Domingo, 29 de abril de 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012

President James Monroe and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

President James Monroe and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2012

James Monroe
Fifth President

I received an email today regarding our fifth President, James Monroe. What struck me as being applicable today was the article that was attached to the email. The article was a little biography on President Monroe. In that article is contained a part that included President Monroe’s concern about possible usurpation in our government. Below is my reflection on this article.

Indeed, President James Monroe, in his First Inaugural Address of March 4, 1817, warned:

"What raised us to the present happy state?...The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, the credit due...

It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.

Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin...

President Monroe then stated on December 7, 1824, in his 8th Annual Message:

"For these blessings we owe to Almighty God...with profound reverence, our most grateful and unceasing acknowledgments....

Having commenced my service in early youth, and continued it since with few and short intervals, I have witnessed the great difficulties to which our Union has been exposed, and admired the virtue and intelligence with which they have been surmounted...

That these blessings may be preserved and perpetuated will be the object of my fervent and unceasing prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

Source: Monroe, James. Dec. 2, 1817, First Annual Message. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages & Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature & Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. II, p. 12, as found at .

President Monroe was most dedicated to preserving the great nation that the United States had become. He saw usurpation as a most serious threat to that preservation.

Why was President Monroe so concerned about usurpation? To whom could Monroe have been referring when he spoke about “an usurper?” How could such a person become “an usurper?” Actually, Monroe answered this question by telling us that it was when the people became “ignorant and corrupt” that an usurper will come to power which in the end would produce the “debasement and ruin” of those same people.

What would make some political leader “an usurper” in the eyes of President Monroe? If it was the President and Commander in Chief of the Military that concerned Monroe, was it lack of being at least 35 years of age, of having at least 14 years of residency in the United States, or not being a "natural born Citizen" (the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 eligibility requirements) that so worried him? Who else other than the President could be so important and powerful in our government to give Monroe such concern about “an usurper?” Given the structure and balance of power in our government, it could only have been the President to whom Monroe was referring. And would Monroe be so concerned about age and residency or was it lack of being a "natural born citizen" that so worried him? After all, is it not from being a “natural born Citizen” that sole allegiance to and love of only one country from birth come from? Such love and attachment to only one country from birth would surely have been something that Monroe thought was needed for the well-being, happiness, and preservation of the United States.

This concern by Monroe makes the point about how important it is for us as a nation to assure that the “natural born Citizen” clause is not only honored and protected today, but preserved for the well-being and happiness of future American generations. But for this to occur, the nation must make sure that ill-informed or corrupt people do not allow such an usurpation to occur or to continue.

Our current putative President, Barack Obama, does not meet the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That definition is a child born in the United States to two parents who at the time of the child’s birth were both either “citizens of the United States” or “natural born Citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizens” but adding based on the English common law that “‘[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information supplied)). This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore still prevails today.

When Obama was born, wherever that may be, he was born to a father, Barack Obama Sr., who was a British citizen, and to a mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who was a “natural born Citizen.” Under both U.S. and British statutory and U.S. common law existing from the time the Constitution was adopted and to the present, Obama was born an English “natural born subject.” Being born an English “natural born subject,” the Founders and Framers and our early Congresses, as they expressed in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, would not even have considered him to be a “citizen,” let alone an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If he was born in the United States, a fact that he has yet to conclusively show, he can be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), which as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, granted constitutional birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents, just like a person can be a “citizen” under Congressional Acts which grant statutory birthright citizenship to persons born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But not being born to two U.S. citizen parents, Obama is not and can never be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Not being a “natural born Citizen, either because he was not born in the United States or because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents or both, is Obama the usurper of whom President Monroe warned us?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2012

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 19 de abril de 2012
Mi?rcoles, 18 de abril de 2012

Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Obama Lawyers Threaten Legal Action to Pull and Suppress NJ Ballot Challenge Hearing Video

Obama Lawyers Want the Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing Pulled and Suppressed
Commander Charles Kerchner

I heard this morning that the Obama lawyers are trying to suppress the videos of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge public hearing. So I called and spoke with Attorney Mario Apuzzo and he confirmed that Obama’s lawyers have called him and told him they are planning to take legal action to get the videos of the NJ Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing pulled and suppressed. What is the Obama side ashamed of and doesn’t want the world to see. Could it be that their Obama “emperor has no clothing on”, i.e., has no known conclusively proven true legal identity clothing/papers to show the world which Attorney Mario Apuzzo forced them to admit to and stipulate to in the NJ public hearing? Obama’s side obviously does not want people to see this video. Watch it yourself at the below links and learn why.
In these videos, the Obama side even wants to allow Mickey Mouse to run for President. To Obama and his lawyers the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility clause in Article II is a joke. You can see that in Part II at about 40 minutes into that segment. It was interesting that Obama’s lawyer chose and mentioned Mickey Mouse running for President and making a mockery of the election process in her statements in the hearing as Mickey Mouse was a contributor to Obama’s campaign in 2008 as part of the untraceable debit and credit card contributions that Obama accepted online, a good chunk of it alleged to have been illegally provided to Obama operatives from foreign sources.
Full Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing. Obama’s attorney did not wish the proceedings video taped. It has been learned from sources who recorded these videos with the court’s permission under NJ law that Obama’s lawyer did not want the hearing video taped and she tried before the start of the public hearing to get the cameras removed. However under NJ state law, video taping of public hearings is permitted. Now the Obama legal team wants to suppress these videos. See this channel link for the videos of this public hearing and/or via the other embedded links below:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA
Adolf Hitler and Obama's Illegal Alien Aunt Able to Donate to Obama 2012: Verification Disabled - DETAILS HERE
FLASHBACK: Will Mickey Mouse Get To Contribute Like In 2008? A screenshot below(at link) from the FEC website shows a $2,000 contribution from Mickey Mouse to Obama's 2008 campaign. You can replicate the finding yourself at the FEC website here;



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 12 de abril de 2012



DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

By Dan Crosby

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd as evidence toward proving Obama’s constitutional eligibility in court.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama does not legally exclude Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence on its merit in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for a crime which has not been proven that they committed.”

According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

"He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so."

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

The account of the trial can be read at:

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 09 de abril de 2012

Decide now to fire the President in November, and start now preparing to win your precinct, district, county, state, and nation

Why the President should be fired

- Henry Lamb Sunday, April 8, 2012
(6) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us

There are far more reasons to fire President Barack Hussein Obama than can be addressed in a single column. Here are just a few reasons that should be considered.

President Obama believes that theU.S. Constitution is flawed, and despite his oath to protect and defend it, he has consistently ignored it. Almost immediately after taking office, he assumed power not granted to him by the Constitution. He took control over the auto industry. He picked GM’s board of directors. He cancelled debt owed to bond holders and gave that money to labor unions instead. He, through his people, decided whichdealerships would close and which would remain open. Most of those that were closed, not surprisingly, were owned by Republican supporters.

President Obama sent military forces to bomb Libya without even notifying Congress. No war was declared, and, and according to the War Powers Act (Section 2(c)), to use military power without Congressional approval, the nation has to be under eminent threat of attack. Libya was not about to attack the U.S. His Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, told a Congressional committee that the Obama administration would seek permission from the U.N. for military action, before informing Congress of what action was taken.

Forty-three Presidents and 111 Congresses found no authority in the Constitution to force free Americans to purchase a government-specified product. Obama assumed and declared this authority in his “ObamaCare,” bill.

There is no Constitutional authority for these actions.

President Obama believes in the “One World” vision under the authority of the United Nations. From his first trips to foreign countries, he has bowed to foreign leaders andapologized for America’s accomplishments. He has accepted the U.N.‘s theory that the earth is dying because ofpopulation growth and abuse of resources. His entire energy policy is based on complying with the U.N.‘s theory that climate change is caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel.

More than 31,000 scientists say publicly that there is no human-caused global warming, nor is it likely in the future. The U.N. theory is based on computer models that fail to reflect reality. Models predicted a two-degree rise in temperature since the industrial revolution. Reality is a temperature rise of less than one degree, which cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Obama has embraced the U.N.‘s Agenda 21 program for achieving “sustainable development” by government control of land use, and of about every other facet of human experience. When Congress refuses to enact his policies, he finds another way to prevail. Through Executive Orders, he has created special councils that engage virtually every federal agency in the implementation of the recommendations contained in Agenda 21.

Obama’s vision of the future of America is for the country to fit nicely into global governance (scroll to page 3 and read as much as you can stand) designed by the U.N., and to obey whatever decisions the international community may decide. This vision rejects American exceptionalism, free-market capitalism, property rights, and individual freedom. Obama has made great strides toward this vision during his first term. Should he be re-elected, there is nothing to slow his imposition of this vision on the nation.

This vision alone is sufficient reason to fire the President in November.

During the next four years, the President is likely to appoint two Supreme Court Justices. If Obama is President, the nation will get Justices who share Obama’s world-view. Their view will be the majority on the Supreme Court. Decisions such as the current battle over ObamaCare will automatically go against the Constitution, in favor of the Progressive vision of government control of everything.

Their decisions would guide the nation for a generation or more.

On the other hand, should Obama get fired next November, new Supreme Court Justices would be more likely to respect and support the Constitution. There is no doubt that the Progressive “One Worlders” will continue their fight to gain control of everything. Those who cherish their individual freedom, their property rights, their opportunity to go start a business, must get involved as never before. Without a doubt, the upcoming election in November is the most import election in a lifetime. The future of the United States is at stake.

Whether Obama’s opponent in the election is perfect or not is of little concern. What is important is that he is not Obama, and he will not advance Obama’s views. Tea Parties, 9/12, and property rights groups must activate their memberships and plan now to get as many people as possible to the polls. Labor unions and other Obama supporters are gearing up to win. Those who love and respect the Constitution must do the same.

This President and his administration must be fired!

Harry Reid and his majority of Senate Democrats must also be fired. Harry Reid has brought the U.S. Congress to a standstill by not allowing any Republican ideas to be considered, while twisting the rules all out of shape to ensure that Obama’s vision is enacted.

Decide now to fire the President in November, and start now preparing to win your precinct, district, county, state, and nation.

Henry Lamb
Most recent columns

Henry is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Henry Lamb can be reached at:[email protected]

Older articles by Henry Lamb

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 06 de abril de 2012

Carney: Obama Not Understood Because He Spoke In "Shorthand" Since He Is A Law Professor

Jay Carney: Obama Not Understood Because He's a Law Professor

During a tense White House press briefing Wednesday, Jay Carney had a long exchange with Fox News reporter Ed Henry about what President Obama really meant when he said the Supreme Court would be engaging in activism should ObamaCare be struck down. Carney's response to the outrage? Americans just didn't "understand" what President Obama said because he is a "law professor." 

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?
Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.
Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.
Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in "shorthand" since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.


Send To A Friend Comments Share


ItsJo  10 hours ago

Oh I see Jay Corney, is saying that since Obama is sooo highly intellectual, we the dummies of America don't understand things on 'his level'.  To hell we don't....we are ALL capable of knowing when someone(even Obama) is trying to pull a fast one, then back peddles it, cause he knows he said too much.   All people that ARE paying attention, know exactly what this Fraud is doing-he is writing and enacting his Own Dictator tactics, bypassing Congress and just doing what HE wants. He has a very corrupt regime, that All do the Marxist bidding, and now Obama is trying to 'bully the SCOTUS',  though he "stacked the deck with his own little puppets, Kagan, Sotomayor and they ARE going to try to pull off his dictates.    This Wimpy Congress should have impeached this Fraud, as they ALL know what he IS, and that he's selling us out-just listen to his reassuring the Russians as he looks out for THEM, but NOT America.   He should BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.


iowafarm  11 hours ago

How can Carney even keep a straight face when he says Obama's message to the S Ct. was in "shorthand" because he is a law professor?  There was nothing shorthand about the egregious way that Barack Obama crossed constitutional lines and tried to pretend that some branches of government are not equal.  Last I studied constitutional law, there were 3 branches: executive, judicial, and legislative.  They act as checks and balances on each other.   Pretty basic concept for everyone in 6th grade civics.  Guess an ex- "law professor," and I use the term loosely, needs to go back to grade school civics class and relearn the Constitution he swore to uphold.



Now, he's blaming all of us for not understanding what he had said last Monday while in the company of President Calderon Of Mexico, and Prime Minister of Canada. 

IMHO, Obama was showing off standing side by side with two foreign leaders, that he can criticise the U.S. Supreme Court with impunity; the American people will believe him, constitutional scholars all over USA, will give him a thumbs up, and the media will carry his water bottle to protect him and give their own spin like Toobin.

It never dawn on Obama, he would be wrong in two assumptions; at least 70% of the American people totally find his statement last Monday; disgraceful,  arrogant, appalling, has no respect for the Judicial branch of the government. Constitutional scholars regardsless of their political leanings called him ignorant.

Only the media continues their task of carrying his water bottle. Even rational thinking Democrats found his statement last Monday ignorant matched with arrogance.

I question now if Obama even graduated at Harvard law school with flying colors or he is the last in his class; earning a grade just enought to pass. Or they just gave him passing grades due to Affirmative Action?

Obama is a good orator if he has a teleprompter, I mean he can match his reading from the teleprompter with his hand movement which in my opinion is laughable in every aspect you can imagine. He even use a teleprompter speaking to fourth graders in 2010 or 2011.

Today, it is OUR FAULT we did not understand his speech because he was speaking in shorthand (never heard of "speaking in short hand, unless it's a sign language). WE are just too dumb, too slow in the brain department, we can't decipher his "shorthand" languagage berating the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obama's remaining months at the Oval Office, is disgraceful, an insult to all Americans. Obama is not a serious man, an embarassment to us all; and worse; he's a habitual liar and narcissist. As far as he's concern; he's perfect , the smartest man in USA - the rest of us are  dumb and stupid, we can't see and decipher how awesome he is!

Excuse me ladies and gentlemen, while I puke! Obama is giving me severe acid reflux.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 05 de abril de 2012

Exposing the Obama-Soetoro deception

- Doug Hagmann  Thursday, April 5, 2012 
(21) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us

imageOn Saturday, March 31, 2012, a press conference was held by a commissioned law enforcement body to present additional findings from their investigation into the bona fides and background of a man currently occupying the highest elected position in America. The investigation not only includes the forensic irregularities of the birth documentation submitted by Barack Hussein Obama, but into two additional areas. The official law enforcement investigation is also encompassing problems confirmed to exist with the authenticity of his selective service registration, a matter we’ve previously reported. Additionally and perhaps more explosive, investigation has broadened into the actions of Hillary Clinton and her closest political operatives during the latter part of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Most people following this issue are aware of the irregularities surrounding Obama’s selective service registration. Yet few appear to be aware that detectives from the Arizona investigative team have been methodically securing affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign during the 2008 Democratic Party primary.

“Something” happened during the latter portion of the campaign that involved Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Recall that Obama and Clinton ditched the press and their respective staff members tomeet in secret during the late night hours of Thursday, June 5, 2008, at the home of Senator Dianne Feinstein. The meeting lasted about an hour, and what was discussed was never publicly disclosed.

The expansion of the official investigation is being deliberately ignored by the mainstream media, including outlets often identified with the conservative agenda. Evidence suggests that this deliberate media “blackout” is being orchestrated and ordered at the highest levels of the American government.

Preliminary investigative findings

On March 1, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference to announce their preliminary findings of a six-month long investigation into the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s long formbirth certificate that was published on the White House website on April 27, 2011. At that press conference, Sheriff Arpaio stated that the official investigation, conducted by seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers, found “probable cause to believe that the [document] is a computer generated forgery.” Arpaio added: “I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public.” [Emphasis added].

I’ve spoken at length with lead Detective Mike Zullo in my capacity as an investigator before and after that initial press conference. It is clear that the objective of his team of seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers is to seek and expose the truth about Obama’s background and legal qualifications for the highest office in the land, wherever it might lead. Authenticated evidence of any type, including exculpatory evidence is being sought as well.

Detective Zullo confirmed, however, that their efforts are being obstructed by government officials, and publicly marginalized by the media. Based on most recent investigative findings, government agencies have blocked legitimate subpoena efforts, or worse, might have altered or destroyed evidence with apparent impunity.

Such actions or inactions of government agencies in this regard should give pause to even the most ardent detractors of the eligibility matter if they were at all interested in the truth.

Threats to the media

We were perhaps the first to document and report the threats to the media in a columnpublished on August 4, 2009, citing evidence we obtained dating back to late 2008.Information provided here over two years ago was publicly confirmed by lead investigator Mike Zullo in a March 22, 2012 interview published this week by the Western Center for Journalism. Excerpted from that report:

The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script, literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.

For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing [sic] is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.

Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.

Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are…

As also confirmed by law enforcement, our investigation has found that the threats to the media have taken several forms. At the highest of corporate levels, it appears that government agencies such as the FCC, the FTC and even the IRS are being used to force parent companies into compliance with the administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” warnings. Complicity reigns in other cases where contributions buy exclusives, the mainstay of mainstream media. And in others, it simply comes down to something that can be termed “presstitution,” or the act of acquiescence to keep their positions and lifestyles in exchange for their silence.

Perhaps the most insidious threats of all, however, involve individuals working in the media but are not in the limelight, yet could provide information about the activities behind the scenes intrinsic to the media’s complicity. As detailed above by Detective Zullo, threats do not stop at the specter of unemployment, but extend to the well-being of their families.

Threats to Sheriff Joe Arpaio

In the midst of the investigation spearheaded by Sheriff Arpaio’s team, the Obama justice department has ratcheted up its legal campaign against the Sheriff for enforcing the law against illegal aliens within his jurisdiction. This is a shameful tactic being employed by the Holder Justice Department under orders by the Obama administration.


Out on a limb

Findings by the commissioned law enforcement body have been met with a campaign of propaganda short on facts but heavy on baseless ridicule and hollow charges of racism. Such tactics should come as no surprise.

A 2009 Christmas ornament on the White House Christmas tree featured a picture of Mao Zedong, communist leader of China in the twentieth century. The reign of Mao Zedong was facilitated by the communist government’s use of propaganda and media censorship. While the White House and their own “Ministry of Propaganda,” Media Matters, trivialized the existence of a communist in the White House, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn proudly embraced Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers in a speech she delivered the previous June.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of history can see the tactics used to refute valid concerns about the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama are quite consistent with the tactics of Mao’s oppressive regime. It is apparent that the Mao Christmas ornament did not fall from the White House tree.

Who is really occupying the Oval Office?

The Arizona investigative team of commissioned law enforcement officers found probable cause that the most basic of all forms of identity for the man sitting in the Oval Office, the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II, is a computer generated forgery. Think about that for a moment. The document that has the imprimatur of the Obama White House is likely a forgery.

Furthermore, that document was posted only after Obama authorized his legal team to fight against any release of his identification papers that also include his school and passport records, among others. The fight did not come without a cost. Estimates of legal expenses to prevent disclosure of identifying documents are well into the seven figures.

Despite such effort and expense, some well-known analysts and pundits want us to believe that Obama was “playing” his enemies with a needless diversion, claiming that the eligibility issue was nothing more than a distraction from “real” issues. Many others have since folded with the release of the purported “real” birth certificate released last April, stating that the matter is closed.

To accept that the matter should be rendered moot with the release of the Obama authorized document, one must then admit that the initial document presented by Obama sanctioned myth-busting sites was not legitimate.
Others simply choose to remain silent, or believe the answer is to “vote Obama out” in November. Is that how we now address possible criminal activity at the highest levels of government? If so, I would submit that Richard Nixon is owed an apology, posthumously.

As unbelievable as it sounds, it is a fact that the actual legal identity of the individual who has occupied the office of the President of the United States for the last 3-1/2 years remains a very legitimate and valid question. It is also a fact that this individual has used Barry Soetoro as his legal name, and there has been no authenticated evidence to show that he legally changed it back to Barack Hussein Obama II at any time during his adult life.

To Russia with love?

If the issue of Obama’s legal identity seems trivial and a fringe issue in the scheme of things, consider the path this country has taken over the last three-and-a-half years. Even more frightening, consider the path not yet taken.
A window into that path was opened by a “hot” microphone that captured Obama’s utterances to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on March 26, 2012. The world heard Obama say that he would have more flexibility in his second term to adjust our missile defense program to the better liking of the Russians.

The media turned this insight into his plans for the defense of our allies and homeland into tongue-in-cheek reports, downplaying the significance of his statements.

No one in the media or elsewhere are making any connection to a very peculiar 2005 incident involving Obama, a junior Senator and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana and chairman of that committee, and the Russian FSB.

During their travels to Russia for the purposes of nuclear disarmament talks, the delegation was detained at the Russian airport of Perm by the FSB for about three hours in August 2005. The Russian FSB confiscated Barack Hussein Obama’s passport. Initial reports indicated an irregularity with his passport, although subsequent reports downplayed the incident. What was the real reason for this very strange detention, and what does the FSB know about Obama’s passport that Americans have been prevented to see?

Over the objections of career politicians, race bating progressive attack dogs, intellectually dishonest political pundits and a compromised media, it should be very clear by now that it is in the best interest of this country for the truth to revealed about Barack Hussein Obama II, or is it Barry Soetoro?

The survival of our nation is at stake.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 04 de abril de 2012

Michael Savage: Obama threatens Supreme Court

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificates

with 3 comments

Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificates

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes EvidencePresented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama’s Birth CertificatesSheriff Joe Arpaio‘s and Mara Zebest’s reports were included in the Petition submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker noted in the Order to Strike Hugh McInnish’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus:
Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificatesof President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”


Article II Super PAC

Providing Video Coverage of Sheriff Joe’s March 31st Event: Interview with Lord Monckton here: 




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:42
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar;contentBody

April 3, 2012 3:42 PM

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

Jan Crawford
Supreme Court
(Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Updated 6:55 p.m. ET

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but thepresident today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases." Special Report: Health Care Reform

  • Jan Crawford

    Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Rothschild ~ Obama Tyranny Can Never Be Enforced Without The Aid Of Uniformed Military And Police: Domestic Military Intervention For Obama’s Removal


“An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the capital security of a free republic, and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the community.

George Washington

President George Washington Structured The Militia System To Prevent Treason And Tyranny By Public Officials!

In this special video presentation for Prison members filmed from the new Infowarstelevision studioAlex Jones hosts a round table discussion featuring Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center Michael Boldin, as well as activist and economic writer Brandon Smith of Alt-Market, to discuss thestates’ rights movement and how Americans need to organize now to take back power usurped in a myriad of different ways by the federal government.

Rhodes explains how history tells us that tyranny can never be enforced without the aid of uniformed military and police, highlighting the case of East Germany where troops were told to stand down and two days later the Berlin wall fell. Rhodes documents how the implementation of a totalitarian infrastructure in the United States has led to the President having supreme power to assassinate US citizens by declaring them “enemy combatants” and how this sets an ominous benchmark for the level of power that has been accumulated by the executive branch of government. The federal government, the Southern Policy Law Center and the ADL have all targeted Oath Keepers simply because the group attempts to re-affirm commitment to the bill of rights amongst active duty soldiers and law enforcement.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 02 de abril de 2012

Those Inciting Violence Over Martin Tragedy Must be Prosecuted

Share7 |
| (19) Comments | Subscribe | Back to full Article | Contact Us
 By Kelly OConnell  Monday, April 2, 2012

imageThe recent tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin understandably stirred up great debate over self-defense laws, citizen patrols, gun rights, and racial profiling. But despite the fact that the actual details of the case are still in dispute, several celebrities have called for a vigilante response. The question here is whether the right of Free Speech would protect these actions. The answer is, according to the US Supreme Court in the seminal case Brandenburg v. Ohio, Free Speech rights do not protect persons from words bringing harm to others. This is the topic of this essay, which suggests the USDOJ consider prosecuting these persons before the innocent are hunted down and murdered in the name of celebrity justice.

I. Trayvon Martin Case

The Trayvon Martin case involved a juvenile Florida Black teen shot and killed under disputed circumstances by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman on 2/26/2012. What exactly occurred that night in Zimmerman’s Sanford, FL housing tract is still not clear. Some believe Zimmerman a racist murderer, while others believe Martin caused him to defend himself with deadly force. The tragedy sparked a firestormregarding the issues of race, crime, and self-protection in America.

II. Acts of Inciting Violence: Lee, Barr & Sharpton

Various persons have demanded justice in the Martin case, including the New Black Panthers, and various blithering celebrities, all demanding a vigilantism. Consider the following.

A. Spike Lee

Director Spike Lee sent out a tweet to his quarter-million followers purporting to contain the address of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, along with the message, “Reach out and touch him.” It was the wrong address, and the terrified elderly owners at the wrong address fled for their lives. Lee apologized for his mistake,offering cash to make up for the error. But what was he trying to achieve? What did he believe the likely outcome of his tweet would be had it contained the correct address? Was this not an attempt to enable vigilantism? Shouldn’t Lee be punished for such an evil deed? Reports Smoking Gun:

With the Internet exploding with posts purporting to contain George Zimmerman’s address, the home address is actually the longtime residence of a married Florida couple, both in their 70s, with no connection to the man who killed Trayvon Martin and are now living in fear due to erroneous reports about their connection to the shooter. The mass dissemination of the address on Edgewater Circle in Sanford—the Florida city where Martin was shot to death last month—took flight last Friday when director Spike Lee retweeted a tweet containing Zimmerman’s purported address to his 240,000 followers.

B. Roseanne Barr

TV star Roseanne Barr tweeted personal information of George Zimmerman. She gave the actual address of his parents to her fans. But why? First of all, what did Barr, granddaughter of European Jewish immigrants, believe would be the logical outcome of George Zimmerman’s angry critics securing his parent’s address? Further, even if one believed in vigilantism, how are Zimmerman’s parents responsible for their son’s deeds? Smoking Gun reports,

Comedian Roseanne Barr last night tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents to her 110,000-plus Twitter followers, only to delete the posting after “not fully understanding that it was private not public.” There is no indication that Zimmerman, who is reportedly in hiding, is holed up in his parents’s residence. Barr stated, “I thought it was good to let ppl know you can’t hide anymore...&...If Zimmerman isn’t arrested I’ll rt his address again…maybe go 2 his house myself.

This is not the first time Barr used social media to express contempt. For example, she recently claimed Kirk Cameron was inciting murder for opposing gay marriage, writing “kirk or kurt or whatever cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” The Marxist entertainer without a degree and advocate of Communist reeducation camps, is worth an estimated $80 million. She also recommends beheading the wealthy (video), stating:

I first would allow guilty bankers to pay…back anything over 100 million in personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of 100 million dollars and if they’re unable to live on that amount then they should go to the reeducation camps, and if that doesn’t help, then be beheaded.

C. Al Sharpton

MSNBC host and racial relations commentator “Rev” Al Sharpton, who first became prominent during the Tawana Brawley case, recently demanded vigilantism in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. The Orlando Sentinel stated,

If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, the Rev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions. “I will speak about how the National Action Network will move to the next level if Zimmerman isn’t arrested,” said Sharpton, who founded the Network.

Did it ever occur to Sharpton that his followers might take the law into their own hands to deliver “justice” to Zimmerman, his friends or family? Of course, Sharpton is not one to amend his actions, right or wrong. Because, despite the fact the Brawley case was proved an utter hoax, destroying many innocent lives, Sharpton has never apologized, despite losing a defamation trial. In fact, without the Brawley hoax, no one would have ever heard of Sharpton. Recalls the Economist about the defamation trial,

“We stated openly Steven Pagones did it. If we’re lying, sue us, so we can go into court and prove it.” (Al Sharpton) It was inevitable Al Sharpton’s mouth would eventually get him into trouble; inevitable too the Tawana Brawley affair, where a young black girl claimed she was raped by a gang of white men and left in a rubbish bag, would come back to haunt both Sharpton & New York. On July 13th an upstate New York jury found seven statements by Sharpton defamatory.

D. Black Panther $10,000 Reward

Ratcheting up the drama, one group has offered a significant reward for George Zimmerman, according to the Global Post:

The New Black Panther Party today offered a $10,000 reward for the capture of Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman. The group also called for 5,000 black men to mobilize and search for Zimmerman, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. ... If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” NBPP leader Mikhail Muhammad said.

III. Law on Inciting Hatred & Violence: Brandenburg v. Ohio

The question is whether the above described acts could be charged as crimes. Most crime in America is prosecuted where it happens, within state jurisdiction. But with today’s frequent use of Internet and multi-media electronic communications, prosecutors are willing to use creative means to punish interstate evil-doing. (Details of intricacies prosecuting threats via communications systems analyzed here)

These acts occurred across state lines. Either state or federal law could theoretically address the issue. Most states have laws against Inciting Violence as well as against Hate Crimes. In theory, Florida could prosecute Lee, Barr, Sharpton, or the NBPP with state law given they communicated their messages into Florida. RICO statutes could be used against the New Black Panthers, too. This situation is complicated by Free Speech laws and the fact that the actions happened between states. But there could still be a prosecution for all parties involved.

A. Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio is the quintessential case regarding incitement of violence through words. This case sets the standard for whether bigoted speech crosses the line into illegality (summary):

The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

B. Analysis of Criminal Incitement in Martin Case

These celebrity’s communications became illegal when they knew their words would quite likely lead to violence. In fact, demand for justice where widespread complaints were made that no justice occurred was their chief motivation.

According to the test in Brandenburg, (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Clearly, the motivation for all of these communications was to evoke a response from the public. These people knew the reaction could easily become violent, if not deadly. In fact, in the case of Spike Lee, he demanded, “Reach out and touch him.”

These entertainers didn’t need to demand that violence be done, just merely knowing their gratuitous acts would make it much more likely that imminent lawless actions would occur as a direct result of their communications.

These actions could violate the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. ¬ß 245(b)(2), allowing federal prosecution of persons who “willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person’s race, color, religion or national origin.” Arguably, Zimmerman was targeted as a non-Black, having killed a Black person. For if it were a Black-on-Black crime would it have made the papers? Also, why not consider prosecuting NBC under the same law for wilfully editing to distort Zimmerman’s police call to make him sound racist?

Further, why not consider prosecuting the New Black Panthers with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)? One could argue NBPP’s offer of $10,000 was an interstate bounty which could be prosecuted by the feds as a type of illegal commerce.

IV. Obama Administration’s Failure to Promote Rule of Law

Where is Barack Obama’s outrage—regarding the New Black Panthers $10,000 reward for George Zimmerman, after injecting himself personally into the affair? Is he really confused enough to think that if he were to condemn this private bounty that it would imperil his re-election campaign?

Again, where is Eric Holder’s DOJ to condemn these actions? Instead, absolutely insane race-driven policies, such as refusing to prosecute Black Panthers for voter fraud, stand out. That is why this administration has no credibility. Did Obama even attempt to follow through on his promises to craft a post-partisan administration? How can this White House not be remembered as the most biased and politicized in American history?

Reports the WA Times on Rep. Allen West’s response to the NBPP bounty:

I vehemently condemn the bounty poster emanating from the New Black Panther Party putting a $10,000 ransom up for the capture of George Zimmerman and call upon the US Department of Justice to prosecute their actions, clearly a hate crime. We have seen this type of abhorrent behavior from this group previously in 2008 as part of a voter intimidation action, it is reprehensible. To openly solicit for the death of an American citizen, with reward, is not in keeping with the laws of due process which governs this Constitutional Republic.


The greatness of America came from developing new standards for the rules and rectitude of elected officials. Chief was the creation of the first modern Constitution and our separation of powers. These ideas undergird the fundamental foundation of America’s theory of government—the Rule of Law. America’s beauty rests on the notion that no man shall be above the law, but the law shall be above all men. Unfortunately, Obama’s great failure was to forget this most fundamental American conviction.

Kelly OConnell  Bio

Kelly OConnell Most recent columns

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

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

Kelly can be reached at:[email protected]

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar