A History of Treason
Print This Post
WHO IS GUILTY, AND WHAT WILL BE DONE ABOUT IT?

by Sharon Rondeau

Aaron Burr was elected vice president in 1800 and tried for treason in 1807. He was acquitted by a grand jury.

(Sept. 7, 2010) — Treason is defined as “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.” The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia adds to that definition, “In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly — as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies — in order to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason. See also sedition.”

A second source defines treason as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign” or “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.”

Stated differently, treason is “the crime of betraying a nation or a sovereign by acts considered dangerous to security.”

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The New World Encylopedia expounds on Treason further:

Treason has always been viewed as the most serious offense, for it is an act against not only an individual but against the society as a whole, embodied in the ruling authority whether individually in the monarch or collectively as government. It is indeed the act or attempt to “murder” one’s nation. While harsh penalties have been used in attempts to deter traitors, the very reason that such acts are considered the worst of crimes are the same ones that drive people to commit them.
Treason in U.S. History

Dr. Benjamin Church, the first U.S. Surgeon General and a delegate from the Massachusetts colony, was accused of corresponding with the British during the Revolutionary War. Church had defended himself but was convicted of consorting with the enemy. His punishment was that he be “close confined in some secure jail in the Colony of Connecticut, without use of pen, ink and paper, and that no person be allowed to converse with him except in the presence and hearing of a magistrate of the town or the sheriff of the county where he is confined, and in the English language, until further orders from this or a future Congress.”

He was jailed in Connecticut and later returned to Massachusetts, only to leave the country on a ship that was never found.

In 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was tried for treason against the U.S. for allegedly “conspiring to invade the territories of a nation at peace with the United States.” The question that had to be decided was whether or not Burr was guilty of “levying war” against the U.S. after being accused of attempting to establish a separate government in the region of the Louisiana Purchase. He also killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and was indicted for murder but was never brought to trial.

President Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had run on the same ticket as presidential and vice presidential candidates, respectively, in 1800 (page 26), against incumbent President John Adams and his running mate, Charles C. Pinckney. The electoral vote count was a tie, and Jefferson and Burr became opponents. The subsequent election in the House of Representatives rendered Jefferson the victor.

Jefferson reportedly had declared Burr guilty before Burr’s trial had commenced. During his tenure as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Marshall had granted the Supreme Court the power to override the executive branch, all lower courts, and rulings by state governments, while Jefferson favored states’ rights.

Marshall, who wrote the opinion in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, and Thomas Jefferson feuded over the Burr case, with Marshall sending Jefferson a subpoena for documents despite the fact that Jefferson had allegedly already supplied them (page 26). Jefferson had dissented with Marshall’s decision to exclude certain testimony and stated that Marshall had intended all along to exonerate Burr (page 27). A grand jury found Burr “not guilty” of treason.
Treason in Modern Times

More recently, those who spread propaganda against U.S. forces during World War II were tried for treason and received jail terms. Mildred Gillars, also known as “Axis Sally” was convicted on one count of treason for her radio broadcasts from Germany against the Allied Forces, served 13 years in prison.

All members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution:

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

In regard to presidential eligibility, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 states:

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

On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 511, which “declared” John McCain to be a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to two U.S.-citizen parents. However, the resolution failed to address the questionable citizenship of Barack Obama, who himself claimed dual citizenship at birth and appears to have had Indonesian citizenship at least at some point in his life.

There were those who raised the eligibility question of one or both candidates to persons with authority over elections, but no one, not even a state attorney general, would investigate whether or not either major-party candidate met the eligibility requirements for president.

The state Electoral Colleges would not investigate. The Supreme Court refused to stay the election so that the eligibility question could be answered.

Some say the election was stolen by Obama and his supporters. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to determine Obama’s eligibility, but despite the promise of a California judge, not one court has heard a case on its merits.

From the National Archives and Records Administration regarding the procedure for certifying the votes from the Electoral College:

The Congress

House and Senate staff come to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) to inspect the Certificates of Vote in late December. Because the statutory procedure prescribes that the Certificates of Vote sent to the President of the Senate be held under seal until Congress opens and counts them in joint session, the Congress depends on the OFR to ensure the facial legal sufficiency of Certificates. If any State’s Certificate fails to reach the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate calls on OFR to deliver duplicate originals in its possession to complete the set held by Congress. After the 1988 general election, the President of the Senate called for nineteen of the Certificates of Vote held by the OFR. For the 1992 election, the OFR supplied the Congress with two missing Certificates of Vote.

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives at one o’clock January 6, 2001 (this date is subject to change) to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate. The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made. If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.

U.S. Code is defined as “the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.” It is published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

The U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, states:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

On January 6, 2001, The New York Times reported that there were objections to the counting of the electoral votes following the 2000 presidential election coming from the House of Representatives, but none from the Senate, and that “Federal law requires a member of both the House and the Senate to question a state’s electoral votes in writing for a formal objection to be considered.” After “about a dozen black House members paraded out of the chamber in protest,” Al Gore, the president of the Senate and George W. Bush’s former opponent, read the electoral vote count of 271 to 266 in favor of Bush,who had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote to Gore.

The date of January 6 was changed to January 8 by Congress for the 2009 electoral vote count. The National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Electoral College page explains the process for counting the electoral votes in Congress:

January 8, 2009

* Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

During the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, Senate president Dick Cheney failed to call for objections, and despite constituent letters to members of the Senate and House, it appeared that no one had submitted a written objection to attempt to qualify Obama.

The 20th Amendment provides for the case in which a “president elect shall have failed to qualify,” which is “declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.” The amendment was written with the intent of shortening the “lame duck” period between the election in November and the seating of elected officials two months later in January.

Not one member of Congress attempted to ascertain if Obama was qualified to be president. Are they guilty of treason?

State attorneys general have been asked to investigate Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve but have failed to do so. Have they committed treason?

On September 2, Lt. Col. Denise Lind stated that compelling Obama to open his records could prove “embarrassing” to him and denied Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin’s access to them to discover whether or not Obama is eligible to hold office. Is she a traitor as well?

If all of these government officials have failed to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, which set of rules are they following? Without the Constitution, what protections do “we the people” have? What kind of law is now the law of the land?

People in positions of power within the U.S. government have been tried and convicted of treason before. So why is Obama still occupying the White House if he cannot prove his eligibility?

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

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." - Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah AKA Barry Soetoro - August 21, 2010

Just a little reminder before watching the clip, all the records Obama is fighting to keep sealed with lawyers paid with our tax dollars;

Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules(said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

Sunday, September 5, 2010
Lucas Smith Interview: Alleged Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate Sent to Every Member of Congress, Got Notice!?
ObamaRelease YourRecords on 3:26 PM

[update below]Via the Post & Email and some; - Exclusive: Lucas Daniel Smith speaks with The Post & Email - DOCUMENT ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED IN KENYA SENT TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS - by Sharon Rondeau

(Sept. 5, 2010) — Lucas Daniel Smith has just completed a mailing to each member of Congress a copy of a document which he stated is a certified copy of the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II showing that Obama was born in Kenya, Africa. Each birth certificate copy was sent with a seven-page, individually-notarized letter by certified mail. The project was completed on August 31, 2010.

Smith said that he obtained the document from the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya in February 2009. The document became part of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., in California which was denied a hearing in October 2009 by Judge David O. Carter.

Mr. Smith’s declaration to the court, taken under oath, is here.

A video produced by “On Second Thought” TV following one of the preliminary court hearings last summer depicts Mr. Smith discussing some of the details of the document is here. A video which Mr. Smith produced himself showing close-ups of the document details is here.

In an interview with the Christian News Review on July 13, 2010, Mr. Smith described his background as a sociologist studying in Africa, how he obtained the document from Coast Province General Hospital, the cost, and the military and police presence there. A second interview with Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster from August 18, 2010 can be found here.

The Post & Email had previously reported that the spelling of “Mombasa” had been “Mombassa” in 1961, but Mr. Smith has refuted that statement. Indeed, this writer has performed a five-page search using the words “history of Mombasa, Kenya,” and found no evidence of its being spelled “Mombassa.”

Page 635 of the Encyclopedia Britannica (pictured below) utilized by Smith for his research on the history of Kenya also refers to the port city as “Mombasa.” However, one website which has been following the Obama eligibility controversy incorrectly reports the spelling on the document as “Mombassa.”

Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963.

The document which Mr. Smith has reported is a certified copy of the original birth certificate appears below: [embedded below]

The Post & Email asked Mr. Smith a number of questions regarding his travels to Africa, how he obtained the document, and his decision to send it to every member of Congress, a project which was completed on August 31, 2010. Our questions are in bold.

...the extensive P&E report/interview continues here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/exclusive-lucas-daniel-smith-speaks-with-the-post-email

Update - Eyewitness at CA eligibility hearing recounts his impressions of Lucas Smith - “A SERIOUS AND CREDIBLE INDIVIDUAL” -
by David F. LaRocque - here; http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/eyewitness-at-ca-eligibility-hearing-recounts-his-impressions-of-lucas-smith

Previous reports on Lucas Smith can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for all the evidence and the long list of people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate, Hospital Version, From Lucas Smith -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32674014/Obama-Kenyan-Birth-Certificate-Hospital-Version-From-Lucas-Smith
Part 1 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36935783/Part-1-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 2 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36936219/Part-2-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 3 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36936605/Part-3-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 4 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36937463/Part-4-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 5 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36937831/Part-5-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 6 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36938434/Part-6-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 7 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36938917/Part-7-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress
Part 8 of 8. Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July Letter to Congress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36939241/Part-8-of-8-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress

All 435 In Congress Will Be Complicit In The Obama Birth Certificate/Eligibility Issue
Submitted by Thomas on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 22:47
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

if they fail to follow this up and will all be liable and answerable for felonies if they do nothing.

(Sept. 5, 2010) — Lucas Daniel Smith has just completed a mailing to each member of Congress a copy of a document which he stated is a certified copy of the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II showing that Obama was born in Kenya, Africa. Each birth certificate copy was sent with a seven-page, individually-notarized letter by certified mail. The project was completed on August 31, 2010.

Smith said that he obtained the document from the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya in February 2009. The document became part of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., in California which was denied a hearing in October 2009 by Judge David O. Carter.

Read the rest here with links to Scribd 1-8 files that shows letters and all 435 notarized documents...
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/lucas-sm...

Well I'd say that 435 people are in a real bind now that this has hit the internet and all the notarized documents sent to all the Reps are archived on Scribd.

(edit, between the above documents and these three articles below proving Nancy Pelosi knowingly committed fraud all that can see this for what it is should act on it.)

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14741

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie
The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II
An Ongoing Citizen Investigation, Certification of Obama's eligibility http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14741

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy – III
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127

Where is the U.S. Constitution?
Print This Post
WHY DID U.S. ARMY SOLDIERS MARCH INTO SAMSON, AL LAST YEAR?

by The Jaghunter

Why is there so much circumstantial evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, but none that he was born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S.?

(Sept. 5, 2010) — America is engulfed in a national peacetime emergency over the standing and stature of the U.S. Constitution. The outcome of the ongoing conflict–escalating in each passing moment–will either renew us as a Nation of Laws or make plain we’ve become instead a nation of lawyers, a nation oppressed by men.

As my close friend Tim Harrington observes, Obama is a constitutional lawyer in the sense that Obama studied how to burn the Constitution.

As you read these words Obama and his team are working frantically in these first days of power-consumption in efforts Obama describes as the “beginning of the end” of the U.S. Constitution.

We all heard Obama striking the match.

Mr. Obama wasn’t born a U.S citizen.

Federal government officials of every description know with certainty Mr. Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. These same officials prepare every day for the foreseeable firestorm combats that will pit supporters of the Constitution against Obama and his followers.

Many U.S. military commanders are no more obedient to the Constitution than Mr. Obama.

Army LtCol. Scott Weil considered himself unconstrained by that pesky Constitution when Weil deployed his rapid reaction force into the small community of Samson, Alabama on 10 March of this year in a drill designed to test, to measure and to observe many things.

Weil assigns watch standers to monitor emergency radio frequencies. On that fated Tuesday afternoon, a deranged 27-year old wildly ignited police radios as the maniac’s nightmare shooting spree began, developed, and escalated.

Weil was alerted and reacted instantly by calling local civilian police dispatch asking: “Can we help?”

In early moments of indescribable chaos, panic, and domestic turmoil–professional police officers pray they will never encounter–Army LtCol. Scott Weil placed a terrible burden upon engaged and distressed policemen by forcing a decision in a moment police were neither prepared to make or had time to consider.

More than that, it was the kind of decision that put the supremely stressed decision makers at risk of saying, “No, go away, we don’t need your help.”

All LtCol. Weil saw was a training opportunity to be exploited at the expense of civilian policemen in time of chaos.

The kind of chaos foreseeable by Weil and Weil’s chain of command in the ongoing and developing national emergency Mr. Obama sparked for all of us.

The Constitution prohibits the peacetime “deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter.” LtCol. Weil is the Provost Marshal and Director of Emergency Services at Fort Rucker. Weil commands this knowledge as he commands his military policemen. It is Weil’s job description. Scott Weil knows his military policemen have no peacetime jurisdiction or police power in the civilian community!

Weil also knows the question of his peacetime jurisdiction depends on who you ask (ask Obama for instance).

Samson City Attorney Neil Griswold did ask.

Counselor Griswold put the question directly to Geneva County Staff Judge Advocate Steven Smith. Geneva County Staff JAG Smith–in service to his commanders who condemn the Constitution–lied to City Attorney Griswold telling the Samson Attorney that no laws were violated. No criminal prosecutions targeting Weil or his senior officers were appropriate.

But Staff JAG Steven Smith knows, LtCol. Weil knows (as a professional military police officer), and I know the United States Constitution prohibits direct military involvement in civilian law enforcement activity.

There exists long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military’s role in domestic affairs.

LtCol. Weil violently trespassed upon the Constitution and Alabama state sovereignty when Weil called police dispatchers on 10 March.

Make no mistake: Weil knew exactly what he was doing in carrying out a preplanned response reviewed and sanctioned by Weil’s (and Staff JAG Smith’s) senior military commanders.

Oh…did I mention that Steven Smith’s day job is as the civilian Assistant District Attorney for the County of Geneva, Alabama including the City of Samson?

Otherwise Counselor Smith is an Army Reservist Judge Advocate (military attorney).

Staff JAG Smith knows full well officers like Scott Weil–when the U.S. Constitution is operative-“have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.”

Defense Department commanders chillingly plan to deploy U.S. servicemen in foreseeable real-world responses the day Mr. Obama faces criminal consequences for his TREASON!
Weil’s deployment of Army troops to Sampson was a drill!

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

Congressman: Is Kenyan Constitution Con a Criminal Offense? - Thanks to Svetlana
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Source
by Ben Johnson

The Washington Times posted a hard-hitting expose last night by Rep Chris Smith, R-NJ, focusing on how Barack Obama helped enact Kenya’s new pro-abortion, pro-Sharia constitution. So did you; Obama lobbied for the new constitution with your money. Rep. Smith has noted this kind of advocacy is undoubtedly offensive and may be illegal. He writes that Obama, through the U.S. Agency for International Development:

committed more than $23 million. The list includes eight grants totaling nearly $450,000 explicitly to obtain a total of more than 100,000 “yes” votes in the referendum…

The USAID IG has not yet finished his investigation into these obvious violations of U.S. law. The report on these USAID-funded activities will be in addition to the report issued by the Department of State‘s inspector general tasked with investigating whether State Department employees participated in prohibited activities. Unfortunately, the State Department IG’s conclusion contradicted his own report indicating that U.S. officials urged Kenyans to vote in favor of the constitution…

Even if U.S. money was not used to draft and advocate specifically for the abortion provisions – and it is quite possible that it was – advocacy for the constitution overall is a violation of this restriction.

We can count on the Obama administration to produce an accurate report on this matter around the same time O.J. Simpson finds the real killer.

The facts will be left for Congressional Republicans to investigate next year, if they succeed in retaking one or both houses. They have a large and growing number of targets to investigate, from the administration’s using your money to support the Kenyan constitution, to offering a job to Joe Sestak, to using your money (notice a common thread?) for government-funded propaganda.

This kind of potentially illegal behavior on behalf of the culture of death demands a response. Let’s hope the GOP is not too timid to offer it.

Pakistani Minister calls for Obama to become “Caliph of Muslims”
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email

IS THIS OBAMA’S ROLE IN THE ISLAMIC TAKEOVER OF AMERICA?
by Sharon Rondeau

This photo appears beside the assertion on Obama's "Fight the Smears" website that he is a "committed Christian(Sept. 3, 2010) — An online Pakistani newspaper is reporting that a government minister has asked that Barrack (sic) Hussein Obama be named “Caliph of Muslims.”

The minister reportedly wants Obama to “offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero Mosque,” the construction of which, several blocks from where 2,972 people were incinerated by two airliners on September 11, 2001 when they were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center Towers, Obama has openly supported.

The same Pakistani story was published on a site which appears to be operated by MSN in India.

The report quotes the government minister as having said, ““The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims.”

Eid is a festival which marks the end of Ramadan, which includes daily fasting.

Because the festival of “Eid” coincides with September 11 this year, Muslims are reportedly worried that it could invoke “the potential for misunderstandings or worse in a year when American Muslims are already confronting a spike in assaults on their faith and protests against new mosques.”

An online dictionary defines “caliph” as a noun derived from the word “successor,” a “successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam.” A second dictionary concurs.

According to Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, “The caliph in Sunni Islam is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Islamic community.”

Wikipedia defines the term “Caliph” as “the head of state in a Caliphate, and the title for the leader of the Islamic Ummah, an Islamic community ruled by the Shari’ah” and claims that it is a “constitutional republic.”

The minister, Ayatullah Durrani, was reportedly a member of the Pakistan Ideological Council. A website states that he or she is “Minister of State” within the “Ministry of Indusrtires (sic) and Production.” While some of the links are non-functional, the link labeled “Politics” brings up a history of Pakistan.

A second website depicts Dr. Ayatullah Durrani as a male and a member of the “Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians.” The political party is described here.



After conducting a search for the term “Muslim Ummah,” as it appeared in the Pakistani article, a warning about an “attack page is displayed. Why has Google blocked the site with a warning? The same thing happens when trying to access the website for “Muslim Ummah of North America.”

Wikipedia states that “ummah” is “an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation.” One source states that it is the “community” which includes “Mauritania to Pakistan.”

A search for the term “Ameer-ul-Momineen” yields an Islamic website depicting books which can be downloaded as well as at least one video and a chat room. Another definition is “Leader of the Faithful.”

How can a man who professes to be a Christian be a Muslim Caliph? Obama claimed he was a Christian on his campaign website. Or was he simply confused? He has hosted Iftar dinners and spoken about “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.”

But what has he said about Christianity and Jesus Christ?

The prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca, where the last Friday of Ramadan was recognized today. One Muslim says that Ramadan is the best time of the year for her personally.

A note at the end of the Pakistani article states that it also appeared in their print news edition.

Update: When Obama addressed the “Muslim world” last summer, he said he was “interested in working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill “Zakat,” which he stated is an “obligation.” Zakat is defined as “one of the five pillars of Islam” and involves the redistribution of wealth to the poor. “It is obligatory upon all Muslims to give 2.5 % of wealth and assets each year (in excess of what is required) to the poor.”

Is Obama’s “Muslim faith” the reason he advocated “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber in 2008?

Did Americans simply accept that Obama was a Christian during the campaign because his surrogates said so? The evidence says otherwise.

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.