I just received this press release that appeared on Devvy.com from Jim Crum and Bob Robbins.
>(Dec. 7, 2009) — The Post & Email can confirm this afternoon, that Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon are representing a group of Chrysler Automotive dealers in seeking legal redress to their loss of their franchises following the direct and unconstitutional involvement of Barack Hussein Obama in the Chrysler reorganization.
It is speculated that the action will involve a writ of quo warranto, where by Obama will be legally forced to prove that he legitimately holds office as President of the United States in accord with the requirements of Article II, section 1, paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.
That paragraph reads,
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions confirmed that the phrase “natural born citizen” indicates a U.S. citizen, who was born in the U.S.A. of two U.S. citizen parents. Obama, on account of having a father who was a British subject at the time of his own birth, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen. He is thus unqualified to hold the office of president.
Regarding the pending action in the courts of the District of Columbia, Donofrio says that the goal of Steve Pidgeon and himself is to see the owners of the dealerships, whom they represent, “reinstated to their businesses.”
The District of Columbia is unique in the nation, for having a section of its legal code devoted to the writ of quo warranto, when employed against federal office-holders who exercise their office within the District.
Attorney Donofrio is famous for his advocacy of the use of the quo warranto provisions of the D.C. Code and holds that the D.C. courts are the only proper venue for such actions against federal officers.
For more information about the issues raised in this report, click on the tags at the bottom of this article.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Judge Napolitano: Uconstitutionality of Patriot Act, America a Tyranny
Fortuitously, someone just posted asking why I haven't written on the Patriot Act and, almost the next e-mail was from Jim Crum, who sent this video of a prominent judge about the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act. "Freedom must be defended from every assailant...from the government that wants to take it away from us."
America has become a tyranny. My blog yesterday morning speaks to similar themes in a slightly different way. I'm for Napolitano for president.
Jim Crum writes:
This is beyond terrific. Listen to the end AND THEN FORWARD IT ON.
>Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59 year old former New Jersey Superior Court Judge.
He is a graduate of Princeton University, and Notre Dame Law School. At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, along with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court Judge in the history of the State of New Jersey.
America has become a tyranny. My blog yesterday morning speaks to similar themes in a slightly different way. I'm for Napolitano for president.
Jim Crum writes:
This is beyond terrific. Listen to the end AND THEN FORWARD IT ON.
>Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59 year old former New Jersey Superior Court Judge.
He is a graduate of Princeton University, and Notre Dame Law School. At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, along with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court Judge in the history of the State of New Jersey.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Obama's Brown Shirted Totalitarian Personal Security Force Now Law
I just received this article by Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd) from Jim Crum. The Democrats' president is a true blue totalitarian.
>Hello!
This bill is now law.
It is a question of funding and enrollment, now. Nothing else.
I can think of all sorts of great uses for it, such as:
Energy Police
Health Care Police
Carbon Footprint Police
By the way, an amendment (#705) to keep ACORN from engaging in the profram was killed:
(28) S.Amdt. 705 by Sen. Vitter [R-LA]
To prohibit ACORN, or organizations affiliated or co-located with ACORN, from receiving assistance under this Act.
Proposed: Mar 25, 2009. Rejected: Mar 26, 2009.
Mar 26, 2009. Motion to table amendment SA 705 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 43. Record Vote Number: 114. [View Details]
Someone wake me up when the shooting starts.
JJC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1388
Introduced Mar 9, 2009
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Mar 11, 2009
Amendments (52 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Mar 18, 2009
Passed Senate Mar 26, 2009
Signed by President Apr 21, 2009
This bill has become law. It was signed by Barack Obama. [Last Updated: Nov 13, 2009 4:57PM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: J----@aol.com
To: J-------@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Obama's Personal Security Force by Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd) - chilling
Obama's Personal Security Force
http://stupidfrogs.org/articles/obamas_personal_security_force.htm
OBAMA’S PERSONAL SECURITY FORCE
By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd)
CurryforAmerica.com
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” said Barak Hussein Obama on July 2, 2008. His words require a bit of translating, however.
In plain English, President Obama has set national security objectives which he has yet to share with the American people. According to his statement he is convinced that the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, constituted as they are, are either unreliable or unable to accomplish the national security objectives he has chosen. So, he intends to ask Congress to authorize, fund and build a civilian national security force that is, “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” as America’s military forces.
To be as strong as our current armed forces, Obama’s civilian army will have to be able to match the Army and Marines tank for tank, missile for missile, and battalion for battalion. It will have to match the Navy and Coast Guard ship for ship, and the Air Force fighter plane for fighter plane and bomber for bomber.
His civilian force’s congressionally approved budget will require appropriations that match the Pentagon’s current budget level dollar for dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama expects to fund his private security force with a $6 billion allocation over the next five years. Though that is not equivalent to the nation’s current military budget allocation, it is still not a paltry sum.
That is how we must interpret Obama’s words if we take them and him at face value. But does Obama really mean what he said or was it just campaign rhetoric? If it was only rhetoric, there should be no effort to follow up with concrete proposals or appropriations.
So what is one to think about H.R. 1388, Obama’s National Civilian Security Force bill which is slowly working its way around Capital Hill? It is formally named the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.” It provides for uniforms to be worn by the young volunteers (up to 250,000 of them) and for the establishment of a 4-year “public service academy” to train new public service leaders. From this it is reasonable to conclude that there must be fire somewhere in the middle of all of Obama’s rhetorical smoke.'
Where is there an historical example of a nation having a civilian national security force that rivals the size of its military forces? Why, in the early 1930s Germany, of course. The force was called the “Brown Shirts” and was used to bully, intimidate, and indoctrinate individuals and political parties that opposed the German government’s policies, in much the same manner as ACORN’s (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) thugs for hire do in Chicago today.
We can safely assume that such an organization would take its orders directly from the President just as the Brown Shirts did in Germany and just as do Obama’s current White House Czars today. Left alone to develop and mature on its own, such a national security force could prove to be quite dangerous to our Constitution and to the liberty and freedom of all Americans.
Only the U.S. Military could control such a civilian security force if it went rogue, and that would have to be by brute force. For the Administration to counter the military’s use of force, it would have to somehow subvert the military so that while its forces are declining in power, the brown shirts are increasing in power.
In the process, the President would become a law and a power unto himself – whom no one could control -- with a civilian army or security force readily at hand to do his personal bidding, unchecked by Congress or the Courts. Eventually there would no longer be the separation of powers that our Founders so wisely established. And as history teaches us, under such a scenario the President would become a de facto dictator.
But the descendants of those who survived Valley Forge, Gettysburg, and Bastogne are neither easily fooled nor easily misled. While a few misguided politicians may stupidly or maliciously agree to form a sizeable civilian national security force and even plot to upset the constitutional system we so cherish, they will not succeed.
Having spent most of my life in the U.S. Army, much of it in foxholes, I can say without hesitation that the U.S. military will not stand idly by while the Constitution is being abrogated and destroyed. So let us remain vigilant and never forget, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
>Hello!
This bill is now law.
It is a question of funding and enrollment, now. Nothing else.
I can think of all sorts of great uses for it, such as:
Energy Police
Health Care Police
Carbon Footprint Police
By the way, an amendment (#705) to keep ACORN from engaging in the profram was killed:
(28) S.Amdt. 705 by Sen. Vitter [R-LA]
To prohibit ACORN, or organizations affiliated or co-located with ACORN, from receiving assistance under this Act.
Proposed: Mar 25, 2009. Rejected: Mar 26, 2009.
Mar 26, 2009. Motion to table amendment SA 705 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 43. Record Vote Number: 114. [View Details]
Someone wake me up when the shooting starts.
JJC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1388
Introduced Mar 9, 2009
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Mar 11, 2009
Amendments (52 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Mar 18, 2009
Passed Senate Mar 26, 2009
Signed by President Apr 21, 2009
This bill has become law. It was signed by Barack Obama. [Last Updated: Nov 13, 2009 4:57PM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: J----@aol.com
To: J-------@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Obama's Personal Security Force by Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd) - chilling
Obama's Personal Security Force
http://stupidfrogs.org/articles/obamas_personal_security_force.htm
OBAMA’S PERSONAL SECURITY FORCE
By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd)
CurryforAmerica.com
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” said Barak Hussein Obama on July 2, 2008. His words require a bit of translating, however.
In plain English, President Obama has set national security objectives which he has yet to share with the American people. According to his statement he is convinced that the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, constituted as they are, are either unreliable or unable to accomplish the national security objectives he has chosen. So, he intends to ask Congress to authorize, fund and build a civilian national security force that is, “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” as America’s military forces.
To be as strong as our current armed forces, Obama’s civilian army will have to be able to match the Army and Marines tank for tank, missile for missile, and battalion for battalion. It will have to match the Navy and Coast Guard ship for ship, and the Air Force fighter plane for fighter plane and bomber for bomber.
His civilian force’s congressionally approved budget will require appropriations that match the Pentagon’s current budget level dollar for dollar. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama expects to fund his private security force with a $6 billion allocation over the next five years. Though that is not equivalent to the nation’s current military budget allocation, it is still not a paltry sum.
That is how we must interpret Obama’s words if we take them and him at face value. But does Obama really mean what he said or was it just campaign rhetoric? If it was only rhetoric, there should be no effort to follow up with concrete proposals or appropriations.
So what is one to think about H.R. 1388, Obama’s National Civilian Security Force bill which is slowly working its way around Capital Hill? It is formally named the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.” It provides for uniforms to be worn by the young volunteers (up to 250,000 of them) and for the establishment of a 4-year “public service academy” to train new public service leaders. From this it is reasonable to conclude that there must be fire somewhere in the middle of all of Obama’s rhetorical smoke.'
Where is there an historical example of a nation having a civilian national security force that rivals the size of its military forces? Why, in the early 1930s Germany, of course. The force was called the “Brown Shirts” and was used to bully, intimidate, and indoctrinate individuals and political parties that opposed the German government’s policies, in much the same manner as ACORN’s (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) thugs for hire do in Chicago today.
We can safely assume that such an organization would take its orders directly from the President just as the Brown Shirts did in Germany and just as do Obama’s current White House Czars today. Left alone to develop and mature on its own, such a national security force could prove to be quite dangerous to our Constitution and to the liberty and freedom of all Americans.
Only the U.S. Military could control such a civilian security force if it went rogue, and that would have to be by brute force. For the Administration to counter the military’s use of force, it would have to somehow subvert the military so that while its forces are declining in power, the brown shirts are increasing in power.
In the process, the President would become a law and a power unto himself – whom no one could control -- with a civilian army or security force readily at hand to do his personal bidding, unchecked by Congress or the Courts. Eventually there would no longer be the separation of powers that our Founders so wisely established. And as history teaches us, under such a scenario the President would become a de facto dictator.
But the descendants of those who survived Valley Forge, Gettysburg, and Bastogne are neither easily fooled nor easily misled. While a few misguided politicians may stupidly or maliciously agree to form a sizeable civilian national security force and even plot to upset the constitutional system we so cherish, they will not succeed.
Having spent most of my life in the U.S. Army, much of it in foxholes, I can say without hesitation that the U.S. military will not stand idly by while the Constitution is being abrogated and destroyed. So let us remain vigilant and never forget, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
How We Can Move On
The freedom movement and those who have voted for and supported the current status quo might reconsider history. George W. Bush failed many who supported him and seemed even worse to many who opposed him. He was elected as a "compassionate conservative", but failed to live up to either the term "compassionate" or "conservative". He disappointed many who oppose bureaucracy and big government. He disappointed Americans because of his arrogance, his inarticulate failure to adequately plan two wars, his managerial failure with respect to Hurricane Katrina, and his ongoing support for the military industrial complex, specifically including the decision to massively subsidize Wall Street.
President Bush likely had hoped to (a) retain his social conservative base, (b) win over non-affiliated voters through his "compassion" and (c) retain many of his big government conservative backers. It turned out that non-affiliated voters were offended by his support for the military-industrial complex. Also, there are fewer big government conservatives than he, Newt Gingrich and the American Enterprise Institute thought.
In the end Mr. Bush was left with the backing of social conservatives, and even these left him because of his unabashed interest in providing preferences to Wall Street and the military industrial complex. A rather ironic ending to the career of a "compassionate conservative". But he has that rugged masculine Texan look, and so his appeal to socially conservative women and some Lincoln Log Republicans, probably about 15 or 20 percent of the public, likely did not wane.
Bush's failure led to a reaction. However, the nature of the reaction speaks to a failure of American politics, and it needs fixing. A Republican victory next year and in three years will not be enough. More imagination is needed. The nation needs to be re-created. Otherwise, the current cycle of corrupt Republicans followed by ideologically dogmatic Democrats will continue until the nation, once the greatest in the world, collapses.
America needs to move on, and ought to think about how. The Obama reaction makes clear that fixation on rigid goals and simple-minded ideological commitment to centralized authority are destructive and will not work.
President Obama represents the extreme left in the European sense, which won the White House for the first time since Theodore (R-NY) and Franklin (D-NY) Roosevelt. Like the Roosevelts, Obama and his followers and associates retain a feudalistic belief that progress is accomplished through power and violence.Mr. Obama's willingness to lie to his followers about his commitment to the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq illustrates the nature of his character. He is committed to the idea that the central government ought to compel radical change and equity through the cap and trade act, institution of an inferior, mandatory medical plan and ever more extensive and ever more rigid regulation of the economy.
The Democrats and Mr. Obama attempted to use a considerable degree of guilt in electing the first African American to the White House. Mr. Obama's opponents have been routinely accused of racism. My own blog, a relatively small piece of the world, was taken down. The Wall Street-backed Democratic Party media resounded Mr. Obama's trumpet, accusing all who disagreed of deviance and reaction. Not once did the Democratic Party networks or Fox discuss the imbalance in Wall Street's financial contributions to the candidates: 2:1 in favor of Obama.
Mainstream, middle-of-the-road Americans ought not to feel fear, hatred or even contempt for President Obama. As president and as an individual he deserves our respect. Rather, we ought to blame ourselves, for President Obama's education, his collectivism, his feudalistic commitment to government violence and to power are the products of his education. Republicans have sat quietly while the American education system, and the higher education system, have been hijacked by ideological extremists, collectivists who argue for backward, primitive tribalism, socialism, instead of the system that created American economic progress. The ideology behind Mr. Obama created his figure. The economic interests that he has subsidized control his breadth. The individual is not to be blamed.
America is in the grip of special interests, Wall Street and the military industrial complex, to a degree heretofore unknown. The twin headed hydra of corrupt, big government Republicans and of feudalistic Democrats will continue until Americans say "no". But in contrast to Americans in the day of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, Americans have become a timid, conformist lot. They have lost their guts. They are lazy and they are piggish.
Those who ought to be the best hanker after rewards from the Wall Street complex. The extent of social control exercised by the feudalistic power structure that aims to further collectivize the nation will increase until Americans take steps to regain their fortitude.
Americans who wish to reverse the institutionalized corruption need to start by reforming themselves and thinking small. They need to reunite with their roots and their like minded fellow Americans instead of seeking to indulge in credit card debt and bank loans. They need to reduce their egos. They need to spend time on politics instead of watching television or in other diversions. The original arguments for the eight hour day involved the claim that Americans needed more time to contribute to politics and the public good. Instead, Americans became fixated on consumerism.
Americans are not special because of who they are. They are special because they received a gift. The gift was given to them by men of wisdom, the founding fathers and their successors, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland and others. They were entrusted to protect the freedom that the founders had won and created, and instead, just as Esau sold his birthright to Isaac, Americans sold their birthright for a credit card, an ignorantly written government regulation, and a social security card. Excessive self indulgence, fear, lack of courage, lack of prudence, lack of respect for others and willingness to treat others, such as Chinese workers, unjustly have contributed to the malaise. In other words, a fundamental self indulgence and lack of ethics due to smugness and ego have contributed.
The first step to move on is to look at how our own behavior has contributed to Obama's election. Then to ask ourselves how we can take a few steps to turn things around. Those who demonstrated in the tea parties have taken a few already, and need to ask how can they build organizations that will enable them to take that many more.
President Bush likely had hoped to (a) retain his social conservative base, (b) win over non-affiliated voters through his "compassion" and (c) retain many of his big government conservative backers. It turned out that non-affiliated voters were offended by his support for the military-industrial complex. Also, there are fewer big government conservatives than he, Newt Gingrich and the American Enterprise Institute thought.
In the end Mr. Bush was left with the backing of social conservatives, and even these left him because of his unabashed interest in providing preferences to Wall Street and the military industrial complex. A rather ironic ending to the career of a "compassionate conservative". But he has that rugged masculine Texan look, and so his appeal to socially conservative women and some Lincoln Log Republicans, probably about 15 or 20 percent of the public, likely did not wane.
Bush's failure led to a reaction. However, the nature of the reaction speaks to a failure of American politics, and it needs fixing. A Republican victory next year and in three years will not be enough. More imagination is needed. The nation needs to be re-created. Otherwise, the current cycle of corrupt Republicans followed by ideologically dogmatic Democrats will continue until the nation, once the greatest in the world, collapses.
America needs to move on, and ought to think about how. The Obama reaction makes clear that fixation on rigid goals and simple-minded ideological commitment to centralized authority are destructive and will not work.
President Obama represents the extreme left in the European sense, which won the White House for the first time since Theodore (R-NY) and Franklin (D-NY) Roosevelt. Like the Roosevelts, Obama and his followers and associates retain a feudalistic belief that progress is accomplished through power and violence.Mr. Obama's willingness to lie to his followers about his commitment to the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq illustrates the nature of his character. He is committed to the idea that the central government ought to compel radical change and equity through the cap and trade act, institution of an inferior, mandatory medical plan and ever more extensive and ever more rigid regulation of the economy.
The Democrats and Mr. Obama attempted to use a considerable degree of guilt in electing the first African American to the White House. Mr. Obama's opponents have been routinely accused of racism. My own blog, a relatively small piece of the world, was taken down. The Wall Street-backed Democratic Party media resounded Mr. Obama's trumpet, accusing all who disagreed of deviance and reaction. Not once did the Democratic Party networks or Fox discuss the imbalance in Wall Street's financial contributions to the candidates: 2:1 in favor of Obama.
Mainstream, middle-of-the-road Americans ought not to feel fear, hatred or even contempt for President Obama. As president and as an individual he deserves our respect. Rather, we ought to blame ourselves, for President Obama's education, his collectivism, his feudalistic commitment to government violence and to power are the products of his education. Republicans have sat quietly while the American education system, and the higher education system, have been hijacked by ideological extremists, collectivists who argue for backward, primitive tribalism, socialism, instead of the system that created American economic progress. The ideology behind Mr. Obama created his figure. The economic interests that he has subsidized control his breadth. The individual is not to be blamed.
America is in the grip of special interests, Wall Street and the military industrial complex, to a degree heretofore unknown. The twin headed hydra of corrupt, big government Republicans and of feudalistic Democrats will continue until Americans say "no". But in contrast to Americans in the day of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, Americans have become a timid, conformist lot. They have lost their guts. They are lazy and they are piggish.
Those who ought to be the best hanker after rewards from the Wall Street complex. The extent of social control exercised by the feudalistic power structure that aims to further collectivize the nation will increase until Americans take steps to regain their fortitude.
Americans who wish to reverse the institutionalized corruption need to start by reforming themselves and thinking small. They need to reunite with their roots and their like minded fellow Americans instead of seeking to indulge in credit card debt and bank loans. They need to reduce their egos. They need to spend time on politics instead of watching television or in other diversions. The original arguments for the eight hour day involved the claim that Americans needed more time to contribute to politics and the public good. Instead, Americans became fixated on consumerism.
Americans are not special because of who they are. They are special because they received a gift. The gift was given to them by men of wisdom, the founding fathers and their successors, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland and others. They were entrusted to protect the freedom that the founders had won and created, and instead, just as Esau sold his birthright to Isaac, Americans sold their birthright for a credit card, an ignorantly written government regulation, and a social security card. Excessive self indulgence, fear, lack of courage, lack of prudence, lack of respect for others and willingness to treat others, such as Chinese workers, unjustly have contributed to the malaise. In other words, a fundamental self indulgence and lack of ethics due to smugness and ego have contributed.
The first step to move on is to look at how our own behavior has contributed to Obama's election. Then to ask ourselves how we can take a few steps to turn things around. Those who demonstrated in the tea parties have taken a few already, and need to ask how can they build organizations that will enable them to take that many more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
