Sorry TB, I think that they are so delusional that they do not really see the writing on the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Printable View
Sorry TB, I think that they are so delusional that they do not really see the writing on the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
I hope so.
__________________________________________________ _____________
http://www.youtube.com/v/BjtpZUQq_1o
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY RALLY,
Washington D.C. 10/23/2010
[size=117]
For Immediate Release: - 08/28/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg will be with Volunteers
At Glen Beck Rally – Aug. 28th
Handing out Flyers
Regarding October 23rd Rally
The Obama Birth Certificate / Eligibility / ObamaCare
Rally in Washington
will be Saturday, October 23, 2010
U.S. Capitol – West Front
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/28/10) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualificationsâ€
BORN IN THE USA?
Judge to Lakin: Find another defense
Rules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 02, 2010 4:16 pm Eastern
By Thom Redmond
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/060310lakin.jpg
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.
The decision came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.
The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders under the chain of command with Obama at its head unless the president's eligibility is documented.
McInerney, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.
"Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he said in the affidavit.
"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution."
He explained "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal."
"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority," he said. "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."
Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin's trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15.
Lakin's defense counsel asked for the president's school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama's birth records that may exist in Hawaii.
Lakin is a physician and in his 18th year of service in the Army. He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility.
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.
McInerney commanded forces equipped with nuclear weapons.
"In my command capacity I was responsible that the 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 were authorized," the general wrote.
"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."
He said Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates."
Lakin, the foundation said, has been compelled to act because he swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and Obama has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which 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."
Links and more...
Have our Armed Forces turned against us?
Print This Post
THE U.S. MILITARY COMMITS TREASON
The JAG Corps was founded by Gen. George Washington on July 29, 1775 and is the oldest "law firm" in the U.S.
Dear Editor: The following letter was sent this evening in response to the ruling of Col. Denise R. Lind in the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who seeks to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief:
September 2, 2010
Adm. Michael Mullen
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-9999
An open letter to Admiral Mullen:
Admiral Mullen, this is not the outcome expected from a military organization led by a champion of apolitical neutrality, a champion who has frequently stated his love of country, the Constitution and his obligation to the people of the United States of America.
In my opinion, Admiral, in the court of public opinion, the Army has been tried in this matter by its own hand and found guilty. Guilty of political bias! Guilty of misprision of felony! And guilty of conduct unbecoming members of the U.S. military.
I see no clear-cut demonstration of the political neutrality to which you frequently refer, but what I do see is the failure of a military system to live up to the oath sworn to protect the Constitution and to honor those who have fallen serving their country in defense of the principles of the Constitution, which has been dishonored right here and now in front of us all. I also see the blatant failure of the senior military command to live up to its stated commitments and obligation to the people of these United States.
But by far, aside from the greatest injustice and disappointment over this clearly politically-motivated decision, I see a deeply-rooted conflicted paradox.
We go to great extremes to provide Col. Lakin, this undisputed, highly-decorated military warrior, with the finest weapons of destruction so that he may protect himself on the field of battle. But on the field of American justice we deprive him of the basic tools with which to protect his honor.
At this moment I am deeply ashamed of your conduct, Admiral Mullen. I feel as though you have dishonored the corps, let down all of those who serve under your command, and misled me as well as the rest of the people of this country.
Please read this.
From an item previously posted:
Admiral Mullen, will you honor your oath and, along with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, take the necessary steps to ensure that any and all orders from your “Commander-in-Chiefâ€
As much as I understand and enjoy the federal court system, I have given up on the idea that the federal courts are based on constitutional justice. They have become the first line of defense for an unlawful and tyrannical federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
My prescription for resolving issues with the federal government is to do it from the state level. What would happen, for example, if Lakin's home state of Colorado defined itself as the arbiter of this matter and would provide individual and unique personal protection for Lakin, regardless of the federal court decision? Would the feds declare war on Colorado for this picayune matter? I think not.
The states are sovereign and provide a shared and explicit (Article 1, Section 8 ) sovereignty with their offspring, the federal government. It is up to the states to control and rein in the errant and unconstitutional federal government. It is almost impossible for individuals to have any impact on the federal government because the people have no power against the self isolated federal government and the ruling elite in Washington. As I have said before - this is NOT our federal government and it has long since ceased acting for the benefit of either the states or the people. The federal government provides resources and support only for the ruling elite.
Which, of course, brings us back to the Obama eligibility situation. Since the federal government has now shown us all that it will never self-regulate, it is my position that the states must regulate the federal government.
What would happen, for example, if a state declared that Obama had lied and deceived the state into thinking that he was eligible to be POTUS (that's criminal fraud, by the way) when he, in fact, was not.
What would happen if a sovereign state governor or legislature declared that, since the Democrat Party and president elect had not shown Obama to be lawfully eligible for the office, and that fraud had been committed against the people of the state, that the state would require a new election of POTUS, and that the Democratic Party would NOT be allowed to offer a candidate in the election in that state because of the election fraud perpetrated by the party on the state? That, in absence of the new election and the nullification of the acts performed by the usurper since 2009, the state would withdraw its own ambassadors to the federal government and would nullify and resist each and every unlawful and unconstitutional federal action taken by the federal government against the state.
What would happen if one or more states recognized and restored their own individual state sovereignty, developed the necessary set of brass cajones, and actually confronted the unlawful actions being performed by the federal government?
It is my opinion that under those circumstances we would start to see some results. Unfortunately, right now, the states have rolled over on their backs and are asking to have their bellies rubbed by the federal government. Truly disgusting.
Gee, I wonder who Lind Voted For :?:
Lakin's case will be landmark in my opinion. What are they going to do? Incarcerate, without due process, a decorated veteran? The powers that be are falling all over themselves trying to find a way out of this one without exposing "the chosen one". We should all be watching this VERY closely!
Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Your Son, by His sacrificial death, and through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
we pray Thee, please deliver us from the usurper, who is not a natural born citizen, one born in the country of citizen parents. "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of President;" U.S. Constitution, Art. II § 1 ¶ 5.
Sovereign Lord, You remove kings and establish kings; You put down one and exalt another. You are not a god of lawlessness nor the author of confusion, but rather the Lord God of law and order: law and order which testifies to Your will being done on earth as it is in heaven.
O Lord of heaven and earth, Your character and Your nature are besmirched by a fraudulent impostor's presence in high office. An author of confusion, who muscled his way into office by fraud and subterfuge, by deceit about his ineligibility, and by a self-imposed blackout of his birth records, so acts in DEFIANCE against Your Authorship of peace. An ineligible candidate unlawfully (Art. II § 1 ¶ 5) usurping authority defiles Your reputation as Kingmaker, Who does His will on earth as in heaven.
Loving Father, Your children know that it is not Your will that a foreigner, both by birth and by ideology, rule over Your people.
Hear from heaven, forgive our sins, and heal our land.
We humbly beseech You to release us from bondage to an unlawful ruler,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.
In Jesus' name, Lord, have mercy upon us.
Hear, hear! Well said! Out of touch with present reality, perhaps :cry: , but well written.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I can hear the original traitor now. "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
The above was posted as defining "natural born citizen." The Founders and Framers would not have based the Constitution upon Blackstone. British Common Law does not delineate the Framers' original intent. The doctrine of "crown and subjects" was anathema to them (except to Hamilton). The recently accomplished American Revolution had cast off the authority of King George III and British Common Law.Quote:
Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
1765
“'Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. . ."
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - The Law of Nations (§ 212), by Emerich de Vattel, 1758. The Framers of the Constitution used de Vattel's text as a primary source for the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Marshall, and others used The Law of Nations in order to escape from the notion of "the Crown and its subjects," which derived from John Locke's ideas, Blackstone's legal dogma, and British Common Law, dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215. De Vattel instead built upon legal doctrines of liberty from Gottfried Leibniz, Christian Wolff, and a tradition that stretches back to Plato and Herodotus.
The six Supreme Court cases that mentioned (but never defined) "natural born citizen" were all consistent with de Vattel's definition: "born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Ditch Blackstone as non-binding, like the commands of deceased parents.
The Framers of the Constitution did.