Saturday, January 31, 2009
HR 645 IH
H. R. 645
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act'.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.
(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect--
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation' means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.
(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation' has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
"From a tactical standpoint, this is smart politics," [Republican strategist Joshua Trevino] said. "Whether it's good for America is another matter.*
It's illegal for thePrez to do this, so its being run through DNC offices.
Obama retools campaign machine
Election website to be used for grass-roots activism to promote legislative agenda
Obama retools campaign machine
Jan 30 10:26 AM US/Eastern
Three days before setting foot in the White House, Barack Obama flipped a switch and set in motion what may prove to be one of the boldest political moves of his presidency.
Rather than turning over his Web-powered campaign machine to the Democratic Party or disbanding it, Obama began retooling it as a grass roots activist group to work alongside the White House in promoting his legislative agenda.
In a YouTube video, as well as an email to the 13 million supporters on his mailing list, the president-elect announced the transformation of "Obama for America" into a new organization, 'Organizing for America.'
"You've built the largest grass roots movement in history," Obama told his backers. "And the movement you've built is too important to stop growing now."
Both Democrats and Republicans have been forced to stand up and take notice of the political gambit, which analysts say has the potential to reap enormous rewards but is not without risk or controversy.
David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, has stressed that Organizing for America is not aimed at twisting the arms of members of Congress but meant to keep activists engaged on issues such as health care, energy and the economy.
"This has obviously never been undertaken before so it's going to be a little trial and error," he added.
Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a progressive think tank here, likened Organizing for America to former president Bill Clinton's attempt to build a grass roots pressure group on health care reform but agreed that "there really hasn't ever been anything like it before."
"Barack is not like any other candidate," he said. "He comes to Washington with more supporters and more modern tools than anyone in history. Barack is going to reinvent the presidency the way he reinvented the campaign."
Plouffe's assurances that Organizing for America will not engage in congressional arm-twisting do not have everyone convinced.
"Republicans are scared that he's going to turn this thing on in legislative battles, something like health care" said Soren Dayton, a former staffer on the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
"They've got a 13-million-person list," Dayton said. "They can crash the Capitol Hill phone system anytime they want.
"Deploying it in 2010 is another scary thing for Republicans," he said of the mid-term congressional elections.
Erick Erickson, editor of popular right-of-center blog RedState.com, said Democrats who get in the way of Obama's agenda may actually be the ones with the most to fear.
"It looks like he's going to use this group to push his own party in his direction because it's not going to work (with Republicans)," Erickson said.
He said Organizing for America, which will work out of the offices of the Democratic National Committee, threatens to "blur" the "boundaries between the political and the presidential" and could "blow up in his face."
"There comes a downside if members of Congress feel like they are being bullied by the president through these means, at which point he may face a backlash within his own party," Erickson said.
He also wondered how much even the most hardcore Obama supporters have left to contribute after a grueling primary and presidential campaign. "They run the substantial risk of burning these people out over time," he said.
For Republican strategist Joshua Trevino, a co-founder of RedState.com, "Organizing for America is quite explicitly the continuation of the Obama campaign apparatus.
"Though cloaked in the rhetoric of volunteerism and community service, it is nothing more than an attempt to maintain, organize, and direct pressure groups as needed by the Democrats at the local levels," he said.
"From a tactical standpoint, this is smart politics," he said. "Whether it's good for America is another matter. Community volunteerism and service are not traditionally partisan activities in the United States."
Garrett Graff, who worked for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2004, said there is definitely a re-election campaign aspect to Organizing for America even if its "scale, scope and ambition" are "up in the air."
"When you go back and look at politics 50 years from now the 2008 race will be the dividing line between pre-Internet and post-Internet politics," said Graff, who teaches digital politics at Georgetown University.
"You can no longer just turn it off the day after the election the way that we are used to in presidential campaigns," he said.
"Obama's already built a fundraising machine that is unparalled," Graff added. "If he can double it by 2012 there's not going to be a single person in America who can catch him.
"Does anyone think there's a Republican out there who can raise a billion dollars to run against a sitting president of the United States?"
I don’t know who this is, but the minute I saw it, I thought of Steven C. LaTourette. He is a Representative from Ohio .
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).
Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years
(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, then I assume you know what to do.
In re. to other matters.
Judge Carnes in TX has granted a pro hac vice, allowing me to represent Jody Brockhausen in TX.
If you look at the docket of the Supreme Court of the US, you will see that it states the Application for the stay was filed pending filing of the writ of Certiorari, and I have stated that I will file that writ.
Aside from 4 cases mentioned above, I have about 50 consent forms from the servicemen, however I wasn't rushing to file, as I wanted to see a response from Obama's lead attorney Robert Bauer, whom I personally call Der. Gebbels machine, I wanted to see his motion to dismiss Phil Berg's (Hollister) and Mario Apuzzo's (Kerchner) cases, I wanted to see the arguments. A definition of insanity, is when you are doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. No sense of filling exactly the same case. I hope that those cases are not dismissed, but what Bauer is saying among other things, is that the plaintiffs are retired military and therefor a chance of them being called to active duty pursuant Obama's orders is highly hypothetical, and in order to show standing, you need to show an actual controversy. A judge cannot give an advisory opinion for hypothetical situations. Due to the above, I am reworking my military case. I feel it is better to take a bit more time and be better prepared, then go with guns blazing and be shot out of the court.
Now, it is possible to be shot out of the court with any case, if the whole system is corrupt and if nobody in the government is doing his job or if the government is there to subdue us for some New World order and take away our civil rights instead of upholding them. Due to that reason, I am planning the Defend Our Freedoms Convention in Dallas TX, so we can all unite and form resistance to Obama fraud machine. You saw the post from Lynn, saying that it is not easy to get hotel accommodations for a large group of people, so please respond to her ASAP. We need a tentative response, so we'll know how many people are coming.
It is also important, that all of you schedule appointments with your Senators and Representatives and US attorney's offices and provide information about this massive fraud. All the links are on the Defend our Freedoms page. Ask if those officials would like to attend the Convention. Keep in mind, elected officials are more at ease to act, if they see resistance from the citizens and if they see an active investigation by the FBI.
Lastly, a comment in regards to Nanci Pelosi's jet, that costs us, the taxpayers reported 5 mln a year in gasoline and maintenance. Her response was, that it is needed for her security and smaller jet was taking too much time for refueling and stops. I think, she should've given the real reason, that her broom is out of commission and she needed a new mode of transportation...
Have a good weekend :-)
Written by Zach Jones
Throughout the history of America, there have been those special individuals of courage and principle who have answered the call to protect the Republic. I believe in these extraordinary times, the call to protect the Republic is being sounded again. In over 30 courts throughout these United States, lawsuits have been trying to be heard on the merits of the primary allegation that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.
To date, the call to protect the Republic has been primarily sounded by concerned lawyers and those they represent. The Plaintiffs in these actions are as diverse as is America. They represent different political ideologies, races, ethic backgrounds, religious backgrounds and regions. However, the courts have thus far been silent, relying on technical legal arguments to prevent the airing of citizens’ concerns in the public square. Normally in America, these Plaintiffs would have had strong allies in the American Media. However, in these extraordinary times the media have thrown in their lot with Obama and the extreme wing of the Democratic Party. (The reasons for the media abandoning the profession of journalism are a bit complicated and should the subject of another article.)
Nevertheless, these attorneys and Plaintiffs have not been the only ones demanding the government make certain that America’s Constitution has been complied with. There are thousands of supporters across America giving voice to these concerns. In fact, World Net Daily has had a petition drive ongoing and to date, over 226,000 people have signed. The American citizens who are bringing these lawsuits, signing petitions, and searching for alternatives to the main stream media are mostly ordinary Americans, with ordinary families, who are extremely concerned that our Constitution has been violated and undermined.
Most of these ordinary Americans have been relying solely on the courts to protect the Republic and are extremely frustrated that the courts are thwarting the basic, simple, common sense resolutions of this vital issue. One such ordinary American is Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef, who recently expressed his concerns and disappointment with the courts in an open letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. The only thing these citizens and Lt Col. Earl-Graef are asking is that Barack Obama answer the allegations and establish with his long form Hawaiian birth certificate that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”. To date, this has not been done. It is important to note that instead of simply providing proof, Obama has resisted this request with legal teams and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The circumstance that a person might be serving as President of the United States who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” creates a Constitutional crisis of enormous proportion in that every legislative act such a person signs and every “order” he or she gives is invalid and “unlawful”.
This last word “unlawful” is of the utmost importance and gives rise to questions of individual responsibility, criminal liability and morality on the battlefield. It is well established that when an “order” is given to an individual soldier, such an order (in effect) comes through the entire chain of command. Consider that:
…Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers. When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.…
It is also well established that individual soldier have a legal and moral obligation NOT to follow “unlawful orders”.
…509. Defense of Superior Orders … b. In considering the question whether a superior order constitutes a valid defense, the court shall take into consideration the fact that obedience to lawful military orders is the duty of every member of the armed forces; that the latter cannot be expected, in conditions of war discipline, to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the orders received; that certain rules of warfare may be controversial; or that an act otherwise amounting to a war crime may be done in obedience to orders conceived as a measure of reprisal. At the same time it must be borne in mind that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders (e. g., UCMJ, Art. 92)….
So the question becomes, when does an individual soldier, Joe the Private, have sufficient reason to know or believe that an order flowing down the “chain of command” from the Office of the President constitutes an “unlawful order”?
Does it happen when an individual member of the military comes across reports on the internet of more than 30 lawsuits challenging the eligibility of the current occupant of the Oval Office?
Does it happen when superior Officers such as Lt Col. Earl-Graef start raising their heart felt concerns?
Does it matter that the main stream media may be deliberately ignoring the issue for their own purposes?
What should the individual soldier do if he or she in their heart of hearts believes the President of the United States is a fraud and cannot issue any “lawful order”?
This is the extremely difficult and perilous judgment call that every young military man or woman who is trying to do what they believe is right could be facing! Facing the possibility of jail and losing career or following one’s convictions, it doesn’t get much tougher than that.
It is very troubling that Obama shows no consideration for the position he puts the members of our military in by his refusal to provide any credible evidence demonstrating his status as a “Natural Born Citizen”.
So what’s our serviceman or woman to do?
Almost everyone involved in this issue has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and may also have additional ethical obligations. The lawyers who are representing the Plaintiffs in these actions are bound by their rules of ethics to not bring “frivolous actions”. The Judges have also sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. Obama has sworn in election forms that he is eligible to run for the Office of President. And the individual soldier has also sworn his or her own oath to defend the Constitution:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The enlisted service member’s oath provides explicitly that he or she “will obey the orders of the President of the United States”. Therefore, if Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, then Joe the Private is facing a huge conflict regarding his sworn allegiance. It is interesting to note that the oath that Officers swear to does not include the language that they will “obey the orders of the President”.
What a horrific situation Obama has created for our military men and women! The soldier has his or her oath to consider, his or her duty to follow “lawful orders”, his or her duty to NOT follow “unlawful orders”, and the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could take a huge bite out of his or her liberty and career.
The intention of the each individual soldier is the key to him or her making any noise what so ever! Every soldier must be very careful because they are walking a tightrope with only sharks below. The soldier could be determined in a Court Martial to be fulfilling the obligations of their oaths or they could be found to be committing mutiny or sedition under the UCMJ!
The UCMJ provides:
…894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; …
There is however another important group of people (besides the civilian Judges) who, I believe, have the power to investigate and resolve Obama’s ineligibility issue. If just one person of this group has courage and conviction for the truth, he or she can remove the possibility that a another member of our armed forces, acting alone, would decide that they must as a matter of conscience refuse to obey an “Order” coming from Mr. Obama.
This group is made up of every person in the military chain of command that has the power to convene a “Court of Inquiry” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice!
The UCMJ provides for Courts of Inquiry as follows:
935. ART. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.
So who are these men and women of the military who have the power to convene a Court of Inquiry? “Any person authorized to convene a general courts-martial” can convene such an inquiry.
They are listed in the UCMJ:
822. ARTICLE 22. WHO MAY CONVENE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL
(a) General courts-martial may be convened by--
(1) the President of the United States;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the commanding officer of a unified or specified combatant command;
(4) the Secretary concerned;
(5) the commanding officer of a Territorial Department, an Army Group, an Army, an Army Corps, a division, a separate brigade, or a corresponding unit of the Army or Marine Corps;
(6) the commander in chief of a fleet; the commanding officer of a naval station or larger activity of the Navy beyond the United States.
(7) the commanding officer of an air command, an air force, an air division, or a separate wing of the Air Force or Marine Corps;
(8) any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(9) any other commanding officer in any of the armed forces when empowered by the President.
Therefore, in order to prevent the terrible consequences that could befall the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine who in good faith refuses to follow an order that he or she believes to be an “unlawful order” given by Barack Obama, I urge those listed above to remove this burden from the shoulders of our military and investigate the allegations against Barack Obama to determine once and for all his eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Again I say, Mr. Obama could easily do the right thing and demonstrate his eligibility by answering the allegations made against him!
Just a thought as to a possible starting point for a Court of Inquiry:
..883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the status as Commander and Chief of the Military an appointment conferred upon the person who legitimately holds the Office of the Presidency?
If this does not suffice as legal justification to investigate Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office and/or issue lawful orders, I’m sure there are some brilliant JAG Officers who can provide much better legal arguments for a Court of Inquiry. (Maybe Article 134?)
In conclusion, and to eliminate any possible misunderstandings (CYA), it is solely my intention to follow the oath that I took when I joined the Navy as a 19 year old and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT my intention to express anything that could be remotely be interpreted as an “intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”!
Further, I would like to request that everyone who is remotely concerned become more aware regarding the eligibility lawsuits that are ongoing such as Berg v Obama, Hollister v Barry Soetoro, Broe v Reed, Kerchner et al v. Obama and research this important issue. One thing is certain, the American media will not be telling the complete story about this issue anytime soon.
Hopefully, Dr. Orly Taitz will see this article and forward it to Lt Col. Earl-Graef.
I checked CSPAN Video Archives:
I can't seem to find a video record of the Joint Session for January 8th when the electoral votes were certified.
There has been suggestions that at least one person tried to object. Maybe more now. But the hearing may have been interupted by the outburst of applause. We would love to view this hearing again.
New Top Ten Quick Reference:
Excellent Quick Reference Flyers:
I am sure that your staff has already found this picture of Al Green. Would be best to have actual verification of that youtube video of the lone protester. http://www.house.gov/algreen/bio.shtml
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008, AND THEREAFTER
One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.
Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.
The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. "Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."
Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.
Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. "The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."
Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.
State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thank you for writing regarding President Barack Obama's qualifications to be President. I appreciate hearing from you and I apologize for the delay in my response.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years.
President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.
Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.
United States Senator
Many hotels book major conferences many months in advance, which is making it difficult to find early dates of availability. It will greatly help knowing how many people are interested in attending this conference. I know many of you cannot make a decision until we find out all the costs for you. I am not asking for a commitment; however, I would like to know if you would attend, if your expense is kept to a minimum. As it is now, I cannot get them to confirm prices so I am getting a range from $100 per night to over $200 per night. Once I have this information, then I should be able to post by Monday hotel information.
Dr. Taitz is, at this time, wanting to have a Friday (for people to go to Federal Court Building as a group), Saturday, and Sunday. We are currently looking at dates in April and early May.
Please email me at email@example.com and include one or more of the following.
checking which you can do.
Will you be able to attend ____1 day ____2 Days ____3 Days
Maybe will attend ____1 day ____2 Days ____3 Days
If you cannot attend every day, then which days?
Will attend: ____Friday ____Sat ____Sun
Maybe will attend ____Friday ____Sat ____Sun
If you cannot attend during the day on Friday, would you be attending our Friday evening reception?
_____ need a hotel room,
_____ want to share a hotel room with someone else,
_____ know someone locally with whom you can stay
Do you live in the DFW area?
If so, would you:
_____ be willing to have people stay with you
_____ be willing to volunteer to work at the registration desk
_____ pick up people at the airport
_____ do other things to help
If you received an email or saw a posting somewhere else about this and have already responded, please do not reply again to the areas on which you have already responded..
Would you be willing:
_____ to do some fund-raising
_____ donate for this event?
_____ sponsor or find a sponsor for the event
Submitted by Phil on Fri, Jan 23, 200923 Comments
Justin Riggs, blogger at YourFellowCitizen.com, received the following information when contacting Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) office regarding the President’s eligibility:
My anonymous source in Tennessee heard back from Lamar Alexander’s office earlier this week. A staff member was kind enough to forward his/her request for information on to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so hopefully we’ll have more to report in the not too distant future.
1. of course he is spending a fortune. His CA attorneys are Beverly Hills firm (unless it's just a front) and DC Robert Bauer that has been around the block time and again. My guess they are charging $600 an hour. You do the math.
2. The States are spending a fortune. They are wasting our taxpayer's dollars to defend indefensible. I believe in each one of those cases the judges should've issued a Writ of Mandamus to obtain necessary eligibility documentation from a legitimate source, like the Health Dep of HI and State Dep., instead of allowing Robert Bauer and Obama a free ride claiming NoFactNoCheck.org political blog garbage as a reputable source. Why aren't the judges sanctioning them for even claiming that this stupid political unverified blog is a reputable source? Additionally, why are they allowing such a waste of taxpayer dollars, instead of getting the docs within an hour and getting over with it? What are they waiting for? For people's anger to reach the boiling point and a revolt to start? Is that the end game? I really don't know...
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.
Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
Specifically, article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior.
Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
"This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution
is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."
Will Obama really change the military oath? Will there be changes to the Constitution? We don't really know. The main reason is that Obama has zero credibility. When a man spends reported $800,000 on attorneys to keep original birth certificate sealed, you know that this birth certificate shows him as ineligible for presidency, otherwise he would've shown it to us. You know this man is defrauding the whole country and needs to be removed from office ASAP. When his side kick Rick Warren calls him a son of an African immigrant, when BO Sr was never an immigrant, but rather a Kenyan on a student visa, which made BO not a Natural Born Citizen, you know they are manipulating the facts.
I hope each and every member of the military or any other citizen for that matter should write to him and demand written assurance that he will not be making any changes to the constitution and demand to see all of his records under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) in order to find out, what is his legal name and what is his citizenship. Until BO steps up to the plate, the citizens will believe anything and everything about him, and rightfully so.
More material for downloading available here.
Some text of the article:
Most students at Columbia do not have first hand knowledge of war. Military violence has been a vicarious experience, channeled into our minds through television, film, and print.
The more sensitive among us struggle to extrapolate experiences of war from our everyday experience, discussing the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala, sensitizing ourselves to our parents' wartime memories, or incorporating into our framework of reality as depicted by a Maller[?] or a Coppola. But the taste of war -- the sounds and chill, the dead bodies -- are remote and far removed. We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experience down into our hearts, and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.
Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM) work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war. Though the emphasis of the two groups differ, they share an aversion to current government policy. These groups, visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead-end track.
"Most people my age remember well the air-raid drills in school, under the desk with our heads tucked between our legs. Older people, they remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think these kinds of things left an indelible mark on our souls[?], so we're more apt to be concerned," says Don Kent, assistant director of programs and student activities at Earl Hall Center. Along with the community Volunteer Service Center, ARA has been Don's primary concern, coordinating various working groups of faculty, students, and staff members, while simultaneously seeking the ever elusive funding for programs.
"When I first came here two years ago, Earl Hall had been a holding tank for five years. Paul Martin (director of Earl Hall) and I discussed our interests, and decided that ARA would be one of the programs we pushed." Initially, most of the work was done by non-student volunteers and staff. "Hot issues, particularly El Salvador, were occupying students at the time. Consequently, we cosponsored a lot of activities with community organizations like SANE (Students Against Nuclear Energy)."
With the flowering of the nuclear freeze movement, and particularly the June 12 rally in Central Park, however student participation has expanded. One wonders whether this upsurge comes[?] from young people's penchant for the latest 'happenings' or from growing awareness of the consequences of nuclear holocaust. ARA maintains a mailing list of 500 persons and Don Kent estimates that approximately half of the active members are students. Although he feels that continuity is provided by the faculty and staff members, student attendance at ARA sponsored events -- in particular a November 11 convocation on the nuclear threat -- reveals a deep reservoir of concern. "I think students on this campus like to think of themselves a sophisticated, and don't appreciate small vision. So they tend to come out more for the events; they do not want to just fold leaflets."
Mark Bigelow, a graduate intern from Union Theological Seminary who works with Don to keep ARA running smoothly, agrees. "It seems that students here are fairly aware of the nuclear problem, and it makes for an underlying frustration. We try to talk to that frustration."
Consequently, the thrust of ARA is towards generating dialogue which will give people a rational handle on this controversial subject. This includes bringing speakers like Daniel Ellsberg to campus, publishing fact sheets compiled by interested faculty, and investigating the possible development of an interdisciplinary program in the Columbia curriculum dealing with peace, disarmament, and world order.
Tied in with such a thrust is the absence of what Don calls "a party line." By taking an almost apolitical approach to the problem, ARA hopes to get the university to take nuclear arms issues seriously. "People don't like having their intelligence insulted," says Don. "so we try to disseminate information and allow the individual to make his or her own decision."
Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets. When Peter Tosh sings that "everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice," one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control ensues[?], severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself. Mark Bigelow does not think so. "We do focus primarily on catastrophic weapons. Look, we say, here's the worst part . Let's[?] work[?] on that. You're not going to get rid of the military in the near future, so let's at least work on this."
Mark Bigelow does feel that the links are there, and points to fruitful work being done by other organizations involved with disarmament. "The Freeze is one part of a whole[?] disarmament movement. The lowest common denominator, so to speak. For instance, April 10-16 is Jobs For Peace week, with a bunch of things going on around the city. Also, the New York City Council may pass a resolution in April calling for greater social as opposed to military spending. Things like this may dispel the idea that disarmament is a white issue, because how the government spends its revenue affects everyone."
The very real advantages of concentrating on a single issue is leading the National Freeze movement to challenge individual missile systems, while continuing the broader campaign. This year, Mark Bigelow sees the checking of Pershing II and Cruise missile deployment as crucial. "Because of their small size and mobility, their deployment will make possible arms control verification far more difficult, and will cut down warning time for the Soviets to less than ten minutes. That can only be a destabilizing factor[?]." Additionally, he sees the initiation by the
U.S. of the Test Ban Treaty as a powerful first step towards a nuclear free world.
ARA encourages members to join buses to Washington and participate in a March 7-8 rally intended to push through the Freeze resolution which is making its second trip through the House. ARA also will ask United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War (UCAM), an information and lobbying network based in universities, nationwide, to serve as its advisory board in the near future. Because of its autonomy from Columbia (which does not fund political organizations), UCAM could conceivably become a more active arm of disarmament campaigns on campus, thought the ARA will continue to function solely as a vehicle for information and discussion.
Also operating out of Earl Hall Center, Students Against Militarism was formed in response to the passage of registration laws in 1980. An entirely student-run organization, SAM casts a wider net than ARA, though for the purposes of effectiveness, they have tried to lock in on one issue at a time.
"At the heart of our organization is an anti-war focus," says junior Robert Kahn, one of SAM's fifteen or so active members. "From there, a lot of issues shoot forth -- nukes, racism, the draft, and South Africa. We have been better organized when taking one issue at a time, but we are always cognizant of other things going on, and collaborate frequently with other campus organizations like CISPES and REELPOLITIK."
At this time, the current major issue is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration. The law requires that all male students applying for federal financial aid submit proof of registration, or else the government coffers will close. Yale, Wesleyan, and Swathmore have refused to comply, and plan to offer non-registrants other forms of financial aid. SAM hopes to press Columbia into following suit, though so far President Sovern and company seem prepared to acquiesce to the bill.
Robert believes students tacitly support non-registrants, though the majority did not comply.
"Several students have come up to our tables and said that had they known of the ineffectiveness of the prosecution, they would not have registered." A measure of such underlying support is the 400 signatures on a petition protesting the Solomon Bill, which SAM collected the first four hours it appeared. Robert also points out that prior to registration, there were four separate bills circulating in the House proposing a return to the draft, but none ever got out of committees, and there have not been renewed efforts. An estimated half-million non-registrants can definitely be a powerful signal.
Prodding students into participating beyond name signing and attending events is tricky, but SAM members seem undaunted. "A lot of the problem comes not from people's ignorance of the facts, but because the news and statistics are lifeless. That's why we search for campus issues like the Solomon bill that have direct impact on the student body, and effectively link the campus to broader issues." By organizing and educating the Columbia community, such activities lay the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country. "The time is right to tie together social and military issues," Robert continues, "and the more strident the Administration becomes, the more aware people are of their real interests."
The belief that moribund institutions, rather than the individuals, are at the root of the problem, keep SAM's energies alive. "A prerequisite for members of an organization like ours is the faith that people are fundamentally good, but you need to show them, and when you look at the work people are doing across the country, it makes you optimistic."
Perhaps the essential goodness of humanity is an arguable proposition, but by observing the SAM meeting last Thursday night, with its solid turnout and enthusiasm, one might be persuaded that the manifestations of our better instincts can at least match the bad ones. Regarding Columbia's possible compliance, one comment in particular hit upon an important point with the Solomon bill, "The thing we need to do is expose how Columbia is talking out of two sides of its mouth."
Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience--that of war. But then, there are some things we shouldn't have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.
Obama- in empty words is pro Israel, in reality-Pro Palestinian terrorists, pro destruction of Israel.
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Obama 'friend': End of Israel 'within reach'
Activist boasts 'Western support, complicity' starting to crack
Posted: January 30, 2009
12:20 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Accusing the Jewish state of "genocide," an anti-Israel Palestinian activist once commended by President Obama has predicted the end of Israel, which, he boasted, is "within reach, in our lifetimes."
In a piece earlier this month titled, "Why Israel won't survive," Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian online publication, accused Israel of war crimes and gloated, "Now, the other pillar of Israeli power – Western support and complicity – is starting to crack. We must do all we can to push it over."
"It is Israel as a Zionist state, not Palestine or the Palestinian people, that cannot survive this attempted genocide. Its problem is legitimacy, or rather a profound and irreversible lack of it," wrote Abunimah.
(Story continues below)
Abunimah previously was described as close to Obama and has introduced the politician at pro-Palestinian events. Referring to a time period in the late 1990s, Abunimah said that "Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation."
Abunimah was quoted stating Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel."
He noted Obama's unusual stance toward Israel, commenting "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere, rather than at the end of his career."
In his piece this month, Abunimah blasted Israel's three-week campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, accusing the Israel Defense Forces of "massacr[ing] civilians in the hope that the population would turn against those fighting the occupier."
"The death toll keeps rising as more bodies are pulled from carpet-bombed neighborhoods," Abunimah claimed.
Israel did not carpet-bomb any area in the Gaza Strip. It carried out surgical precision strikes against specific Hamas targets. The IDF regularly warned civilians of incoming attacks with phone calls or text messages. The IDF routinely employed what it terms "roof knocking" – just prior to a targeted bombing, the building in question would receive a telephone call in Arabic warning that the structure was going to be bombed.
Hamas, on the other hand, was widely condemned for utilizing civilians as human shields and storing weapons and military infrastructure in civilian zones, including apartment buildings.
But Abunimah asserted: "Israel simply cannot bomb its way to legitimacy. What choice will Israel make? In the absence of any political and moral legitimacy the only arguments it has left are bullets and bombs. Left to its own devices Israel will certainly keep trying – as it has for sixty years – to massacre Palestinians into submission."
He claimed "Israel's real goals (in Gaza) were to restore its 'deterrence' fatally damaged after its 2006 defeat in Lebanon (translation: its ability to massacre and terrorize entire populations into submission) and to destroy any Palestinian resistance to total Israeli-Jewish control over historic Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea."
Zionism, he asserted, is an ideology of "racial supremacy, extremism and hate, is a dying project, in retreat and failing to find new recruits. ... It is within reach, in our lifetimes."
Obama, anti-Israel activist raised funds for Islamic causes
In the 1990s, Obama was a speaker at events in Chicago's large Palestinian immigrant community to raise funds for U.N. camps for the so-called Palestinian refugees. Abunimah recalls introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.
"I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator – when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time," stated Abuminah during an interview last year with Democracy Now!, a nationally syndicated radio and television political program.
"I remember personally introducing [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation," Abunimah said.
Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.
"[Obama] came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him," Abunimah recalled. "It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.
According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."
"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.
Abunimah said Obama urged him to "keep up the good work" at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.
Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group founded by Khalidi's wife that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver's licenses and education to illegal aliens.
WND broke the story the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.
'Very active terror apparatus'
Obama's 1999 fundraising for the Palestinian Deheisha camp raised the eyebrows of one senior Israeli security official who was contacted for comment on the issue. The official, who was not aware of Obama's fundraising, noted Deheisha, which is located near the city of Bethlehem, had a "very active" Palestinian terror apparatus in 1999, carrying out scores of deadly shootings against Israeli civilians that year.
Two of the most deadly suicide bombings in 2002 also were planned from Deheisha, where the suicide bombers originated, said the security official. In one such bombing, in March of that year, 11 people were killed and over 50 injured, four critically when a Deheisha bomber detonated his explosives next to a group of Jewish women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave a nearby synagogue.
The question of so-called Palestinian refugees is a sensitive one for supporters of Israel. All Israeli prime ministers have stated a final peace deal with the Palestinians cannot include the "return" of "refugees."
When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were flushed out when the Jewish state pushed back attacking Arab armies. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.
While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle the Arabs elsewhere.
There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.
Other cases of worldwide refugees aided by the U.N. are handled through the international body's High Commission for Refugees, which seeks to settle the refugees quickly, usually in countries other than those from which they fled.
The U.N. created a special agency – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA – specifically to handle registered Palestinian refugees. It's the only refugee case handled by the U.N. in which the declared refugees are housed and maintained in camps for generations instead of facilitating the refugees' resettlement elsewhere.
The U.N. officially restricts the definition of refugee status worldwide for nationalities outside the Palestinian arena to those who fled a country of nationality or habitual residence due to persecution, who are unable to return to their place of residence and who have not yet been resettled. Future generations of original refugees are not included in the U.N.'s definition of refugees.
But the U.N. uses a different set of criteria only when defining a Palestinian refugee – allowing future generations to be considered refugees; terming as refugees Arabs who have been resettled in other countries, such as hundreds of thousands in Jordan; removing the clause requiring persecution; and removing the clause requiring a refugee to be fleeing his or her "country of nationality or habitual residence."
Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, routinely refer to the "right of return," claiming it is mandated by the U.N. But the two U.N. resolutions dealing with the refugee issue recommend that Israel "achieve a just settlement" for the "refugee problem." The resolutions, which are not binding, do not speak of any "right of return" and leave open the possibility of monetary compensation or other kinds of settlements.
Need more help from attorneys, law students, paralegals and legal secretaries for impending legal actions e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Who worries about the cow when it is all about the ice cream?
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise.
She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream" She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely could say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52% of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.
The other 48% of us know we're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.
Thursday, January 29, 2009; 3:17 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902021.html?wprss=rss_nation Seventeen US sailors were killed in the attack on the USS Cole [GALLO/GETTY] A military judge in Guantanamo Bay today denied the Obama administration's request to delay proceedings for 120 days in the case of a detainee accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others. The decision throws into some disarray the administration's efforts to buy time to review individual detainee cases as part of its plan to close the U.S. military prison at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba. The Pentagon may now be forced to temporarily withdraw the charges against Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent.
Nashiri is facing arraignment on capital charges on Feb. 9, and Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, said the case would go ahead.
"We just learned of the ruling here . . . and we are consulting with the Pentagon and the Department of Justice to explore our options in that case," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Asked at a news briefing whether the decision would hamper the administration's ability to evaluate the cases of Guantanamo detainees, Gibbs replied: "No. Not at all."
In one of his first actions, President Obama issued an executive order instructing Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to make sure all military commission proceedings "are halted" during a review of the cases of individual detainees at Guantanamo and of the broader system of military commission trials.
The administration chose to achieve that by instructing military prosecutors to seek 120-day suspensions of legal proceedings in the cases of 21 detainees who have been charged. Approximately 245 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo.
The request was quickly granted in other cases when prosecutors told military judges that a suspension was in the "interests of justice" so that the "president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."
But Pohl said he found the government's reasoning "unpersuasive" and he clearly felt he was not bound to bow to the administration's wishes.
The government, Pohl wrote, sought a delay because if cases went ahead, the administration's review could "render moot any proceedings conducted during the review"; "necessitate re-litigation of issues"; or "produce legal consequences affecting options available to the Administration after completion of the review."
"The Commission is unaware of how conducting an arraignment would preclude any option by the administration," said Pohl in a written opinion, which was obtained by The Post. "Congress passed the military commissions act, which remains in effect. The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future."
The judge wrote that "the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment."
Nashiri's military defense attorney did not object to postponing the arraignment but requested that discovery and other issues go forward "It's somewhat of a shock," said Navy Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes, Nashiri's military defense attorney.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing today that "this department will be in full compliance with the president's executive order. . . . And so while that executive order is in force and effect, trust me there will be no proceedings continuing down at Gitmo with military commissions."
Susan Crawford, the Pentagon official who approves charges and refers cases to trial, can withdraw charges, an action that would halt proceedings without reference to the judge. It would also allow the government to reinstate charges either in a military commission in Guantanamo or in federal court or military court if it decides to abolish the exiting system of prosecuting detainees.
But it would bring the Nashiri case back to square one and cost the government time if it attempted to re-start the case within military commissions system. Some military defense attorneys had urged the withdrawal of charges in all cases, which would have been a clear indication that military commissions were dead. But the Obama administration instead sought only a suspension, a decision that some human rights activists described as 'life support" for the current system.
If Crawford withdraws charges in the Nashiri case, some military defense attorneys in other cases, including the trial of suspects in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said they would also seek the withdrawal of charges against their clients.
"There should be a withdrawal of charges in all cases and we will directly engage the prosecutors and [Crawford] on that," said Jon Jackson, an Army major, who is defending Mustafa al-Hawsawi, an accused 9/11 conspirator.
And if an arraignment goes ahead and Nashiri enters a plea, subsequent proceedings would be subject to double jeopardy rules, according to defense lawyers. That could severely complicate the administration's ability to move Nashiri's case to federal court or courts martial, defense lawyers said.
Pentagon officials, who requested anonymity, said they believe Crawford will have no option but to withdraw charges without prejudice in Nashiri's case and possibly all cases going to trial in Guantanamo Bay.
Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since late 2002, and he is one of three detainees the government has acknowledged was subjected to an interrogation technique that simulates drowning while he was held by the CIA.
Nashiri was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006 along with other "high-value" detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Follow up, trying to identify the congressman that raised his hand to object, but was interrupted by our beloved Pelosi
The view of Marxist-Leninists that they should "smash the state" is alive and well in the current administration, headed by the Usurper-in-Chief and his Democrat (not democratic) co-conspirators.
The ideologues of the Democrat machine have never shown a reluctance to sabotage the economy, thus hurting the very poor and impoverished they claim to represent, in order to further their own goals. When Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, it resulted in a doubling of tax revenues received by the Treasury, yet the Democrats, in violation of an agreement with Reagan, increased spending sufficiently to cause a deficit, which they, as planned, then blamed on Reagan.
Having artificially triggered a melt-down in our economy by forcing banks who knew better into making unwise housing loans to unqualified people who had no hope of repaying, and goosing the problem along with end-of-day short-selling when McCain was pulling ahead of Obama, the expected panic was unleashed, resulting in a voter demand to "throw the rascals out." Whenever such a mood exists, the party of the "rascals" currently in the White House is ejected, and replaced by the other party's "rascals." Thus, Spanky, Stymie and Darla Hood were cast aside, and replaced by Darth Vader, Ra's Al Ghul and Cruella De Vil.
Crisis. Panic. Solution.
The Left frequently manipulates the public by means of the the crisis-panic-solution paradigm. Step One: create a crisis. Publicly call attention to the created crisis by use of the "bully pulpit" and help from lackeys in the media. Step Two: wait for the expected panic to materialize. Fan the flames of said panic until they are white-hot. Step Three: Rush to the rescue. Propose a solution, which apparently deals with the crisis, but is actually a means of imposing the programs and spending that you could not pass fairly, and ram it through the legislature before the panic dies down.
The Democrat Party played the American people like Guitar Hero, again placing the blame for their own pre-planned "crisis" on the very people who warned us that it was coming as long as six years ago, but the tune is wearing thin. You can only play one chord for so long before the audience realizes that you cannot actually play the guitar, and walks out.
Less than a week after the phony inauguration of a faux-President, marred by the flubbed Oath of Office that betrayed the consciousness of guilt by both Obama and Roberts, Obama's media minions have already begun biting at his heels. (Note to Chris Matthews: that tingling in your leg was just an early symptom of sciatica.)
Thousands of us have been crying out "The Emperor has no clothes." Just as in the fairy tale, it's only a matter of time before the larger crowd realizes it, and takes up the cry. When this finally happens, the means to force exposure is available to us, thanks to a tool left to us by George W. Bush.
"W" to the Rescue.
On January 16, 2009, three days before he left office, President Bush signed an Executive Order entitled "Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust.' As soon as they got in office, the Obaminons tried to scrub this from the White House web site, but the info was already out there. It appears on pages 4111-4113 of The Federal Register.
We have a PDF of the entire Order below, but here's a taste:
Sec. 5. Reinvestigation of Individuals in Positions of Public Trust. Individuals in positions of public trust shall be subject to reinvestigation ... to ensure their suitability for continued employment.
Hmmm. Now, who exactly in the employ of the Federal Government needs to have their backgrounds re-investigated. Have you heard any outcries for any such reinvestigation of anyone except ... oh, now, who could it be ... OBAMA! (Apologies to Dana Carvey's Church Lady.)
Dr. Orly Taitz has picked up the ball and is running with it. She has served U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI Chicago office with a subpoena to produce "any and all records in regards to level of character and conduct necessary pertaining to Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barry H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro. These documents have direct relation to holding a Position of Public Trust."
Now, don't get too excited yet. The success of such a petition requires that a court actually enforce the law. We haven't seen much of that lately. Yet, somehow, it is comforting to know that, as George W. Bush conducted himself as a consummate gentleman and a polished executive on his way out, he left us with this means of salvaging our form of Government.
Paraphrasing what the former President said, standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center in 2001, he heard us, and the people who shredded the Constitution are gonna hear from all of us soon.