Tuesday, August 31, 2010
BREAKING NEWS...
Press Release:
Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit
Supporting LTC Lakin’s Case
Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin
McInerney’s affidavit can be viewed at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com. The following are extracts:
The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.
As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential– vital– in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.
In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it. Indeed, he has publicly stated that he “invites” his own court martial, and were I the Convening Authority, I would have acceded to his wishes in that regard. But thus stepping up the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.
For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the President’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious– and widely held– concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.
Lakin is represented by military counsel, and by Paul Rolf Jensen, a civilian attorney from California who has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin’s legal defense. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
—-end—
For further information,
Contact: Margaret Hemenway (202) 725-7659
Background information RE: ELIGIBILITY ISSUE
The strange case of Judge David O. Carter
Judge David O. Carter was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1998
WHAT TURNED THIS DECORATED WAR HERO INTO A PUPPET FOR THE OBAMA REGIME?
by David F. LaRocque
(Aug. 22, 2010) — On August 11, 2010, an Appellants’ Opening Brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Dr. Orly Taitz, in the case Pamela Barnett, Alan Keyes, et al v. Barack Obama et al. This appeal is seeking to overturn the decision of Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in an order of dismissal issued on October 29, 2009. The grounds for the appeal are based on an assertion that the “District Court acted with bias, lack of impartiality, and under improper and undue influence from (the) Obama administration.” <<>>
This is a VERY well written, comprehensive column detailing the complete 180 degree turnabout in the judicial opinions of this once respected Marine.
Read the FULL COLUMN HERE
Here are your candidates for this week’s Ten Buck Fridays Poll:
Sean Bielat (MA-04)
Rob Cornilles (OR-01)
Ryan Frazier (CO-07)
Doug Hoffman (NY-23)
Mike Keown (GA-02)
Bill Marcy (MS-02)
Ed Martin (MO-03)
Ilario Pantano (NC-07)
Scott Sipprelle (NJ-12)
Jay Townsend (NY-Sen)
Please visit RightKlik. He’s got the 411 on each of this week’s TBF candidates. Read more...
Sean Bielat (MA-04)
Rob Cornilles (OR-01)
Ryan Frazier (CO-07)
Doug Hoffman (NY-23)
Mike Keown (GA-02)
Bill Marcy (MS-02)
Ed Martin (MO-03)
Ilario Pantano (NC-07)
Scott Sipprelle (NJ-12)
Jay Townsend (NY-Sen)
Please visit RightKlik. He’s got the 411 on each of this week’s TBF candidates.
According to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements to be POTUS.
Via WND; - Best-seller: Obama has not proved birthplace - Sole document released leaves open possibility he was born outside Hawaii - While there is no evidence he was born overseas[except this], President...
BETTER WAKE UP: Felons by the thousands among infiltrating hordes. Documentary also uncovers alarming link between illegal aliens & radical Islamists
Tens of thousands of convicted felons, including murderers and sex offenders, regularly are breaching the United States national boundary along just one section of the shared line with Mexico, according to a revealing new documentary called "Southern Exposure: Battle for the Border."
Eyefull Video Productions, located in the migration hotbed of Tucson, Ariz., has produced a made-for-TV special about the U.S./Mexico border crisis. It suggests that the invading hordes also may have an agenda of damage to the U.S. far beyond ordinary crime such as robbery, looting and even homicide.
In anticipation of its Sept. 15 release date, when it is scheduled to be available on DVD on Amazon, producer Stan Wald and director Jerry Misner talked about their documentary with WND.
"We used to be in broadcasting, and we were getting towards retirement age and saying, 'What do we really want to do?' That's one of the joys of actually retiring," said Misner, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam vet. "We started about four years ago doing television commercials and corporate-imaging video, and we started thinking we'd really like to do something meaningful and give something back to the country because it's been good to us overall," he explained.
"We discovered there were elements of the mass migration that were not being covered in major news across the country, but only in local communities adjacent to the border," said Wald. "So we decided to start digging into things and getting some answers that the media wasn’t providing."
Wald said that in fiscal year 2008-2009, there were 378,000 apprehensions by the Border Patrol in the Tucson sector alone, which is only 262 linear miles. READ MORE...
House's Former Black Caucus Chairwoman Gave Scholarships to Relatives
August 31, 2010
FoxNews.com
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a longtime congresswoman from Texas, said Monday she will return scholarship money she distributed to her relatives and those of a top aide from a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation program in violation of the group's rules.
"I was unaware of being in any type of violation and never intentionally violated the CBCF’s rules. Further, to rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week," Johnson said in a statement.
Johnson, an influential Democratic member of Congress and former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, told The Dallas Morning News that she "unknowingly" violated nepotism rules when she gave two grandsons, two great-nephews and her district director's two children scholarship money.
The newspaper was first to report Monday that Johnson awarded nine to 11 scholarships per year from 2005 to 2008, the years the Morning News had available for review, and in each year, three or four winners were related to Johnson or her district director, Rod Givens.
"I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one," she told the newspaper, adding that had had there been "very worthy applicants in my district ... then I probably wouldn't have given it" to the relatives.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to LiveEmployees File Suit Against Coke for Cancelling Their Health Care10 Best Company NicknamesEXCLUSIVE: Mayo Says Citi Can't Be TrustedDouble-Dip Fears Hit Global StocksIn her statement Monday evening, Johnson pledged to establish a "non-biased third party objective review committee" to handle awarding future scholarships.
Click here to read more from The Dallas Morning News
Caucus members get $10,000 each year in corporate and private donations to the foundation to distribute as awards. The Dallas Morning News noted that Johnson, who is a former board member of the foundation, said she didn't know all the program's rules and didn't "personally benefit."
"The most that any kid normally gets is from $1,000 to $1,200. ... If it was a secret or if I was trying to hide it, I wouldn't have done it," she told the Morning News.
The foundation's general counsel, Amy Goldson, told the newspaper that the program "operates on an honor system," so it doesn't track whether the candidates are relatives of the members.
"It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker or their staff is involved in the selection of the recipient," she is quoted saying.
Whether Johnson will face an ethics probe in the House is unclear. While using one's position to benefit family would appear right up the ethics committee's alley, Johnson's claims to have unknowingly violated the rules may keep it an internal CBC Foundation.
Johnson said she awarded grants outside her district because she is a lone Democrat in the Republican heartland of Texas.
"Much of my district office casework benefits people outside my constituency. While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process," she said
FoxNews.com
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a longtime congresswoman from Texas, said Monday she will return scholarship money she distributed to her relatives and those of a top aide from a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation program in violation of the group's rules.
"I was unaware of being in any type of violation and never intentionally violated the CBCF’s rules. Further, to rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week," Johnson said in a statement.
Johnson, an influential Democratic member of Congress and former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, told The Dallas Morning News that she "unknowingly" violated nepotism rules when she gave two grandsons, two great-nephews and her district director's two children scholarship money.
The newspaper was first to report Monday that Johnson awarded nine to 11 scholarships per year from 2005 to 2008, the years the Morning News had available for review, and in each year, three or four winners were related to Johnson or her district director, Rod Givens.
"I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one," she told the newspaper, adding that had had there been "very worthy applicants in my district ... then I probably wouldn't have given it" to the relatives.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to LiveEmployees File Suit Against Coke for Cancelling Their Health Care10 Best Company NicknamesEXCLUSIVE: Mayo Says Citi Can't Be TrustedDouble-Dip Fears Hit Global StocksIn her statement Monday evening, Johnson pledged to establish a "non-biased third party objective review committee" to handle awarding future scholarships.
Click here to read more from The Dallas Morning News
Caucus members get $10,000 each year in corporate and private donations to the foundation to distribute as awards. The Dallas Morning News noted that Johnson, who is a former board member of the foundation, said she didn't know all the program's rules and didn't "personally benefit."
"The most that any kid normally gets is from $1,000 to $1,200. ... If it was a secret or if I was trying to hide it, I wouldn't have done it," she told the Morning News.
The foundation's general counsel, Amy Goldson, told the newspaper that the program "operates on an honor system," so it doesn't track whether the candidates are relatives of the members.
"It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker or their staff is involved in the selection of the recipient," she is quoted saying.
Whether Johnson will face an ethics probe in the House is unclear. While using one's position to benefit family would appear right up the ethics committee's alley, Johnson's claims to have unknowingly violated the rules may keep it an internal CBC Foundation.
Johnson said she awarded grants outside her district because she is a lone Democrat in the Republican heartland of Texas.
"Much of my district office casework benefits people outside my constituency. While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process," she said
Aide: Texas Gov. Perry Denied Meeting With Obama During Visit to Fort Bliss
August 31, 2010
Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas -- A governor's spokeswoman says Gov. Rick Perry has been denied a meeting with President Obama when the president visits Fort Bliss on Tuesday.
Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says the Republican governor had asked to meet with the president on Tuesday to discuss border security. Cesinger said Monday that White House aides said the president would not be available for such a meeting.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.
Perry was one of the first people the president saw when he stepped from Air Force One during an Austin visit on Aug. 9. On that occasion, Perry hand-delivered a letter to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, warning about the "dire threat" from drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico
Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas -- A governor's spokeswoman says Gov. Rick Perry has been denied a meeting with President Obama when the president visits Fort Bliss on Tuesday.
Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says the Republican governor had asked to meet with the president on Tuesday to discuss border security. Cesinger said Monday that White House aides said the president would not be available for such a meeting.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.
Perry was one of the first people the president saw when he stepped from Air Force One during an Austin visit on Aug. 9. On that occasion, Perry hand-delivered a letter to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, warning about the "dire threat" from drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico
Obama tells the U.N. how great he is
Examiner Editorial
August 30, 2010
 |
| President Obama’s administration sent a 29-page report to the United Nations on American human rights that portrays Obama’s policies as great leaps forward. (Jae C. Hong/Ap file) |
President Obama's administration recently submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights in America. The 29-page report shows the nation badly flawed but fortunate to have a Nobel Prize winner as its leader. The report is billed as "a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society." Among the nation's shortcomings listed in the report: » Arizona has dared to try to enforce immigration laws that the federal government will not. But don't worry, Obama is suing them. » We incarcerate dangerous terrorists at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay. But don't worry -- Obama has signed three executive orders to protect them from the last administration's rough handling and he "remains committed to closure of the Guantanamo detention facility." » It's too hard to form a union, the document says -- either that or unions have just become less relevant. But don't worry, "there are several bills in our Congress that seek to strengthen workers' rights" -- bills like "card check," which will help institutionalize union intimidation and coercion by taking away a worker's right to a secret ballot. The report also notes that as bad as our human rights situation is, help is on the way -- all thanks to Obama: » America made "great strides" in human rights when "President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law." That's better known as Obamacare, the law that 60 percent of us want repealed. » Obama is trying to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" in the Department of Defense and the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states' right to define marriage legislatively. » The report mentions that in recent months, "the Department of Justice has worked to strengthen enforcement of federal voting rights laws." (So, just pretend, at least for a moment, that the New Black Panther case never happened.) You get the picture: This is a self-serving political document that portrays Obama policies as great leaps forward, and things he opposes as steps backward. In the Bush years, America ignored the UN High Commission on Human Rights because the panel too often gave voice and sometimes positions of leadership to such human rights beacons as Cuba and China. Now, under Obama, our government is producing propaganda for world consumption at the expense of the American people. In other words, Obama has not merely joined Cuba and China on the commission, he is imitating their leaders' tactics, too.
The Lasting Damage Obama Has Done to the Jewish People
By Fred Dardick Full Story
By Fred Dardick Full Story
In less than two years as President, under Obama’s watch there has been an outpouring of hatred towards the Jewish people the likes of which I never thought I would live to see.
Monday, August 30, 2010
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
by TexDix, blogging at http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm
(Mar. 20, 2010) — I’m a non-partisan, constitutional conservative. I call Obama the prince of fools and if you voted for the prince of fools?
This is not about a Birth Certificate! We can’t allow our U. S. Constitution to be selectively enforced.
President of the United States = POTUS: You have to be a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen = NBC to be POTUS.
The Dual Citizen, Obama, lacks legal authority to be POTUS! or Look here for another way of saying what I say below.
POTUS eligibility was never restricted to whites, males or anything else but what is in our Constitution listed below. Consider these source links from our United States Constitution as set in sequential order, and look at the clearly expressed systematics of the Framers’ purpose and intent: You can click on them to go off my site to that source record, our United States Constitution. Obama II is not a Constitutional, United States Natural Born Citizen, because his father, Obama Sr., was not and never was any type of United States Citizen, but a British Subject and an alien.
Obama II has said that his birth was governed by his father, Obama Sr.’s, citizenship status at his own birth. This then makes Obama II, at the very best, a dual citizen and maybe not even that, as he has yet to prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States.”
For sure, Obama is not a Constitutional NBC as required by our Laws to be POTUS. Obama has said he gave up his British Citizenship. This is not about being a US Citizen but about being a Natural Born Citizen. You can only get that status at your birth and if you are not born that way, then you will never be that way. It would require something unnatural to even suggest that you are what you are not.
1787- 17th, September: To be eligible for President; The United States Constitution, Article. II. section I. clause 5. says: No person except a ‘NATURAL Born Citizen,’ or a Citizen of the United States, ‘at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’ (grandfather clause) 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.” Off-site to source record.
Article I, Section 2, clause 2, Eligibility for the House of Representatives: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Article. I. Section. 3. clause 3. Eligibility for the Senate: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Note the above are called source records and shows a clear difference between a U. S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The above is the law not an opinion or what some fool media talking head thinks. Our limited constitutional republic, which is our form of government, is a government by laws and not by polls or what a few or many current people think it should be. We are or should be a Nation of Laws!
These men who wrote our United States Constitution while born on United States Soil were dual citizens because their parents were also British. Because they knew this and didn’t see themselves as being A Natural Born Citizen because their parents were not US Citizens at the time of their birth. These men who fought for and created the US Constitution were just Native Born Citizens of The United States like Obama is at best. These men wrote into and used the ‘grandfather clause’ (see above) so they could be elected to be POTUS. It’s the way our founding fathers intended it to be. They have thus written it into our United States Constitution. If someone tells you this is not what they meant to say look for your own self at the above source record and see what you think it says.
Are we a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Fools?
SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875 “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be Natural Born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was ‘NEVER DOUBTED’ that all children born in a country of parents who were its ‘Citizens’ became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens (para. 9), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child.
Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.”
Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “Natural Born Citizen,” we have a different story.
There is a legal way to change our Laws but it can’t be done by Congress passing a law of any kind. Go over to Thomas and do a search and see how many times Congress has tried to change our Constitution in the correct way but got no place in trying to do it the lawful way.
Now they are doing it because they want to and no one will stop them. George Washington says it better than I ever could. He called it Usurpation! Don’t let these fools tell you what it says. You read it and it means what you think it means, not what someone tells you it means. In this matter the SCOTUS has stated what it takes to be a Natural Born Citizen of The United States, without any doubts. Congress can’t do away with it other than in the way the Constitution allows. They are trying to trash it and are doing a good job of it to this date.
No doubt in my mind every Congressperson, every judge, every person who took an oath or affirmed to uphold the U.S. Constitution and didn’t: all will be shown to be a traitor to the United States and our U.S. Constitution. That includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, my own Republican Congressman, all our State governors, including the so-called news media. Because Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, they all know it is unlawful; all of them have helped it to happen rather than trying to stop this unlawful act. Therefore nothing citizen Obama does sitting as an unlawful POTUS is legal.
Tea Party…I just love these people!
“Interviews with Tea Partiers across the country paint a picture of a genuine, amorphous, conservative grassroots movement united by three core principles: constitutionally limited government, free market ideology ( not A corporate ideology ) and low taxes at least at the federal level. The American Constitution is a rallying cry and many now dub themselves “constitutional conservatives.”
People in the Tea Party are angry not just at what they describe as the socialist policies of Obama. They also feel Republican politicians have betrayed the party’s ideals of The US Constitution. For many in the movement, purging the party of moderate Republicans is a major goal.”
In Article, I, Section. 8 of The US Constitution, it lists all it allows our Congress to do. There are only 18 things and by law and their oath that is all that they can do. Why not take a look and read it.
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Did you know some people think George Washington was not the first President of the United States?
John Hanson was President of the Continental Congress and had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid.
Hanson, as President of the Continental Congress, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since used on all official documents. Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.
The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President of the Continental Congress to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was said to be strongly opposed to the U. S. Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Six other Presidents of the Continental Congress were elected after him: Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788), all prior to Washington taking office.
Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United States?
It’s quite simple: The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as our Constitution.
George Washington was definitely the first President of the United States under the Constitution we are supposed to follow today, it is the law. The first seven Presidents of the Continental Congress are somewhat forgotten in the history of today.
Who really started the idea of a United States?
We are shamefully shredding Military voting rights
By Dr. Laurie Roth Full Story
By Dr. Laurie Roth Full Story
It is unbelievable to me that I even have to mention such a thing as the right for our overseas military to get their votes counted in time for elections, but I do.
10,000 Voting Machines Lost In Warehouse Fire
Harris County which encompasses the 4th largest city in America, Houston,Texas oddly has suffered a fire, which destroyed all 10,000 voting machines. They will be replaced by the November 2, general election, by which company, remains to be determined at this point.
The oddity of the circumstances continue, when one considers, the importance of the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections. Harris county generally splits fairly evenly due to the high minority vote as is the case, in the rest of Texas' major cities. Texas, a red state could be less a factor in a general election, IF the new replacement voting machines somehow learn to multiply by November 2, 2010 and onward.
This fire is under investigation, with no ruling on arson as of yet. As far as other locales around the country, readers report in any irregular activity, that affects the voting process from here to election day.
Remember, Obama doesn't have to rig the entire election in all 50 states, only the elections in 10 or 12 key battleground states. Sudden Red to Blue voting results, such as in a few major states such as Texas would also be cause for concern in this election and 2012's.
Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
County OKs $13.6M purchase of new voting machines
By CHRIS MORAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 30, 2010
Despite a fire that destroyed Harris County’s voting machines Friday, County Clerk Beverly Kaufman said she intends to keep all polling places open with replacement machines on Nov. 2.
Commissioners Court approved Kaufman’s emergency plan this afternoon to spend $13.6 million to buy 2,325 electronic voting machines and supporting equipment.
“Your polling place is going to be open early and on election day. You’ll be able to vote conveniently as you’re accustomed to doing,” Kaufman said afterward.
Kaufman’s request included 1.4 million paper ballots, which will be distributed to polling stations as a backup in case a shortage of machines leads to long lines. (this could be the means to defraud the election, via mulitiple voting ala an Acorn type voter scam)
A fire before dawn on Friday destroyed the building that housed all 10,000 of the county’s voting machines. The cause of the blaze has not been determined, but arson investigators returned to 606 Canino today to continue their investigation, Houston Fire Department spokesman Patrick Trahan said.
The 27,800-square-foot warehouse and contents were a total loss. Kaufman said she expects to ask for more money before election day but had no estimate this afternoon on how much.
The county was insured for $41 million worth of materials in the building, as well as $1.5 million on the building itself, said David Kester, the county’s risk manager.
Kaufman said it is possible the county could get even more insurance money to cover the costs of demolition and site cleanup, plus construction upgrades required to meet building codes established since the warehouse was built in 1976.
Kaufman continued her call for early voting as a way to head off long lines at the 739 election day polling stations. Early voting begins Oct. 18
The oddity of the circumstances continue, when one considers, the importance of the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections. Harris county generally splits fairly evenly due to the high minority vote as is the case, in the rest of Texas' major cities. Texas, a red state could be less a factor in a general election, IF the new replacement voting machines somehow learn to multiply by November 2, 2010 and onward.
This fire is under investigation, with no ruling on arson as of yet. As far as other locales around the country, readers report in any irregular activity, that affects the voting process from here to election day.
Remember, Obama doesn't have to rig the entire election in all 50 states, only the elections in 10 or 12 key battleground states. Sudden Red to Blue voting results, such as in a few major states such as Texas would also be cause for concern in this election and 2012's.
Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
County OKs $13.6M purchase of new voting machines
By CHRIS MORAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 30, 2010
Despite a fire that destroyed Harris County’s voting machines Friday, County Clerk Beverly Kaufman said she intends to keep all polling places open with replacement machines on Nov. 2.
Commissioners Court approved Kaufman’s emergency plan this afternoon to spend $13.6 million to buy 2,325 electronic voting machines and supporting equipment.
“Your polling place is going to be open early and on election day. You’ll be able to vote conveniently as you’re accustomed to doing,” Kaufman said afterward.
Kaufman’s request included 1.4 million paper ballots, which will be distributed to polling stations as a backup in case a shortage of machines leads to long lines. (this could be the means to defraud the election, via mulitiple voting ala an Acorn type voter scam)
A fire before dawn on Friday destroyed the building that housed all 10,000 of the county’s voting machines. The cause of the blaze has not been determined, but arson investigators returned to 606 Canino today to continue their investigation, Houston Fire Department spokesman Patrick Trahan said.
The 27,800-square-foot warehouse and contents were a total loss. Kaufman said she expects to ask for more money before election day but had no estimate this afternoon on how much.
The county was insured for $41 million worth of materials in the building, as well as $1.5 million on the building itself, said David Kester, the county’s risk manager.
Kaufman said it is possible the county could get even more insurance money to cover the costs of demolition and site cleanup, plus construction upgrades required to meet building codes established since the warehouse was built in 1976.
Kaufman continued her call for early voting as a way to head off long lines at the 739 election day polling stations. Early voting begins Oct. 18
According To Gibbs-No Pomp and Circumstance For US Troops Marking The End Of Iraqi War Operations
Obama's press secretary today, told white house reporters, there would be no victory parade for our service members marking the end of hostilities with Iraqi forces.
In this age of neutered political correctness, we should not ignore our service members' efforts and sacrifices made in the cause against terrorism. They went, they served honorably, and some 5000 died in combat, with an almost equal number killed in non combat related incidents.
To ignore their service and devotion to duty, is unacceptable. Obama and Gibbs can go F themselves, We The People will stage the official parades, we will honor these valiant service men and women, and our maimed and fallen heroes.
Obama and his muslim loving liberals can report us to the UN for being patriotic, but they can not stop us.
Steve
In this age of neutered political correctness, we should not ignore our service members' efforts and sacrifices made in the cause against terrorism. They went, they served honorably, and some 5000 died in combat, with an almost equal number killed in non combat related incidents.
To ignore their service and devotion to duty, is unacceptable. Obama and Gibbs can go F themselves, We The People will stage the official parades, we will honor these valiant service men and women, and our maimed and fallen heroes.
Obama and his muslim loving liberals can report us to the UN for being patriotic, but they can not stop us.
Steve
Arizona Fights Back over UN Human Rights Report
August 30th, 2010Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
Arizona is fighting back against the Obama administration’s decision to haul her state before the United Nations Human Rights Council. Governor Jan Brewer has penned a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday expressing her “concern and indignation” at the administration’s report to the UN, which cited a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration bill as part of its efforts to fight human rights violations. This author was the first person to report that provision of the administration’s brief.
“Apparently, the federal government is trying to make an international human rights case out of S.B. 1070 on the heels of already filing a federal court case against the State of Arizona,” the governor wrote in a line that echoed the opening of my own piece.
She rightly noted the Orwellian aspect of a sitting president appealing to a world government to quash a popular state law. “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” she wrote. Brewer vowed to challenge the report all the way to the UN:
Friend of the Brotherhood?
By Frank Gaffney Jr.More Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims
Food for thought...
If a self-proclaimed non-Muslim president would fight repeatedly for Muslims' religious rights to the degree that our president has, don't you think "a committed Christian" president would at least fight once for any antagonistic oppression of Christian faith and practice, too? Yet, on no occasion since taking office has President Obama stood up publicly for a single Christian individual, group, church, act or event, whom or which was being opposed or oppressed by others. - Chuck Norris
Editorials 
Exposed: Obama’s Big Fat Lie! »
THE OBAMA REGIME STOKES THE FIRES OF 1776 by Miki Booth (Aug. 30, 2010) — When Barack Hussein Obama spoke from his “bully pulpit” and proclaimed that America was not a Christian nation, he stirred...
August 30 2010 Read More »Bill..you are a fraud with that NO SPIN ZONE...FAIR AND BALANCED GARBAGE!...LOSER!...
Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Refuses Offer To Have LTC Terry Lakin on to Discuss Court-Martial for Refusing Orders Until Obama Proves Eligibility.
On August 23, 2010, LTC Lakin's spokeswoman appeared on the Andrea Shea King Show to discuss LTC Lakin's court-martial for refusing to obey orders until Obama proves his Constitutional eligibility to...
Oathgate Revisited
THE ARTICLE II RED-HERRINGby Jane Menta
Chief Justice Roberts "reswears" in Obama, in the Oval Office.
(Dec. 11, 2009) — Who can forget Barack Hussein Obama’s slightly mutilated inaugural oath January 20, 2009? Fault assignment and explanations and review of the actual wording, have been analyzed ad nauseum. Some argue that it was Chief Justice Robert’s fault and even point to his history of epilepsy (which Wikipedia expounds on extensively) . Some believe Obama interrupted Roberts which tripped things up.
An example of this analysis comes from Wikipedia columnist Jeffrey Toobin:
Through intermediaries, Roberts and Obama had agreed how to divide the thirty-five-word oath for the swearing in. Obama was first supposed to repeat the clause “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear.” But, when Obama heard Roberts begin to speak, he interrupted Roberts before he said “do solemnly swear.” This apparently flustered the Chief Justice, who then made a mistake in the next line, inserting the word “faithfully” out of order. Obama smiled, apparently recognizing the error, then tried to follow along. Roberts then garbled another word in the next passage.”
Reactions were invariably critical of Roberts, but even one Obama supporter astutely noted in a Washington Post complaint, “Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts’s behavior was a disgrace.”
All the chatter is not the matter: It is what Obama said, not Chief Justice Roberts, that is of importance. Look instead, at that to which Obama swore.
“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear… that I will execute… the office of president of the United States faithfully… and will to the best of my ability… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”
Was this invalid?
Article II section i of the United States Constitution contains the simple presidential oath recited by every president since George Washington in 1789.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Premised upon the obvious truism “If it aint broke, don’t fix it”, Obama’s flubbed oath ostensibly “requiring” a retake, implied, in fact encouraged the idea that the original oath was contestable.
Democrat Chris Wallace even said: “We’re wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States. They had a kind of garbled oath. It’s just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts.”
The White House justified a retake of the oath based on what White House Council Greg Craig called, “an abundance of caution.”
Was his First Oath “contestable”? Obama did swear he would “execute” the office of president.
“We decided that because it was so much fun …,” Obama joked to reporters who followed press secretary Robert Gibbs into the room. No TV camera crews or news photographers were allowed in. Obama did not use a bible when swearing the retake oath. Wikipedia also mentions that “reporters were present” at the Second Oath however there is no reference to who these reporters were, nor their attributable commentary, editorial, or report.
To listen to an purported audio file of the “reswearing in cerimony”, which occured at States at 19:35 EST, January 21, 2009 (00:35 UTC, January 22, 2009) , click this link (Transcript and Ogg Vorbis sound file, c/o Wikipedia).
Who were these unnamed reporters? Why aren’t any of them pictured? Why were no non-government documentarians allowed to record such a historic event for external analysis?
Because there is no official attribution from the White House, no documented chain of possession, nothing to indicate this recording as official property of the US Government, Wikimedia commons debated the inclusion of the grainy Second Oath in Wikipedia. The recording has no designation as being official, and may have been surreptitiously recorded or even counterfeit. What may have gone unnoticed by many is that while the First Oath was meticulously analyzed for every nuance, intonation, hesitation and inflection, the Second Oath was never officially presented for any analysis whatsoever. Even the transcript of the second oath was never published in the Congressional Record, or in the Federal Register.
Trying to track down the Holy Grail of the *Official* Second Oath is dizzying. Upon request by this citizen journalist, it is not available through the United States Supreme Court. SCOTUS states that it is also not required to abide Freedom of Information Requests because it is “not a federal agency”. The transcript is not made available through Justice Robert’s office. The Supreme Court information office directed the search to the White House. The White House operator deflected inquiry stating that requests for the transcript must be made to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice stated such requests must go through the Attorney General and instructed search to the Federal Register. The Federal Register does not contain the transcript for the Second Oath. The Attorney General directed the search to the White House Management and Budget Office or the National Archives FOIA Officers, neither of which responded to FOIA requests for an official version of the Second Oath.
There has never been made available an *official* public video tape of the Second Oath, only the grainy recording of unknown attribution. There has never been any more official media offering than several photographs. However, this may change, as do so many pieces of information on the net.
CNN’s analysis of the two oaths invited readers to, “Compare first and second attempts” however though the First Oath was shown with a video, no transcript or video or audio is made available for the Second Oath until recently.
By Wednesday morning, January 21, 2009, Obama had sworn to execute the office of the president, and by Wednesday evening, Obama had sworn, by unofficial source, the Presidential Oath in Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Rewind: What about Roberts and Obama?
Roberts was the first Supreme Court Justice to swear in a president who voted against him (in 2005). And Roberts was the first Supreme Court Justice to swear in any single president in a single term, twice. Roberts and Obama were criticized for not flawlessly repeating the oath written in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and the Second Oath ostensibly was meant to avert criticism of the one-word diversion from the oath as set-forth in the Constitution.
The Article II Red Herring (“Look at *this *Article II concern, not *that*one…”)
Such apparent meticulous attention to Article II Section 1 of the Constitution provides cynical and stark contrast to what was really going on in the months prior to the inauguration oath taken by Barack Hussein Obama. As time-honed experience tells us, “We” should always be looking at the hand the Obama people are not pointing at. Obama visited with Justice Roberts specifically in his private chambers in a meeting closed to the public on January 14, 2009. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden also met with the other Supreme Court members, in the Court’s ceremonial West Conference Room, just before his inauguration.
Obama and Biden, without the plaintiffs present, met with the very justices who were deciding a case which exacted that Barack Hussein Obama was a British Citizen at birth and thus ineligible to be president by, none other than, Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The case filed by Orly Taitz, which appeared, and then mysteriously after the Roberts-Obama meeting, *disappeared* from the Supreme Court dockets. Further, Roberts and the other eight justices had already held two ‘Distribution for Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship ineligibility.
For the first time in 16 years, a President-elect (Obama) and Vice President-elect (Biden) paid a pre-inaugural visit to the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Obama supporter Jeffrey Toobin’s analysis tries to avert attention from this pre-inauguration closed-door face-to-face meeting, when he writes that “Through intermediaries” the flow and pattern of the oath recitation was agreed to between Roberts and Obama. However, all evidence shows that Roberts and Obama themselves, two Harvard graduates with exquisite seasoned speaking abilities and didactic timing capabilities, decided the exact flow of their historic interchange, not “through intermediaries”.
Pictured: Defendant President Elect Barack Obama and Vice President Elect Joe Biden meet with Supreme Court Justices January 14, 2009, while several pending presidential eligibility cases were before the Court. Justice Alito chose to be absent. (c/o Change.gov)
All evidence points to highly unethical and untoward and impeachable behavior and breach of fiduciary duty and treason by both Roberts and Obama and other Supreme Court justices, meeting while a case was pending absent the presence of plaintiffs. The probability is high that the “flub of oath” was anything but a mistake and that the secretive Second Oath had only to do with constructing a feigned, artificial nod to the absolute requirements of and respect for Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The publicized meeting between Roberts and Obama January 14, 2009, was a slap in the face of judicial balance.
The Citizen Journalist asks the questions the media will not touch
Where is the Official White House recognition of what was said during the Second Oath? The Inaugural Oath is a verbal contract with America, and of critical import, and We The People deserve to know in official printed testimony format, not a grainy smuggled non-attributed version exactly what was spoken. We deserve to know why the Supreme Court has so cynically faulted at its post, and faltered at its obligations to the American people and The Constitution. In light of the sum total breach of fiduciary obligations to America, the diversionary Article II Red Herring “fishy” unofficial Second Oath does not inspire any confidence in the fiduciary obligation of either the Supreme Court or of Mr. Obama, to the Constitution. At this point all we can see is that Mr. Obama is indeed working to “execute” the office of the president. According to the dictionary, the verb “execute” has the following meanings:
Main Entry: *ex·e·cute*
Pronunciation: \ˈek-si-ˌkyüt\
Function: *verb*
Inflected Form(s): *ex·e·cut·ed*; *ex·e·cut·ing*
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French *executer,* from
*execucion*execution
Date: 14th century
*transitive verb*
1: to carry out fully: put completely into effect
2: to do what is provided or required by
3: to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence
4: to make or produce (as a work of art) especially by carrying out a
design
For more information on Obama’s “inauguration” certimony, click this link.
One theory floating around...Bring it on!...
Obama the love child?
I am going to toss out a theory here; a theory that explains why even though Obama was born here in Hawaii why there has been obfuscation over the birth certificate. The theory involves a minor scandal Obama needed hidden, yet was too trivial to be of use to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain during the 2008 campaign.
The theory is that the true original birth certificate for Barack Obama has a different name for the father than Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. The theory is that the original birth certificate lists one Frank Marshall Davis as the father and that the young Obama was born out of wedlock (a common enough occurrence during the 60s).
If true, this connects all the facts together in a reasonable manner.
Obama grew up pretending that the man married to his mother was his biological father, and took the Obama name into politics. The revelation that mom had had an affair and that Obama was illegitimate is an embarrassment, and in a tightly contested election race a liability. But given that Davis was from Chicago, there is no question that Obama, in this scenario, is still a naturally born US citizen. McCain and Hillary could not have used the scandal without making Obama look like a victim of dirty politics. After all, Obama can hardly be blamed for the circumstances of his conception. But his deception is intentional on Obama's part and reason enough for Kagen to block the birther lawsuits to keep the original certificate hidden.
This scenario also explains the statement Obama made in the video about how his father served in WW2, because while Obama Sr. and later Soetero were too young to serve in WW2, the far older Frank Marshall Davis did in fact serve in WW2.
This seems to make the most sense to me.
Now, we may have a lot of reasons not to like Obama, but his being a "love child" from the 60s shouldn't be one of them.
by Mike Rivero
Washington Times Ad: Obama's maternal grandmother fraudulently registered Obama as born in Hawaii at home with no independent witnesses.
New Washington Times National Weekly Ad. Latest Ad Headline: Kenyan Ministers Orengo & Khalwale say Obama "born in Kenya" - "not native American" - "should repatriate" himself to Kenya. Obama's...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
THREE-STAR GENERAL FILES SWORN AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING LTC
LAKIN’S CASE
______________________________________
JUDGE TO RULE THURSDAY ON DEFENSE REQUEST FOR DEPOSITION OF HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS AND FOR WRITTEN DISCOVERY OF ALL OF PRESIDENT’S SCHOOL AND COLLEGE RECORDS
__________________________________
Hearing set for Sept 2 at 1100 at Fort Meade, Maryland
________________________________________
Washington, D.C., August 31, 2010. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney has supplied an affidavit in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, who faces trial on October 13-15. The retired Air Force three-star is the highest ranking officer yet to lend public support to LTC Lakin. His affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the President’s Constitutional eligibility and demands the President release his birth records or the court authorize discovery.
McInerney’s sworn affidavit was filed in Court-Martial in support of Lakin’s motions for subpoenas for all of the president’s school records, and for a deposition of the custodian of Obama’s birth records in the possession of the State of Hawaii. The Judge has set a hearing in the Court Martial on these motions for this coming Thursday, September 2nd at 11:00 at Ft. Meade, Maryland. All court proceedings are open to the public. The courthouse is located within Ft. Meade at 4432 Llewellyn Avenue, which is on the corner of Llewellyn and Ernie Pyle Road. At the first intersection after the Reece Road gate, you should turn left on to Ernie Pyle Road. The courthouse is approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Reece Road and Ernie Pyle Road.
LTC Lakin is a physician, and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President’s eligibility. So far, more than 225,000 people have viewed that video.