an internal struggle,? so they say.? Tell that to the thousands who have been murdered at the hands of Islamic radicals here and abroad.?

    We have seen non stop honor killings, murder of US soldiers by Islamic US soldiers in our country and abroad; near miss plane attacks and car bombing attempts!? 9/11 just started a new wave of what we had been experiencing for years.

    More from the Religion of peace.? This week 64 people were murdered by Somali Islamists who bombed a ton of people as they watched the World Cup finals in Uganda.

    Finally,? is there any question about the loyalties of this President when his attorney General Eric Holder has thrown out the case against the New Black Panther leadership who were caught threatening,? menacing and intimidating voters outside a precinct in 2008?? Most of us have heard the famous words of Malik Zulu Shabazz by now,? screaming his hate for white crackers and urging people to murder whites and their babies.? He did this while brandishing a weapon and scaring voters.? What we also must remember is that the Black Panthers are historically anti Semitic and pro ?black Islam.?? Gee,? they hate Jews and love Islam.? Any questions as to why the slam dunk case against them was thrown out by the Obama administration and Holder???

    Reality check

    We are in a war with radical Islam,? not all Islamics,? but many.? We have a President who is Muslim and kisses up to Muslim nations.? We have a President who insults and shreds our treasured relationship with Israel.? We have a President who compromises our national security by appointing Muslims to high level, national security positions and lies about who is threatening us and constantly attacking us.?

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:17
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Update: Tanzanian newspaper reports that Obama has ?origins from East Africa?



    by Sharon Rondeau


    Zanzibar comprises the two former countries of Zanzibar and Tanganyika

    (Jul. 13, 2010) ? An online newspaper based in Tanzania is reporting that ?Barack Abdallah Husein Obama,? the ?first black US president,? was born outside of the United States.

    Written in broken English, the article notes that the President of the United States has historically been required to be born on U.S. soil but that ?This might have been the result of racism or belief that a person other than ?original? US citizen was capable of effectively leading the powerful nation and help it to maintain its values.?

    The writers go on to say that ?We witnessed last year a senator with his origins from east Africa, Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, becoming the first black US president. He won the race on Democrat ticket and was sworn on January 20, 2009 as US president.?

    The article then compares the events of the 2008 U.S. presidential election to the upcoming election to be held in Tanzania later this year in which a candidate from ?Pemba? could win.

    The publication contains other articles mentioning Obama, one of which was covered the G20 summit in Toronto and was dated June 28, 2010.

    The authors state that Zanzibar, which consists of two islands, Pemba and Unguja, has never elected a president from the island of Pemba. ? The two islands of Zanzibar located in the Indian Ocean are part of? Tanzania in East Africa, with the country of Kenya just north of Tanzania.

    Members of the Kenyan Parliament have stated that Obama was born in Kenya.? A map of the region shows the close proximity of Pemba Island, Kenya and Tanzania.

    There is evidence that the citizens of Zanzibar were watching the U.S. presidential election closely, and an organization called ?Zanzibar for Obama? manufactured a ?Barack Obama cloth.?

    A comment on a blog following Obama?s ?victory? in November 2008 states:

    Barack obama is the US president elect!!! Delaware Senator Joe Biden will be the vice president. God is kind! Africans, and especially us from East Africa have to be proud!

    A blog entry from July 18, 2009 stated that ?Tanzania has more obama than Kenya.?

    Tanzania obtained independence from British rule in two stages:? the mainland in 1961 followed by the islands two years later in 1963.

    The Citizen is part of a news organization called ?Mwananchi Communications? which is based in Tanzania and was founded in 1999 under the name Media Communications Ltd.

    July 14, 2010 Update:? The following email was sent to the editor of The Citizen yesterday:

    From: Sharon Rondeau
    Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:17 AM
    To: TheCitizen Editor

    Hello, I am the editor of The Post & Email (<>Gui?o, an electronic newspaper which is covering the Obama eligibility issue. Your article here: states that Obama was born outside of the U.S. While many of us here have
    suspected that to be the case, Obama refuses to offer proof of where he was born, and insists that he was born in Hawaii.

    Can you tell me how you know for a fact that Obama was born in East Africa?

    Thank you.

    Sharon Rondeau
    The Post & Email, Inc.<>
    [email protected]

    The editor of The Citizen replied:

    Dear Editor,
    What our writers in the story you refer to meant to highlight is Barack Obama?s ancestry. There is no doubt that the President?s father, Barack Obama Sr, was a Kenyan, who went to study in the United States and met his mother at university. Surely, the people in the US, the most sophisticated country on earth, have all the research capability to put these rubbish claims to rest. President Obama was born in Hawaii. Isn?t that part of the US? To us in Africa, the increasing lies about Mr Obama?s birthplace are proof of the racism that is so ingrained in American society. Why don?t you send a team to Kenya to scour the records in the birth registry in Nairobi and Kisumu to see if there is any shred of evidence that Barack Obama Jr was born in Kenya? You have made great scientific breakthroughs, including landing a man on the moon, confirming that President Obama was, indeed, born in the US shouldn?t be that difficult.

    The Post & Email?s open reply to the editor of The Citizen is:

    In my email to you, I did not make a claim of where Obama was born, nor did I mention Kenya.? I was asking how you came to the conclusion that he was born in East Africa, as stated in your article.? The writers did not mention Obama?s father, whose foreign birth and allegiance automatically disqualify him from holding the office of president.? Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    ?No person?except a natural born Citizen?shall be eligible to the Office of President?? The definition of ?natural born Citizen? is ?not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child?s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty.?? That alone disqualifies Obama, regardless of where he was born.? Editor?s Note: Thank you to Atty. Mario Apuzzo for the research.

    Others from Obama?s Democrat Party have agreed that citizenship is determined through the father.

    Since you never mentioned Hawaii in your article, how do you know Obama was born there?? What proof have you seen that Americans have not? If you have proof of that, we in the United States would greatly appreciate seeing it.

    Why do you mention racism when in your original article you said:

    For more than 200 years US citizen could not pick a president who has roots outside the country. This might have been the result of racism or belief that a person other than ?original? US citizen was capable of effectively leading the powerful nation and help it to maintain its values.

    But after political changes globally, and strengthening of democracy, things have changed in the US. We witnessed last year a senator with his origins from east Africa, Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, becoming the first black US president. He won the race on Democrat ticket and was sworn on January 20, 2009 as US president.

    So first ?racism? prohibited someone with foreign ties from becoming president, then according to your article, this hurdle was overcome, only to now reappear since I have asked a question?

    When someone seals all of his records, it is difficult to find the truth.? With so many accounts of where Obama might have been born (Kenya, East Africa, Hawaii, Canada, Washington State), and his refusal to release any personal information with the collusion of the courts, U.S. Congress and the governors of every state, it is impossible for us to know.? Even Obama himself has admitted that there is controversy over his ?citizenship? but refuses to put the matter to rest by releasing his birth certificate and other relevant information.





    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:05
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 13 de julio de 2010

    NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ???????? ????????? PRINT

    Andrew C. McCarthy


    Holder: Aiding al-Qaeda

    The attorney general is taking positions that help the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    Eric Holder is chief among the many Obama Justice Department lawyers who, during the Bush years, donated their services as private attorneys for the benefit of al-Qaeda terrorists. His motive was to frustrate efforts to treat our wartime enemies as just that: wartime enemies. He preferred the failed law-enforcement model that regards our enemies as garden-variety criminals ? the counterterrorism approach he had overseen as deputy attorney general while America was serially attacked during the Clinton years.

    Nothing has changed. As the Obama administration?s attorney general, Holder is still gratuitously taking positions that help the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Witness his baffling suggestion this weekend that it would be better to try KSM and five other 9/11 plotters in civilian court because of the purported legal uncertainty about whether guilty pleas are permissible in military death-penalty cases.

    To be clear, I am not contending that the attorney general approves of terrorists or that his purpose is to help them. I am saying that Holder is in the thrall of an ideology, the inevitable effect of which is to aid our enemies. This progressive ideology, shared by many legal elites, holds that the use of military legal processes during military conflicts ? processes to which the United States has resorted throughout our history ? is somehow a greater danger to us than international terrorism itself.

    The attorney general would doubtless like to see al-Qaeda chieftains convicted and executed, but only if it is done on his own terms. That means using civilian courts, regardless of whether this rewards the terrorists who have committed the worst atrocities with valuable due-process advantages; betrays the underlying imperative of international humanitarian law to protect civilians from being targeted for attacks; and makes it more difficult to convict and execute war criminals.

    The attorney general?s latest claims are grossly misleading. First, he asserts that guilty pleas are permitted in civilian capital cases ? as if to imply that only in military courts must we have burdensome trials in which juries must approve the death penalty. Try telling that one to the Moussaoui jury.

    At his civilian trial in Virginia, Zacharias Moussaoui did plead guilty to participation in the 9/11 plot. But that plea did not end the case. Under federal law, capital cases are bifurcated: Even if a defendant admits guilt, the issue of punishment must still be tried to the jury. Holder conveniently elides mention not only of this fact but of the history of capital punishment in civilian international-terrorism cases. In the 16 years since the federal death penalty was restored in 1994 ? 16 years throughout which the United States has been ravaged by jihadist terror ? the Justice Department has approved capital charges for exactly three defendants: Moussaoui and two of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombers. In each case, civilian juries rejected the death penalty. If Holder is saying there?s a better chance these savages will be executed if they are tried in the civilian system (and that is precisely what he?s implying), there is nothing to support that claim.

    Second, the claim Holder floats that guilty pleas may not be permissible in capital military-commission cases is meritless. Holder did not explain his theory, but we can speculate that he is referring to a suggestion spun last year in a New York Times
    report. The paper intimated that federal law might be ambiguous on whether guilty pleas were allowed. Positing that ?military law? is the ?model for the military commission rules,? the Times report pointed out that, in courts martial for members of our armed forces, guilty pleas are prohibited in capital cases. Prosecutors must prove guilt even if a soldier wants to plead guilty. The Times, which is resolutely anti?death penalty, added that this was to ?ensure fairness.?

    Nice try. Military commissions are not courts martial, even though it has been a project of the Left ? when it is not trying to endow our terrorist enemies with all the rights of American civilians ? to vest them with the same legal protections our law gives to American soldiers. Commissions, moreover, do not take place pursuant to the ?model? of military law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Instead, they are governed by a special statute, the Military Commissions Act (MCA).

    Unlike the UCMJ, the MCA provides no bar to guilty pleas in capital cases. To the contrary, MCA Section 949i(b)
    states that when an accused pleads guilty to ?any charge or specification? (capital charges are not mentioned, much less exempted), a finding of guilt ?may be entered immediately without a full vote? of the commission. At that point, the commission moves on to consider sentencing. A different MCA provision, Section 949m, directs that commission members must be unanimous in imposing death.

    So where are Holder and the Times getting the idea that guilty pleas are not permitted? They are obviously relying on a portion of Section 949m that says an accused may not be sentenced to death unless he is ?convicted of the [capital] offense by the concurrence of all the [commission] members[.]? But that provision is plainly talking about what happens when an accused pleads not guilty, necessitating a trial. It is not silently undertaking to supersede the aforementioned Sec. 949i(b), which separately governs guilty pleas.

    As the attorney general knows, this is the way civilian rules are construed, too. That is, there are separate provisions governing trials and guilty pleas: The fact that federal criminal procedure Rule 31 says jury verdicts must always be unanimous does not mean jury determinations of guilt are always required. Instead, a different provision, Rule 11, outlines the procedures to be followed when a defendant decides to plead guilty.

    It is an elementary canon of construction that, where possible, congressional statutes should be read in harmony, not as if they were at war with one another. Reading the provisions that way, one easily sees that in capital military-commission cases, just as in civilian death-penalty cases, Congress intended to bifurcate determinations of guilt and sentencing. If the accused insists on a trial, then he may not be executed unless the commission (or jury) is unanimous: first, on the question of guilt, and, second, on the question of death. If, by contrast, the accused wishes to plead guilty, he may do so, but that resolves only the issue of guilt; there must still be a sentencing phase at which the commission (or jury), after hearing evidence and argument, may impose death only if its verdict is unanimous.

    Furthermore, Holder is now the attorney general. He is no longer at liberty to freelance for terrorists ? his client is the United States, which is at war with terrorists pursuant to a congressional authorization approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. His client is not the foreign terrorists: KSM already has plenty of lawyers. Holder?s client is the American public (i.e., the people KSM wants to kill). Thus, while Holder may not like military commissions, he is obliged to make them work, just as any attorney general who disagrees, as a private citizen, with the policy behind a given law is duty-bound to resist undermining that law in his official capacity.

    There is clearly a way to interpret the MCA to permit guilty pleas in capital cases. I?d argue that it happens to be the superior interpretation and that it is the one urged by military prosecutors. Holder?s job in running the Justice Department is not to undermine the defensible legal arguments of the Defense Department. He is supposed to make the case that is in the best interest of the public ? and how could it not be in the public interest to allow the worst terrorists to plead guilty?

    In addition, even if Holder were genuinely convinced that the MCA, as currently written, is too vague to permit capital defendants to plead guilty, his duty would be to work for a clarification of the law to permit guilty pleas. The Obama administration, which dominates this overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, could get such a clarification enacted tomorrow if it were really thought necessary. Sure, it would require only a one-sentence law rather than a 2,000-page monstrosity of a bill, but I?ll bet Democrats still remember how to write one of those.

    When critics contended that Americans had a right to know whether lawyers who chose to donate their services to al-Qaeda were now in charge of counterterrorism policy, Holder wailed that the patriotism of Justice Department lawyers was being attacked. The legal profession?s heroic self-image notwithstanding, there is nothing patriotic about volunteering to represent terrorists; that something is legal doesn?t make doing it patriotic. But the patriotism strawman is neither here nor there. The point has always been a commonsense one: When you do something you don?t have to do ? as Holder did as a private lawyer in 2004, filing an amicus brief on behalf of al-Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla ? that is a free choice. We are entitled to weigh what that choice tells us about where you?re coming from.

    In taking up Padilla?s cause, Holder was not acting out of obligation. He was acting out of passion, out of ideology. More forthright then than he is now, Holder
    conceded that using the civilian-justice system would limit the nation?s ability to conduct interrogations, to obtain timely intelligence, and to detain dangerous terrorists. Yet, he argued, these costs were a price worth paying to forestall what he saw as the real danger to America: not jihadist terror but unchecked presidential and military power over the prosecution of war. Better to put the judges in charge.

    The attorney general?s blind passion for his ideology has not changed. Mr. Holder would have us believe that lawyers are super-scrupled altruists who shed all their private biases the minute they assume public office ? the minute they have, at last, the raw power to enforce those biases. But the truth is far from that. Schooled to regard the law as a tool for achieving ?social justice? (which is to say, a tool for enforcing their biases) lawyers may be the least altruistic officials of all.

    ? Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:22
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


    Senator: Resolve

    eligibility in court

    'I support organizations'

    that raise birth challenge

    Posted: July 12, 2010
    9:00 pm Eastern


    Sen. David Vitter

    A Republican senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, is suggesting the dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president be resolved in court.

    "I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," the Associated Press reported a video of the event revealed him saying.

    Vitter becomes just the latest high-profile leader, and the first U.S. senator, to take such a strong stand on the issue.

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

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

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

    The AP reported the crowd applauded the question, and Vitter said he doesn't have personal "standing" for litigation.

    But he said he supports those groups that are bringing the question to court.

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

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

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

    He's just the latest leader to raise such questions. Others include:

    U.S. Rep. Steve King

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Inglis was being grilled about whether he was a conservative.

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

    "I sure hope so," Inglis responded.

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

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

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

    Champaign, Ill., mayor Gerald Schweighart

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero

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

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

    Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze

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

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

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

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

    Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen

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

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

    Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges

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

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

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

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

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

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

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

    Former House majority leader Tom DeLay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feminist icon Camille Paglia

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

    New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A video of the interview follows:



    Prominent commentators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

    Related offers:

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

    Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs andpostcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!

    Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

    Getyour yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question ? and makesure it's in time for the next tea-party rally

    Getyour permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truckor file cabinet ? and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.

    Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.

    New strategy unveiled today on answering Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

    Related stories:

    Congressman on birth certificate: 'There's 1 we haven't seen'

    Congressman says Obama birthplace 'not in Hawaii'

    Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American'

    'I don't know whether Obama's a U.S. citizen'

    NPR changes archive regarding president's birth

    Kenyan officials affirm: Obama 'son of this soil'

    Kenyan official: Obama born here

    NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'

    THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:44
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 12 de julio de 2010

    Terror Experts Blast Obama Move to Drop References to Islamic Extremism

    The Obama administration's recent move to drop references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.

    fox news

    WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's recent move to drop references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.

    Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy, saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.

    The question of how to frame the conflict against Al Qaeda and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.

    In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."

    President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.

    In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.

    Militant Islamic propaganda has reportedly been a factor in a spate of recent terror attacks and foiled attempts within the U.S. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood, Texas, mass shootings last year, is believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists, as was Faisal Shahzad, who tried to detonate a powerful car bomb last May in New York's Times Square.

    The report acknowledges that the Obama administration has beefed up efforts to work with the Muslim community in the U.S. and abroad and has also expanded counterterrorism operations and tried to erode and divide Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups.

    As it unveiled its new National Security Strategy last May, administration officials said the shift in emphasis was critical in undercutting Al Qaeda's efforts to portray its attacks on the U.S. and the west as a justified holy war.

    Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift. He added that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie ? propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism ? that the United States is somehow at war against Islam."

    But the administration's two-pronged approach of stepping up counterterror operations while tamping down its rhetoric, the critics argue, needs to also include an ideological counteratteck with policies and programs that empower moderate Islamic voices and contest extremist narratives.

    "There is an ideology that is driving Al Qaeda and its affiliates," said Matt Levitt, one of the authors of the study on countering violent extremism.

    The administration, Levitt said, has to separate discussion of Islam as a religion from the radical Islamic ideology that is producing and fueling global insurgencies. The study is due out next week, but the authors, Levitt, a former FBI and Treasury official, and co-author J. Scott Carpenter, were to preview it Monday.

    Juan Zarate, a former top counterterror official in the Bush administration, added that the U.S. government has always been uncomfortable dealing with ideological battles. Zarate, who also participated in the report, said there are a number of non-governmental groups already speaking out against violent preachings.

    The report follows the public disclosure of an exchange earlier this year between Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Brennan over the effort to scale back the Bush administration's portrayal of Islamic extremism as a root cause of terrorism.

    Lieberman raised the issue in a letter to the White House, saying that "the failure to identify our enemy for what it is ? violent Islamist extremism ? is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to 'know your enemy.'"

    In a response to Lieberman, Brennan said the administration hasn't specifically issued any directive barring the use of specific words or phrases. But he said it is important to accurately define the enemy and assess the threat.

    "In my view, using 'Islamic extremist' and other variations of that phrase does not bring us closer to this objective," Brennan said in a letter to Lieberman. "Rather, the phrase lumps a diverse set of organizations, with different motivations, goals, capabilities and justifications for their actions, into a single group in a way that may actually be counterproductive."


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:25
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    The U.S. Government: Lilly-Livered, Weak-Kneed, and Hopelessly Corrupt



    by Ron Ewart, Guest Contributor, ?2010


    What is Obama doing to America?

    ?The budget should be balanced.? Public debt should be reduced.? The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.? (Marcus Tullius Cicero, philosopher and statesman of Rome ? 106 BC to 43 BC)

    (Jul. 11, 2010) ? The most powerful nation on Earth?? Hardly!? With our apologies to the fairer sex, America is ruled by the pink-panty crowd, afraid to offend, afraid to portray strength?and afraid to win, but not afraid to deceive, lie, cheat and steal.? It apologizes when no apology is warranted.? It?skirts around?victory?with our sworn enemies but refuses to close the deal in the hopes that our friends and enemies will ?like? us and think we are being magnanimous and compassionate.?The true?reality is, our enemies look upon us as weak.? Brave men and women?have died and sacrificed needlessly for wars we?didn?t have the stomach?to win.?? That should be a treasonous act.

    We cut one-sided deals with dictators in countries with nuclear ambitions, who purposely ignore their promises, then take our??goodies??and continue their nuclear programs in the dark of night and in secret.. Our stupidity gives them the time to harden?their nuclear operations?underground, where our bombs can?t reach them.

    We negotiate in weakness with our enemies, who then stab us in the back at every opportunity.? Instead of holding them accountable for not honoring their contracts or treaties, we enter into more worthless contracts and treaties and provide more goodies.? It?s a shakedown at best and the American taxpayer gets to pay for the egregious mistakes made?at the hands of?their corrupt and negligent government.

    Generals in our military are sick of playing pussy foot with our enemies when they know they have the power to conquer any country on Earth ?.. a power that is denied them by the inept, inexperienced, spineless and pink-panty- wearing leaders of America.? General McCrystal finally had it and laid bare the festering anger and frustration that permeates a military rendered almost impotent by a community organizer and the inmates that have taken control of the asylum known as the U. S. Congress.? Obama is a Lilly-livered, weak-kneed village idiot that should have never become president, if the media had exposed the sordid details of his entire socialist/Marxist life, early on in the campaign, or answered, once and for all,?whether?Obama is a natural born citizen of America, as required by the Constitution.

    Then there is the matter of illegal immigration.? We will prosecute wars in foreign lands at great cost to the taxpayer and the?blood and treasure of our young men and women in uniform, but we refuse to protect our national borders?against an invasion of?people who seek our generous benefits, without having to go through the proper doors and pay the price of admission.?? It is so bad that open warfare?has erupted all along?our Southern border and we shrink from engaging the perpetrators, while tens of thousands of illegal aliens, drugs and white slaves pour into America every month.? Each month America?s national culture is diluted by the poor folk of broken and corrupt countries, who seek not to assimilate but to ?steal? our jobs and our safety net generosity.? We send billions to Mexico to fight the border war, at taxpayer expense,?but won?t put the resources on?our own?border to seal it.???That too is treason and a direct violation of the government?s absolute duty to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.? Further, government refuses to enforce current law on businesses hiring illegal aliens, thus increasing the power of the magnet that draws them here in the first place.

    Every month the cost of this invasion by the hordes?from poor countries gets larger and larger, while those who occupy the seats of power in what is America?s Rome, use the chaos at the border as blackmail to?pass amnesty legislation.? This amnesty they desire is not for altruistic or compassionate reasons, but is for the sole purpose of adding socialist-minded illegal aliens to the voting rolls, to maintain perpetual liberal-progressive power.

    The only thing that will?save America from this unprecedented and hostile invasion by a foreign power, is putting troops and unmanned drones on the border with orders to shoot to kill anyone found crossing the border, outside of authorized border crossings.?? If this was done, illegal crossings would cease almost immediately.?? Irrational compassion will be the death of us.

    The only way to win the war in Afghanistan is to use an over-powering force and bring the entire country to its knees with nothing less than unconditional surrender, just as we did in World War II.? This includes the taking down of the current corrupt government.? Anything less is a stab in the hearts of those who are forced to meet this enemy with rules of engagement requiring their hands be tied behind their backs and their guns empty.? More treason!

    This author?bears no illusions?that the Lilly-livered, weak-kneed?criminals and cowards?in Washington DC will do any such thing.? So be prepared for the all-out invasion of our Southern border to continue and the war in Afghanistan to go on indefinitely, or we will pull out with our tale between our legs just as we did in Vietnam,?with the sacrifices of our dead and wounded having been for naught.

    On the other hand,?there is one area in which the prevailing power in Washington DC shows great courage.? For this deed they have put on their iron jockey shorts and grabbed their swords, spears and body armor.? They are not at all reticent about passing law after law to subjugate the American people and take away their liberties.?? They show no cowardice in giving up American sovereignty by ratifying unconstitutional treaties.? They lack no courage when it comes to spending America into bankruptcy, or nationalizing businesses, or destroying the engine that made America the most powerful and generous nation on Earth ?..?Capitalism.

    Their arrogance and elitism is open and notorious.? They cannot tolerate criticism and look down on the people from their ivory towers of corruption.? It has been reported that they have sent copies of the Constitution to be used in all of Washington DC?s restrooms, but not for reading.? They thumb their collective noses at those?who oppose them.? They demean the tea party movement as being nothing?more than a bunch of rabble rousers who seek to overthrow the American government and are just a hair?s breath away from violent acts to do just that, in the spirit of Timothy McVeigh.

    They seek to pass legislation to silence their critics by controlling the print? and electronic media in a scheme called the ?Fairness? Doctine.? They pass legislation to further the brainwashing of our impressionable and gullible school children, who are forced to attend our public schools of indoctrination.? They pass legislation to lock up all of our resources and confiscate private property, with reckless disregard?of constitutional protections.

    These Lilly-livered, weak-kneed apologists, partner with?national and international?money changers, power brokers,? socialists and radical environmentalists?to lock up America in?the distorted image of Europe and the United Nations?and further their goal?towards global government.?? These internationalists?are intent upon stealing America?s wealth,?its resources,?its freedom and?its very sovereignty.

    The people and the states?that gave the federal government its limited power, as codified in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, need to rein in that government, or this Lilly-livered, weak-kneed, cowardice and corrupt government will usurp all power and render the states and the?people impotent and slaves of the realm.


    Ron Ewart is President of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO), P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA? 98027


    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:05
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Domingo, 11 de julio de 2010

    Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable

    July 9, 12:03 PM ? Anthony G. Martin - Conservative Examiner

    According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.?

    Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. ?Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

    (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic). Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

    Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

    The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling. ?

    As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. ?Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

    Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. ?And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

    Apparently, the Court has had enough.

    The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. ?A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

    Such a thing would be long overdue.

    First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. ?And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. ?The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

    In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

    Second, ?sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. ?The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. ?This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. ?And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. ?Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. ?Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

    In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. ?That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

    And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. ?The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

    A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

    This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:41
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    The Left wants you to think that "You will be assimilated into the Collective," and that, "Resistance is futile."

    High Noon: Brewer versus the Left

    ?By William R. Mann??Sunday, July 11, 2010

    image?We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.? - Star Trek: First Contact

    The Left wants you to think, like the evil ?Borg? does in the old ?Star Trek? movies, that ?You will be assimilated into the Collective,? and that, ?Resistance is futile.?

    It isn?t.

    Governor Jan Brewer [R, AZ]

    ?is a brave lady. I?m certain she never thought she?d be the one to stand up against, and lead the crusade for legal sanity and common sense against collectivist ideas of the Left and the Progressive Movement.

    Politics are heating up, and not in a ?fun? way. I believe that we may be cruising blithely toward major societal upheaval ... pushed for, and instigated with malice aforethought, again, by the violent Left. This is a very uncertain time. We are at a turning point. It may not ?feel? like real change yet because the Left is still trying to do this by stealth if possible. They want to present us with a fait accompli of legislation and decrees from which there is no turning back. Americans are waking up, feeling betrayed, and starting to sound off.? But this is a time for calm, cool planning and deliberate resistance to their attempts to ?fundamentally transform? the United States of America into a Collectivist State.

    It is shocking to see how quickly America is accepting Socialism and Collectivism without question. What is happening, folks, is actually a revolution. I hear things and see messages from folks every day who have ?had it up to here? [eyeball level]. They are frustrated as to what is happening to our beloved America.? Even the ?Ragin? Cajun,? James Carville, claims to be dismayed. Here is my admonition: Every Leftist Revolution takes off the kid gloves eventually. Don?t fall for their smooth sophistry. Look for their instigations instead. Even now, they are looking for some excuse, for some kind of watershed, some pretense, an American ?Kristallnacht.? I know you don?t want to hear this, but look around you. Everywhere, things are incessantly being suggested, shoved and pushed at you from the Left.

    Why are Unions pushing ?Card Check?? when their memberships are dropping?

    This country is a tinderbox right now. Look at the article about ?Free Speech? at U of IL, Urbana on the same web-site [Gateway Pundit] after you?ve finished reading through this one. Another question: Why are Unions pushing ?Card Check?? when their memberships are dropping? What will a Union Card gain folks? What?s wrong with secret Union ballots? Ditto with Cap & Trade: Why do the Democrats need to pass all of this unpopular legislation now? That?s the part of the ?iceberg? that lies beneath the surface, that is what we should investigate. My guess is that they know that they are in big trouble and want to pass it all in case they are thrown out. They also need an extra month to lie about the intention of their legislation, call the opposition names, and resurrect ?Punching-bag Bush? before the election.

    Have you ever been to a Tea Party Rally? Do you wonder, deep down, whether these Tea Party People are bad, crazy folks like the media says? I have been to a number of Tea Party Rallies. I found people mostly over 40, very many vets and retired military, and retired/former law enforcement, small business owners, and Social Security Pensioners. None I met are crazy, none are threatening looking, none are making threats. The Tea Partiers are polite and neat, they wave to folks, chat with each other, listen to their speakers, and do not get into altercations. Tea Party rules forbid that; they are a Class Act. Go to the Tea Party web-site, look at their charter and tell me why they are excoriated by the press. Next go to the contrived ?Coffee Party? web-site that the press just loves, and look at their collectivist Mission Statement. My blind old Australian Shepherd can sniff this one out, Folks.

    Look to the campuses where Leftist radicals traditionally ferment and foment

    So who is doing this? Who is making the noise? While we were working hard for the last 40-50 years, the Marxist Left was taking over and subverting Academia and the whole notion of intellectual inquiry. Look to the campuses where Leftist radicals traditionally ferment and foment. There is only political correctness. True free speech has become a hate crime on campus. These agendas are driven by Community activists with PhDs, and Lawyers turned Community Activists. As usual, the ?students,? the poor, the underprivileged, and the unemployed are targeted for manipulation [brainwashing] to become their pawns. Somehow these ?rehabilitated? ?60s radicals, terrorists and agitators [now teaching freely and making tons of money in the free market system they hate] like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Ward Churchill, Angela Davis and their bidders: Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Andy Stern, Van Jones, The Huffington Post, Louis Farrakhan, Malik Shabazz, la Raza, the California Separatists and a host of other Fascists, Maoaists, Racists and anti-Semites, are never called to account.

    If you are skeptical about my claims, watch and listen critically and then investigate. Take a look at your kids? and grandkids? textbooks. Check out the politically correct content. Go to a School Board meeting and see what the schools are doing, what the textbook review process is. Visit a local College Campus and see who the professors are. Are there any Traditionalists or Conservatives? You can tell by reading the Course Syllabi, if you know what to look for. What has happened to the ?rugged individualist?? We are told it is a new era: there is no room for them in Modern Society. This is Progressive thought. Also, does it really ?take a village to raise a child?? Or are you being led down a path to a Collectivist State that replaces Family and Parental Rights? At your child?s School Board meeting, try to exercise your Parental Rights on an issue and see what happens. Your words will impact deaf ears and receive blind stares. If they allow you to finish without interrupting, you will be spoken to calmly and treated like a deranged mental patient. I served on a School Board a decade ago and fought for parents and against this kind of activism. Not long ago, I attended a couple School Board meetings elsewhere as a private, concerned citizen. I asked some questions about use of taxpayer funding and teaching methods. I too, despite them knowing my experience, was all but disregarded; my concerns dismissed out of hand with a few winks and nods. I suspect that much of the time School Board Members don?t even realize they are being co-opted by a Progressive Education Agenda. I am all but certain it is getting worse, not better today.

    One must be vigilant. The Left is like a pack of Coyotes. You can chase them off, but they?ll be back.

    One must be vigilant. The Left is like a pack of Coyotes. You can chase them off, but they?ll be back. Each time they return, they are a bit more cunning and a bit more brazen. You must increase your own numbers to adequately defend against them. They are true believers and do not give up. The Left?s tools are sophistry, slander, scandal, and smear. You can defeat them with sound public information and logic, but you must be persistent. Inactivity on the part of critical thinking Patriots will result in defeat. This requires the ideas, help, and support of other like minded ?rugged individualists? [i.e., American Patriots]. It is not a battle you can engage in and win alone. Form support groups.

    Gov. Jan Brewer is a solid person who has been vilified by the Left and their sympathetic media. If they can do this to her, what will they do to you or me? Don?t be fooled again in 2010, like so many were in 2008.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:04
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Arizona Governor can force Obama to prove he?s eligible?or not!


    Dear Editor:? The following email was sent to [email protected], Governor Brewer?s press secretary:

    July 11, 2010

    The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. But is our representation today by the U.S. Congress any better than the colonists' representation by the British Parliament in 1773?

    Dear Mr. Senseman,

    As you know, there are many unanswered questions about Barack Hussein Obama?s constitutional qualifications to act as President of the United States.? Governor Brewer, or any sitting governor, for that matter, has unique standing to challenge Obama on this issue and resolve the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated on the nation by his refusal to prove that he is a ?natural born Citizen? by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto.

    The American people are looking to Governor Brewer to defend her state as she is doing, but also to challenge a man who has most likely assumed the office of President through dissembling and deceit, wire fraud, election fraud, and document fraud.

    There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial and other evidence which points to a foreign birth for Obama, and by his own admission, he was born a dual citizen. He has also carefully described himself as ?a native citizen of the United States of America? but not a ?natural born Citizen.?

    Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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

    It is impossible for Obama to be a ?natural born Citizen? if he was born with dual citizenship, and ?native born? is not the same as ?natural born.?? Since he has never shown his original birth certificate, we also do not know his actual age.

    Congress refused to check on Obama?s qualifications for office, despite thousands of requests to do so by concerned constituents before the certification of electoral votes in January 2009.

    It makes no sense to mount an expensive legal defense when Governor Brewer could simply ask Obama ?By what authority? his Department of Justice is suing her state and naming her as a defendant.? In fact, if Obama is a usurper to the presidency, he has no authority to do anything nor to direct anyone else to act.? If that is the case, Obama and his entire government must be removed from office and a new presidential election held.

    You may have read that Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.) has called for Obama and his regime to do just that, and he believes that Obama is hiding something very significant about his background from the American people.? For someone to spend almost $2,000,000 to hide his birth certificate and other records, he certainly must be.

    All the governor needs to do is file a Quo Warranto.? That?s it, and the lawsuit will be history.?So will this false presidency and his Marxist regime which has forced all matter of unconstitutional and injurious legislation upon this nation.? Attorneys Donofrio and Pidgeon are superb constitutional lawyers who reportedly have offered to help write the Quo Warranto filing.

    A Lt. Col. with 18 years of service in the Army is going to be court-martialed over Obama?s refusal to prove he is constitutionally qualified, and a retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. has been brought up on false charges in a crooked kangaroo court for filing a Treason complaint against Obama 16 months ago which to this day remains unanswered.

    Mr. Senseman, this cannot stand. This is not justice for either one of these fine men, and it is not justice for the 310,000,000 Americans who deserve a ?natural born? president, not a usurper with foreign allegiances who was most likely born in a foreign country and is nothing more than a Chicago street thug who mesmerized the sleeping masses.

    Governor Brewer can stop this charade.? I hope and pray that she will do so.? The truth will set us all free.


    Abigail Adams

    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:55
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


    July 11, 2010

    Shocking Documentary Of Obama Campaign's Voter Fraud and Intimidation in '08

    Topics: Political News and commentaries

    The clear evidence of Chicago thuggery on a nation-wide basis was available in 2008, but the media and the DNC wouldn't listen - they were so intent on getting Barack Obama elected they just didn't care.

    Now, two years too late, comes the documentary, "We Will Not Be Silenced" - getting some airtime on Fox News. The documentary tells of wide-spread voter fraud in the 2008 presidential primary by the Obama Campaign.


    Click here to see the shocking preview of the documentary. The home page of "We Will Not Be Silenced" is here.

    Can we expect more of the same in the future? For the answer to this question we need only look at 2 other stories currently in the news - the Obama DOJ's racist response to the New Black Panther case, and the Obama DOJ's issuance of a mandate not to remove dead voters, voters who move, and ineligible felons from Voter Lists. Let there be no doubt that these people are capable of doing whatever they feel necessary to win - and to hell with whether or not it's legal or unethical. Obama Chicago-machine political thuggery knows no bounds whatsoever.

    So America is now forewarned. The documentary comes 2 years too late for the 08 presidential primary campaign - but it comes in time to warn America about what the Barack Obama campaign is capable of and likely to repeat in November 2010 and 2012.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:22
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Arizona Ceded to Mexico and the Rise of the Obama Police State?



    by Sher Zieve, ?2010

    (Jul. 11, 2010) ? ?When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature?s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.?? This is the opening paragraph of the thirteen United States colonies? declaration of independence from the then tyrannical England on 4 July 1776.? It was then and remains today the primary seminal founding document of the United States of America.

    Our Declaration of Independence was affirmed against the despot King George III.? However, with only a few modifications I submit that this same declaration could be filed today against the current regime now ruling?not governing?over We-the-People of the United States of America.? I would also submit that the reason for my statement is already contained within our country?s founding document.? Note:? For those of you who were actually schooled in our nation?s documents of origin, this will be a brief refresher course.? For those who were not taught about them, I would suggest a reading assignment beginning with the ?Declaration of Independence? referenced below.

    Our founders? reasons for dissolving the bonds between England and the emerging USA were myriad.? But, it is uncanny and may even be a bit unsettling to discover that the motivations for We-the-People breaking away from King George III are the same ones we find in our current US government today.? Let?s take a look.

    Some of the causes for our founders declaring independence from England and the similar if not almost identical conditions existing in the USA today are contained within the original Declaration of Independence.? They are:

    1.? D of I:? ?He [King George] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.?
    A.? Current:? He [Obama] is now refusing to allow sovereign US States to enact laws to protect themselves.? Example:? AZ passing an almost mirror image [but more restrictive to AZ law enforcement] bill of federal immigration law, in order to protect itself from drug cartels, kidnappings, human trafficking and foreign invasion.? Obama & Co is now suing Arizona for attempting to protect itself; claiming that it is the US government?s sole purview to decide to either protect or NOT to protect the US-Mexico border.? Note:? In this way, as the US government is not going after other States who already have similar laws on their books?including but, not limited to
    Rhode Island and California?it strongly appears that there may actually have been some backroom deal between Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to cede the State of Arizona to Mexico.? By the way, did you know that Obama is using YOUR tax dollars to sue Arizona?

    2.? D of I:? ?He [King George] has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.?
    A.? Current:? This follows almost exactly in conjunction with #1 above.?? Obama says he has the sole right and ability to make decisions for the States.? Obama forbade Arizona Governor Jan Brewer from attempting to protect her State and its citizens from foreign invasion.? Obama encouraged a foreign government (Mexico) to also file a lawsuit against the US State of Arizona!? This is patently treasonous behavior being affected and committed by the Usurper Obama.? Obama is also gearing up to enact lawsuits against and to fight all other sovereign US States filing lawsuits against the blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare.? Again?with YOUR tax dollars and against the consent of the governed?now known as ?the ruled ?

    3.? D of I:? ? He [King George] has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.?
    A.? Current:? He [Obama] told Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that he will NOT
    protect the border and the American people until Republicans agree to immigration reform?aka ?Amnesty.?? Again, the usurper is refusing to protect American citizens unless they submit to his will.? And, again, treason, folks?purely and simply.

    4.? D of I:? ?He [King George] has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.?
    A.? Current:? ?He [Obama] and his DOJ overturned a legal decision?perpetrators caught on video?against Obama-supporters The New Black Panthers who blocked and threatened white voters in Philadelphia.? According to sworn testimony before a Congressional Committee, former DOJ Attorney J. Christian Adams said that Obama?s DOJ has no intention of upholding the Voting Rights Act if white people are the victims and black people are the perpetrators.? Adams said that in November 2009? Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes also
    stated about the voter list integrity (including listed dead people, felons, people who had moved out of the area etc.):? ?We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it!?? Obama and his faux ?department of justice? are clearly no longer following or enforcing the law of the land.

    5.? D of I:? ?He [King George] has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.?
    A.? Current:? He [Obama] appears to have trained and/or intimidated judges into using the ?you have no standing? excuse in order to disallow anyone from viewing his true birth certificate.? Currently, no one in the United States has ?standing? to demand or even request that a copy of Obama?s BC be made available to determine whether or not he is even eligible for the POTUS position.? Insane.

    6.? D of I:? ?He [King George] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.?
    A.? Current:? He [Obama] created
    ObamaCare for and with the expressed purpose of creating hundreds of new offices staffed with ObamaBureaucrats to control We-the-People.? He has now created more new ?offices? than any other POTUS in history.

    There are more similarities?if not exact matches?between the tyrannies employed by King George III and those now being affected against the American people by Obama and his Marxist regime.? I encourage everyone to read or reread the extraordinary Declaration of Independence.? When tyrannies become so apparent that said tyranny and oppression of the people are seen in the light of day we must acknowledge them, warn others and prepare to fight in earnest.? If not, we will lose all hope of freedom and liberty today and into the future.? We will have become slaves to the Police State; this time Obama?s.? Prepare yourselves and your loved ones, folks.? It is coming very soon.


    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:15
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 08 de julio de 2010



    Senate-seeker wants

    Obama birth-certificate


    Mexican-born candidate:

    'If I didn't prove citizenship,

    I'd be removed from the ballot'

    Posted: July 08, 2010
    9:20 pm Eastern

    By Chelsea Schilling


    A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot.

    Hector Maldonado, 38, a self-described "Lincolnian Republican conservative," is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri. He was born one of 10 children in Durango, Mexico. His father is a migrant field worker who owns a small hog ranch in Perris, Calif.

    Here's the movie Obama does not want you to see: The investigation into this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

    During the following July 5 interview with Karen Berka of Branson Radio Live posted on YouTube, Maldonado explains why he thinks his rights were violated when the secretary of state's office asked for proof of U.S. citizenship when he filed to run for the Senate:



    Maldonado, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, explains on his website that he became a U.S. citizen in 1995. But he said Secretary of State Robin Carnahan sent him a letter in May asking him to produce documentation.

    "It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."

    The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.

    Maldonado continued, "But it's not that simple. I didn't get away with it. I got a certified letter from Ms. Robin Carnahan's office saying that if I did not prove that I was a U.S. citizen, then I would be removed from the ballot."

    He claims Carnahan's office gave him a deadline of May 12.

    "I got all my documents together: my birth certificate, which is a Mexican birth certificate; my naturalization certificate; my orders sending me to Iraq and Afghanistan; my bronze-star citations and a couple of officer evaluations that say I'm a pretty good and effective leader," he said. "So I brought all this documentation, and they were only interested in the naturalization certificate. They made a photocopy of it."

    Maldonado said he asked Carnahan's office if his citizenship documentation would be public record and available to anyone who wants a copy.

    "They said, oh yes, absolutely, anyone that wants proof, we have it," he explained. "I said, OK, can you do me a favor then? I'm sure Ms. Carnahan requested the same of Barack Obama when he petitioned to get on the Missouri ballot to become president."

    He added, "They had no response. They had nothing."

    Maldonado said he thought about picketing during Obama's visit to Missouri today to raise money for Carnahan's U.S. Senate campaign. Obama arrived in Kansas City this morning to make appearances at two fundraising events for Carnahan. Missouri's primary election will take place on Aug. 3.

    "But I decided something different. I'm actually considering suing Ms. Robin Carnahan because she discriminated against me," he said. "She has said that her job is to protect Missouri from fraud and corruption. But the fraud that she created if she did not make Mr. Obama show proof of citizenship when he petitioned to get on the Missouri ballot ? all the votes that he got should be taken back."

    He said he hopes citizens of other states sue their own secretaries of state if they cannot show they requested proper documentation from Obama before allowing him to appear on the state ballot.

    "Sooner or later, he's going to have to prove ? based on our demand ? that he is in fact a U.S.-born citizen," he said.

    In an earlier interview on the subject, Maldonado said he spoke with other candidates running for the same office and asked if they had to show proof of citizenship or prove that they were citizens.

    "They said no. I was the only one," he said. "... I just don't know, if I were running as a Democrat, would I have to prove the same thing? Or is there a more stringent process for the Republican candidates?"

    The following is a YouTube posting with audio from that interview:



    As WND has reported, Obama himself has still not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. The information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.

    The White House has only proffered on the Internet a "Certification of Live Birth" to assert he was born in Hawaii. But that document was available for children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth.





    This short-form Certification of Live Birth image, which is not the same as a long-form, hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth, was released by the Obama campaign June 2008.



    Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. State law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

    "Anyone can get that (Certification of Live Birth)," Tim Adams, a former Hawaii elections official told WND in an earlier interview. "They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population (in Hawaii). It's quite common for people to come back and get that."

    Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, complete medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:42
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Title III Chapter III

    1917 Constitution of Mexico


    Chapter III

    The Executive Branch


    To be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the full enjoyment of his rights, and the son of Mexican parents by birth.


    Mexico has stricter immigration laws than the United States of America.
    Here is a summary of two excellent 2006 research papers exposing how Mexico discriminates illegal and legal immigrants.


    Mexico?s Immigration Law
    (General Law on Population)


    ? Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
    - Foreigners are admitted into Mexico ?according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.? (Article 32)
    - Immigration officials must ?ensure? that ?immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance? and for their dependents. (Article 34)
    - Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets ?the equilibrium of the national demographics,? when foreigners are deemed detrimental to ?economic or national interests,? when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when ?they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.? (Article 37)
    - The Secretary of Governance may ?suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.? (Article 38)

    ? Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
    - Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
    - A National Population Registry keeps track of ?every single individual who comprises the population of the country,? and verifies each individual?s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
    - A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    ? Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
    - Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
    - Foreigners who sign government documents ?with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses? are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    ? Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
    - Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
    - Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
    - Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico ? such as working with out a permit ? can also be imprisoned.

    ? Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
    - ?A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.? (Article 123)
    - Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
    - Foreigners who ?attempt against national sovereignty or security? will be deported. (Article 126)

    ? Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
    - A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
    - Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)


    ? The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country?s political life.
    Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, ?only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.? Article 33 is unambiguous: ?Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.?

    ? The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
    If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.

    Article 27 states, ?Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.? (Emphasis added)

    ? The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
    ones, in the public sector.

    ?Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.? (Article 32)

    ? The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
    Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

    ?In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.?

    ? An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

    ? Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

    ? The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

    ? The Mexican constitution singles out ?undesirable aliens.? Article 11 guarantees federal protection against ?undesirable aliens resident in the country.?

    ? The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen?s arrests.
    Article 16 states, ?in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.? Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

    ? The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
    According to Article 33, ?the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.?

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

    WND TV

    'Want freedom?

    Kill some crackers!'

    New Black Panther Obama

    DOJ refused to prosecute:

    'I hate white people ? all of them!'

    Posted: July 07, 2010
    11:45 pm Eastern

    By Chelsea Schilling


    Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath (photo: Can't Stop the Bleeding blog)

    "You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

    Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.

    Shabazz is the same man the Obama administration Department of Justice refused to prosecute after he was filmed on Election Day 2008 with Jerry Jackson wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.

    The following YouTube video posted by Naked Emperor News shows his statements during a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers:



    "I hate white people ? all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em," Shabazz shouts into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. "Through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on."

    Then Shabazz spotted a black man embracing a white woman.

    "What the hell is wrong with you, black man?" he shouted into his megaphone. "You [inaudible] with a white girl on your damn arm!

    "You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

    In a 2008 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sabazz said, "I'm about the total destruction of white people. I'm about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy. ..."

    National Geographic describes the New Black Panther Party as "a militant hate group headquartered in Washington, D.C., that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy."

    The party has marched on Independence Day, dragging American flags through the streets, trampling the flag on the ground and setting it on fire. The following video shows members of a New York chapter protesting celebration of Independence Day at an event called "4th of U-lie" on July 5, 2008. Members say the day is not a celebration of independence for blacks.



    As WND reported, one poll watcher called police on Nov. 4, 2008, after he reportedly saw Shabazz brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters just 15 feet outside a Philadelphia polling location. Shabazz stood in front of the building with Jackson.

    "As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other," the witness told Fox News at the time. "So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what."

    He said the man with a nightstick told him, "'We're tired of white supremacy,' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fistfight right here,' and I called the police."

    According to various witnesses, the men also hurled racial epithets such as "white devil" and "cracker" and told voters they should prepare to be "ruled by the black man." One person said the men called a Republican poll worker a "race traitor" and told him there would be "hell to pay."

    The following is a YouTube video of the Election Day incident:



    Career Department of Justice attorneys headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.

    The original Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.

    A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial team had won its case.

    Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration suddenly ordered it dropped ? against advice of prosecutors who brought the case.

    In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement blaming Republicans, "tea-party racists" and "right-wing circles" for complaining and harassing the organization.

    "Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin," it states. "The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego."

    Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over the Obama administration's refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ superiors ordered them not to testify ? a violation of federal law.

    "The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009]," Adams told Fox News. "All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint."

    Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn't call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.

    "We were ordered to dismiss the case," Adams said. "I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party."

    The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.

    As WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.

    At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ's primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.

    According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."

    Meanwhile, Pajamas Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping forward to support Adams' testimony. According to the report, the former employees have "expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams' professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of enforcing the law without bias."

    Pajamas Media adds, "Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams' statements about the DOJ" and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to "race-neutral law enforcement."

    Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called Adams a "model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology."

    Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: "I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress ? the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others."

    Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:

    If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff ? that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit ? then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.

    Related offers:

    Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

    "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

    Blacks exploited by their own leadership

    How to rebuild America: A black leader speaks out on creating strong families, increasing wealth of working people

    Previous stories:

    Investigation of 'antiwhite bias' grows

    Testimony on government's 'racist' decisions scheduled

    Ex?DoJ lawyer: Holder won't prosecute blacks

    Lawsuit: Explain mixing nightsticks with voters

    Feds: Nightstick at polls 'not prosecutable'

    Surprise! Guess who visited the White House

    Administration accused of voter intimidation coverup

    Feds sue Black Panthers for voter intimidation

    Black Panthers 'intimidate': 'We're tired of white supremacy'

    Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:50
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Thursday, July 08, 2010

    WorldNetDaily Exclusive
    Here he is! Meet the new health-care rationing czar
    Wealth-redistributor Berwick detests U.S. medical system, seeks to blow it up

    Posted: July 07, 2010
    8:05 pm Eastern



    Don Berwick

    WASHINGTON ? When Barack Obama bypassed the Senate yesterday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the $800 billion Medicare and Medicaid agency, he chose a man who is outspokenly in favor of government health-care rationing, redistribution of wealth and destroying the U.S. system of medical care in favor of a single-payer government-controlled program.

    The recess appointment allows Obama to skip what would have been contentious confirmation hearings because of Berwick's controversial, self-described "radical" approach to remaking the U.S. health-care system from the ground up.

    Here's the guide to fighting socialism: Joseph Farah's "Taking America Back"

    Republicans had raised questions about Berwick, pointing to his past writings and speeches. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has called him a "known advocate of government rationing of health care."

    Berwick is the founder of a Cambridge, Mass., think-tank and will take over as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The position has been unfilled since 2006 when administrator Mark McClellan stepped down.


    The agency provides health services to more than 98 million Americans and is considered the world's second-largest insurance company after the United Kingdom's National Health Service, for which he served as a consultant to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    He says he loves the British government-run health-care system and calls it superior to the American model. He opposes consumer-focused solutions to health-care problems as "unaccountable."

    "Any health-care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer to the poorer and the less fortunate," he said. "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."

    He has left no doubt about the fact that he favors a "single-payer" system: "With some risk, we note that the simplest way to establish many of these environmental conditions is a single-payer system," he said in an essay published in Health Affairs in 2008.

    As to rationing necessary to sustain a government-run system, Berwick told an interviewer: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or treatment] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care ? the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'"

    Roberts, who has led opposition to Berwick in the Senate, characterized this position as a "death pathway."

    When the White House first announced Berwick as its choice, he was hailed for a long list of credentials as a professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Medicine.

    "He is also a pediatrician, adjunct staff in the Department of Medicine at Boston's Children's Hospital ..." said the announcement. But, it turns out, Berwick has not seen a patient in years and the two Harvard professor positions are, according to a clarification from the White House, "honorary professorships," reports the Washington Times.

    Berwick would be in charge of implementing many of Obama's health-care reforms. He has argued for a "radical transfer of power" in the health industry and claimed patients' quality of care in the U.S. medical system is currently measured by the "color of their skin," WND has learned.

    At a 2008 Families USA conference speech documented by Health Beat, a health-care industry blog, Berwick slammed the U.S. health-care system as "bloated" and "broken."

    The blog points out Berwick noted, "There's a myth that American health care is the best in the world.

    "It's not," he continued. "It's not even close.

    "It's thought to be the best because we have the most health care," Berwick stated. However, he said, "40 percent of the care that Americans actually need is not received. ... Cost is the barrier.

    "Here is a question I often ask my students," added Berwick. "When you meet a new patient, what is the one test that you could do that would tell you how long that patient is likely to live?

    "Typically, students answer: 'Ask them if they smoke,' or 'Test their blood sugar.'

    "No," Berwick said. "Just look at the color of their skin."

    Last year, Berwick authored a Harvard position paper, "What 'Patient-Centered' Should Mean: Confessions of an Extremist." The tome was obtained and reviewed by WND.

    "In this paper I argue for a radical transfer of power and a bolder meaning of 'patient-centered care,' whether in a medical home or in the current cathedral of care: the hospital," stated Berwick.

    A 2004 extensive Boston Globe profile of Berwick, meanwhile, labeled the physician and activist a health-care "revolutionary" who wants to "blow up" the system.

    If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.


    Related offers:

    How to fight socialism? The prescription is Joseph Farah's "Taking America Back"

    WND is your place to launch the tea-party revolution. Visit the tea-party forum.

    Open the eyes of your friends and neighbors with this DVD: "Socialism: The Clear and Present Danger"

    Previous story:

    Obama's health-care pick urges 'radical transfer of power'

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:33
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Mi?rcoles, 07 de julio de 2010


    Voters Will Rebuke President Obama and Mexico's attack on Democracy in America
    Posted on Wednesday, July 07 @ 11:25:19 EDT
    Topic: Americans for Legal Immigration PACAmericans for Legal Immigration PACVoters Will Rebuke President Obama and Mexico's attack on Democracy in America

    July 7, 2010


    CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC
    ? (866) 703-0864????? [email protected]

    Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is speaking out and encouraging all Americans to speak out against President Obama's attack against Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which is an attack on all Americans who want illegal immigration stopped and an attack on the self-governance of American citizens.

    "Obama is joining with the corrupt government of Mexico to attack Democracy in America and a popular state law which simply mirrors the Federal laws he swore an oath to enforce," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The public backlash against Obama's despotic behavior will manifest in the 2010 elections in historic proportions. Obama wants to take down Arizona and the efforts to restore the Rule of Law in America. Now it is time for Americans to politically take down Obama."

    ALIPAC is launching a talk radio and Internet campaign to encourage Americans to contact their members of Congress to demand Congressional action to stop President Obama's administration from further damaging American security, sovereignty, and principles. ALIPAC is asking Congress to intervene to stop Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.

    ALIPAC's efforts will also focus on organizing Americans behind Congressional campaigns that support Constitutional governance where We The People of the United States determine policy, instead of Obama's authoritarian edicts.

    "Obama is displaying a pattern of power abuse and revealing that he is an authoritarian ruler who erroneously believes he can create policy, instead of Congress," said William Gheen. "Americans need to wake up, unify, and organize against this despot in the White House, while we still have a country that can be saved."

    Americans expect the Federal government to perform one duty above all others and that duty is to protect American citizens from harm from elements outside of the nation. The Obama administration is refusing to defend American jobs, wages, property, security, health, and lives from attacks conducted against civilians by foreign powers that are aided by traitors inside of the United States.

    Public opinion is rapidly turning against Obama, a trend which will be increased and accelerated by his effort to thwart Democracy in Arizona via a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Arizona law is supported by 60-81% of Americans according to numerous scientific and certified polls.

    "Obama has just made a huge mistake," said William Gheen. "We are going to clean his political clock in the elections this November and the American public is going to surround this despot in the White House with new members of Congress who are ready to stop the President's affronts to our Republican form of governance in America and her states."

    Obama is weakening America and showing a pattern of despotic behavior by attacking freedoms, Democracy, and Constitutional governance. Examples include his attempts to gain the power to shut down parts of the Internet, restricting freedoms of the press around the BP oil spill disaster, securing special treatment and Amnesty for his illegal alien aunt Zeutini Onyongo, cutting of Federal worker access to websites with opinions that oppose his administration, encouraging the Department of Homeland Security to falsely demonize his political opponents as potential domestic terrorists who threaten the lives of police officers, while leaving our borders open to terrorists and gangsters from other nations, ending all work site raids to arrest illegal aliens, and refusing to secure the borders during a time of war as required by the US Constitution, and pushing the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty plan, which would turn millions of illegal aliens into voters thus destroying the borders of the United States forever.

    To schedule interviews and receive more information about ALIPAC's efforts to stop Obama and Mexico's attacks on American sovereignty, please visit or call (866) 703-0864.


    Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
    Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
    FEC ID: C00405878



    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:55
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Immigration Injustice

    Posted by B.J. Bethel on Jul 7th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


    It?s routine to be disappointed with the leadership in Washington, but the Obama administration?s lawsuit challenging the state of Arizona?s new immigration law sets a new standard for wrongheaded government policy.

    The Justice Department made the decision Tuesday to file the suit based on several dubious factors. The administration claims the law hampers the ability of the federal government and federal immigration authorities to perform their duties ? a claim that puts into perspective the audacity and twisted vision that now prevail within the administration.

    The timing of the suit comes on the heels of Sunday?s Mexican elections, which were marred by violence throughout the country. While drug lords gunned down one candidate for governor in an assassination, another was photographed with a drug kingpin in a bit of P.R. usually reserved for the most anarchic of third-world states. Another was arrested for using his influence to protect two drug cartels.

    Since the election of Mexican president Felipe Calderon in 2006, over 20,000 deaths have been attributed to the drug war. According to war reporter Michael Yon, this is more than in Thailand, a country in a state of civil war. The Mexican drug war has been bleeding over to the U.S. for years, with an 80-mile stretch of parkland along the border deemed no man?s land.

    With such pressing issues to the south, one would think Washington would be in a mode to deal with the problem. Instead, the administration is suing the state of Arizona for enforcing federal laws ? laws that the federal government has decided not to enforce on its own accord. This decision has led to a political and social crisis among the border states. Under such circumstances, the government would ordinarily feel compelled to act. That is, if there weren?t electoral needs and identity politics to consider.

    By attacking the new immigration law, the administration is flying in the face of a 70-percent approval for the measure, according to most recent polling. The suit comes a week after Labor Secretary Hilda Solis made a taped statement promising fair wages to illegals. This at a time when Americans are struggling through record unemployment and are facing greater tax burdens heading into the next year.

    This new suit coincides with the administration?s talk of immigration reform ? reform that doesn?t seal the border, or deal with the influx of unskilled migrants overloading civil services, or the deplorable criminal element that is passing in, but of blanket amnesty and no enforcement. Without proper security measures, such reform would usher in a new wave of illegal immigration into the Southwest. Democrats hope this results in a wave of Hispanic voters at the polls.

    The situation in Mexico, as well as the immigration issue, are examples of the new and unenviable position in which the American electorate finds itself. The average private citizen is no longer a constituent, but treated as an adversary by some legislators. The immigration battle is an example of how the designs of the progressive president and his party are directly opposite to the wishes of the average American voter.

    The immigration debate is also an argument about political relevance. Until Scott Brown?s staggering senatorial upset in liberal Massachusetts, conventional wisdom held that he Republican Party had essentially pigeonholed itself geographically. No longer a factor on the coasts, or the Northeast, the Republican Party consisted of middle and rural America in ?flyover country,? as the media forewarned. Limiting oneself to such a base was akin to political suicide.

    But demographic polarity goes both ways. Sick of high taxes, demonized in the media, film and television, and angry over broken promises with Medicare and Social Security, the middle class of the Midwest and South has left the Democratic party in droves. To survive its political death in ?flyover country,? Democrats are poised to allow amnesty for millions of illegals to insure the party?s sustainability.

    The people most affected by this and stand the most to lose are blue-collar workers, those in construction and in service areas, who routinely have their wages undercut by businesses hiring illegals. These workers were the former base of the Democratic Party. The Democratic strategy is doubly nefarious given that illegals, who can not yet vote, are promised wages and benefits that can not be delivered ? not by state governments on the verge of bankruptcy in the west, or by a free market that can?t support such a glut of unskilled labor at a livable wage. To decry these types of politics is to be called a racist, whether referring to the immigration debate, or any of the innumerable issues in Washington DC.

    This brand of terse discourse isn?t limited to politicians in the U.S. Mexico has threatened to sue Arizona as well, and drew its own racial implications. While the U.S. has provided an influx of jobs and trade to Mexico through NAFTA, as well as money provided by illegals who send cash back to relatives, Mexican politicians continue to lecture Americans about their own border and immigration policies, despite Mexico?s southern border being nearly militarized. What?s worse, politicians in both parties have acquiesced to this madness through the years. George W. Bush supported amnesty, then attempted through the court to have 50 illegals removed from death row in Texas at the request of former Mexican president Vicente Fox.

    The Obama administration?s hand in border security has been unserious at best. The President has pledged just over a 1,000 National Guard troops for border security, without any enforcement powers. It is short of the 6,000 delivered by Bush, a number that dwarfed the actual need. Securing the border should be first priority, followed by streamlining legal immigration measures and cleaning up the war-like conditions on the border.

    If politicians on either side want to get serious about the Mexican diaspora, they should begin taking the host country to task. Mexico is one of the richest oil countries, yet the government takes over 70-percent of the industry?s profits. Corruption in government exists on all levels. The United States can offer help, but it should demand that Mexico clean up its mess, and do something to support and employ the lower classes it wishes to push off onto its northern neighbor. In the meantime, the Obama administration?s decision to pick a fight with the one state serious about solving its illegal immigration problem is a step in precisely the wrong direction.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:23
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Steve Cooper
    The Conservative

    The enemy has many different angles of attack against us and we need the same strategy as well. The problem that we conservatives have is financial, rather than strategic. Our enemies are well funded by the wealthy elite like the Hollywood scum and other rich leftists like Bill Gates and George Soros.

    The conservative movement is grass roots, made up of middle
    class small business owners, blue collar and other assorted patriots. The conservative movement is currently in the middle of a tug o war as well, by plants in the media (controlled opposition) and the tea party movement that want to distract us off of our game in regards to the Obama eligibility issue.

    They Tea Party leaders and plants at Fox News want you to focus on 'the issues' rather than the one issue that could really get Obama removed and thrown into jail. Well, look at how well focusing on 'the issues' has worked for you all. Did it stop socialized health care, nationalizing the auto industry or the massive spending? No...

    The media is scared to death of the eligibility issue growing legs, because powerful people are behind this conspiracy. Plus, they (Fox news especially) fear being blamed for the race war that would ensue if Obama were removed from office for fraud. How do I know they fear it? Not one of the lawyers or plaintiffs have been on Fox news that I can recall. They just have their spin masters Glenn Beck and Bill O' LEILLY tell the toothless fools in their audiences that "they know Obama was born in Hawaii, so just forget the whole thing". ?

    Fox News is the John McCain channel, he is on there day and night. Murdoch and McCain are obviously buddies and I believe that this has a lot to do with the suppression of news coverage about the Obama eligibility lawsuits and accusations. Once in a while they will report a story here and there to avoid criticism, but then they smear and attack anyone that is involved with the movement or that is demanding answers.

    Fox News is using left wing tactics against their own audience. I have received many thousands of e-mails from people the past year that are furious at Fox, Beck and Bill O' for their clearly biased and unbalanced coverage on the eligibility conspiracy. It is obvious that they are hiding something as well and they should be held accountable if it is proven that they conspired to defraud the American people. The scum at CNN and MSNBC need to be targeted as well, but Fox News was the key player to keeping the masses misinformed and off of this issue.

    I work endlessly to get the truth out on this issue and many others and I do not appreciate paid corporate shills like Beck, undermining my hard work. Plus they attack patriotic Americans that know damn well, that Obama is not a natural born citizen. I would spit in Beck's face if I saw him, he is a traitor, because not only does he lack the guts to tell the truth about this issue, but he aids the enemy by attacking the movement as well. ? ? ?

    This cover up into Obama's eligibility started before the 2008 election and I am convinced that people in BOTH parties conspired in multiple felonies.? The elite have their own rules, this is no secret. Plus, I suspect that there could have been either blackmail or bribery involved as well after seeing what is at stake here. I believe they (Obama and McCain) made a deal not to pursue it and then the Dems would not make a big deal that McCain was possibly born in a hospital OFF of the Naval base.

    I am not saying that John McCain was bribed, BUT I am saying that it is suspicious that the Democrats questioned whether he was a natural born citizen. The Senate held a hearing to inquire into his natural born citizenship and John McCain supposedly had to bring his BIRTH CERTIFICATE to this hearing. How else would he prove his citizenship? Notice that John McCain did not post his birth certificate on the Internet? McCain did not hire a lawyer and spend $2 million dollars to fight this investigation, but Obama did.

    The Democrats were the original birthers, but they changed their strategy when they realized that Obama was a fraud. Then suddenly they wanted this issue to quietly go away. Was a back room deal made with McCain? John McCain needs to be investigated and he needs to testify under oath about this alleged conspiracy. That is why it is important for him to lose his senate race in Arizona.

    John McCain knew that there were pending lawsuits into Obama's eligibility status and rather than demanding equality and a Senate hearing into Obama's eligibility, he forgets the entire matter. No official hearing is held to question Obama's eligibility from that moment on.

    Did John McCain KNOWINGLY aid Obama aka Barry Soetoro cover up multiple felonies? Why did McCain avoid asking for a Senate hearing to investigate Obama's possible ineligibility. Obama's father was NOT a US Citizen; therefore it would not matter if he even had a valid birth certificate, because he has allegiance to Kenya at birth. That does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen.

    The people and the lawyers involved with the eligibility issue need to start demanding answers WHY McCain did not protect the U.S. Constitution that he has sworn an oath to uphold. It was his duty to demand that a hearing be held to ensure that the American people were not being swindled by a foreign usurper and I allege that he assisted with this conspiracy. ? ?

    I have been following this controversy since August 2008 and it reeks of lies and a cover up from the top of the U.S. Government, Military to their puppets in the media and it disgusts me. I believe that calling McCain out is something that has to be done, it will not remove Obama, but it will expose McCain, for the RINO double agent that he is. ?

    Steve Cooper
    The Conservative

    Share this story

    Bookmark and

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:22
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Martes, 06 de julio de 2010
    Online NewsHour An Online NewsHour Special Report

    January 16, 1999

    President Clinton ?

    Rep. Henry Hyde, chief manager of the impeachment case, closed the House's case against the president with a call to protect the "sacred honor" and rule of law.




    Mr. Chief Justice, Counsel for the President and Distinguished Members of the Senate:

    One of the most memorable aspects of this proceeding was the solemn occasion wherein every Senator in this chamber took an oath to do impartial justice under the Constitution.

    The President of the United States took an oath to tell the truth in his testimony before the grand jury, just as he had, on two prior occasions, sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States."

    Despite massive and relentless efforts to change the subject, the case before you Senators is not about sexual misconduct or adultery - those are private acts and none of our business.

    It is not even a question of lying about sex.

    The matter before this body is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act.

    The matter before you is a question of the willful, premeditated deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice, through Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. These are public acts, and when committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the one who appoints the Attorney General and nominates the Judiciary - these do become the concern of Congress. That is why your judgment should rise above politics, above partisanship, above polling data. This case is a test of whether what the Founding Fathers described as "sacred honor" still has meaning in our time: two hundred twenty-two Rep. Hydeyears after those two words - sacred honor - were inscribed in our country's birth certificate, our charter of freedom, our Declaration of Independence.

    Every school child in the United States has an intuitive sense of the "sacred honor" that is one of the foundation stones of the American house of freedom. For every day, in every classroom in America, our children and grandchildren pledge allegiance to a nation, "under God." That statement, that America is "one nation under God," is not a prideful or arrogant claim. It is a statement of humility: all of us, as individuals, stand under the judgment of God, or the transcendent truths by which we hope, finally, to be judged.

    So does our country.

    The Presidency is an office of trust. Every public office is a public trust, but the Office of President is a very special public trust. The President is the trustee of the national conscience. No one owns the office of President, the people do. The President is elected by the people and their representatives in the electoral college. And in accepting the burdens of that great office, the President, in his inaugural oath, enters into a covenant- a binding agreement of mutual trust and obligation - with the American people.

    Shortly after his election and during his first months in office, President Clinton spoke with some frequency about a "new covenant" in America. In this instance, let us take the President at his word: that his office is a covenant - a solemn pact of mutual trust and obligation - with the American people. Let us take the President seriously when he speaks of covenants: because a covenant is about promise-making and promise-keeping.

    For it is because the President has defaulted on the promises he made - it is because he has violated the oaths he has sworn - that he has been impeached.

    The debate about impeachment during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 makes it clear that the Framers of the Constitution regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the President. The Framers had invested the presidential office with great powers. They knew that those powers could be - and would be - abused if any President were to violate, in a fundamental way, the oath he had sworn to faithfully execute the nation's laws.

    For if the President did so violate his oath of office, the covenant of trust between himself and the American people would be broken.

    Today, we see something else: that the fundamental trust between America and the world can be broken, if a presidential perjurer represents our country in world affairs. If the President calculatedlyand repeatedly violates his oath, if the President breaks the covenant of trust he has made with the American people, he can no longer be trusted. And, because the executive plays so large a role in representing the country to the world, America can no longer be trusted.

    It is often said that we live in an age of increasing interdependence. If that is true, and the evidence for it is all around us, then the future will require an even stronger bond of trust between the President and the nation: because with increasing interdependence comes an increased necessity of trust.

    Rep. HydeThis is one of the basic lessons of life. Parents and children know this. Husbands and wives know it. Teachers and students know it, as do doctors and patients, suppliers and customers, lawyers and clients, clergy and parishioners: the greater the interdependence, the greater the necessity of trust; the greater the interdependence, the greater the imperative of promise-keeping.

    Trust, not what James Madison called the "parchment barriers" of laws, is the fundamental bond between the people and their elected representatives, between those who govern and those who are governed. Trust is the mortar that secures the foundations of the American house of freedom. And the Senate of the United States, sitting in judgment in this impeachment trial, should not ignore, or minimize, or dismiss the fact that the bond of trust has been broken, because the President has violated both his oaths of office and the oath he took before his grand jury testimony.

    In recent months, it has often been asked - it has too often been asked - so what? What is the harm done by this lying under oath, by this perjury?

    I think the answer would have been clear to those who once pledged their sacred honor to the cause of liberty.

    The answer would have been clear to those who crafted the world's most enduring written constitution.

    No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world.

    For to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice. And to break that covenant of trust by violating one's oath is to do grave damage to the rule of law among us.

    That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.

    We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm.

    Rep. HydeLet us be clear: The vote that you are asked to cast is, in the final analysis, a vote about the rule of law.

    The rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of three thousand years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully and at great cost, evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.

    We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law: a moral code for a free people who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habit of slaves.

    We are the heirs of Roman law: the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races, and religions came to live together in a form of political community.

    We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the freeman of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.

    We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women.

    We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor - sacred honor - to the defense of the rule of law.

    We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others.

    We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic society.

    Rep. HydeLying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of Justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for just such offenses. What in the world do we say to them about Equal Justice if we overlook this conduct in the President?

    Some may say, as many have said in recent months, that this is to pitch the matter too high. The President's lie, it is said, was about a "trivial matter;" it was a lie to spare embarrassment about misconduct on a "private occasion."

    The confusing of what is essentially a private matter, and none of our business, with lying under oath to a court and a grand jury has been only one of the distractions we have had to deal with.

    Senators: as men and women with a serious experience of public affairs, we can all imagine, a situation in which a President might shade the truth when a great issue of the national interest or the national security was at stake. We have all been over that terrain. We know the thin ice on which any of us skates when blurring the edges of the truth for what we consider a compelling, demanding public purpose.

    Morally serious men and women can imagine circumstances, at the far edge of the morally permissible, when, with the gravest matters of national interest at stake, a President could shade the truth in order to serve the common good. But under oath.... for a private pleasure?

    In doing this, the Office of President of the United States has been debased...and the Justice System jeopardized.

    In doing this, he has broken his covenant of trust with the American people.

    The Framers of the Constitution also knew that the Office of President of the United States could be gravely damaged if it continued to be unworthily occupied. That is why they devised the process of impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. It is, in truth, a direct process. If, on impeachment, the President is convicted, he is removed from office - and the Office itself suffers no permanent damage. If, on impeachment, the President is acquitted, the issue is resolved once and for all, and the Office is similarly protected from permanent damage.

    But if, on impeachment, the President is not convicted and removed from office despite the fact that numerous Senators are convinced that he has, in the words of one proposed resolution of censure, "egregiously failed" the test of his oath of office, "violated the trust of the American people," and "dishonored the office which they entrusted to him," then the Office of the Presidency has been deeply, and perhaps permanently, damaged.

    And that is a further reason why President Clinton must be convicted of the charges brought before you by the House of Representatives, and removed from office. To fail to do so, while conceding that the President has engaged in egregious and dishonorable behavior that has broken the covenant of trust between himself and the American people, is to diminish the office of President of the United States in an unprecedented and unacceptable way.

    Senators: please permit me a word on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues of the House. It is necessary to clarify an important point.

    None of us comes to this chamber today without a profound sense of our own responsibilities in life, and of the many ways in which we have failed to meet those responsibilities, to one degree or another. None of us comes before you claiming to be a perfect man or a perfect citizen, just as none of you imagines yourself perfect. All of us, members of the House and Senate, know that we come to this difficult task as flawed human beings, under judgment.

    That is the way of this world: flawed human beings must, according to the rule of law, judge other flawed human beings.

    Rep. HydeBut the issue before the Senate of the United States is not the question of its own members' personal moral condition. Nor is the issue before the Senate the question of the personal moral condition of the members of the House of Representatives. The issue here is whether the President of the United States has violated the rule of law and thereby broken his covenant of trust with the American people. This is a public issue, involving the gravest matter of the public interest. And it is not effected, one way or another, by the personal moral condition of any member of either house of Congress, or by whatever expressions of personal chagrin the President has managed to express.

    Senators: we of the House do not come before you today lightly. And, if you will permit me, it is a disservice to the House to suggest that it has brought these articles of impeachment before you in a frivolous, mean-spirited, or irresponsible way. That is not true.

    We have brought these articles of impeachment because we are convinced, in conscience, that the President of the United States lied under oath: that the President committed perjury on several occasions before a Federal grand jury. We have brought these articles of impeachment because we are convinced, in conscience, that the President willfully obstructed justice, and thereby threatened the legal system he swore a solemn oath to protect and defend.

    These are not trivial matters. These are not partisan matters. These are matters of justice, the justice that each of you has taken a solemn oath to serve in this trial.

    Some of us have been called "Clinton-haters." I must tell you, distinguished Senators, that this impeachment is not, for those of us from the House, a question of hating anyone. This is not a question of who we hate, this is a question of what we love: and among the things we love are the rule of law, equal justice before the law, and honor in our public life. All of us are trying as hard as we can to do our duty as we see more and no less.

    Senators: This trial is being watched around the world. Some of those watching, thinking themselves superior in their cynicism, wonder what it is all about. But others know.

    Political prisoners know that this is about the rule of law - the great alternative to arbitrary and unchecked state power.

    The families of executed dissidents know that this is about the rule of law - the great alternative to the lethal abuse of power by the state.

    Those yearning for freedom know that this is about the rule of law - the hard-won structure by which men and women can live by their God-given dignity and secure their God-given rights in ways that serve the common good.

    If they know this, can we not know it?

    If, across the river in Arlington Cemetery, there are American heroes who died in defense of the rule of law, can we give less than the full measure of our devotion to that great cause?

    I have received a letter last week that expresses my feelings far better than my poor words.

    [Text of the Letter]
    Dear Chairman Hyde,

    My name is William Preston Summers. How are you doing? I am a third grader in room 504 at Chase elementary School in Chicago. I am writing this letter because I have something to tell you. I have thought of a punishment for the president of the Unites states of America. The punishment should be that he should write a 100 word essay by hand. I have to write an essay when I lie. It is bad to lie because it just gets you in more trouble. I hate getting in trouble.

    It is just like the boy who cried wolf, and the wolf ate the boy. It is important to tell the truth. I like telling the truth because it gets you in less trouble. If you do not tell the truth people do not believe you.

    It is important to believe the president because he is a important person. If you can not believe the president who can you believe. If you have no one to believe in then how do you run your life. I do not believe the president tells the truth anymore right now. After he writes the essay and tells the truth, I will believe him again.

    William Summers

    PS: Dear Representative Hyde,

    I made my son William either write you a letter or an essay as a punishment for lying. Part of his defense of his lying was that the president lied. He is still having difficulty understanding why the President can lie and not be punished.

    Bobby Williams

    Rep. HydeMr. Chief Justice and Senators-On June 6, 1994, the 50th anniversary of the American landing on the beaches of Normandy, I stood among the field of white crosses and Stars of David. The British had a military band of bagpipes playing Amazing Grace. I walked up to one cross to read a name, but there was none. All it said was "Here lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known but to God."

    How do we keep the faith with that comrade in arms? Go to the Vietnam Memorial on the National Mall and press your hands against some of the 58,000 names carved in the wall - and ask yourself how we can redeem the debt we owe all those who purchased our freedom with their lives.

    How do we keep faith with them?

    I think I know how, we work to make this country the kind of America they were willing to die for. That's an America where the idea of sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls.

    I hope that a hundred years from today, people will look back at what we have done and say they kept the faith.



    Video: Obama bashes Founders on the 4th of July


    Jeannie DeAngelis, American Thinker

    It appears the President of the United States can?t contain his disdain for America?s historical roots. On Independence Day, instead of stressing the awesome concepts of the Declaration of Independence, Obama managed to turn a BBQ into an opportunity to disparage our founders, foster class warfare and further division.
    On July 4th the Commander-in-Chief invited the military to a White House cookout and then used the occasion to skewer the Founding Fathers. Rather than depicting America as "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all," once again Barack-the-great-divider separated America into factions and brought up a time in our history where, in his view, America lacked, "civil rights and voting rights, workers? rights and women?s rights."

    A casually dressed Obama, who couldn?t make Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery, appeared on the balcony high above the active-duty military and their families who were waving flags and wearing red, white and blue face paint.? The President, with Michelle at his side, spoke to the group, saying that today may be Independence Day, but "Today we also celebrate all of you, the men and women of our armed forces, who defend this country we love."??

    While America focused on Cedric the Entertainer, the U.S. Marine band, Sabrett? hot dogs, Obama?s short-sleeved polo shirt, and the outstanding potato salad, the thing that was the most telling about the event were Obama?s sentiments when he said the following:

    We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America-civil rights and voting rights, workers? rights and women?s rights, and the rights of every American. And on this day that is uniquely American we are reminded that our Declaration, our example, made us a beacon to the world.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:10
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Lunes, 05 de julio de 2010
    ImpeachObamaCampaign | July 03, 2010

    Globe Magazine has taken up the Obama Eligibility Story with a a hard hitting story that is sure to enlighten many people to the things that you have been reading here every day at Impeach Obama

    According to the story, "A Former Hawaii records official is sending shock waves through Washington, D.C., by revealing there is absolutely no birth certificate for Barack Obama."
    The Globe continues:

    "I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," says Timothy Adams, who served as senior government records clerk in Honolulu in 2008. "There is no birth certificate. I was informed by my boss that we did not have Obama's birth record." has been covering the Hawaiian Election Clerk Story from the beginning.

    On June 10th, the Story Broke. "Hawaii Election Clerk: Obama not born here."

    On June 14th we covered how the Hawaii Election Clerk Story was growing as a phenomenom on You Tube. This video has now over 500 million views thanks to your help in spreading the word.

    On June 21st Timothy Adams appeared on local TV Confirming the story of Obama's non-Hawaiian birth.

    And now on July 3rd, the day before Independence Day, a national magazine has finally taken up the story.

    According to the Globe, "The repercussions of Adams' stunning disclosure could bring Obama's presidency to an untimely and disastrous end."

    The fact of Obama's ineligibility is slowly being revealed across the country. Keep forwarding these pages to your friends and encourage your friends to do the same. Before long, with the voice of the American people calling out in a deafening shout, even the Mainstream Media will be forced to sit up and listen. And then, even Barack Hussein Obama will be forced to sit up and listen. And he won't like what he hears.

    Visit us at and sign the petition to Impeach Obama. Lets get him out before he can do any more damage to this beautiful country. best place to hear what Obama can't stand you hearing.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:26
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    A litany of high level advisors with strong socialist agendas surrounds the President

    Is Barack Obama the Ultimate Sleeper Agent?

    ?By Alan Caruba??Sunday, July 4, 2010

    Not far from where I live in New Jersey, in Montclair, Richard and Cynthia Murphy were arrested as Russian sleeper agents, allegedly in the employ of the SVR, the successor to the famed Soviet KGB intelligence services that waged a covert war throughout the Cold War.


    Much of the media attention was focused on a beautiful redhead, Anna Chapman, a Manhattan socialite who was charged as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, but largely unnoted was Mihail Semenko, a 28-year-old Seton Hall University graduate. I live in the same community where the university is located.

    In all, ten people were arrested by the FBI, suspected of carrying out long-term ?deep cover? assignments in the U.S. for Russia.

    The ultimate ?deep cover? agent, however, may well be Barack Obama.

    My friend, Henry Lamb, writing on October 8, 2007 at Canada Free, said, ?It is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the agenda of the Democratic Party and the agenda of the Communist Party.? He quoted Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Communist Party USA Political Action Committee and chairman of the Connecticut Communist Party.

    ?Our Party has an important role to play in keep the focus on the fight for a new direction in our country for jobs, healthcare, and an end to the war. This is how the 2008 elections will be won.? Universal healthcare, a major objective of the Obama administration, has since become the law of the land. The emphasis on withdrawal from Iraq and a specific date for withdrawal from Afghanistan has been another objective.

    The campaign team, several of whom now serve as advisers to Obama, was composed of people with deep ties to the ?progressive?, i.e., communist movement in America. Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor, was aware that former Green Czar, Van Jones, had a long history of involvement in Communist Party causes. When this was exposed, he resigned.

    Jarrett married into a family with Communist Party involvement. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, worked closely with Obama mentor and a Communist Party leader, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a member of a number of front groups during the Cold War years. It was Davis whom Obama?s grandparents enlisted to mentor him during his formative years growing up in Hawaii.

    Political advisor, David Axelrod, has a long history of working for socialist causes. His mother wrote for a New York City tabloid, PM Magazine that often promoted the Communist Party line. Much of the publication?s funding came from Marshall Field, a leftist millionaire who also funded Saul Alinsky?s training school for community organizers.

    Carol Browner, the energy and environmental advisor, was a former director of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Significantly, she was a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society of the Socialist International until that was revealed and her name was scrubbed from the organization?s website on January 7, 2009. Both she and Todd Stern, the Environment Czar, are strong advocates of Cap-and-Trade legislation.

    A litany of high level advisors with strong socialist agendas surrounds the President.

    Experts in spy craft are not inclined to regard the arrested agents as a small group to be dismissed as bumblers in the employ of the Russian Federation, the successor to the failed Soviet Union. None, however, have been charged with espionage.

    Nina Khrushcheva, the daughter of former Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, and a professor of international affairs at the New School in Manhattan, said, ?We are pretty sure there are some dark forces overseeing Russian security. That?s how we do things. That?s how we used to do things. And people don?t think that it has changed.?

    In a memo to the Murphy?s, their Russian handler reminded them, ?You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house, etc?all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e., to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in U.S. and send intel (intelligence reports) to (center).?

    Many questions regarding Obama?s past remain hidden. Beyond the issue of whether he is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office, most of the paper trail concerning his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, followed by Columbia University and Harvard, and the funding for his tuition, his travel to Pakistan as a youth, and other factors normally made public during a campaign are still kept secret.

    In his memoir, ?Dreams of my Father?, Obama wrote, ?To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors??

    Perhaps most telling is his political rise that began in the Chicago living room of former Weatherman domestic terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, who held a fundraiser for his campaign to become a senator in the Illinois legislature. In a book, ?Sixties Radicals?, Ayers described himself, saying ?I?m a radical, leftist, small ?c? communist.?

    Obama and Ayers had spent three years together serving on the board of the Woods Fund. Obama?s campaign claim that he knew the Ayers only because they lived in the same Chicago neighborhood was patently false.

    The members of the Russian spy group lived a false life while allegedly serving the interests of their handlers. One can only wonder if Barack Obama?s life has also been devoted to the same communist agenda as the ultimate agent of influence?

    ? Alan Caruba, 2010

    Alan Caruba ?Bio
    Alan Caruba Most recent columns

    Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

    Alan can be reached at [email protected]
    Older articles by Alan Caruba

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:27
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    S?bado, 03 de julio de 2010

    John Adams speech before the Continental Congress

    on Freedom and the reading of The Declaration Of Independence

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:37
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    It is an extraordinary work and the narrative is a letter to President Obama

    that nicely sums up what so many Americans are thinking.

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:20
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


    ?July 2, 2010
    Obama's "fundamental transformation" means total annihilation
    By Sher Zieve

    Defined as "betrayal of country ? violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy," virtually everything The Obama has done and is doing is called treason. And, as Obama still maintains he is a natural-born US citizen, what he has effected is also High Treason ? defined as "treason perpetrated by somebody against his or her own country." In order to gain some semblance of what the Dictator-and-Destroyer-in-Chief has done and is continuing to do in his "fundamental transformation" of the United States of America, a partial and I believe actionable list includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    1. Thus far, over 8 millions jobs have been lost under Obama's watch, which VP Joe Biden says will not be recovered or replaced. Biden said: "There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession!" No jobs for US citizens (as Obama & Co strategically targets the middle class)=Fundamental Transformation of Employment

    2. Under Obama & Co, US debt will reach 62% of GDP by the end of fiscal 2010. With no information as to where all the Obama Stimulus money has gone (regular readers of this column know where it is), Biden commented: "[There is] no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost!" Note: How were $3Trillions "lost?" Lost in Biden's and other Marxists pockets and bank accounts, perhaps? No growth in economy and constant Obama & Co theft and raiding of US Treasury (resulting in nothing left)=Fundamental Transformation of the US Economy

    3. Obama & Co's DOJ drops charges against voter intimidation by racist weapon-wielding Obama-supporting group ? the New Black Panthers ? attempting to block white voters. Obama-supporting police allow SEIU intimidation of citizens at [their] private residences. Fundamental Transformation of the Law of the Land=Elimination of US Constitution replaced entirely by racist anti-white ObamaLaw

    4. Obama refuses to protect Southern border against drug dealers, human traffickers and other foreign invasion. Obama's DOJ files suit against a sovereign US State for doing the job the US federal government refuses to do. Obama Fundamental Transformation of States Rights=End of State's Rights

    5. In his 25 May 2010 speech at the Border Management Conference, Brigadier General Robert J. Felderman tells how the Obama regime plans the merger of the US with Mexico. Obama & Co openly working with a foreign power to attack a US State. Obama Fundamental Transformation =End of US sovereignty

    6. Obama want Blanket Amnesty of illegals from Mexico to be affected via Executive fiat (Dictator Command). Note: This is to provide a new Marxist-Democrat voting bloc (to counter US citizens expected vote against the Marxist contingent now running the USA into the ground) for The Obama and its minions. Fundamental Transformation=End of the US Republic and official beginning of the Obama Dictatorship

    7. Obama & Co takeover of US citizens' rights to their bodies (ObamaCare) and usage of energy (Cap & Trade). Fundamental Transformation=USA from 1st world country into 3rd or even 4th world country

    It is unfathomable to me that there are virtually ? if not literally ? NO honorable Democrats left in either house of the US Congress. It also amazes and disheartens me that almost NO Republicans are truly working to defeat the policies of the most corrupt and malevolent leader of the USA ever to inhabit the US White House. We-the-People must begin to end this destruction today. Have you gone door-to-door and spoken with your neighbors yet? Remember, all that you need is a clipboard, paper and a pen to advise and sign up additional volunteers to advise others on what is truly happening in Washington D.C. and what to have on hand in preparation for what is to come. Also please remember, it is The Obama's mission to continue the destruction of the USA until it ? and WE ? is totally annihilated. This IS his true purpose and only We-the-People can save this country, ourselves and our loved ones.

    Obama's Fundamental Transformation of America:

    Biden: Obama regime won't restore 8 Million Lost Jobs:;contentBody

    CBO: US Debt To GDP Ratio To Reach 62% By End Of Fiscal Year 2010:

    Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation against white voters:

    Huge Mob of SEIU Goons Attacks Banker's Home:

    Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns':

    Securing the Nation by Destroying It:

    ? Sher Zieve


    The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
    (See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:51
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

    Stop Them Cold: The?Usurpathon

    ?2010 drkate

    Announcing The Usurpathon: A Rolling ?Velvet Revolution? to Remove the Usurper, et al

    We?ve been running a marathon, and now we know fully who Obama/Soetoro is, who he is not, and what he is about. We also are aware that he is a tool of others?whose agenda is decisively anti-American, and that this program is in open, full swing against the American people.


    America in Distress

    Inspired by the agreement and comments generated in The Silver Bullet, and by an article on the Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution, the hour has arrived?to Stop Them Cold.

    A General Framework

    The main focus of this effort is Obama?s lack of eligibility for the Presidency, and to boldly put forth that he is a usurper. Naming it ?usurper?, and being prepared to say?verbally and with signage? ?usurping is not racist, its illegal?,? is critical to defining the terms of the discussion, and reclaims the language.

    We must offer a solution that is rooted in our Constitution:


    • Removal under 25th Amendment ?disability?
    • Demand the Court?s compliance with Article III?to hear the constitutional case
    • Congressional investigation and removal under the 20th or 25th amendments
    • Immediate arrest by FBI or military authorities
    • Arrest, prosecution and incarceration for identity theft, fraud, falsification of records

    We must also name associates, the purpose being to show them that we know who they are, that we are serious, and that we are not going away.

    A Thousand Cuts

    There is room in this effort for many people from each of the 50 States. We are literally dancing with wolves, or better yet, sharks, with a cast of thousands.

    So we have more thousands than they do. :razz:

    And in addition to American ingenuity, we have the love of our Country in heart and mind?something the communists, leftists, democrats, world elitists, and socialists will never have.? It is their Achilles heel, and our shattering silver bullet.

    Their future is uncertain because love changes everything.

    Please read the Velvet Revolution, and also review Revolution Radio?s interview with jbjd on specific action that can be taken in Texas on eligibility.

    If you want to join this discussion and seriously plan for the ?Usurpathon?,? tell me ?yes? in your comments and I will add you to the invitation list.


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:28
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Viernes, 02 de julio de 2010

    KERCHNER v OBAMA - Not Precedential Opinion - Transport Room


    ?Spaulding said...

    While Mario and the Commander expected the appeal to fail, the court's use of Berg and Hollister is insulting. We are approaching the criteria expressed in The Declaration in which patriots rejected the tyranny of the annointed. The tone and reasoning of this rejection are exemplified by the arrogance of this federal court.

    While the courts avoid their sworn allegiance to the Constitution behind their invented doctrine of standing, they won't be able to hide from "the people." I will contribute to Cmder Kerchner again, though my business is dead, with the hope that Mr. Apuzzo will explain to the the growing number of the injured, that the courts won't honor the Constitution because too many of us have been injured by the actions of a president whose authority has not been granted by our rule of law.

    Let us keep a list of those paid and sworn to uphold the Constitution who fail their to execute their duties and refer to that list when we take it back - and we will take it back!

    July 2, 2010 12:41 PM

    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:45
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
    Jueves, 01 de julio de 2010

    Is Defending the U.S. Constitution a Priority in 2010?



    by John F. Sweeney


    A painting depicting the events of July 9, 1776, when George Washington read the Declaration of Independence on the New York City Commons, after which the Sons of Liberty pulled down the statue of King George III

    (Jul. 1, 2010) ? In 2001, the U.S. felt the horror of militant Islamic terrorists whose goal was to terrify and paralyze the people of the United States and the world. As time has shown, they failed in their effort.

    But now, almost nine years later, we find uncertainty that seems to attack our sense of purpose as a nation. We are involved in two theaters of military operations that take their toll on American soldiers almost every day, with possibly a third theater on the horizon; our economy struggles mightily; our government enacts laws counter to the wishes of the majority of its citizens on a regular basis; and we have the largest environmental disaster creeping ever closer our shores. As the saying goes: if you are not concerned, you are not paying attention.

    But let?s not allow our concerns turn into fear, and let?s not forget our unique role in this world. The United States has always had and will always have its struggles. It will always sacrifice for what is right. And it will falter at times, but it will right itself. With all the challenges facing this nation, now is the time to remind ourselves and our children of the unique role of this nation. It is the beacon of the world. It may appear that many of our national leaders have forgotten this, but we must not forget why this nation is blessed, why we must never give up and why we will not fail.

    I wrote this in the fall of 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks:


    So this is what you think Jihad is? Killing, murdering. For what? You don?t even know. Is it for rewards in the afterlife? Is it to establish a radical fundamentalist Islamic world?

    Jihad is not a war but a struggle; at least that?s what we have been told. If that is the case, then maybe we can explain to you why your destruction is now certain. It is because as Americans we too have a Jihad.

    Since 1776 we have had a Jihad, although we do not use that term. It is called the defense of the Constitution of the United States. This document and its ideals established a representative republican form of government which provides freedom and liberty to Americans. It also provides the entire world with an example of how a government ?of the people, by the people and for the people?? can work. It wasn?t supposed to work. Some of the framers thought that this form of government was too fragile and doubted it would survive for long.

    Democracies had a history of being very short-lived.? However, our country has survived because, up until now, it has been a republic, not a democracy in which the people vote for so much largesse from the government that it implodes. It has survived a civil war, two world wars, scandals and abuses of power at the highest levels. It did not survive because Americans took the easy path. The Constitution of the United States has survived because of America?s fight to protect the gift given to us in 1776. Our struggle is not only for ourselves but for the world, although it goes quiet from time to time. It was very quiet on September 10, but awakened on September 11.

    In our struggle, our sons, fathers, mothers, daughters, brothers and sisters have died all over the world. In some cases, it was while fighting those who openly declared their desire to destroy the United States and its Constitution, and in other cases, it was to stop those who threatened the most cherished ideals of our formation:? the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Now I say to the Jihadists that? as your destruction comes closer, you may want to understand why your Jihad is failing and why ours is never-ending. Over 100 years ago, an American president stated that ?a government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.?

    President Bush made it clear that ?we will not fail.? You may think this statement was only applied to your destruction. What he meant is broader than that. It is that we will not fail to persevere when challenged and we will not fail to be the beacon of freedom and hope for the world.


    This is our Jihad.



    So in 2010 we have our struggles, militarily, environmentally, economically and politically. It is times like these when the ideals that gave us our country and its all-important Constitution may not seem important. But on the contrary, the defense of our Constitution is of the utmost importance right now. Without it and the ideals it embraces, our country and its freedoms will be lost, possibly forever. And the world will have lost its beacon.





    ? 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

    1 Response for ?Is Defending the U.S. Constitution a Priority in 2010??

    1. NUTN2SAY says:

      I can tell you from personal experience ? these sad days in America people get harassed for standing up in defense of the U.S. Constitution and especially if you bring up the subject of the ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 violation! The enemies of America, you know the Barack Obama/ACORN people are out there in numbers for the only purpose of harassing Constitutional Conservatives who make postings about Obama being the ILLEGAL unqualified Usurper according to the A2S1 violation! There is a war going on right now and at this stage the war battlefield is in cyberspace, but I?m afraid that as this war is prolonged the battlefield will move out into the streets of America! Why is it so impossible to get every concerned citizen of America organized and mobilized to the necessary point of having a sharp focus on Obama being an ILLEGAL Usurper that needs to be removed from our White House ASAP for the sake of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE!


    Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:22
    Comentarios (0)  | Enviar