| Latest Pictures and Updated News on the Obama Birth Certificate Issue and Court-Martial of Lt. Col. Lakin Gathered by Larry Brian Radka Latest Obama birth certificate news respecting Lt. Col. Lakin’s question of President Obama's qualifications to issue lawful military orders as his Commander-in-Chief will be regularly posted on this Web page. Please check back periodically for updates and links to any significant news about the raging Obama birth certificate controversy: April 13, 2010: NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Mark Murray reported hat the U.S. Army will court martial Lt. Col. Lakin since he refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from Obama to be “illegal.” Lakin showed up at the Pentagon, where he was confronted by his brigade Commander Col. Gordon Roberts who informed him that he would face court martial, and his Pentagon building pass and government laptop computer were seized. April 13, 2010: In an article in The Colorado Independent—headlined Radio host Boyles: Birther Lakin no punk; O’Reilly a liar—John Tomasic extensively quotes from Denver talk-radio host Peter Boyles' interview with Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin's spokesperson Margaret Hemenway: “Lakin is risking everything… this guy, he’s hardly a punk, he’s done his [tours of duty] in the past and now he’s willing to call [the president] out on it. He throws it all away. He loses all his benefits and retirement pay and goes to prison for hard labor. It’s not a punk thing by any stretch.” “Lakin thinks the truth matters… The problem is that a lot of powerful important people have already said ‘There’s nothing here. We don’t need to worry about this.’ And their reputations and their image are on the line. It is truly a David and Goliath story. And so, many people want to keep this swept under the rug, because it’s embarrassing to them, because frankly they should have exercised due diligence. They should have vetted this man properly. It didn’t happen. In hindsight it’s a colossal mistake that it was allowed to happen like this, and we still actually are not aware of what Obama’s citizenship status is… You’re asking some people to have egg on their face if it comes out he was not actually born in Hawaii and he was born in Kenya as many Kenyans have said he was. This is a huge problem.” “O’Reilly lied. He said he had seen the evidence. Joe Farrah [founder of right-wing site WorldNetDaily] calls him on it. O’Reilly said Well it wasn’t him, it was his staff. Farrah calls the staff on it and then they say No, the only thing they saw was what was on the internet… They look like fools.”  
In another Peter-Boyles interview, Glenn Beck pointed out that “I'm not a birther” (one who seeks the truth about Obama's questionable past and his birth certificate) and “it doesn't matter to me.” Beck demonstrated in his game of dodge ball with Boyles that he was ignorant of the issues, and his arguments were weak, especially since he pointed out that “the Constitution matters.” If so, then why doesn’t he point out and discuss in one of his phony TV weeping sessions that “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”—Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution? Apparently Fox News' Muslim investors have shut off his nozzle also. Rush Limbaugh has curiously been silent on this important issue, except for suggesting that neither God nor Obama has a birth certificate. Do you suppose he and his network bosses have heard the Arab money-bell jingle also? 
Barack Hussein Obama, however, apparently has heard a different kind of bell—the call to prayer—and, as the photograph above demonstrates, respectfully removes his shoes before nosing down to Allah. 
Perhaps his Muslim religious inspiration has encouraged him briefly to break his lingering silence once again on the issue of his birth. When asked about the American Tea Party (in an NBC interview at the White House on Monday, March 29, 2010 and broadcast the next day on the “Today” show), Mr. Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), commenting on this grass roots movement and its core group, pointed out: “I think that it is a still loose amalgam of forces. There is a part of the Tea Party movement that actually did exist before I was elected. We saw some of it leading up to my election. There are some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States. . .” 
Apparently Barack does not take the Tea Parties very seriously. “Last Thursday, while I was at anti-Tax Day rallies in California voicing my opposition to government expansion and increased taxes, President Barack Obama was busy mocking members of the Tea Party movement,” wrote Carly Fiorina, of The Patriot Update. “On Tax Day, Barack Obama told a crowd of left-wing donors at a Democratic fundraising event in Miami that the Tea Party rallies across the country have 'amused' him and that we should all be 'thanking' him for our tax bills.” 
April 16, 2010: In Accuracy in Media, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway presented an interesting Guest Column titled How the Media Lied about Obama’s Birth Records. Be sure to read this one! 
April 16, 2010: WorldNetDaily notified me that The Western Center for Journalism reported: “Lakin received a reprimand which stated, in part: “On 30 March 2010, this command became aware of your intentions to refuse to follow deployment orders. Your stated reason for refusal was your belief that the election of the President of the United States is invalid.... Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action including court-martial... If found guilty … you could be sentenced to dismissal from the service... forefeiture (sic) of all pay and allowances; and confinement for a period of months or years in a military prison. “But here's something else the pro-Obama Mainstream Media will NOT report. “If the Army follows through on its threat to court martial Lakin, he would have the right of discovery... meaning that his defense team could compel Barack Hussein Obama to produce the document that he has REFUSED to produce... his actual birth certificate. 
“That's why Barack Hussein Obama's allies in the media are NOT covering this story. They don't want the American people to know what is going on... they don't want the American people to start asking pesky questions. “In short, they don't want the American people to know the truth.” 
April 17, 2010: “Justice Clarence Thomas: We’re ‘evading’ eligibility—Does testimony hint at division behind the Supreme Court’s doors?” is the WND headlines in an article by Drew Zahn. “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is ‘evading’ the issue.” 
April 17, 2010: “For the multitude of Americans who want proof that Mr. Obama is qualified to be President of the United States,” wrote Dr. Alan Bates in Strait Talk, “his resistance to providing a certified copy of his certificate of live birth is highly suspect, particularly since he has spent at least 1.7 million dollars for just one attorney in addition to those US attorneys who are protecting his confidential birth information.” April 19, 2010: The Jefferson Rebels headlined a pertinent blogspot, “Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself—an Excellent question!” 
April 19, 2010: John Christian Ryter published a detailed arcticle that deals extensively with Obama's many social security numbers, court cases, and birth certificate problem. This is well worth reading! April 19, 2010: Joan Swirsky began her OPERATION INVESTIGATE OBAMA—NOT LIEUTENANT COLONEL LAKIN campaign. April 19, 2010: Safeguard Our Constitution—The Truth Matters issued an Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly that begins, “Mr. O’Reilly: Please refrain from using your 'No Spin Zone' jingle. Please stop saying you support the troops. Your recent 'opinion' story about LTC Lakin with Megyn Kelley proves both of these claims to be wrong.” This site also provides a comprehensive list of Lt. Colonel Lakin's education, medical training and certifications, military assignments, and much more. April 19, 2010: The American Patriot Foundation has announced, “LTC Lakin and his attorney are to be on the G. Gordon Liddy show tomorrow morning.” Look for him on you local radio station or listen to the G. Gordon Liddy show on the Internet. April 20, 2010: “The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of ‘natural born citizen’ means,” wrote JB Williams. “Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a 'natural born citizen' is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.”
In his Canada Free Press article titled “DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office,” he also pointed out that “Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.” For more on this subject, see Jim O'Neill's article below.
April 20, 2010: George Noory and Jim Marrs discussed, in response to a caller, the Obama birth certificate issue for quite awhile on the Coast to Coast AM radio show. Both showed serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Obama presidency, but don't think the mainstream media and Congress will likely admit they have egg on their faces in addressing this issue. Art Bell's growing late night program is on well over 500 radio stations and has around 10,000,000 listeners on an average night. April 20, 2010: Talk show host Michael Savage—still disheartened by being listed along with killers and terrorists on a travel ban to Great Britain and by his plight being ignored by fellow talk show hosts—also discussed the Obama birth certificate issue and the signs of an upcoming storm. His talk show has eight to ten million listeners per week and is growing. 
April 20, 2010: For the first two hours of his show today, the old “G Man” G. Gordon Liddy did indeed conduct an interview with Lt. Col. Lakin, his lawyer, Joseph Farah and Jerry Corsi of WorldNetDaily—a “WORLD EXCLUSIVE/WORLD PREMIERE,” to use Liddy's own words. The interview revealed that Lt. Colonel Lakin—due to be promoted in a year or so to full Colonel—has been removed from the promotion list. He is already beginning to pay for his patriotism. Although formal charges are expected in a few days, it may take up to 90 days for the investigation to be completed and court-marital to take place, which gives Obama plenty of time to figure out his game plan. When a caller asked about where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in regards to the challenge to Obama's birth-certificate credentials and legitimacy to act as Commander-in-Chief, the interview responded with a long and deafening silence. Experts on the Obama birth certificate issue, Dr. Jerome R. Corsi and Joseph Farah—as well as the show's highly informed callers—brought up many excellent questions and points. Lt. Col. Lakin's lawyer, Paul Jensen, refused to answer only a few questions—those whose answers might “telegraph” his intentions over the radio to Army prosecutors . Unlike all the failed past attempts by lawyers like Philip Berg and Orly Tates to bring to trial the Obama birth certificate issue and get discovery in our civilian courts, the military courts are divorced from the possibility of such injustices—so there is still hope after all! April 21, 2001: In an CFP, Jim O'Neill wrote an informative update and analysis on Lt. Col. Lakin and Commander Fitzpatrick. April 22, 2010: Army officials—working at the direction of the Obama Administration—filed formal criminal charges against Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin. Safeguard Our Constitution—The Truth Matters provides a PDF file of the three-page Charge Sheet. 
Above is an excerpt from it, showing the specific charges, which probably serve as an optimistic relief for those serving in the our military. “When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander-in-chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey,” wrote Brendan McGarry, in a January 7, 2009 article in Army Times. “In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.” 
The uncertainty and pessimism in our military will undoubtedly increase now. 
April 23, 2010: This court-martial should require "discovery." which should include Obama's birth certificate and other credentials that would establish if he is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. An article from the United States Justice Foundation announced today: If Barack Obama is found to be ineligible to serve as President, he will face a number of civil and criminal penalties. Barack Hussein Obama would, in fact, face these potential federal criminal charges: False Impersonation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912), with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than three years, or both.
Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.
Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a), with the penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both.
False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542), with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism); 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or both.
False Impersonation of a Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911), with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than three years, or both.
Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621), with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.
Perhaps it seems to you that these potential punishments don't fit the atrocious crime. Rest assured that Mr. Obama's arch liberal pals in the Justice Department, and throughout Congress, preaching a live-and-let-live sermon, will be as lenient as possible.  
Nevertheless, in addition to these charges, treason might indeed be an option. An appropriate method of execution for treason is the firing squad—a method of execution for capital crimes still used in the United States. This word treason imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III says, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Obama might be guilty of treason under the last two conditions—on several occasions. This offence is punished with death (18 U.S.C. 2381). These patriots: Major Cook, Commander Fitzpatrick, and Lt. Colonel Lakin have laid their lives and careers on the line for the American Constitution. Where is the rest of the Brass —hiding from their Constitutional oaths like costume cowards? Ironically, Lt. Col. Lakin is the lead flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey Jr.’s flight crew. Why doesn't Casey muster up enough courage to stand up for his oath and question the validity of his orders instead of leaving it to a subordinate? Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick has charged Admiral Mullen with “treason.”  This is the oath that all commissioned officers take:
I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
In an article for The Post and Email, Kathleen Gotto wrote: “It is astounding that an officer with Lt. Col. Lakin’s credentials who is standing tall behind his oath to support and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, 'foreign or domestic,' instead of being treated with support and respect for upholding his oath, is being threatened by his superiors.” Fortunately, some patriotic civilians, like Dr. James David Manning (pictured below), are standing up for the military heros, like Lt. Col. Lakin and Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick, standing up for their oath to and the requirements of the United States Constitution. April 23, 2010: Army Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.)—well-known Fox News military analyst—has expressed his support for the position taken by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. He believes Lt. Col. Lakin has “a valid point” and should use his “right to discovery” to force Obama to produce proof of his natural-born citizen status, according to a report by WND. The retired general will be attending Lt. Col. Lakin's court-martial proceedings. April 26, 2010: The corruption and clandestine calls made by our crooked politicians are coming to light. Pamela Geller says, “Let the Impeachment Proceedings Begin!” April 27, 2010: Apparently Hawaiin officials are overwhelmed with requests for copies of Obama’s birth certificate. Associated Press reported that “Hawaii legislators passed a measure allowing a state agency to ignore repeated requests from a person or organization for President Obama's birth certificate.” So far, the agency has not satisfied any of those requests with a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate. April 27, 2010: “A bill in Arizona that would require candidates for president to document their constitutional eligibility needs only an affirmative vote from the state Senate to advance to the governor,” reported Bob Unruh, “but its sponsor told WND she's concerned GOP leadership will end up protecting President Obama's secrets.” State Rep. Judy Burges told WND that her bill was approved by the House but now is being “held” by Senate President Robert Burns. According to Unruh, “She explained Burns told her that in light of the controversy over the state's immigration law – targeted by pro-amnesty immigrants and open-border activists – ‘he didn't want to take on another one.’” April 27, 2010: For “An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy—The man John Jay warned about,” read this article on the Obama’s Presidential eligibility problem by Doug Hagman, just published in Canada Free Press. This quite comprehensive analysis serves as a strong pillar of support for Colonel Lakin's decision to opt for a court-martial to find out if Obama is issuing lawful orders. April 27, 2010: Sharon Rondeau reported in an interview with Dr. Manning, published in The Post & Email, that he has “proof of Obama's ineligibility.” This is a long and quite informative interview with the man behind the Obama treason and sedition trial and about what to expect shortly in New York City. April 27, 2010: TPMMuckracker reported on April 26, 2010 that Roger Stone, a friend and sometimes client of Jensen’s, wrote in an email that “Jensen is a bulldog. A true student of the law. A brilliant litigator. Not adverse to high profile cases and high risk legal strategies,” and “He understands public relations and the damage this case can do to Obama. Won't be adverse to trying to call Obama for testimony.”  
Paul Jensen should be able to successfully handle Lt. Col. Lakin's court-martial since he worked in the chambers of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces as a law clerk to the late Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett. April 30, 2010: Part II of the above article is published in CFP. It gives us more background on the Obama birth certificate problem. April 30, 2010: More favorable news for Lt. Col. Lakin's stand may be read in The Post & Email article: Tea Partiers in Oceanside, CA learn about the Columbia Treason Trial. May 5, 2010: “More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama's birth, saying ‘the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii,’” reported WND today. “The disclosure is believed to be the first time a state government official has declared the precise place where Obama was born, despite numerous other published claims, including some for a different hospital in Honolulu.” Furthermore, official and family claims to the contrary—stating Obama was indeed born in Kenya—stand against the governor's statement. There are also other important—legal—considerations to be addressed before Obama can, in fact, officially be decreed “a natural born citizen.” “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. Obama's father apparently did not fulfill this requirement. A Washington Post blogger brings out some important points with respect to the possiblity that Obama is in fact a usurper: “If he WASN'T born in the United States, however, then Biden is legally Acting President and has been since 12:00 noon, January 20, 2009—every purported Executive Order and treaty Obama has signed is null and void, even some purported legislation, like ObamaCare, as well as troop deployments and nominations up to and including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor—imagine the Constitutional crisis if Obama refused to resign under those circumstances.” May 5, 2010: The American Patriot Foundation, Inc. released the following notice today: PRESS RELEASE LTC LAKIN TO APPEAR TOMORROW ON CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER 360 PROGRAM ___________________________________________
DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN BEING COURT-MARTIALLED FOR REFUSING TO OBEY ALL ORDERS TO BE QUESTIONED ON TOP-RATED SHOW Washington, D.C., May 5, 2010. Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses --even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary-- to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office, will appear with his attorney tomorrow night in a live interview on CNN’s top-rated “Anderson Cooper 360” program.
The court martial process, which begins with the military’s equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian court, known as an “Article 32 Investigation” (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was just commenced when on May 3, 2010, LTC Lakin was notified that the hearing would take place May 6, 2010. “My immediate request for a continuance was granted within hours. A new date will be set soon, most likely in the first two weeks in June”, said Paul Rolf Jensen, LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s corps.
The interview will be broadcast live and unedited from CNN’s New York City studios on May 6, 2010 at 10:00 p.m. eastern time, 7:00 pm pacific.
The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, in the one month since establishing a fund to provide a legal defense to LTC Lakin, has received generous donations from more than 1,200 separate individuals. Details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com. May 06, 2010: Obama “truth warrior” Andy Martin says KITV-TV News’ story on Friday, April 30th that he was preparing to sue Governor Linda Lingle forced her hand and made her confess to suborning election fraud in October, 2008.
May 06, 2010: In American Thinker, in an article asking—Is Michelle Obama a Birther?—Thomas Lifson pointed out, “The question has to be asked, now that a second YouTube video has surfaced in which Michelle Obama refers to her husband as a Kenyan. In a rather whiny harangue during a fundraiser in Tampa in December 2007, in which she discussed how hard it was for her and her husband to pay off student loans from ‘good schools,’ Michelle Obama said the following:” ‘What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country - the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama - a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.’ “Whatever the facts of his birthplace, it is clear that Michelle Obama thinks of her husband as a Kenyan.”
Both YouTube videos with Michelle's reference to her husband as a Kenyan are available in the underlined link above. May 06, 2010: According to the American Patriot Foundation, the Anderson Cooper Interview with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has been changed to Friday, May 7, 2010 at 10 pm because he is covering the flood in Tennessee. May 06, 2010: The Gunny “G” Blogs reported that “Lt. Col. Lakin Attorney’s son is shot dead.” I don’t know firsthand if this is true, but after the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris, I wouldn’t put anything beyond the ruthless CIA. A well placed and knowledgeable source, however, has assured me that the report is true. 
May 7, 2010: On CNN, one of the mainstream media outlets that have either belittled or ignored the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president since before the 2008 election, Anderson Cooper gave the topic and Lt. Col. Lakin a primetime spotlight. In reference to the physician's upcoming court-martial dealing with Obama's qualifications to serve as the United States military's Commander-in-Chief, “It was the only way I could research the issue. I was asking and begging my leadership for guidance on how to address this issue,” explained the soft-spoken officer. “It's fundamental to the Constitution. My oath of office is to the Constitution. I believe we need the truth on this matter.” May 7, 2010: The Honorable James Davis Manning made an appeal to Columbia University students. Therein, he charges Barack Hussein Obama with criminal activity in “his fraudulent use of social security numbers and selective service numbers,” and “that he is not a natural born citizen and that through criminal activity, bribery, and international if you will coercion at the level of treason he has arisen to the person in power he now holds—albeit illegally.”
The Harlem minister also charged, “Barack Hussein Obama, the CIA, and Columbia University were involved in the establishment of the Taliban.” Click the picture above to hear the charges in detail. May 09, 2010: The United States Justice Foundation announced, “We continue to fight to make sure that Mr. Obama produces his genuine, full-length, birth certificate; something that Mr. Obama has spent, according to published reports, over $1.7 Million to conceal! What is he hiding?” May 10, 2010: WorldNetDaily reports that back in July of 2009, “The latest AOL online poll shows 81 percent of respondents saying Barack Obama should release his birth certificate.” Considering the recent challenge Lt. Col. Lakin has brought to Obama's qualifications to serve as our United States military's Commander-in-Chief, the response to a call for the release of a certified copy of Barack's birth certificate from Hawaii should be nearing 100% today—nearly 300,000,000 American citizens! “Why is a birth certificate a state secret? How could release of a birth certificate possibly compromise Obama's privacy? The public wants to see that document with their own eyes. Why is the state of Hawaii releasing details in dribs and drabs over a period of years rather than asking Obama for permission to release the document?”—just some of the questions asked today by WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah—who once ran the Sacramento Union and also the news operation of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. “Why is Obama fighting tooth and nail and spending millions of dollars keeping it secret?”
May 10. 2010: “The Post & Email has completed a follow-up interview of Attorney Andy Martin upon his return from a trip to Hawaii during which he filed a lawsuit against Hawaii officials, charging them with concealing evidence under the guise of 'executive privilege,'” reported Sharon Rondeau. “Mr. Martin also revealed his plans to become involved in the Lt. Col. Lakin case as well as what his additional research yielded.” May 10, 2010: WND reported: “President Obama has waived ethics rules for White House counsel Robert Bauer, his personal and campaign lawyer—and the same attorney who has defended Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.” May 14, 2010: “Attorney Orly Taitz, at the National Press Club on Dec 8th, stated that no hospital in Hawaii has any record of Obama or his mother ever being a patient,” ewpoerws Vision to America. “Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, was reported to have died in Hawaii from cancer in 1992, yet her social security number [535-40-8522] is still active and in use.” See the this YouTube video. May 11, 2010: “Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state,” reported Jerome R. Corsi of WND. “The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.” (See the relevant notes below)
 May 12, 2010: “The Army has now officially scheduled a formal hearing for its case against Terry, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses—even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary—to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office,” reports the American Patriot Foundation today. “The hearing will be held on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. in room 134 of Building T-2. All proceedings are open to the media and public.” May 13, 2010: “On Wednesday, May 12, 2010, nine former contract workers from the U.S Department of Education were indicted on charges they ‘intentionally exceeded authorized access to a computer’ by accessing Mr. Obama’s student loan records without authorization between July 26, 2007 and March 13, 20,” reported Debra Mullins of the Post & Email. “The indictments were handed down by a federal grand jury in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Davenport.” Who knows what all this means right now . . . maybe a shot across the bow by the Obama regime—to keep every detail of the usurper's secret history hidden?  
May 15, 2010: With the news of day one of the Manning Obama treason tria yesterdayl, Anthony G. Martin of the Charleston Examiner reported that “Dr. Manning stated that the charges of treason and espionage were dropped due to the fact that if the jury found Obama guilty, they may recommend the death penalty. Manning said he does not believe in capital punishment and therefore recommended to the prosecution that those charges be dropped.” This is quite disappointing—considering the cruel thought that taxpayers may wind up housing and feeding a traitor for life. Nevertheless, the jury was selected and an indictment handed down. The indictment alleges, according to the Conservative Monster, that “1. Columbia Univ. and Obama conspired to defraud and commit wire fraud and mail fraud “2. Columbia Univ. knowingly concealed the fact that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen “3. Columbia Univ. aided in obstructing justice “4. Obama fraudulently obtained office of the POTUS gaining access to sensitive materials, posing a danger to national security. “5. The prosecution dropped the charges of treason and espionage to avoid complications with a death sentence.” 
Here is a summary of Day Two of the Obama Columbia trial by Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster.com Web site: “- Day two of the Columbia trial started off with an alternate judge presiding over the case. Jan Johnson is one of Pastor Manning's loyal church followers and she is also aspiring to run for Governor of New York. Judge Unger is reportedly returning for Sunday's hearing. “- Judge Johnson then instructed the jury not to discuss the case outside of the court room and that they should remain to keep an open mind not to make a decision or final determination as far as a verdict. “- Pastor Manning then stated that George Washington never had the powersthat Barack Hussein Obama has. Manning then mentioned that Obama has anability to manipulate the media and people unlike any other politician today. This has given Obama even more power. “- Manning then suspiciously states that he would not be surprised if Obama sent a plant to infiltrate the jury, to undermine this trial. “12 Noon - The Bailiff swears in the jury and alternate jurors. Then, Manning plays a video of Lt Col Lakin on you Tube explaining why he disobeyed his orders to go to Afghanistan. manning and the judge note that the video is for information purposes only and that it will not be submitted as evidence.” “I will be posting live updates via my cell phone on The Conservative Monster.com. The posts will appear like they do on Twitter, just a brief description of what is going on,” adds Cooper. “I will do a complete report when I get home from the trial.” For more details beside the summary above, please visit The Conservative Monster.com. May 16, 2010: WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE is an enlightening article written by Tom Deacon and published in The Post & Email today.  May 16, 2010: Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster reported today that Pastor Manning played his interview with Dr John Drew, a former friend of Obama from Occidental college. “In this interview Dr. Drew stated: “1. Dr Drew was the founder of the Marxist Organization at Occidental College. “2. Obama was a radical Marxist revolutionary that constantly preached about redistribution of wealth and transformation of the political system. “3. Obama had no black friends, they were only white and foreigners (Middle Eastern). “4. Obama wanted to overthrow the wealthy. “5. Obama had no girlfriends and that he was not a hard working student that hit the books hard. He liked to party more than study. “6. Islam and Marxism fit together perfectly and that is why leftists and the Muslim students mixed very well. “7. Obama was always dressed very nice, had designer clothes and drove in a BMW. Obama's friend Mohammed Chandoo from Pakistan seemed to be rolling in cash and Obama was not struggling at all. They spent their money on partying, pot and hotel rooms.” More details in Cooper’s report from the courtroom on Day 3 of the Columbia University Obama trail can be read at The Conservative Monster Web site. May 17, 2010: DEMOCRAT SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHERS “RESOLVED” THAT IT TOOK TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” is the article in The Post & Email. Therein: “The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father and is therefore not a ‘natural born Citizen,’” wrote Tim DeJong. “A natural born citizen is born on our soil of citizen parents. Obama is ineligible, and if we have to have another revolution to return to the values which make our republic great, we will prevail.”  May 17, 2010: In reporting on Obama CIA Columbia University trial of the century Day 4, “Over 400 separate cases have been filed by Americans seeking the truth regarding Barrack Obama over the last 2 years and none has ever received their fair day in court in order to actually hear the merits of these cases,” wrote Lori Stacey of the Sioux Falls Conservative Examiner. The former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg's charges challenging Obama's credentials to occupy the White House are are only a few of those prominent cases in point.  “There are a number of organizations that are covering the trial and providing updates to the public through their websites. Staff members of a few of the organizations that are present at the trial are Atlah Ministries, American Grand Jury, The Conservative Monster and World Net Daily,” she added. “When there is no means of seeking justice left, the American people needed to go back to what was well-established by our Founding Fathers; the need and right of people's grand juries.”
Research and Background | | The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.
January 22, 2009 | | | About the Author | Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court. In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician. |
| | |
All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power. So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause: | | | |
"Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded."
| |
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER "In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."
The 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained : "An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action: 'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "
Back to the Creighton Law Review: "A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."
So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again: "In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]"
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): "An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment."
No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules: "4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4: "[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "
That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government. And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury," which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances." The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary: "Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example: 'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.'"
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded. By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g): "At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.
Now let me add my two cents to this argument: Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal," although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again: "4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."
The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people," and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable. Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4: Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?" The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete." First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution. Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments." Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated." Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know darn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well: "Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors."
The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes." That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a break. But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect. Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land: " '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people? when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right." Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be. Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id. And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home: "In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "
This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors. And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government. The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people." Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking. |
|
American Grand Jury
| This is a FREE document. The author, Mr. Leo Donofrio has authorized its content to be freely distributed. This is also a "standalone" webpage. All the code and css is included in a single page source. Feel free to cut and paste the source code anywhere you wish. The American Grand Jury website deems this information to be accurate and educational. However, we advise you to consult an attorney if anything in this "research" document needs to be further clarified by you. Our only advice is listen to your heart if legal courts or officers of the court try to tell you that the Consitutional 5th Amendment or a "runaway" Grand Jury has no proper or legal standing. They would be wrong. The American Grand Jury cannot give you legal advice as we are not attorneys. As such we must disclaim any information herein, but that doesn't mean we are not going to share whatever information we have which may help people setup and organize a Grand Jury within their state, county, city, town or other jurisdiction. The Grand Jury has judicial rights provided for under our Constitution. Learn those rights and use them to the best of your ability to TAKE BACK America. Just because a man is elected into government office doesn't mean he cannot be held accountable to the people. The Grand Jury is one way of dealing with corruption in government.
God Bless each and every one of you.
God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
The American Grand Jury
seeingright[AT]gmail.com
|
|
May 17, 2010: “Today was a very busy day, but I will make it as brief as possible. First, I want to say that I believe Pastor Manning and his witnesses are proving without a doubt that Obama did not ever attend Columbia University physically,” wrote Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster. “Remember that the purpose of this trial is to prove that Obama never attended Columbia University and that his degree that he obtained was allegedly bought, not earned. Columbia University refuses to comment on this issue or respond to questions. What are they so afraid of? Do you mean to tell me that these records are also sealed? Interesting...” May 17, 2010: Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email earned an exclusive interview with Miki Booth who is scheduled to testify before the Dr. Manning’s American grand jury tomorrow. Speaking of Barack Hussein Obama—The Long Legged Mack Daddy (meaning “Top Pimp”)—a name Dr. Manning likes to call him, Miki revealed that “he has used about 44 different social security numbers attached to his name, oh, and Asia Development Bank is a front for the CIA.” And she added: “These multiple social security numbers is a way of laundering money. That’s how it’s done; it’s the most common technique for laundering money – having fake social security numbers.” So this gives the CIA another motive for keeping the history of the Obama disaster a state secret.  “Miki Booth, a native Hawaiian and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the State of Oklahoma, shocked and awed supporters of Barack Hussein Obama during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publicly disclosed the Certificate of Live Birth for her son, Alan Paliko Booth, born on Nov. 24, 1981, at 7:55 AM, at Kapiolani Children’s Medical Center, the same hospital that Obama has claimed to be his own place of birth, nearly 20 years before,” wrote John Charlton in a February article for The Post & Email. “The actual document [reproduced above] contains a wealth of information such as the signature of the attending physician or midwife, a field for evidence presented for an Amended Birth Filing, race of parents and child, and a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.” May 18, 2010: A former KGB officer is to testify in the Columbia Trial according to The Post & Email. And, “HAS THE CIA CREATED A PAST FOR OBAMA TO HIDE HIS ACTIVITIES FROM 1981 TO 1983?” is the question Sharon Rondeau asks in her continuing interview with Miki. May 18, 2010: The jury in the Columbia University trial deliberated for over 3 hours today until they came up with the verdict. The defendants were found guilty on all charges and there were many, including mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and sedition. Steve Cooper provides some of the details on his Web site and says, “I am sure that Pastor Manning will release an official copy in the near future of all of the charges and the verdict.” May 19, 2010: To a question in another long interview by Sharon Rondeau with Miki Booth, published in The Post & Email, the U.S. Congressional candidate revealed: “Now that the trial has found them guilty on all of these charges, the American Grand Jury will be serving not presentments, but indictments. It’s going to take a couple of weeks to get this done, but the American people are going to be serving these indictments on governors, sheriffs in every single county where we can, elected officials, attorneys general, and district attorneys. There are so many people coming on board, and the news is traveling like wildfire throughout the United States. We’re going to have so many numbers of people who have been waiting, asking ‘What can we do?’ This gives them something specifically to do, because Barack Obama and the president of Columbia University were found guilty of the 14 or so charges brought.” The Post & Email has done a superb job of covering the Columbia University Trial as well as other issues dealing with Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House. I highly recommend that you read all of The Post & Email's interviews with Miki and its other excellent articles questioning Barack's rise to power. May 21, 2010: Dr. Manning gave a press conference on the CIA Columbia Obama Trial. Barack Hussein Obama, Michael Sovern, and the Columbia University system were found guilty on 17 counts. The trial and verdict were legal and binding—authorized and protected by the United States Constitution—and the court’s findings will be turned over to the U. S. Justice Department and other legal authorities for further action. Barack Hussein Obama should not be occupying the Oval Office, but should be locked up in jail instead with his criminal freinds! May 23, 2010: It is noteworthy now to point out that Miki Booth is hardly the only candidate running for office on the Obama birth-certificate issue—as the poster below shows: May 24, 2010: Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email reported: “U.S. Justice Department is in violation of court order and its own policy in Allen v. Soetoro.” Click the link above to read the story. May 26, 2010: In a letter to General George Casey, legal scholar and Obama author/film director Andy Martin presented the U. S. Army with a simple and direct explanation of why Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President, and why Lt. Col. Terry Lakin lacks criminal intent in challenging Obama's authority as Commander in Chief. We don't know where General Casey stands in this case or if he has volunteered to question Obama's credentials also. Nevertheless, with reference in civilian courts to prior litigation in challenging Obama to produce his birth certificate and other credentials needed to qualify him to occupy the Oval Office, Andy wrote: “There have been many lawsuits exploring the NBC [Natural Born Citizen] issue. I predicted they would fail, and I was correct. I have over forty years of successful federal court litigation experience. But none of the cases involved a determination on the merits of the definition of NBC. Instead, judges dismissed lawsuits because the plaintiffs lacked ‘standing.’ Standing is an artificial concept created by the judiciary to ensure that people litigate real claims instead of hypothetical disputes. Judges held that ordinary citizens could not challenge presidential election issues due to a lack of particularized injury, or standing. “However, Col. Lakin's challenge to his commander in chief falls in an entirely different legal category, a fact hitherto ignored by both the media and the military. I think this is why you should proceed cautiously with Col. Lakin's claims. “What makes Lakin's claim unique and substantial—unlike a civilian court where an individual plaintiff may lack standing to challenge a government official's eligibility to hold office—a military court martial is not a civilian court. Historically, a court martial is part of the military chain of command. Military discipline culminating in a court-martial flows through the military system, not through an independent system of civil justice. Courts martial are the military. “Thus, while ordinary civilians may lack standing to challenge a commander's qualifications, that is not true in the case of a military officer. “Col. Lakin is challenging the constitutional qualifications of his commanding officer. (Military law also allows an officer to challenge what may be invalid orders under the ‘Nuremberg’ doctrine and similar modern concepts of military restraint and responsibility.) In my legal opinion, Lakin's case lacks any indicia of criminal intent. In my legal opinion, Lakin clearly has standing to raise and proffer his concerns because unlike an ordinary civilian in a civil court, Lakin is an officer by Act of Congress. Lakin is in the direct chain of command with the president/commander. “Thus, while civilian judges could bar ordinary litigants, I don't think that the military chain of command which culminates in President Obama can make a claim that an officer lacks standing to "stand up" to his commander. “In my legal opinion, the fact that Lakin is in the chain of command and is raising issues related to the legitimacy of the chain of command takes this case out of the prior legal cases that were unsuccessfully raised in the civil courts.” May 31, 2010: “Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records. . . Maintain president should be chased from office if he doesn't come clean” June 02, 2010: “Congressional Candidate wants Obama removed from office and tried for sedition, treason” are the headlines in The Post & Email on June 02, 2010. In her interview with retired Navy Lt. Commander and Congressional Candidate Ernest Huber, Sharon Rondeau many pointed questions with answers well worth reading. June 03, 2010: WND reported that in the Lt. Col. Lakin court-martial hearing: “Items pertaining to president's credentials are not relevant.” “In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial,” wrote Daniel J. Driscoll in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will be allowed to explore at next week's hearing. “It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president's credentials are not relevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth in the charge sheet," he continued. “Consequently I will not examine the documents or witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office.” Below is a list of the documents and witnesses: 
Safeguard Our Constitution—The Truth Matters provides the complete PDF document from the Army on the “Investigating Officer's Ruling on Defense Request for Witnesses and Evidence.” 
June 04, 2010: With reference to the list of denials above, in a letter to LTC Driscoll—posted by The Post & Email—Kathleen Gotto began with: “I understand you are the investigating officer in the upcoming trial of LTC Terry Lakin. First of all, you have made a huge strategic error by refusing to allow discovery that would exonerate Lakin in his refusal to take orders from an ineligible commander-in-chief. The whole world now knows that Barack Obama has usurped the presidency and the commander-in-chief position. . . .” In my opinion, LTC Driscoll is the worst kind of coward and a revolting shame to the American Constitution, Flag, and all the brave men and women who have served in the United States military—past and present! June 04, 2010: Michael Savage suggested Obama “is an unknown man of unknown origin who is probably not even an American citizen.” On his popular radio talk show drawing around 10 million listeners per week, he went on to ask: “How could the entire military establishment not being asking the same question that millions of Americans are asking? Do you think it’s plausible that the entire United States military complex does not understand the extreme dangers of having a Commander-in-Chief with dual allegiances in the White House is? Do they not understand that the presidency has been usurped by a foreign power?” 
“I have told you before that if Obama had applied to become an FBI agent or his own secret service agent, he would have been rejected immediately. He would have not met the criteria to become a secret service agent, and yet he is president!” Apparently, Obama’s CIA agents or Chicago mobsters have not threatened him or his family yet, or else he might have remained silent on this issue—like the coward Rush Limbaugh and the other big talk show hosts. June 05, 2010: “Lt. Col. Driscoll, the Investigating Officer who issued a decision on June 1, 2010 not to allow certain evidence and testimony for the upcoming hearing for Lakin, must be asked before the hearing even begins if he knows for a fact that he holds proper authority to convene it,” wrote Catherine Whitfield in her article in The Post & Email. “That means that he must have evidence that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and meets the other constitutional requirements to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. If he does not, then he does not have authority to conduct the hearing.” All these links are quite informative. June 08, 2010: “Does the Military care about the Constitution? is the question posted in The Post & Email. “OR IS IT ALL ABOUT RANK, PRESTIGE AND PROMOTION?” Joe E. Sheldon's letter addressed to Lt. Co. Driscoll and sent on June 05, 2010 is well worth reading. I wonder if Driscoll sleeps well at night with his baseless and unpatriotic decision to deny Lt. Col. Lakin so much needed “discovery.” 
June 08, 2010: “A retired U.S. military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites has issued a call for President Obama’s resignation and a new election to replace him,” reported WorldNetDaily. “The call comes from Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific,” wrote Bob Unruh. ‘We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution,’ he said in remarks delivered to a Lincoln Reagan dinner in Virginia City, Mont., last week and published today on the Stand Up America website.” June 08, 2010: According to BirtherReportDotCom, “Tim Adams, Former Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu Says Obama Not Born in Hawaii and no long-form exists for Obama. (Video Aired 6/05/10) Cautionary Warning: the validity of the statements by Tim Adams have not been independently verified, yet!” 
June 09, 2010: Be sure to read The Post & Email’s exclusive interview with Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo for a long lucid analysis of and history behind the Obama eligibility issue. June 09, 2010: This is the heading for the PRESS RELEASE posted by the American Patriot Foundation: DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN WAIVES PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ANNOUNCES NEW YOUTUBE VIDEO—CASE TO NOW PROCEED DIRECTLY TO GENERAL COURT MARTIAL—HEARING WILL NOT PROCEED ON JUNE 11, 2010. Below is an excerpt from that Press Release: 
Lt. Col. Lakin released another video dealing with the latest Press Release. June 10, 2010: “The criminals in command are aligned with the criminals in government. By allowing a usurper to ascend to the office of president, there is no control over the armies and navies,” wrote Tim Harrington. “We are in a constitutional crisis and national security crisis at the same time.” Read the interview in The Post & Email. June 10, 2010: Joe Kovacs of WorldNetDaily confirmed that the BirtherReportDotCom story above is apparently true. “There is no birth certificate,” said Tim Adams, a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. “It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this.” June 13, 2010: “The former Honolulu elections clerk who says President Obama was ‘definitely’ not born in Hawaii and has no birth certificate from any hospital in the Aloha State says he's willing to testify in court to those facts,” reported WorldNetDaily. Adams stressed: “In my professional opinion, he definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there.” Barack Hussein Obama is a usurper. June 14, 2010: In a YouTube video cut of his press briefing on June 11th, Robert Gibbs discussed the Obama birth certificate issue, after being asked about Obama's strange social security number. After evading the question, the White House press secretary claimed, “I’ve seen the real birth certificate, I put it on the Internet.” I believe Tim Adams would adamantly disagree with him—at least in regard to its legitimacy. Now we know who is responsible for placing the forgery on the Web. June 16, 2010: In a long Post & Email interview with General Paul E. Vallely, Sharon Rondeau asked him: “In regard to Lt. Col. Lakin’s court martial, do you think he will finally be allowed full discovery? Is the court martial even legitimate if Obama is not a legitimate commander-in-chief?
GEN. VALLELY: That’s a great question. Some parties, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, would say ‘No, it’s not legal.’ I think the fix is on and the administration has threatened anybody in the Department of Defense who pushes for discovery with removal. It’s a typical Chicago ploy: ‘We’re going to silence you,’ and I think that’s what’s going on. With the Article 32, the woman judge came out ahead of time and said, ‘We will not allow any discovery which the defense is going to present.’ They made that decision, so you know from that point, the fix was on.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that’s why Lt. Col. Lakin waived the Article 32?
GEN. VALLELY: I know it is.
MRS. RONDEAU: So is he figuring that going right to the court martial is the best way to get an answer?
GEN. VALLELY: Yes, but the fix will be on such that they’re not going to allow any discovery. They’ll do everything to cover up some eight of the ten records that have not been released by Obama such as school records, and even his name change.
MRS. RONDEAU: If they will not allow discovery even for the court martial, what do you think will happen?
GEN. VALLELY: Well, I think the word then will be reinforced that it’s a corrupt administration. They will do anything to silence the truth; they will do anything to keep this man in office, even though he’s totally incompetent to hold office. That’s going to happen. So again, the people have to take the country back, so they have to understand that. Get up and do something. Don’t just sit there and expect somebody else to do it.”  That was only a short quote from another long, interesting, and quite informative interview with which conscious American patriots may use to recharge their Obama-drained batteries. June 16, 2010: Under the headlines Hawaiian elections clerk has eligibility ‘solution,’ WND’s Joe Kovacs reported: “All candidates for all offices should be required to prove their identity and eligibility before they can even run,” says Tim Adams. “The easiest way would be to pass legislation saying everyone has to verify their identity when they're running for office,” Adams told WND in an exclusive interview last week. “I do think requiring everyone to certify their identity would probably solve the entire controversy.” Kovacs noted, “Adams stresses the requirement should be for all political contests, from the presidency down to local races, to make sure officeholder-wannabes are who they say they are, and live in the proper district, for instance.” “I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity,” Adams explained. “I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama].” I can’t help wondering if he found out anything about the various Social Security numbers Barack Obama has been using. June 20, 2010: For an update on Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick’s status, see J. B. William’s article titled Obama and Holder: YOU have NO standing to ask any questions! —DICTATOR OBAMA, in The Post & Email. 
June 21, 2010: Speaking with Mrs. Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email about Obama’s ineligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief in a one-to-one interview, retired Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., claimed, “He wasn’t even eligible to be a U.S. Senator. He is actually an illegal, undocumented alien in the Oval Office, because his mother could not pass citizenship to him when he was born in Kenya; she was too young under the relevant U.S. laws at the time. If you were born to a father who was a foreign national in a foreign country, the mother would have had to have been five years past the age of 14, which would have been 19, and she was only 18 when Obama was born. And, when Obama married Michelle, he could have obtained U.S. citizenship from her, but he didn’t file the necessary paperwork.” 
June 30, 2010: The Globe, a widely circulated national magazine, in its July 12, 2010 issue has now taken issue with Obama’s eligibility to serve as U. S. President and Commander-in-Chief. 
According to WND: The Globe published comments from someone it referred to as a “Beltway insider” who noted, “This is huge, and it's got a lot of people in Washington worried. If these comments turn out to be the smoking gun everyone has been talking about from the beginning, Obama will have some very serious problems on his hands.” 
July 29, 2010: The August 2, 2010 issue of Globe reveals even more on the Obama Birth Certificate Issue. - Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial
- Military Judge Appointed
- Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010
Washington, D.C., August 2, 2010. The Army has now referred charges against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair. . . . 
August 3, 2010: “Come tomorrow is Obama’s birthday, not that we’ve seen any proof of that, but tomorrow is Obama’s birthday, and, and they’re trying to rally Obama’s base by sending out fund-raising letters,” exclaimed Rush Limbaugh on his nationwide talk show on August 3rd 2010. “What! . . .What! . . . . . . What Snerdly! What! We haven’t seen any proof of that! Ah, they tell us August 4th is the birthday—but we haven’t seen any proof of it. Ah. Sorry, it is what it is.” His intense questioning, hesitation, and lower tone of voice in the last sentences suggest his monitor and call screener, Bo Snerdly, a concerned black man, was silently signaling with perhaps frantic waving arms for him to shut up immediately. Rush had apparently forgot again to keep his mouth shut about the Obama birth-certificate issue—like the muted mouths of most of the other big time talk show hosts, cautious clappers that have been mysteriously muffled by their cunning controllers. By clicking this link, any of America’s tens of millions of Rush listeners are welcome to confirm the above audio transcript. August 4, 2010: 
August 13, 2010: “The key defense attorney for an Army officer being put on trial for refusing orders he views as suspect because of the possibility Barack Obama is not eligible to be commander-in-chief is demanding documentation from the president,” wrote Bob Unruh.
“On the G. Gordon Liddy radio show today, Paul Rolf Jensen said the request for "discovery" in the Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin case – the access by the defense to documentation in the government's possession that could help its case – is being submitted.”
“Jensen had been asked whether there is a legal basis for denying a defendant on trial on criminal charges legitimate access to documentation that would prove his case,” added the WND reporter.
Jensen said: "We are today officially requesting that discovery," and “If the government refuses to give it to us, then we will, a week from today, file a motion to compel discovery.”
Lt. Col. Lakin’s lawyer also pointed out, “I can't think of a single reason why the judge would take the government's position.” Tea patriots participants—among millions of other Americans according to the above CNN recent poll—believe the clause in the Constitution that requires a U. S. President be a “natural born” citizen matters and that Barack Hussein Obama is a Usurper. 
Before the blind eyes of our courts, Congress, and the mainstream media, these patriots have demanded for over two years now that Barack Hussein Obama show a legitimate birth certificate or be deported to his birthplace in Kenya—to no avail! Let’s hope Lt. Col. Lakin’s court-martial will force them to address this important issue.  More updates are to follow soon. . . .
RELEVANT NOTES: Joan Swirsky recently sent me this revealing email (my photos added) about Obama's notorious past—of which every conscious American should read: http://www.stamppeeve.com/PE_5.pdf Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro is currently using Social Security number 042-68-4425.
This number was issued to an individual who resided in Connecticut and who was born in 1890...Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro never lived in Connecticut and he sure isn’t 120 years old! This is identity theft and Social Security fraud at the very least!!!
Neil Sankey was hired to investigate, here is part of what he found (excerpts from an article at http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=3255 ):
It appears that Obama has multiple identities in term of possessing numerous Social Security numbers. In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364. In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999. (from another source: current SSA documents claim no numbers above 799 have ever been used. Some universities have assigned nine-digit "temporary" Social Security numbers to foreign nationals beginning with 999.) There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485. In Massachusetts – where Obama attended Harvard Law School – we find three addresses, all using the 042 number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008. (note, now he is back to using the 042 number!) At most, Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro was born a dual citizen (his father was a British subject of Kenya and never an American citizen) so he is NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen and he is NOT eligible under our Constitution to be President! Now here is evidence that he is involved in identity theft and Social Security fraud as well. HE MUST BE REMOVED AND INVESTIGATED NOW! The truth WILL prevail, he WILL be exposed and YOU MUST STAND UP NOW!! This is FRAUD, this is TREASON, this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!!! 
“To this day,” wrote Joan, “Obama has failed to produce proof that he was born in the United States and that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of only three absolute requirements in the U.S. Constitution to become President of the United States. In fact, if Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, he is acting as president under false pretenses, which de facto makes every statement he has made as the usurper POTUS, every bill he has signed, every czar he has appointed, every act, proclamation, signing statement, executive order, and law, et al, fraudulent, illegal, and therefore null and void—including this unconstitutional healthcare so-called reform bill.”
Story posted September 25, 2010: According to WND and this Youtube video, for the national election in 2008, the local Democrat Party in Hawaii appears to have never certified Obama as being an eligible candidate to serve as a United States President—with respect to the requirements of the U. S. Constitution! “A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one—not Congress, not the states and not election officials—bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day,” reported Jerome R. Corsi of WorldNetDaily on November 8th, 2010. “It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a ‘natural born Citizen’ under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.” November 23, 2010: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010, with U.S. Supreme Court. This historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asks them to support and defend the Constitution … in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. November 29, 2010: The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. This Certiorari was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! 
December 17, 2010: At Fort Meade, Md. an Army doctor, LTC Terry Lakin, who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questioned President Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief was sentenced by a jury to six months in a military prison and dismissal from the Army. 
(Add this page to your Favorites List and check back here periodically for more updates.) Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, Decorated Army Doctor, Imprisoned for Challenging Constitutional Presidential Eligibility, Gets Early Release
RETURNS TO BALTIMORE’S BWI ON MAY 14, 2011 A Special Message of Interest from Declaration Alliance: 
TERRY LAKIN COMES HOME
WILL YOU BE THERE TO SUPPORT HIM? This week, Terry Lakin will return home, his prison sentence done. After nearly 20 years of outstanding, honorable service, Terry defended our Constitution all the way to Ft. Leavenworth military prison. His career, benefits and 6 months of his life were unjustly locked away, all because of the masterful, shameful charade taking place in Washington, DC; all because of the arrogance of one man – Barack Hussein Obama. SIGN TERRY’S WELCOME HOME CARD &
TELL CONGRESS – DEMAND A FULL PARDON FOR TERRY LAKIN – SELECT HERE! Mark Twain once said "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Will you be only the "sunshine patriot and summer soldier" that Tom Paine rightly derided, waiting in safety for history to vindicate Terry Lakin's sacrifice for the Constitution, or will you step up NOW and take the brave and honorable stance of demanding a full pardon for this valiant soldier? Will you now take a stand for Terry Lakin, who stood in the breach for YOUR liberty? Barack Obama finally coughed up (what he claims to be) an online copy of his birth certificate, but not until after he traduced justice and destroyed Terry Lakin’s career. The White House claims Obama finally decided after years of inexplicable stonewalling to release this document in response to media fervor, but in reality the action was little more than political trickery designed to prop up a failing Presidency. Experts from all sides contend that the online document released by the White House shows undeniable evidence of tampering and graphic alteration. It remains to be seen if the mainstream media will examine this public relations ploy with one ounce of critical energy or professional resources. It is a sad day indeed when the “Leader of the Free World” cares only for adulation of the media and uncritical mobs, plays to the fickle winds of popularity, and debases the rule of law, the integrity of military justice and the chain of command of thousands of soldiers under his authority. It is a sadder day still when the good people of America allow it all to happen unquestioned. Stand with me now. Stand with Terry Lakin. TELL CONGRESS – DEMAND A FULL PARDON FOR TERRY LAKIN – SELECT HERE! At 10 am Saturday, May 14, 2011 at Baltimore International Airport, Terry Lakin will step off his plane a free man. Patriots from around the country will gather in the luggage claim to welcome him home. If you can, I hope you will join them. And if you are able, I pray you will add your voice strongly in defense of our Constitution, fax Congress now, and petition them to demand justice from Barack Obama, and a full pardon for Terry Lakin. Keep Faith,
Ambassador Alan Keyes
www.Proof-Positive.com
If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:
Declaration Alliance
National Processing Center
PO Box 131728
Houston, TX 77219-1728
Proof Positive is a project of DeclarationAlliance.org and is authorized and paid for by Declaration Alliance (DA),
a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues.
|
Forward this Email to a Friend       
     
 This page was last modified on Saturday, May 21, 2011 | |