Transformation and Infiltration of America: The United States of Frankenstein
OBAMA’S PLAN FOR AMERICA
by Dr. Laurie Roth, Presidential Candidate
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Have Americans allowed a Frankenstein to be created?
(Jan. 24, 2012) — Obama has told us for years what his ‘change’ plan would be if elected. He plans to bring America down in size and turn her into a broken-up Barbie Doll…..maybe Ken. Maybe we will become a hybrid Barbie/Ken combo that is confused.
Obama has never been a mystery to anyone, including our lame-brain media and political leaders who look the other way as more of our Constitutional skin gets ripped off. Various sources offer several estimates as to how many Czars Obama has appointed. Some say that now it is up to 45 Czars, who completely bypass Congress.
When I even start to look at the Czars’ profiles, I am stunned into silence, then start screaming in unbelief! All are radical leftists. Listing the horror show of the Czars is a whole other article. The selection of Czars, however, tells us everything about Obama. He is anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-US achievement, pro-abortion, anti-sovereignty, anti-Constitution, anti-border security and anti-God. That pretty much covers it.
One of my show listeners recently reminded me of a “Meet The Press” interview back on Sunday, Sept, 7th, 2008. Just a few highlights tell you exactly who Obama is and what he planned to do way back.
Highlights of Meet the Press Interview Sunday, Sept. 7th, 2008 with Obama
Remember when Obama wouldn’t follow protocol when our National Anthem was played? General Bill Ginn, USAF (ret) reminded then- Senator Obama of our longstanding protocol and U.S. Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec.171… about standing at attention,with the right hand over the heart, facing the flag when hearing the national anthem. Obama was also asked about why he wouldn’t wear a flag pin. Obama stated:
“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides…..” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression…” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air, and all that sort of thing.”
Then, Obama blew my mind with his next quote.
“The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails —perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments…..”
There is more. Read the last bit he proudly said in the famous “Meet The Press” interview:
“When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag, and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.”
“Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. May wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.”
How is the transformation working for you?
Per Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky, he has been hitting America as fast as he can from all sides with the goal to dismember our freedoms, image and power.
Widgets of Obama destruction from day one:
Moral betrayal – Undoing the Mexico City policy so we would now pay for abortions around the world. I guess we hadn’t murdered enough babies in America. While Obama set up the murder of millions more babies he was boldly declaring to the Turkish Parliament that we were no longer a Christian nation.
Health betrayal – Obama hasturned the best health care system from ‘safe and effective’ care to ‘cost-effective’ care with forced ‘end of life counseling for our seniors,’ ‘paid abortions,’ ‘care for illegal aliens,’ ‘not so hidden taxes everywhere,’‘threats and fines if we don’t have Government approved health insurance,’ andon and on. At least 27 states have stood against this along with two Federal Judges….now we await the Supreme Court’s ruling.
NDAA betrayal – Obama couldn’t be more thrilled about the NDAA bill that he signed into law. Now he can violate Posse Comitatus, our Miranda rights,grab up any US citizen under vague terrorist accusations, hold us indefinitely without charges and without trial. John McCain and Carl Levin authored this fascist tool for our demise and so did ALL who voted for it. It is a total betrayal to our Constitution and America. All who signed this should be impeached, including Obama!
Stunningly, in a recent debate,GOP hopeful Mitt Romney said he supported the NDAA bill. So,not only is Romney for gay marriage, really pro-choice,created the inspirational health care bill that inspired Obamacare, but he is also a fascist and plans to be a dictator as Obama is and proudly crush our rights. Commentator Sher Zieve was the first to refer to Obama as ‘Dictator-in-Chief.’ Now, this term is taking hold everywhere. Gee, are a few people waking up? Sickeningly, both Obama and Romney said they wouldn’t turn on Americans because of their ‘character’ and ‘goodness.’ Doesn’t that make you feel special and safe?
Right on the heels of the NDAA Bill, we saw the Activation of FEMA camps while politicians and major media looked the other way. I’m wondering if they will continue to be mute if someday they end up in one?
Other tools of destruction – Infiltration
Obama now has the dictatorial authority he needs to apprehend any American at any time and whisk us off to ‘God knows where’forever. He has FEMA camps ready to imprison anyone he wants.
Obama has the military as his weapon, though it is unclear if all will obey his command and turn on their ownjust because he is the ‘Commander in Chief.’ Time will tell.
Obama also has the TSA as his weapon, hiding behind security and protection. We see groping, random searches, nudie machines, now an altercation with Senator Rand Paul because he didn’t want to be groped. Naturally Obama has stood with the over-the-edge and grossly inappropriate TSA instead of the Senator.
Bring in the Muslims
While folks are distracted and busy with their lives, Obama is flooding our country with imported Muslims. Debbie Schlussel exposed Obama’s absurd announcement at Disney World that he planned to make it way easier for foreigners to come to America. She states that Obama has quadrupled the amount of Saudi Muslims coming in, from 25,000 in 2010 to 110,000 in 2011. 93% are being approved.
A few years back after Obama already gave $900 million to the radical Muslim group Hamas, he brought many of them to live in the US as well. Why?
Now, we see many members of the radical Muslim group, Muslim Brotherhood, working in high level positions for Obama. We have been completely infiltrated by radical Islam…..wait, but there is more.
Obama supports radical, separatist Hispanic groups
Obama gave a high profile speech of support to LaRaza (NCLR). This is a radical, racist and separatist group that demands amnesty,our southwestern states to be returned to Mexico and states their race is first. Obama has tripled the taxpayer funds given to NCLR. In fact, Cecilia Munoz,a member of this radical group, is the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs.
This week I interviewed Al Garza, a Mexican-American patriot and former executive director of the Minute Men. I’m honored to say he endorses my candidacy. We talked about the real intention of Hispanic radical groups such as LaRaza, Aztlan, Mecha and others. He said these groups aren’t interested at all in becoming American, supporting our Constitution and law, but rather, demand Amnesty and want our southern states to go back to Mexico.
This push to radical, separatist Hispanic groups and radical Islamic groups is nothing but Obama implanting dangerous and anti-American foreigners throughout our country. He is doing this to manipulate a larger voting bloc and implant radical, leftist-thinking that reflects his anti-American and Islamic heart.
What to do:
Understand the scale of our challenge and problem. We have a dictator in the White House and could get another one if we aren’t careful. Don’t break the law, but stand and march in the streets for freedom. Write your Congress person and Senator and demand the repeal of NDAA and the Health Care bill for starters.
Vote only for those who REALLY support and love the United States, our Judeo-Christian values and our Constitution.
Join me each day on my show at: www.therothshow.com Find out more at www.laurieroth2012.com
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Which Laws Could Have Been Broken?
MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION OF FELONY?
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Can the U.S. Department of Justice fail to prosecute federal law-breakers?
(Jan. 23, 2012) — Numerous graphics, typesetting, Adobe® and scanning professionals have claimed that the long-form birth certificate image bearing the alleged details of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth presented to the public on April 27, 2012 is a forgery. If that is the case, which federal statutes have been violated, if any, by placing the image on federal government property?How many people might have participated in the crime, and what might the penalties be?
If the Hawaii Department of Health has been obfuscating the fact that they have no birth certificate bearing Obama’s name, or that what they have is falsified, of which crime(s) are they guilty?
If people within the Democrat National Committee or Democrat Party knew that identity theft had been committed and a “synthetic identity” presented to the American people as a ruse to win a presidential election, are they guilty of conspiracy?
If Obama ran for president under a false identity with a fabricated life story, was he ever really the President?
If misuse of government property, including computer servers, personnel, and occupation of the White House under false pretenses has occurred, what might the consequences be?
U.S. Code provides for penalties for members of the three branches of federal government who:
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Would that include the Congressional Research Service?
18 USC 371 states:
Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
If a person is aware that a crime has been committed and fails to report it to the authorities, he or she could be found guilty of Misprision of Felony and spend up to three years in jail:
Sec. 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
On Friday, January 20, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama attorney Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash several subpoenas issued by Atty. Orly Taitz requesting original or certified documentation of his social security number application, birth record, and any aliases he might have used during his life. The judge stated that a legitimate reason might exist as to why Obama cannot attend, but that his counsel failed to supply it.
The administrative court hearing in Atlanta, GA is scheduled to hear three ballot challenges filed under OCGA 21-2-5, which allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for state or federal office. Obama is being asked to prove his constitutional eligibility and placement on the presidential ballot for November.
The mainstream press has been interviewing Atty. Taitz about the upcoming hearing. Taitz has stated that federal officials, including judges, have participated in a “cover up.”
Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Obama does not plan to attend, but instead will be holding “events” in the Western part of the country. The report does not say “campaign events.” The official White House presidential calendar shows an empty schedule for Obama from January 22 and forward but features the planned State of the Union address for January 24. The Vice President’s calendar is empty. UPI shows the January 23, 2012 presidential schedule as a meeting with the vice president and hosting of the Boston Bruins.
Update, 9:48 a.m ET: The White House presidential schedule now reflects the UPI posting noted above, but no schedule is posted for the remainder of this week. Obama’s previous weeks in office have shown full daily and weekly schedules.
Is Obama doing his job this week? How busy is he? Why is the White House showing no schedule for either Obama or Biden? Is Obama really running for re-election, or just going through the motions?
Rather than attend the hearing in Georgia, could Obama simply supply the information requested in the subpoenas issued by Taitz? In his book, he said he found his “birth certificate” with his vaccination forms and other personal papers. If that is the case, what does the state of Hawaii have on file, and why do they refuse to reveal it?
Was Obama’s letter to Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy a ruse?
Should Obama fail to attend the hearing or provide the requested documents to the Georgia court, is he guilty of contempt of court?
18 USC, Sect. 401 states:
Sec. 401. Power of court
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
For an event of potentially great magnitude, why would anyone encourage American citizens concerned about a candidate’s eligibility to stay home? Could the judge have Obama jailed if he does not comply with the subpoena?
Did anyone in the Obama regime learn of crimes after they were committed and fail to report them? 18 USC, Section 3 states:
Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
United States Code addressing blackmail reads:
Sec. 873. Blackmail
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Has anyone within the Obama regime committed or been a victim of blackmail?
If Obama has committed treason against the United States, what should the penalty be?
MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION OF FELONY?
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Can the U.S. Department of Justice fail to prosecute federal law-breakers?
(Jan. 23, 2012) — Numerous graphics, typesetting, Adobe® and scanning professionals have claimed that the long-form birth certificate image bearing the alleged details of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth presented to the public on April 27, 2012 is a forgery. If that is the case, which federal statutes have been violated, if any, by placing the image on federal government property?How many people might have participated in the crime, and what might the penalties be?
If the Hawaii Department of Health has been obfuscating the fact that they have no birth certificate bearing Obama’s name, or that what they have is falsified, of which crime(s) are they guilty?
If people within the Democrat National Committee or Democrat Party knew that identity theft had been committed and a “synthetic identity” presented to the American people as a ruse to win a presidential election, are they guilty of conspiracy?
If Obama ran for president under a false identity with a fabricated life story, was he ever really the President?
If misuse of government property, including computer servers, personnel, and occupation of the White House under false pretenses has occurred, what might the consequences be?
U.S. Code provides for penalties for members of the three branches of federal government who:
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Would that include the Congressional Research Service?
18 USC 371 states:
Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
If a person is aware that a crime has been committed and fails to report it to the authorities, he or she could be found guilty of Misprision of Felony and spend up to three years in jail:
Sec. 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
On Friday, January 20, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama attorney Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash several subpoenas issued by Atty. Orly Taitz requesting original or certified documentation of his social security number application, birth record, and any aliases he might have used during his life. The judge stated that a legitimate reason might exist as to why Obama cannot attend, but that his counsel failed to supply it.
The administrative court hearing in Atlanta, GA is scheduled to hear three ballot challenges filed under OCGA 21-2-5, which allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for state or federal office. Obama is being asked to prove his constitutional eligibility and placement on the presidential ballot for November.
The mainstream press has been interviewing Atty. Taitz about the upcoming hearing. Taitz has stated that federal officials, including judges, have participated in a “cover up.”
Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Obama does not plan to attend, but instead will be holding “events” in the Western part of the country. The report does not say “campaign events.” The official White House presidential calendar shows an empty schedule for Obama from January 22 and forward but features the planned State of the Union address for January 24. The Vice President’s calendar is empty. UPI shows the January 23, 2012 presidential schedule as a meeting with the vice president and hosting of the Boston Bruins.
Update, 9:48 a.m ET: The White House presidential schedule now reflects the UPI posting noted above, but no schedule is posted for the remainder of this week. Obama’s previous weeks in office have shown full daily and weekly schedules.
Is Obama doing his job this week? How busy is he? Why is the White House showing no schedule for either Obama or Biden? Is Obama really running for re-election, or just going through the motions?
Rather than attend the hearing in Georgia, could Obama simply supply the information requested in the subpoenas issued by Taitz? In his book, he said he found his “birth certificate” with his vaccination forms and other personal papers. If that is the case, what does the state of Hawaii have on file, and why do they refuse to reveal it?
Was Obama’s letter to Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy a ruse?
Should Obama fail to attend the hearing or provide the requested documents to the Georgia court, is he guilty of contempt of court?
18 USC, Sect. 401 states:
Sec. 401. Power of court
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
For an event of potentially great magnitude, why would anyone encourage American citizens concerned about a candidate’s eligibility to stay home? Could the judge have Obama jailed if he does not comply with the subpoena?
Did anyone in the Obama regime learn of crimes after they were committed and fail to report them? 18 USC, Section 3 states:
Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
United States Code addressing blackmail reads:
Sec. 873. Blackmail
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Has anyone within the Obama regime committed or been a victim of blackmail?
If Obama has committed treason against the United States, what should the penalty be?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Is Obama Guilty of Identity Fraud Rather than Ineligibility?
DO MISSING RECORDS, HAWAII’S STONEWALLING AND INCONSISTENCIES POINT TO A DIFFERENT LIFE STORY?
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Did Obama achieve the presidency under false pretenses?
(Jan. 22, 2012) — On January 26, 2012, an administrative hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. in Atlanta, GA, regarding the constitutional eligibility of one “Barack Hussein Obama” and whether or not his name should be placed on that state’s ballot for the 2012 presidential election.
But is identity fraud, rather than ineligibility, the actual crime?
Recently Atty. Orly Taitz, one of three attorneys bringing ballot challenges on the 26th, has been informed in an email that the courtroom has been changed in order to provide “better multimedia equipment for your convenience.” The mainstream media has begun to cover the upcoming hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility, and a citizen video urges concerned citizens to attend.
What will be the consequences if Obama does not appear? Atty. Mario Apuzzo responded to the question:
…The subpoena issued to Obama comes from an administrative court rather than a law court. A court-issued subpoena has the authority of a court order whether it comes from a law court or an administrative one.
Obama just happens to be the President now and would have to take time out of his official schedule to honor the subpoena. Nevertheless, Obama is subpoened as a private individual, not as the President.
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
“It is beyond dispute that there is in fact, a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 339 U. S. 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438, and that this obligation persists no matter how financially burdensome it may be. Footnote 10″
“Footnote 10 [I]t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when it requires to. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 72 (J. McNaughton rev.1961).”
Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 (1973). This is one case among the many on this issue.
Indeed, Obama, as a member of legally constitutued society, as a “public obligation” to provide evidence to a court, whether that court is a law court or an administrative one. His obligation is even greater given that the subpoena touches upon his right to eventually hold a public office should he win the election. Even Congress, which is not a law court, issues subpoenas which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering severe sanctions, including incarceration.
The only way that Obama could avoid the subpoena is to show that he has some privilege that protects him from giving the requested evidence. Again, Obama has been subpoened as a private person, a candidate for public office, not as the President of the United States. From the Georgia court’s ruling on Obama’s motion to quash, we can see that Obama failed to make such a showing that convinced the court that he in fact has such a privilege.
If Obama does not honor the subpoena, the court, applying Georgia law and precedents from federal law, can issue an order to show cause to him ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If he still does not comply, then he would be held in contempt of court. The court in such a case will issue sanctions to him, which can include a monetary penalty, an adverse ruling against him in the case itself, or even incarceration. Since he is the currently putative sitting President, the court would probably just opt for an adverse ruling rather than jail. That would be the best option since it gets to the heart of the matter. That adverse ruling would be that Obama has not met his burden of proof to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision.
Additionally, the current sitting President of the United States not honoring a court-issued and properly served subpoena related to whether the President is constitutionally eligible for that very office could also be deemed a “high Crime[] or Misdemeanor[]” under Article II, Section 4, the article dealing with impeachment of the President. Congress could declare such conduct a high crime or misdemeanor and inititate and prosecute impeachment proceedings against Obama and they should.
For more than three years, Obama has declined to release any information about his medical history, school records and Harvard Law School compositions. One newspaper stated that Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia University in New York City is “a mystery.” Why can Columbia produce nothing on the time he allegedly spent there? Why would they not wish to do so?
The state of Hawaii has refused to produce the original birth certificate allegedly on file with their Health Department, even after receiving a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and a second subpoena from the Georgia administrative court which will hold the hearing on the 26th.
On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate held by the Hawaii Department of Health. Almost immediately, bloggers and document analysts declared it a forgery.
Exactly one year before, The Washington Post placed a photo of Malcolm X with the caption “Obama touts wind energy in Iowa.” Did the editor not catch that error before publication?
The short-form Certification of Live Birth released in June 2008 following public pressure has also been labeled a forgery.
If true, why would Obama have presented forged documents to the public? Recent research claims that “Barack Obama II” is a synthetic identity.
On November 30, 2007, Obama signed a notarized statement for the state of Arizona asserting that he was constitutionally eligible for the office of the President, the requirements for which are:
1. being a “natural born Citizen”
2. having resided 14 years within the country, and
3. being 35 years of age or older.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, has launched an investigation into Obama’s eligibility and stated that a report will be issued next month containing information that could be a “shock.”
Is it possible that Obama was born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents but that his identity was changed at some point? If so, why?
At least two researchers have stated that Obama is the son of Malcolm X, a civil rights leader who converted to Islam while in prison and was assassinated on February 22, 1965 in Harlem. Israel Insider has also presented the possibility based on Martha Trowbridge’s post dated November 2, 2011.
Malcolm X had frequented The Apollo Theater located in Harlem, where on January 19, despite his busy schedule, Obama appeared and sang part of a song with a reference to the “Reverend Al Green.” Obama’s Georgia attorney, in his Motion to Quash Taitz’s subpoena for Obama to appear with the reqested proof of eligibility, claimed that it was “unreasonable” for Obama to attend because of his presidential “duties,” but he had time to embrace a woman inappropriately during a “campaign stop” in Florida last week while the mainstream media attempted to mitigate the story revealed by the photo.
There have been many inconsistencies in the life story provided to the public about Obama, including the life of his purported mother. It has been reported that Bill Ayers is the author of Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father. If Barack Obama Sr. is not Obama’s father, did Ayers write a work of fiction to convince a gullible American public of something which never occurred?
Are the photos of Obama’s purported relatives “photoshopped?” Was a history created for him, including using the birth certificate number of a child who lived for only one day, born on August 4, 1961? Was that number conveniently assigned to Obama to help create a new identity for him in the belief that no one would ever ask for tiny Virginia‘s original birth record? Is that why Obama claims he was born on August 4 when it is alleged that his real birthday is October 28, 1959?
Is it possible that information released by the State Department in regard to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. is forged? Were the delays caused by the State Department in releasing the documents intentional to keep people focused on Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. when they were not his parents after all?
On January 16, 2012, in recognition of the holiday ascribed to the birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama painted on a wall the words, “The time is always right to do what is right.”
Malcolm X was noted for his persuasive public speaking ability and his leadership qualities. Obama enjoyed a meteoric rise beginning with his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Malcolm had decried America as being racist, and during the 2008 campaign, both Obama and the media invoked racism.
On January 21, 2012, it was reported that a “former Obama staffer” was arrested “in a scheme to impersonate Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.” Bill Ayers reportedly committed identity fraud while on the run from the authorities in the 1970s.
Researcher Martha Trowbridge believes that radical political activist Fred Newman, Ph.D. is Barack Obama’s “Uncle Fred.”
Do Bill Ayers and Fred Newman have anything in common?
Has “Obama” impersonated someone or used a stolen identity? Is that why he is using a social security number from the state of Connecticut, where he never lived or worked?
Why was the criminal record of Bari M. Shabazz altered after his alleged death, which was never proven? Malcolm X changed his name to “El-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz.” His wife and daughters used the same surname.
Did Obama achieve the presidency in 2008 “by any means necessary?” If so, is the crime of identity fraud worse than being constitutionally ineligible?
Who knows the truth, and for how long have they known it?
DO MISSING RECORDS, HAWAII’S STONEWALLING AND INCONSISTENCIES POINT TO A DIFFERENT LIFE STORY?
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Did Obama achieve the presidency under false pretenses?
(Jan. 22, 2012) — On January 26, 2012, an administrative hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. in Atlanta, GA, regarding the constitutional eligibility of one “Barack Hussein Obama” and whether or not his name should be placed on that state’s ballot for the 2012 presidential election.
But is identity fraud, rather than ineligibility, the actual crime?
Recently Atty. Orly Taitz, one of three attorneys bringing ballot challenges on the 26th, has been informed in an email that the courtroom has been changed in order to provide “better multimedia equipment for your convenience.” The mainstream media has begun to cover the upcoming hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility, and a citizen video urges concerned citizens to attend.
What will be the consequences if Obama does not appear? Atty. Mario Apuzzo responded to the question:
…The subpoena issued to Obama comes from an administrative court rather than a law court. A court-issued subpoena has the authority of a court order whether it comes from a law court or an administrative one.
Obama just happens to be the President now and would have to take time out of his official schedule to honor the subpoena. Nevertheless, Obama is subpoened as a private individual, not as the President.
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
“It is beyond dispute that there is in fact, a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 339 U. S. 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438, and that this obligation persists no matter how financially burdensome it may be. Footnote 10″
“Footnote 10 [I]t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when it requires to. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 72 (J. McNaughton rev.1961).”
Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 (1973). This is one case among the many on this issue.
Indeed, Obama, as a member of legally constitutued society, as a “public obligation” to provide evidence to a court, whether that court is a law court or an administrative one. His obligation is even greater given that the subpoena touches upon his right to eventually hold a public office should he win the election. Even Congress, which is not a law court, issues subpoenas which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering severe sanctions, including incarceration.
The only way that Obama could avoid the subpoena is to show that he has some privilege that protects him from giving the requested evidence. Again, Obama has been subpoened as a private person, a candidate for public office, not as the President of the United States. From the Georgia court’s ruling on Obama’s motion to quash, we can see that Obama failed to make such a showing that convinced the court that he in fact has such a privilege.
If Obama does not honor the subpoena, the court, applying Georgia law and precedents from federal law, can issue an order to show cause to him ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If he still does not comply, then he would be held in contempt of court. The court in such a case will issue sanctions to him, which can include a monetary penalty, an adverse ruling against him in the case itself, or even incarceration. Since he is the currently putative sitting President, the court would probably just opt for an adverse ruling rather than jail. That would be the best option since it gets to the heart of the matter. That adverse ruling would be that Obama has not met his burden of proof to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision.
Additionally, the current sitting President of the United States not honoring a court-issued and properly served subpoena related to whether the President is constitutionally eligible for that very office could also be deemed a “high Crime[] or Misdemeanor[]” under Article II, Section 4, the article dealing with impeachment of the President. Congress could declare such conduct a high crime or misdemeanor and inititate and prosecute impeachment proceedings against Obama and they should.
For more than three years, Obama has declined to release any information about his medical history, school records and Harvard Law School compositions. One newspaper stated that Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia University in New York City is “a mystery.” Why can Columbia produce nothing on the time he allegedly spent there? Why would they not wish to do so?
The state of Hawaii has refused to produce the original birth certificate allegedly on file with their Health Department, even after receiving a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and a second subpoena from the Georgia administrative court which will hold the hearing on the 26th.
On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate held by the Hawaii Department of Health. Almost immediately, bloggers and document analysts declared it a forgery.
Exactly one year before, The Washington Post placed a photo of Malcolm X with the caption “Obama touts wind energy in Iowa.” Did the editor not catch that error before publication?
The short-form Certification of Live Birth released in June 2008 following public pressure has also been labeled a forgery.
If true, why would Obama have presented forged documents to the public? Recent research claims that “Barack Obama II” is a synthetic identity.
On November 30, 2007, Obama signed a notarized statement for the state of Arizona asserting that he was constitutionally eligible for the office of the President, the requirements for which are:
1. being a “natural born Citizen”
2. having resided 14 years within the country, and
3. being 35 years of age or older.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, has launched an investigation into Obama’s eligibility and stated that a report will be issued next month containing information that could be a “shock.”
Is it possible that Obama was born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents but that his identity was changed at some point? If so, why?
At least two researchers have stated that Obama is the son of Malcolm X, a civil rights leader who converted to Islam while in prison and was assassinated on February 22, 1965 in Harlem. Israel Insider has also presented the possibility based on Martha Trowbridge’s post dated November 2, 2011.
Malcolm X had frequented The Apollo Theater located in Harlem, where on January 19, despite his busy schedule, Obama appeared and sang part of a song with a reference to the “Reverend Al Green.” Obama’s Georgia attorney, in his Motion to Quash Taitz’s subpoena for Obama to appear with the reqested proof of eligibility, claimed that it was “unreasonable” for Obama to attend because of his presidential “duties,” but he had time to embrace a woman inappropriately during a “campaign stop” in Florida last week while the mainstream media attempted to mitigate the story revealed by the photo.
There have been many inconsistencies in the life story provided to the public about Obama, including the life of his purported mother. It has been reported that Bill Ayers is the author of Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father. If Barack Obama Sr. is not Obama’s father, did Ayers write a work of fiction to convince a gullible American public of something which never occurred?
Are the photos of Obama’s purported relatives “photoshopped?” Was a history created for him, including using the birth certificate number of a child who lived for only one day, born on August 4, 1961? Was that number conveniently assigned to Obama to help create a new identity for him in the belief that no one would ever ask for tiny Virginia‘s original birth record? Is that why Obama claims he was born on August 4 when it is alleged that his real birthday is October 28, 1959?
Is it possible that information released by the State Department in regard to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. is forged? Were the delays caused by the State Department in releasing the documents intentional to keep people focused on Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. when they were not his parents after all?
On January 16, 2012, in recognition of the holiday ascribed to the birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama painted on a wall the words, “The time is always right to do what is right.”
Malcolm X was noted for his persuasive public speaking ability and his leadership qualities. Obama enjoyed a meteoric rise beginning with his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Malcolm had decried America as being racist, and during the 2008 campaign, both Obama and the media invoked racism.
On January 21, 2012, it was reported that a “former Obama staffer” was arrested “in a scheme to impersonate Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.” Bill Ayers reportedly committed identity fraud while on the run from the authorities in the 1970s.
Researcher Martha Trowbridge believes that radical political activist Fred Newman, Ph.D. is Barack Obama’s “Uncle Fred.”
Do Bill Ayers and Fred Newman have anything in common?
Has “Obama” impersonated someone or used a stolen identity? Is that why he is using a social security number from the state of Connecticut, where he never lived or worked?
Why was the criminal record of Bari M. Shabazz altered after his alleged death, which was never proven? Malcolm X changed his name to “El-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz.” His wife and daughters used the same surname.
Did Obama achieve the presidency in 2008 “by any means necessary?” If so, is the crime of identity fraud worse than being constitutionally ineligible?
Who knows the truth, and for how long have they known it?
Friday, January 13, 2012
Lost the Bill of Rights?
If this bill is allowed to stand as passed, we have lost the Bill of Rights and everything that goes with it. The bill was written so it could be construed for total marital law with no defense or ability to contact anyone to let them know you have been arrested. It also gives confiscatory rights to the government so we no longer have the right to own anything if the government decide to take what we have struggled to pay for, including food for more than 7 days. This has to be stopped.
We have a dictator in the White House and have lost a tremendous amount of rights since he has taken office. He has castrated both the legislative and judicial branches of government, is ruling as a total dictator and brags about it by saying he "won't be stopped and will do what it takes to do what he wants to do." There is a major problem with this kind of action. That is why our forefathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place, was to prevent exactly what he is doing. I am truly afraid there will be people who will see an armed uprising as the only way to fix what Obama has done. I too have major objections to his way of ruling that is in direct conflict with the Constitution that he swore to protect and uphold, with his hand on the Koran, and is setting the track to making this a country that Pol Pot would have loved.
PLEASE take action on this. This country is taking its dying breaths and we have to stop this kind of take over that is trashing all of our rights. Making our elected officials in Washington aware how unhappy we are and taking action by fax, email and in the ballot box HAS TO TAKE PLACE. We need ALL of our Constitution and Bill of Rights restored - not just part of them. The power grab of taking part of our right began during WWI but Obama has just about destroyed it all by himself with his illegal end runs around Congress to do what he wants and refusal to enforce the laws of this country. There is no question in my mind that he is determined to destroy this country and he has done a bang up job so far. We are definitely on a greased slide to becoming a 3rd world country with a banana republic form of government that takes this country down totally and so many more countries as well that have their currency tied to the American dollar. This alone means he will take down at least 15-30 more countries, which are 2nd world countries, when the USA dollar collapses, which it will, most likely within the next 1-2 years. I fully expect travel restrictions with 1-2 years as well and if we have an election this year it will be the last. I sure hope I am way off but I don't think I am with all of the signs coming out of Washington that have come out in just the last 3 months.
A Special Message from New Americans United for Freedom Contributor KrisAnne Hall
Urgent Alert: Armed DHS officers have skeptics rapidly reassessing; even Rush Limbaugh now agrees – NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is "Total Authoritarianism." America is awakening to Congress's monumental mistake and Obama's treachery.
auf_dhscheckpointThis week, Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh finally openly stated what we have been saying all along, that NDAA 2012 really does allow the President "to detain anybody, for no reason and they don't even have to charge you." Limbaugh discussed in a radio broadcast this week some of the facts and arguments we have presented at length to alert concerned citizens of the threat NDAA poses to Liberty.
For the love of God and Country, I implore you – fax Congress today and absolutely, unequivocally DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Without the protections provided by Habeas Corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act, America is no better than a banana republic awaiting a despot to round up dissenters and lock us away.
It appears the Obama Administration is wasting no time. Just days ago, DHS officers appeared at a Florida Social Security office armed with semi-automatic rifles and K-9 dogs. While the agency claims the action was simply a "preparedness exercise," DHS officers nonetheless demanded identification papers from the law-abiding citizens waiting in line.
AMERICA, WHAT HAVE WE BECOME???!!!
HERE ARE THE FACTS: CONGRESS CELEBRATES THE 220TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS – BY ENDING THEM
By KrisAnne Hall
www.AmericansUnitedforFreedom.com
December 16, 2011
auf_cryinglibertyToday, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Congress overwhelmingly voted to effectively extinguish those rights. They relinquished their claim to lawful authority by violating Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and granting license to the Executive Branch to become the very tyrannical dictatorship our Founding Fathers fought and died to escape. Congress' betrayal has now set America firmly upon the path of pathetic banana republics and fearsome totalitarian states, with the knock on the door in the dead of night, the disappearances – where political dissidents can be suppressed, silenced or left to rot in unknown prisons. Today, I grieve for my country.
This gaping wound to our liberty MUST not stand. My earlier, straightforward analyses of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) make it clear why.
Congressmen Claimed The Bill Specifically Limited Actions Of The US Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11 Aggression
False. This refers to: Sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…
Which continues:
…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Congressmen Claimed Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citizens.
False. Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be "a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."
Which continues, section (4) "The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."
auf_handcufffenceCongressmen Claimed Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens
False. Section 1032(b)(1) states, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn't extend to US Citizens, but the OPTION does. That means they don't have to detain them, but can if they want to!
Congressional and Obama Administration supporters of this bill do not WANT to protect the rights and civil liberty of US Citizens.
I even did some follow up on just days ago regarding the misinformation on the Feinstein Amendment. And here, on the 220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights, I can't help but wonder what has happened to truth?
I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over revoking something that is so fundamental and so important as our right to habeas corpus, and presume to enact something so controversial, and so questionable into law as this travesty. I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler's argument on the floor. He pointed out that many Constitutional jurists and military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, positing the very destruction of our rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that Congress needed to pass this bill with these sections so the military would get urgently funded. He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week. What would be so hard about that? Why couldn't they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed? Because too many did not want to.
As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I became very perplexed at how those who deny the specified language of this bill can do so with such conviction. There is breathtaking dishonesty associated with what they are saying. Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excludes US Citizens. NO, IT DOES NOT. You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument. The relevant section specifically says: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Legally speaking, stating that an agency is "not required" to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have, and would have, used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are experienced legislators; they know that!
Furthermore, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! "The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States." There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a "national security interest."
auf_shreddingconstitutionThis morning I found a jewel, and a light bulb came on in my mind. I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was "inapplicable to US Citizens or US lawful resident aliens." I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary. I could not believe what I was seeing. The summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself. The CRS Summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were "inapplicable to US Citizens." That not only is not an accurate summary, it is a bold-faced lie – blatant propaganda! The language, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States" is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens. How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire vote on that lie?
The thing I find most frustrating is knowing that I am not the only one out there seeing and shouting the truth. I have heard statements by Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others. I watched the debate in Congress. I know YOU and other patriot citizens have been contacting their Congressmen and Senators, DEMANDING action. I really believe if at least a handful of people have enough information to make an informed and educated decision, there is no excuse to believe a lie. And there is certainly no excuse to settle for a lie.
Yet, that is where we are unless we FORCE CONGRESS TO FIX THIS BILL.
DON'T BELIEVE A LIE BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL SAFE.
Listen to these words of Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84.
"'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government. 'And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"
This is EXACTLY what these provision in the NDAA do. We do not have to keep these provisions to fund the military. They are completely irrelevant to that need.
The truth is out there. You have a responsibility to it. Our elected Congressmen and Senators have a responsibility to it. Don't let them get away with promulgating a distortion and destruction of that truth. DEMAND THEY FIX THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION, AND RESTORE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
We must know that we cannot have peace from terrorism without having liberty in America! Don't sell our liberty for a little temporary security. It is not our liberty to sell. Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for ages and millions not yet born. This liberty belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and their children.
WE MUST STAND FOR LIBERTY TODAY OR OUR CHILDREN WILL BOW TO TYRANTS TOMORROW!
Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom
auf_KrisAnneHallLogoKrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.
To send a check, please complete and print a contribution page form
and mail it with your donation to this address:
Americans United for Freedom
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172
Americans United for Freedom is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization (pending) which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues.
We have a dictator in the White House and have lost a tremendous amount of rights since he has taken office. He has castrated both the legislative and judicial branches of government, is ruling as a total dictator and brags about it by saying he "won't be stopped and will do what it takes to do what he wants to do." There is a major problem with this kind of action. That is why our forefathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place, was to prevent exactly what he is doing. I am truly afraid there will be people who will see an armed uprising as the only way to fix what Obama has done. I too have major objections to his way of ruling that is in direct conflict with the Constitution that he swore to protect and uphold, with his hand on the Koran, and is setting the track to making this a country that Pol Pot would have loved.
PLEASE take action on this. This country is taking its dying breaths and we have to stop this kind of take over that is trashing all of our rights. Making our elected officials in Washington aware how unhappy we are and taking action by fax, email and in the ballot box HAS TO TAKE PLACE. We need ALL of our Constitution and Bill of Rights restored - not just part of them. The power grab of taking part of our right began during WWI but Obama has just about destroyed it all by himself with his illegal end runs around Congress to do what he wants and refusal to enforce the laws of this country. There is no question in my mind that he is determined to destroy this country and he has done a bang up job so far. We are definitely on a greased slide to becoming a 3rd world country with a banana republic form of government that takes this country down totally and so many more countries as well that have their currency tied to the American dollar. This alone means he will take down at least 15-30 more countries, which are 2nd world countries, when the USA dollar collapses, which it will, most likely within the next 1-2 years. I fully expect travel restrictions with 1-2 years as well and if we have an election this year it will be the last. I sure hope I am way off but I don't think I am with all of the signs coming out of Washington that have come out in just the last 3 months.
A Special Message from New Americans United for Freedom Contributor KrisAnne Hall
Urgent Alert: Armed DHS officers have skeptics rapidly reassessing; even Rush Limbaugh now agrees – NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is "Total Authoritarianism." America is awakening to Congress's monumental mistake and Obama's treachery.
auf_dhscheckpointThis week, Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh finally openly stated what we have been saying all along, that NDAA 2012 really does allow the President "to detain anybody, for no reason and they don't even have to charge you." Limbaugh discussed in a radio broadcast this week some of the facts and arguments we have presented at length to alert concerned citizens of the threat NDAA poses to Liberty.
For the love of God and Country, I implore you – fax Congress today and absolutely, unequivocally DEMAND CONGRESS RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Without the protections provided by Habeas Corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act, America is no better than a banana republic awaiting a despot to round up dissenters and lock us away.
It appears the Obama Administration is wasting no time. Just days ago, DHS officers appeared at a Florida Social Security office armed with semi-automatic rifles and K-9 dogs. While the agency claims the action was simply a "preparedness exercise," DHS officers nonetheless demanded identification papers from the law-abiding citizens waiting in line.
AMERICA, WHAT HAVE WE BECOME???!!!
HERE ARE THE FACTS: CONGRESS CELEBRATES THE 220TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS – BY ENDING THEM
By KrisAnne Hall
www.AmericansUnitedforFreedom.com
December 16, 2011
auf_cryinglibertyToday, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Congress overwhelmingly voted to effectively extinguish those rights. They relinquished their claim to lawful authority by violating Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and granting license to the Executive Branch to become the very tyrannical dictatorship our Founding Fathers fought and died to escape. Congress' betrayal has now set America firmly upon the path of pathetic banana republics and fearsome totalitarian states, with the knock on the door in the dead of night, the disappearances – where political dissidents can be suppressed, silenced or left to rot in unknown prisons. Today, I grieve for my country.
This gaping wound to our liberty MUST not stand. My earlier, straightforward analyses of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) make it clear why.
Congressmen Claimed The Bill Specifically Limited Actions Of The US Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11 Aggression
False. This refers to: Sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…
Which continues:
…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Congressmen Claimed Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citizens.
False. Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be "a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."
Which continues, section (4) "The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."
auf_handcufffenceCongressmen Claimed Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens
False. Section 1032(b)(1) states, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn't extend to US Citizens, but the OPTION does. That means they don't have to detain them, but can if they want to!
Congressional and Obama Administration supporters of this bill do not WANT to protect the rights and civil liberty of US Citizens.
I even did some follow up on just days ago regarding the misinformation on the Feinstein Amendment. And here, on the 220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights, I can't help but wonder what has happened to truth?
I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over revoking something that is so fundamental and so important as our right to habeas corpus, and presume to enact something so controversial, and so questionable into law as this travesty. I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler's argument on the floor. He pointed out that many Constitutional jurists and military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, positing the very destruction of our rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that Congress needed to pass this bill with these sections so the military would get urgently funded. He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week. What would be so hard about that? Why couldn't they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed? Because too many did not want to.
As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I became very perplexed at how those who deny the specified language of this bill can do so with such conviction. There is breathtaking dishonesty associated with what they are saying. Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excludes US Citizens. NO, IT DOES NOT. You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument. The relevant section specifically says: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Legally speaking, stating that an agency is "not required" to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have, and would have, used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are experienced legislators; they know that!
Furthermore, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! "The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States." There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a "national security interest."
auf_shreddingconstitutionThis morning I found a jewel, and a light bulb came on in my mind. I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was "inapplicable to US Citizens or US lawful resident aliens." I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary. I could not believe what I was seeing. The summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself. The CRS Summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were "inapplicable to US Citizens." That not only is not an accurate summary, it is a bold-faced lie – blatant propaganda! The language, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States" is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens. How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire vote on that lie?
The thing I find most frustrating is knowing that I am not the only one out there seeing and shouting the truth. I have heard statements by Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others. I watched the debate in Congress. I know YOU and other patriot citizens have been contacting their Congressmen and Senators, DEMANDING action. I really believe if at least a handful of people have enough information to make an informed and educated decision, there is no excuse to believe a lie. And there is certainly no excuse to settle for a lie.
Yet, that is where we are unless we FORCE CONGRESS TO FIX THIS BILL.
DON'T BELIEVE A LIE BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL SAFE.
Listen to these words of Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84.
"'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government. 'And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"
This is EXACTLY what these provision in the NDAA do. We do not have to keep these provisions to fund the military. They are completely irrelevant to that need.
The truth is out there. You have a responsibility to it. Our elected Congressmen and Senators have a responsibility to it. Don't let them get away with promulgating a distortion and destruction of that truth. DEMAND THEY FIX THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION, AND RESTORE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
We must know that we cannot have peace from terrorism without having liberty in America! Don't sell our liberty for a little temporary security. It is not our liberty to sell. Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for ages and millions not yet born. This liberty belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and their children.
WE MUST STAND FOR LIBERTY TODAY OR OUR CHILDREN WILL BOW TO TYRANTS TOMORROW!
Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom
auf_KrisAnneHallLogoKrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.
To send a check, please complete and print a contribution page form
and mail it with your donation to this address:
Americans United for Freedom
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172
Americans United for Freedom is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization (pending) which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues.
Obama’s Ineligibility, Elective Despotism and the Vote of Slaves
WITH A DEAD CONSTITUTION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2012
by Lawrence Sellin, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Is this document dead?
(Jan. 12, 2012) — If re-elected, Barack Obama will kill the United States quickly. Any one of the leading Republican candidates will simply do it more slowly.
The erosion of the Constitution and our Constitutional rights has been happening quietly for a long time. With the election of Obama in 2008, corrupt politicians, their operatives and the mainstream media just decided not to bother hiding that fact anymore.
Corrupt American politicians, the operational arm of the multinational, wealthy and networked elite, preserve the illusion of democracy for the now disenfranchised voters, while journalists, falsely proclaiming themselves as tireless defenders of liberty, then distort the news in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
The arrogance of Washington, D.C. has not abated, but has only gotten more brazen since 1993, when Lewis H. Lapham (“A Wish for Kings”) wrote:
“The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they’re in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors.”
Our politicians see every election as a license to steal from ordinary, hard-working Americans, permission to flout the law and avoid all accountability for destroying the country for the benefit of a few.
We no longer have representatives of the people, but elected despots who consider elections as mere formalities and citizens as their slaves.
By all measures, both the Republican and Democratic Parties are asking voters again to endorse the corrupt status quo.
In 2008, both parties permitted the election of Obama, a Constitutionally illegal President, who has forged his birth documents and his Selective Service registration. He has committed identity theft by using a Social Security Number not issued to him.
Questions about Obama ineligibility and his crimes have been intentionally suppressed by the political establishment and the media because the truth about Obama would so outrage the American people that the entire corrupt political system and its servants in the mainstream media would collapse.
Perhaps it is time to let it do so, by declaring Obama unconstitutional and boycotting Republican candidates, until such time when they openly address the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
It is those corrupt politicians and a compliant media who have eroded our Constitution, stripped us of our Constitutional rights and destroyed the Founders model of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
When will Congress launch an investigation into the criminal and usurper in the Oval Office? When will senior members of the military or the federal law enforcement agencies stand by their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?
The answer is “never.” There has been a colossal failure of leadership. We have a government littered with careerists, sycophants, cowards, liars and the greedy.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stated:
“We are the heirs of those who froze with Washington at Valley Forge and who held the line at Gettysburg, who freed the slaves to close a shameful chapter, and who carved a nation out of the wilderness. We are the sons and daughters of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and raised the flag at Iwo Jima and made America the strongest, the most prosperous, the greatest nation on earth forever in mankind’s history – the greatest, most exceptional nation.”
We owe it to those American heroes and to our posterity to fight the evil now permeating our government and society. We must not fail. Our country’s survival is in the balance.
Obama is not a natural born citizen, that is, a US citizen at birth, born of two US citizen parents at the time of his birth. He has never been eligible for the office of President.
The 2012 election will be a turning point in American history because our Constitution is in the balance. Let the politicians again ignore the Constitution and it is the end of our republic.
Patriots must speak out, oppose the corrupt political establishment and remove Obama from the state ballots.
There will be no second chance to take our country back.
———————————————————-
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com
WITH A DEAD CONSTITUTION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2012
by Lawrence Sellin, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Is this document dead?
(Jan. 12, 2012) — If re-elected, Barack Obama will kill the United States quickly. Any one of the leading Republican candidates will simply do it more slowly.
The erosion of the Constitution and our Constitutional rights has been happening quietly for a long time. With the election of Obama in 2008, corrupt politicians, their operatives and the mainstream media just decided not to bother hiding that fact anymore.
Corrupt American politicians, the operational arm of the multinational, wealthy and networked elite, preserve the illusion of democracy for the now disenfranchised voters, while journalists, falsely proclaiming themselves as tireless defenders of liberty, then distort the news in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
The arrogance of Washington, D.C. has not abated, but has only gotten more brazen since 1993, when Lewis H. Lapham (“A Wish for Kings”) wrote:
“The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they’re in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors.”
Our politicians see every election as a license to steal from ordinary, hard-working Americans, permission to flout the law and avoid all accountability for destroying the country for the benefit of a few.
We no longer have representatives of the people, but elected despots who consider elections as mere formalities and citizens as their slaves.
By all measures, both the Republican and Democratic Parties are asking voters again to endorse the corrupt status quo.
In 2008, both parties permitted the election of Obama, a Constitutionally illegal President, who has forged his birth documents and his Selective Service registration. He has committed identity theft by using a Social Security Number not issued to him.
Questions about Obama ineligibility and his crimes have been intentionally suppressed by the political establishment and the media because the truth about Obama would so outrage the American people that the entire corrupt political system and its servants in the mainstream media would collapse.
Perhaps it is time to let it do so, by declaring Obama unconstitutional and boycotting Republican candidates, until such time when they openly address the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
It is those corrupt politicians and a compliant media who have eroded our Constitution, stripped us of our Constitutional rights and destroyed the Founders model of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
When will Congress launch an investigation into the criminal and usurper in the Oval Office? When will senior members of the military or the federal law enforcement agencies stand by their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?
The answer is “never.” There has been a colossal failure of leadership. We have a government littered with careerists, sycophants, cowards, liars and the greedy.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stated:
“We are the heirs of those who froze with Washington at Valley Forge and who held the line at Gettysburg, who freed the slaves to close a shameful chapter, and who carved a nation out of the wilderness. We are the sons and daughters of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and raised the flag at Iwo Jima and made America the strongest, the most prosperous, the greatest nation on earth forever in mankind’s history – the greatest, most exceptional nation.”
We owe it to those American heroes and to our posterity to fight the evil now permeating our government and society. We must not fail. Our country’s survival is in the balance.
Obama is not a natural born citizen, that is, a US citizen at birth, born of two US citizen parents at the time of his birth. He has never been eligible for the office of President.
The 2012 election will be a turning point in American history because our Constitution is in the balance. Let the politicians again ignore the Constitution and it is the end of our republic.
Patriots must speak out, oppose the corrupt political establishment and remove Obama from the state ballots.
There will be no second chance to take our country back.
———————————————————-
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
A Discussion of Historical and Contemporary Meanings of “natural born Citizen”
HAS A “RECONCEPTUALIZATION” OCCURRED?
by Rule of Law
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Do the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary agree with those in the U.S. Constitution?
(Jan. 11, 2012) — Editor’s Note: On January 10, 2012, The Post & Email published an article about a ballot challenge dismissed in the state of Alabama on January 9 in which we said of Bradley Davidson, the Executive Director of the Alabama Democrat Party, “He stated that his understanding was that in order to be considered ‘natural born,’ one must be born on American soil or U.S. territory.” In response, a reader wrote:
I have finally figured out where this is coming from and it explains a lot of the hostility found in the courts against citizen voters and their concern with Constitutional Eligibility. It is the understanding of the definition of “natural born citizen” itself and the document that controls that definition.
Black’s Law Dictionary is considered secondary only to U.S. Supreme Court rulings as a legal source. It was first published in the 19th century and is in its Ninth Edition. However, in 1991, the Fifth Edition, the definition for natural born citizens was stated as follows:
Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026)
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm Section 4.1.
Native. A nature-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; New Hartford v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 A. 360; Oken v. Johnson, 160 Minn. 217, 199 N.W. 910.
The word “native,” as used in Alien Enemy Act, refers to a person’s place of birth, so that a person remains a native of country of birth, though he has moved away therefrom. United States ex rel. D’Esquiva v. Uhi, C.C.A. N. Y. 137 F.2d. 903, 905.
One who was born in Germany and later becomes a citizen of France was a “native” of Germany. Ex parte Gregoire, D.C.Cal., 61 F.Supp. 92, 93.
But a person born in Alsace which at the time of his birth was a part of Germany but was restored to France by the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was a “native” of France. United States ex rel. Umecker v. McCoy, D.C.N.D., 54 F.Supp. 679, 681, 682.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition (1951) page 1176.
This is the controlling definition being protected by the judicial system. It is not grounded in the Constitution but in British Common law. It is not grounded in the U.S. Constitution but in a misinterpreted U.S. Supreme Court case written by a justice appointed by then-President Chester Arthur. This is the definition of a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen as understood by the wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
And yet in another law dictionary:
Native, native citizen. A natural-born subject. 1 Bla. Com 366. Those born in a country, of parents of who are citizens. Morse, Citizenship 12. See Citizen. There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act; 37 W. R. 269.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 2, page 2297.
It would seem that the definition of “natural born citizen” has changed over the years, and yet the basic assumed understanding of the definition in the context of the Constitutional eligibility criteria for “natural born citizen” remains constant: a natural born citizen is a person born on U.S. soil to U.S.-citizen parents.
An article published by the Yale Law School written by Rebekka Susan Bonner (2008) acknowledges a near-universal acceptance of the assertion that all persons born within the United States are natural born (Bonner, p. 3).
It goes on to state that there is a concerted effort by lawyers and politicians to change the self-defining concept of “natural born citizen” in favor of a “new interpretative approach that would expand the number of American citizens who may be considered natural born for purposes of presidential eligibility; how Congress might operationalize these new understandings and why reconceptualization of the meaning of the citizen clause is preferable to previous interpretations of Article II.” (Bonner, Abstract).
The bottom line is that the majority of lawyers, politicians, and judges practicing in this country have subverted the definition of “natural born citizen” found in Minor v. Happersett with the definition for a British natural born subject and have chosen U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to set the definition. It is clear that these two U.S. Supreme Court rulings are in conflict with one another and the definition of “natural born citizen” is yet to finalized.
Any lawsuit going forward needs to consider this and address it head-on by declaring the sitting judge a hostile participant to the hearing biased in favor of British common law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
It isn’t race. It is a profound and fundamental misunderstanding of what Black’s Law Dictionary is. It is a collection of British Common laws and not based on the U.S. Constitution. It works in the U.S. because many of the legal terms used today in the practice of law are the same whether utilized in English Common law or U.S. law.
What I would like to know is why someone felt the need to put this definition in Black’s Law Dictionary in 1991? In the second printing, there is a clear distinction between “subject” and “citizen.”
This is why the lawsuits are being dismissed for either lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing without hearings on the merits. The definition which the American people understand for the term “natural born citizen” based on its context in the U.S. Constitution is not the same definition under which the judicial system and lawyers are operating. The disconnect could not be more profound. Furthermore, this new definition has been implemented without the consent of the governed.
HAS A “RECONCEPTUALIZATION” OCCURRED?
by Rule of Law
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
Do the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary agree with those in the U.S. Constitution?
(Jan. 11, 2012) — Editor’s Note: On January 10, 2012, The Post & Email published an article about a ballot challenge dismissed in the state of Alabama on January 9 in which we said of Bradley Davidson, the Executive Director of the Alabama Democrat Party, “He stated that his understanding was that in order to be considered ‘natural born,’ one must be born on American soil or U.S. territory.” In response, a reader wrote:
I have finally figured out where this is coming from and it explains a lot of the hostility found in the courts against citizen voters and their concern with Constitutional Eligibility. It is the understanding of the definition of “natural born citizen” itself and the document that controls that definition.
Black’s Law Dictionary is considered secondary only to U.S. Supreme Court rulings as a legal source. It was first published in the 19th century and is in its Ninth Edition. However, in 1991, the Fifth Edition, the definition for natural born citizens was stated as follows:
Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026)
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm Section 4.1.
Native. A nature-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; New Hartford v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 A. 360; Oken v. Johnson, 160 Minn. 217, 199 N.W. 910.
The word “native,” as used in Alien Enemy Act, refers to a person’s place of birth, so that a person remains a native of country of birth, though he has moved away therefrom. United States ex rel. D’Esquiva v. Uhi, C.C.A. N. Y. 137 F.2d. 903, 905.
One who was born in Germany and later becomes a citizen of France was a “native” of Germany. Ex parte Gregoire, D.C.Cal., 61 F.Supp. 92, 93.
But a person born in Alsace which at the time of his birth was a part of Germany but was restored to France by the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was a “native” of France. United States ex rel. Umecker v. McCoy, D.C.N.D., 54 F.Supp. 679, 681, 682.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition (1951) page 1176.
This is the controlling definition being protected by the judicial system. It is not grounded in the Constitution but in British Common law. It is not grounded in the U.S. Constitution but in a misinterpreted U.S. Supreme Court case written by a justice appointed by then-President Chester Arthur. This is the definition of a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen as understood by the wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
And yet in another law dictionary:
Native, native citizen. A natural-born subject. 1 Bla. Com 366. Those born in a country, of parents of who are citizens. Morse, Citizenship 12. See Citizen. There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act; 37 W. R. 269.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 2, page 2297.
It would seem that the definition of “natural born citizen” has changed over the years, and yet the basic assumed understanding of the definition in the context of the Constitutional eligibility criteria for “natural born citizen” remains constant: a natural born citizen is a person born on U.S. soil to U.S.-citizen parents.
An article published by the Yale Law School written by Rebekka Susan Bonner (2008) acknowledges a near-universal acceptance of the assertion that all persons born within the United States are natural born (Bonner, p. 3).
It goes on to state that there is a concerted effort by lawyers and politicians to change the self-defining concept of “natural born citizen” in favor of a “new interpretative approach that would expand the number of American citizens who may be considered natural born for purposes of presidential eligibility; how Congress might operationalize these new understandings and why reconceptualization of the meaning of the citizen clause is preferable to previous interpretations of Article II.” (Bonner, Abstract).
The bottom line is that the majority of lawyers, politicians, and judges practicing in this country have subverted the definition of “natural born citizen” found in Minor v. Happersett with the definition for a British natural born subject and have chosen U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to set the definition. It is clear that these two U.S. Supreme Court rulings are in conflict with one another and the definition of “natural born citizen” is yet to finalized.
Any lawsuit going forward needs to consider this and address it head-on by declaring the sitting judge a hostile participant to the hearing biased in favor of British common law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
It isn’t race. It is a profound and fundamental misunderstanding of what Black’s Law Dictionary is. It is a collection of British Common laws and not based on the U.S. Constitution. It works in the U.S. because many of the legal terms used today in the practice of law are the same whether utilized in English Common law or U.S. law.
What I would like to know is why someone felt the need to put this definition in Black’s Law Dictionary in 1991? In the second printing, there is a clear distinction between “subject” and “citizen.”
This is why the lawsuits are being dismissed for either lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing without hearings on the merits. The definition which the American people understand for the term “natural born citizen” based on its context in the U.S. Constitution is not the same definition under which the judicial system and lawyers are operating. The disconnect could not be more profound. Furthermore, this new definition has been implemented without the consent of the governed.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3
“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
New Hampshire produced the first state constitution on January 5, 1776, prior to the American Revolution
(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.
The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.
The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:
Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”
On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.
Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.
Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.
Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.
We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”
Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.
“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.”
The Post & Email asked, “Were you surprised that your own state Supreme Court refused to hear your appeal?” and Rappaport responded, “Yes, I was surprised.” He stated that in the letter he received, having been one of the plaintiffs, no reason had been provided.
Rappaort described the purpose of the press conference:
Our biggest concern is that the public becomes aware of what’s going on. We think that the public does not understand, and it is our effort to try to enlighten them. I would cite three things: First of all, there was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which gave the definition at the time of the Founders. Second, there was the case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which established the definition of “natural born Citizen” as one who has two American-citizen parents. We have tons of evidence that Obama’s alleged father was not a citizen. He never held a green card and was never a resident alien. In fact, the truth is he was thrown out of the country.
Rappaport also cited Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, which declared that John McCain was a natural born Citizen by virtue of having two U.S.-citizen parents, but that Obama was not held to the same standard, and he “didn’t know why.”
The Post & Email asked Rappaport, “Do you think that most of your constituents support what you are doing?” and he responded, “Yes. Obama is definitely not very popular in northern New Hampshire.” He stated that Coos County is the largest land mass in the state, has only about 30,000 residents, and was the reason he moved there. New Hampshire has a total of about 1,300,000 residents.
As to his reason for questioning Obama’s eligibility, Rappaport said, “We all swore an oath to two constitutions: the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. I take my oath very seriously, and I feel that I’m required by that oath to do this. I feel very strongly about that. I’ve received a death threat on this go-around and a lot of letters from people who disagree with me. I’ve been called names, but I’ve never gotten a reasoned explanation, not one. I feel as if everyone is claiming ‘This is a settled matter, but I haven’t heard that.’”
We then asked him, “Do you believe the April 27, 2011 purported birth certificate being released to the public is what they’re considering the point which ‘settled’ it?” and he responded, “It didn’t come from him specifically; it came from the ‘White House.’ It is my opinion that not only is it a forgery, but it is a lousy forgery. I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened, although a document expert could have still determined that it was a forgery.”
Rappaport stated that his background was in electrical engineering and that he “wrote computer software.” He said his skills include laying out a website, although he sometimes “hired other people” to do things beyond his skill level and is not a computer “expert.” Other New Hampshire representatives also have stated that they believe the image is a forgery.
The press conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, and New Hampshire media will be notified. “There’s no guarantee that any major media will cover it, but my biggest hope is that major media is finally waking up. When I was growing up, I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Back then, The Times, in particular, was a really good newspaper. What you read on the front page was news, and what you read on the Editorial page was opinion, and the two were not mixed. Today, the news is highly biased. I feel as if The New York Times and The Washington Post report on a story only if it’s something they agree with. If it’s something they don’t agree with, it doesn’t appear anywhere. If it’s something that they mostly agree with, then you’ll find it on page 40.”
Rappaport is 71 and serving his second term in the New Hampshire House. He stated that the organizers of the press conference would have preferred to have more time to plan, but the New Hampshire primary is fast approaching on January 10 and they want to inform the people of what they believe has transpired. The group will also invite the attorney general and all New Hampshire representatives. “My plan is to put out an announcement to all representatives inviting them to support us and to come,” he said.
Final details of the time and place will be released shortly.
“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
New Hampshire produced the first state constitution on January 5, 1776, prior to the American Revolution
(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.
The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.
The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:
Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”
On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.
Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.
Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.
Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.
We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”
Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.
“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.”
The Post & Email asked, “Were you surprised that your own state Supreme Court refused to hear your appeal?” and Rappaport responded, “Yes, I was surprised.” He stated that in the letter he received, having been one of the plaintiffs, no reason had been provided.
Rappaort described the purpose of the press conference:
Our biggest concern is that the public becomes aware of what’s going on. We think that the public does not understand, and it is our effort to try to enlighten them. I would cite three things: First of all, there was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which gave the definition at the time of the Founders. Second, there was the case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which established the definition of “natural born Citizen” as one who has two American-citizen parents. We have tons of evidence that Obama’s alleged father was not a citizen. He never held a green card and was never a resident alien. In fact, the truth is he was thrown out of the country.
Rappaport also cited Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, which declared that John McCain was a natural born Citizen by virtue of having two U.S.-citizen parents, but that Obama was not held to the same standard, and he “didn’t know why.”
The Post & Email asked Rappaport, “Do you think that most of your constituents support what you are doing?” and he responded, “Yes. Obama is definitely not very popular in northern New Hampshire.” He stated that Coos County is the largest land mass in the state, has only about 30,000 residents, and was the reason he moved there. New Hampshire has a total of about 1,300,000 residents.
As to his reason for questioning Obama’s eligibility, Rappaport said, “We all swore an oath to two constitutions: the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. I take my oath very seriously, and I feel that I’m required by that oath to do this. I feel very strongly about that. I’ve received a death threat on this go-around and a lot of letters from people who disagree with me. I’ve been called names, but I’ve never gotten a reasoned explanation, not one. I feel as if everyone is claiming ‘This is a settled matter, but I haven’t heard that.’”
We then asked him, “Do you believe the April 27, 2011 purported birth certificate being released to the public is what they’re considering the point which ‘settled’ it?” and he responded, “It didn’t come from him specifically; it came from the ‘White House.’ It is my opinion that not only is it a forgery, but it is a lousy forgery. I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened, although a document expert could have still determined that it was a forgery.”
Rappaport stated that his background was in electrical engineering and that he “wrote computer software.” He said his skills include laying out a website, although he sometimes “hired other people” to do things beyond his skill level and is not a computer “expert.” Other New Hampshire representatives also have stated that they believe the image is a forgery.
The press conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, and New Hampshire media will be notified. “There’s no guarantee that any major media will cover it, but my biggest hope is that major media is finally waking up. When I was growing up, I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Back then, The Times, in particular, was a really good newspaper. What you read on the front page was news, and what you read on the Editorial page was opinion, and the two were not mixed. Today, the news is highly biased. I feel as if The New York Times and The Washington Post report on a story only if it’s something they agree with. If it’s something they don’t agree with, it doesn’t appear anywhere. If it’s something that they mostly agree with, then you’ll find it on page 40.”
Rappaport is 71 and serving his second term in the New Hampshire House. He stated that the organizers of the press conference would have preferred to have more time to plan, but the New Hampshire primary is fast approaching on January 10 and they want to inform the people of what they believe has transpired. The group will also invite the attorney general and all New Hampshire representatives. “My plan is to put out an announcement to all representatives inviting them to support us and to come,” he said.
Final details of the time and place will be released shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)