The case "places squarely before the high court the question of whether the constitutional Rule of Law will be preserved in this nation, as opposed to egregious bias on the part of a judge who relied upon such extra-judicial factors as that 'The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the president,…'
"The judge then went on to sarcastically declare: '...but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.' Imagine that, a citizen wanting a serious constitutional issue resolved by a court! John Marshall, roll over in your grave. We believe this sentiment is called in the language of the Supreme Court in numerous cases a denial of 'access to the courts,' or of 'access to justice,' and is rooted in the First and Seventh Amendments as well as a number of other constitutional provisions," the website explains.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
- "Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
- "By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
- "In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
- "Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
- "Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Read more: New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=245753#ixzz19iIqpdzJ
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Obama's Destruction of the Military is under way.The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it.""I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
Something really queer going on here.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START | U.S. Naval Institute
“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”Du, who would have ever guessed it?
Too bad it was security instead of politics. Resident Obama's Adm shows concern when it's politics.
Internet Access Is Not a Civil Right - Michelle Malkin - National Review Online
The “net neutrality” mob — funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits — has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for “media justice.” Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic “rights.” Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.If you don't see this for what it is, then your willing to hand over another freedom to Government.
The meetings of the universal-broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about “disenfranchisement” and “empowerment.” They’ve targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV, and the Internet as purveyors of “hate” who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation–funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement “grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.”
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Specter RINO's listed in BOLD!
YEAs ---71 Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Remember them when you evaluate who you can trust! Five of them made the difference.
Morning Bell: It’s Time to Stop the FCC Internet Czars | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Meet FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a political appointee and Harvard Law classmate of President Barack Obama. Genachowski is leading the FCC’s charge for new powers over the Internet so it can enact a policy known as “net neutrality,” which would allow the commission to regulate how Internet providers like Comcast or Verizon offer their services. If you’re someone who is suspicious of big corporations, that sounds like a great idea. If you’re someone who is fearful of big government, take heed. In reality, the policy will limit consumer choice while granting the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. As Heritage’s James Gattuso describes:
The net result [of net neutrality]— a slower and more congested Internet, and more frustration for users. Even worse, investment in expanding the Internet will be chilled, as FCC control of network management makes investment less inviting. The amounts at stake aren’t trivial, with tens of billions invested each year in Internet expansion.
The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
Don't forget it also sets up a revenue mechanism of licensing, fines for courts, and a new Government Bureaucracy.Obama 'snookered' by Russia in new arms treaty
Resident Obama and the Libs weren't snookered, they are intentionally destroying America one piece at a time."The Russians have snookered the Obama administration," Kwapisz told WND. "They got virtually everything they wanted but gave up nothing of importance to us on verification, missile defenses and their advantage in tactical nuclear weapons."
"I believe we are impairing our ability to mount a strategic defense," said one working group member, Ambassador Henry Cooper, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and the chief U.S. strategic weapons negotiator with the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration.
"The Russians have said we cannot make any qualitative or quantitative improvements on the strategic defenses we already have," Cooper added, pointing out that the U.S. needs to deploy new defenses against newly developing threats from countries other than Russia.
Another good day for Obama is another bad day for America.
Don't Ask Don Tell? Destruction of Military Act!
Unemployment? America Dependence Act!
Debt? Bankrupt America Act!
Corruption? Regime Control Act!
Obama Background Verification? America Deception Act!
FCC takeover of Internet? Net Neutrality Act!
Drilling bans? Energy Reduction Act!
That's just for reminders, and hardly even touches on the other intentional destruction Acts already implemented.
Ex-Googler leaving White House | POLITICO 44
McLaughlin was Google’s head of global public policy before assuming the role of Deputy Chief Technology Officer in the White House, working on a number of high-level Internet issues, such as net neutrality, cybersecurity, online privacy and the nation’s broadband strategy. Before joining the White House, he worked on Obama’s transition team.Now it's time for him to capitalize on the legislation he helped craft. Should be able to get funding from both Resident Obama and Google now that he's written his own law.
Obama Business as usual, corruption taken to the next level.
Do you really think Rahm isn't going to run Chicago? Wishful thinking.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup - WSJ.com
It gets better as the take over continues.There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.
Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.
What Constitution? No longer relevant to Resident Obama and his Regime.
You better learn "Hail Obama" courtesty of Julius Seizure.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
seMissourian.com: Column: Mike Jensen: Redistribution on steroids
In the midst of a colossal global concern for the economic stability of our great nation, Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri's 5th Congressional District representative, has one small earmark on his wish list that deserves some attention.
Cleaver has listed a new earmark -- one of several -- and he promises to "fight for every one." But this is a whopping $48 billion package that must go down as the grandaddy of all earmarks.
Proposed by a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus, the $48 billion earmark would funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.
Just call this redistribution on steroids.
Lakin: 'I chose the wrong path'
It ain't over until Resident Obama is exposed for what he is, or isn't.Deprived by trial judge Col. Denise Lind of any opportunity to defend himself by introducing evidence or expert testimony, Lakin was reduced to pleading guilty on three charges of disobeying orders and mounting only a narrow, technical defense on the "missing movement" charge. Lakin's attorney, Neal Puckett, tried in vain to persuade the court-martial panel to convict Lakin of a lesser charge.
"His attorney was reduced to a circus clown because [Lind] wouldn't allow a meaningful defense," said California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought repeated cases challenging Obama's eligibility before U. S. courts. "It's a joke, just a farce."
"The issue is very simple," said New Jersey attorney William Baer. "What is the definition of "natural-born citizen" and does Obama meet it? Nobody will let the question be asked."
"The military wouldn't let him have discovery, so he said 'go ahead and put me in prison,' said retired Navy Commander Charles F. Kerchner of Emmaus, Penn., the plaintiff in a Taitz case that recently went before the U.S. Supreme Court. "He's a political prisoner."
Kerchner and retired Army Capt. Pamela Barnett of Sacramento, another Taitz plaintiff, both said they attended the court martial to support Lakin. Kerchner and Barnett pointed out that they, like Lakin, have been denied justice by U.S. courts that refused to hear the merits of their cases against Obama.
"They took away every Constitutional right Lakin has, said Barnett. "The U.S. Supreme Court and the House of Representatives should address this stripping of an officer's civil rights. A terrorist has more rights than Terry Lakin."
Place your bets.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
American Thinker: Crucible of a Hero
I stated at the outset is that Lakin's stature is assured despite the verdict. Here's why. The charges are (i) that he missed his deployment flight; and (ii) conduct unbecoming an officer. He has, in the early stages of his trial, been denied discovery, and the presentation of witnesses, evidence, or argument in defense of his position. That position necessarily goes to the heart of whether Obama should hold the White House keys. Conviction on the charges seems inescapable. The military court is not likely to risk uncovering an inconvenient truth about the acting President, if there be one. Were Lakin to be exonerated -- which seems all but impossible -- then the tribunal would be staring in the face the propriety of all things Obama, a task far too sensitive for it. And the question of his provenance would fairly beg itself into being before Court could adjourn. And on the other hand, if Lakin is convicted, well, society will be no closer to probing the mystery of the guarded origins and persona of the Commander-in-Thief. Which will make doubly urgent Lakin's reach for the grail of truth, and for others to take up his cause.Who do you trust, Resident Soetoro/Obama or LTC Lakin?
Who would you believe?
At least you have a choice from both ends of the spectrum!
Guess which has one Social Security No.
Guess which is registered with Selective Service?
Guess which has a Real Birth Certificate?
Guess who really deserves to be behind bars?
Lakin guilty on 3 counts
The real story is that Military Justice has be co-oped as have many Federal Courts, and 4 out of 5 "Justices" of the Supreme Court.Orly Taitz, one of the attorneys spearheading the legal efforts to compel Obama to produce his birth and citizenship documents, criticized the strategy of conceding guilt on three charges.
"Even if you beat the fourth charge, what have you gained?" Taitz argued. "He's still facing 18 months in prison, loss of retirement benefits and dismissal from the service."
Taitz acknowledged that Puckett's hands are tied by Lind's earlier rulings effectively forbidding what might be the most effective line of defense, the argument that any order originating with Obama might in fact be illegal as long as Obama's eligibility remains unproven.
"He's reduced to arguing a technicality," Taitz told WND. "The whole trial is a sham, a farce. They're not allowed to discuss the only real issue here, Obama's eligibility."
Retired Navy Lt. Commander Charles Kerchner, the plaintiff in an eligibility suit recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, doubts that justice will be done in Lakin's court martial.
"They have not allowed him discovery and exculpatory evidence, which the Constitution affords all of us," said Kerchner. "I don't know what legal rabbit [the defense is] going to pull out of a hat but they're obviously planning something."
Lakin's brother, Dr. Greg Lakin, was more upbeat about Puckett's defense strategy.
"[Puckett] wants to focus on the big issue here," Greg Lakin told WND. According to Lakin, Puckett chose to concede the smaller matters in order to direct the court martial panel's attention on the "missing movement" charge, which is most closely linked to Obama's personal authority because it ties directly to the order to deploy to Iraq as part of Obama's surge strategy.
"The president has taken full credit for the Afghanistan deployment, he signed the order," said Greg Lakin. "Terry will have a chance to say his piece during the sentencing portion of the trial."
What Constitution?
Monday, December 13, 2010
American Thinker Blog: A government jobs program, San Francisco style
$59,000 a year for a Junior anal yst.How many bureaucrats does it take to create a job? Well, if the "hire local" ordinance coming before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week is any indication - quite a few. And they don't come cheap.Under the proposed ordinance coming up for a final vote Tuesday, building contractors doing business with the city would have to hire as many as half their workers from within the city. Half the new hires will also have to come from the ranks of the "disadvantaged." The goal is to see that 355 locals are trained for work through the hire-local program. But, of course, any new program requires a bureaucracy to administer it. In the case of the local-hire program, that means the city bringing in a new:-- $59,000-a-year junior analyst.-- $80,000-a-year community development specialist.-- $87,878-a-year accountant.-- $88,660-a-year contract compliance officer.-- And a $116,246-a-year contract compliance officer II.Add in fringe benefits, paper, pencils and the like, and you're talking $1.3 million annually. But wait, there's more. To prove that the applicants are indeed San Francisco residents, the county clerk wants them to have an official city-issued ID - which, in turn, means hiring an additional two clerks at $50,000 and $65,546 a year, plus a $57,044-a-year legal process clerk. Add in fringe benefits, work stations and the like, and you're talking another $923,000.Total yearly administration cost: $2.2 million, or about $6,200 per job.Now that's job creation.
COUNTDOWN to Court-Martial (Fort Meade, MD, Dec 14-15)
This week, the American Patriot Foundation heard from a retired Navy SEAL, shocked by the stunning decision by a civilian court in which a terrorist suspect/detainee was convicted on only ONE count of 249 criminal charges: "Let me see if I understand this, Col. Lakin can get a more severe punishment that Ahmed Ghailani?"
Unlike Ghailani, LTC Lakin is being tried in a military court-- for defying military orders in order to seek the truth about whether Obama is legally, Constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. LTC Lakin's sworn oath as a military officer requires him to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
No one in his chains of command or in his Congressional delegation could tell him-- after more than a year of seeking assurance that his orders were lawful-- if Obama met the requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution of a "natural born citizen" and was entitled to command the U.S. Armed Forces. LTC Lakin's military orders to deploy to Afghanistan under Obama's announced surge, included a requirement that he present copies of his birth certificate (to which he dutifully complied).
We continue to be amazed at an administration that balks at producing such a simple, elementary document-- one that every US citizen possesses and is asked to show many times during his or her lifetime.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
McInerny: Congress will review Lakin case
"The judge in this particular case said I do not know enough about the Army to be able to understand the Army's position on the Uniform Code of Military Justice," said McInerney, who added he once commanded an army division in Alaska as part of a joint Army-Air Force command.
"I am intimately familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice," said McInerney. "But you get a judge ... who says that I as a three-star general who had general court martial authority do not know enough about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dr. Terry Lakin is not going to get a fair trial in this particular proceeding."
McInerney was asked by the defense to testify about when a soldier is trained to disobey orders he believes are illegal.
Prosecuting Assange Under the Espionage Act - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online
(a) In this context as in that of alien enemy combatants, we should presume that constitutional protections do not extend to aliens located overseas, particularly those who are hostile to our government. The Constitution is intended to protect Americans from arbitrary or abusive acts by their government, not to protect aliens outside our borders, much less enemy aliens. And
(b) Assange is not a journalist. As Gabe points out, the First Amendment has never immunized journalists from liability for publishing national defense information shielded by the Espionage Act — the Pentagon Papers case merely held that there should not be a prior restraint against publication, not that there could not be a post-publication prosecution. Moreover, as Gabe further notes, prosecutors are leery of proceeding against journalists due to judicial interpretations of the espionage act that call for proof of “bad faith” on the part of the journalist. I think this hesitation is misplaced: at most, “bad faith” for these purposes means the prosecutor must show the journalist was aware that publication could harm the U.S. — it doesn’t matter if the journalist had what he subjectively saw as admirable motives. But such knotty journalistic intent issues are irrelevant when we are dealing with a non-journalist who acts with an unabashed goal of undermining the United States. (On Assange’s anti-American rationale, I highly recommend Gordon Crovitz’s insightful WSJ column from Monday, “Julian Assange, Information Anarchist.”)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of December 3, 2010
222 Applicants
Total Enrollees | 1,507,418 | 1,507,418 |
Obamacare for the rest of us.
WikiLeaks cables: Barack Obama is a bigger danger | John Bolton | Comment is free | The Guardian
All of this underscores the real problem. It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them. While our economic difficulties have dominated the national debate for two years, national security will inevitably again come to the fore, as Americans see the full extent of the devastation left by Obama's policies. That shift cannot come too soon.Resident Obama and his Liberal cronies are hurting America more than WikiLeaks wildest dreams.
Having said that, WikiLeaks is making it more dangerous and difficult for the Patriots defending America and more difficult to free many peoples from the real threats throughout the World.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Lakin's attorney: Conviction 'certain'
Lakin had intended, through a court martial, to resolve the nationwide dispute about Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Knowing he was risking imprisonment and dismissal from the service, Lakin deliberately disobeyed his superiors in order to force Obama to produce his birth certificate and documents related to his citizenship status.
His plan was frustrated when Col. Lind declared that Lakin's orders were legitimate, without addressing the underlying eligibility issue, and ruled to limit the scope of the trial to the narrow question of whether Lakin had knowingly disobeyed orders.
"This leaves us with a client who stands accused of missing the movement of an airplane, two failures to obey orders to meet his brigate commander, failure to report to Ft. Campbell, and failure to report to his unit," said Puckett.
"LTC Lakin asked many people to answer his questions about his misgivings about the legitimacy of the president, even the White House. He had a question that a lot of Americans have, a question that hasn't been answered by the legislative branch or by the judicial branch. When he received his orders he had a conscience issue, whether he'd be obeying lawful orders," Puckett explained.
"LTC Lakin is a doctor, not a lawyer," said Puckett. "He thought if he were to ask that question of the military courts, after being rebuffed in all other avenues, he'd get his answer. What he has discovered is that the military justice system cannot produce the answers to those questions. He could not have known, he was given inadequate legal advice. The military justice system is set up to help commanding officers maintain good order and discipline. It can't make victims whole, it can only punish wrongdoers. He's very disappointed in the system."
"We have to proceed without the documents, evidence and witnesses that have been denied to the defense. LTC Lakin is left to speak for himself and defend himself. It's up to him whether he wants to testify in his own defense, said Puckett.
