TYRANNY'S TRAP

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
December 11, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

I find it very interesting and disturbing to see how a constitution can be used to trap and enslave the people of the states into a statically fixed and inflexible union, along with an alleged supremacy of federal laws over state sovereignty, when the meaning of that same document can allegedly change over time under the so-called “living constitution” theory. Let us apply first principles to find the truth of the matter. If a constitution’s meaning can change and thus its application and implementation, based upon current variable and assorted conditions, then the union itself must likewise be capable of change, based upon those same considerations.

Have you not noticed, when someone suggests that the sovereigns of a state have the natural and compactual right to peacefully withdraw themselves from the union (which was formed by the states’ ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787), there are those self-proclaimed constitution-loving scholars and politicians who proudly protest, “No! You cannot do that! It is not allowed by our constitution! Once you voluntarily entered the union, you have waived your right to leave the union!” In the same breath, those same persons will gladly propose that the meaning and application of our constitution can change over time under a “living constitution” so that our laws may reflect the current conditions of society (of course, determined by those other than the affected sovereigns themselves). They admit too much, for this statement is based upon a principle that necessarily destroys the position that the states have no right to dissolve their compact, or alternatively, destroys the living constitution theory.

If a constitution’s meaning and application can change over time based upon current conditions, then that necessarily means the union itself is subject to the same fluctuations as determined by the sovereigns that unilaterally became a part of that union. If the goal of a constitution’s force is supposedly to secure freedom, and in the name of that goal, those living-constitutionalists propose that a constitution changes over time, then it necessarily follows by principle of constitutional construction that those states who originally bound themselves to its force can relieve themselves of that force where the circumstances justify its dissolution. Put differently, where the circumstances of their ratification have changed to the point that freedom is best protected by their removal from the union, then removal it is as they choose. But I guess living-constitutionalists would deny the states this right because it would deny ultimate power to the almighty union/federal government--their political god.

See, you cannot have it both ways: that is, the character and nature of the constitution changes over time, but the force holding those who voluntary entered the union never changes. The constitution provides both the meaning of government limitations and the terms of union. If the meaning can change, then so can the union. If you argue otherwise, please explain how a party to a compact (i.e. constitution) who entered the union upon certain guarantees, promises, protections and limitations is forever bound to that union (by force) when those guarantees, promises, protections and limitations are removed and replaced with meanings and applications contrary and different from those originally promised to be true. This is called “bait and switch” which is considered criminal and illegal in any contract scenario throughout the states in America. Do you think this principle applies less to the most fundamental law in society: that is, in constitutions?

George Washington did not think so: “The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington and William T. Peck, ed., Washington’s Farewell Address and Webster’s Bunker Hill Orations, (New York: Macmillan Co., original from Harvard University, 1919), 12. Of course, tyranny’s way is to not to change a constitution by the explicit and authentic acts of the people who created the constitution (which of course requires debate, consent and ratification), but by oligarchic methods of court decisions, government precedent and fraud.

As I have noted before, the “living constitution” idea was the catalyst to America’s War for Independence. It is in fact the trap that would-be tyrants who creep up in republics use to trap and enslave unsuspecting (and of course, ignorant) people in what would otherwise be a free country based upon free principles in a constitution. It is in fact the snare that has been used against the states of America for generations and it is still used today as an extremely useful method for entrapment of sovereign states. The end result: governing the un-consented: tyranny.

Today marks a distinct point in America’s history where the sovereign states of America have to make a decision about what principles they will submit to: the principles of freedom or the principles of slavery. Decisions are being made in this arena today, and will continue to be made as tyranny’s grip squeezes tighter and firmer around our necks.

Some will choose freedom. Some will choose slavery. Some may be scared about what this may mean (not giving credibility to such feelings, but only observing them). It may mean economic struggles and political battles. It may mean inconvenience and more responsibility. It may mean political involvement and actually choosing a side. It may mean pains and labors and re-education. But I must ask: is the price of freedom too high? For our founders, they proved what Patrick Henry eloquently stated:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Indeed, America’s founders did not believe the price of freedom was too high--at least with the assumption that their posterity would contribute their minds, hearts and bodies to maintaining that freedom. After having experienced all the hardships of securing freedom for these states in America, John Adams says to his posterity:

“Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.” John Adams, Abigail Adams, and Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution: With a Memoir of Mrs. Adams, (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 265.

Perhaps John Adams has already repented.

Ultimately, matters of political and societal freedom are determined by those sovereign body-politics that have the power to make and un-make constitutions. The ultimate matter of which states will live in freedom is determined by the body-politic of that state: the people, who comprise the sovereign element of the state. Where lines are crossed, the sovereigns must decide for itself the recourse it will take to redress the usurpation. This is no new concept. James Madison notes the dangers in political battles whereby the federal government usurps power from the states as perpetrated by Congress and the President and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He says in Federalist Paper 39:

“[The United States Supreme Court decisions are] to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution[, which] is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact.”

Madison recognized that when the federal government usurps its powers IN THE NAME OF the constitution, this puts the states in a natural position to defend their freedom and their powers. It forces the states to revert back to pre-U.S. Constitution status and to recall those powers once given. As a parenthetical note, Madison also recognized that an appeal to the sword is not necessarily the same thing as dissolution of the compact. It is only when union is forced by tyrants that an appeal to the sword is necessary in self-defense. Otherwise, dissolution of compacts should be peaceful.

We have been told for years that the meanings and applications of the constitution supposedly have changed over time and that this is in fact constitutionally correct. Well then, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is, principles of construction require this conclusion: the sovereigns of the states then most assuredly have the innate right and power to decide whether or not those changes shall apply to their body-politic, in the interest of preserving freedom.

Otherwise, if states are not allowed to choose their own political and societal fate after they entered into the union, then the federal government most certainly should not be given power which changes over time. One is static and the other is fluid. Yet both are governed by the same document. Moreover, do we see the chains of the constitution binding the federal government (as intended) to the same constraints that they insistently impose upon the people of the states?! Ha! It makes me laugh even to suggest it.

People of the states, it is time to wake up to our political realities. It is time that we know the traps that have been laid before us. We must be astute statesmen and stateswomen, who know the principles of freedom, who know the nature and character of our union, who know when we are being taken for the gullible servants we have become. It is time that we not fall victim to tyranny’s trap. The States of America must once again look to the principles of freedom and into our own borders and sovereignty for political and societal freedom!

Go to www.libertydefenseleague.com for articles, speeches and interviews of Timothy Baldwin.

© 2009 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely for property management companies.

Like his father, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring and intelligent application of those principles to our current political and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act, the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate, invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of America for ourselves and our posterity.

Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague

E-Mail: tim@libertydefenseleague.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin105.htm

As the People Grow More Desperate...A Constitution in FULL Crisis

By JB Williams  Thursday, July 23, 2009

America’s extreme left tricked American moderates into supporting their candidate last November by campaigning on post-partisan cooperation and transparency in government. Six months after the election of a freshman senator with a blank résumé, a laundry list of evil associates and a life more secret than your average CIA agent, Obama’s entire history remains a mystery and his administration is the most hardcore partisan dictatorship ever experienced in the USA.
Washington DC partisanship has turned into outright Obama-Pelosi dictatorship. The so-called “Commander-in-Chief” is fast losing control of his military, which is increasingly and viciously divided between those who are refusing to take orders from an overt enemy of the Constitution, and those who foolishly defend Obama’s right to destroy that which they took an oath to protect and preserve.
Obama should have ended the divisions over his ineligibility long before it reached the ranks of American fighting forces. He chose not to, and instead to allow the issue to fester into a powder keg that even Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are ill-prepared to extinguish.
The US Constitution is in FULL Crisis

The US Constitution is the contract between the people and their respective states, and the federal government established by it. The document was written to form a representative republic limited in power and scope to the matters and authority delegated and ratified in the Constitution. That contract has been breached by a runaway Fed…
Decades of outright destruction of the Constitution have left the nation on the brink of economic, political and social collapse. The 2006 and 2008 election cycles placed the Constitution in full crisis and the people are growing increasingly desperate for a peaceful means to restore their Constitutional Republic.
An administration which does not meet constitutional standards is expected to protect and defend a contract which it does not even recognize, much less respect. The contract either stands, or it doesn’t. Based on the 2008 election, and every policy put in place since, the contract does not stand at present. If the Constitution no longer stands, then the federal government which it established, no longer stands in authority. Tyranny reigns… 

The States Take Action

Ignored by federal public servants and cut off from any access to peaceful means of redress in congress or the courts, the people and their states are forced to take matters into their own hands.
A “constitutional” interpretation of the Constitution is in order, as the people begin to demand that a runaway Fed blatantly acting against the best interest of its people, return to a constitutional foundation, or risk being stripped of all power and abolished.
The federal government is the product of the Constitution, the contract between the people and their states which established and assigned specific limited powers to the federal government, which is to serve at the pleasure of the states and the people.
If the Constitution no longer stands, then there is NO federal government. The federal government exists only as a result of the Constitution. A very real crisis is at hand…
As a result, more than 32 states are rushing to pass Tenth Amendment legislation intended to remind the federal government of this reality. But the Obama regime is not listening.
Many of those states are also passing second amendment protections for their citizens, making it illegal for the Fed to threaten private gun rights, even in cases of “Martial Law.” But the Fed has rejected all such state bills, claiming that “federal laws supersede state laws.”
Reacting to an “unconstitutional” letter from Obama’s ATF, which puts Tennessee on notice that the Fed will not recognize laws passed by the individual states under Tenth Amendment rights, Tennessee State Rep. Matthew Hill points out, --“Montana, Tennessee and all others, are SOVEREIGN states not subservient to the federal government. The Fed can send us letters all day long and it doesn’t change the fact that we are allowed to govern ourselves, under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution.” 

A “constitutional” interpretation of the Constitution

All constitutional text must be read within the context of Amendment Ten… which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Does the Constitution delegate the power to “confiscate and redistribute private wealth” to the federal government?
Does it delegate power to force “Cap and Trade” or so-called “Universal Health Care” upon the people and the states?
Does it delegate the power over private industry, such as banking, auto manufacturing, energy and the likes? – Or the power to disarm American citizens under any set of circumstances, real or imaginary?
No such powers were delegated to the federal government under the US Constitution. Unlike many ill-informed US citizens, Obama & Co. knows it. But they don’t care…
Since no clause exists in the Constitution which specifically assigns any of these powers to the Fed, Amendment Ten applies… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” 

The Second Amendment Example

Each clause of the Constitution must be read within the context of the Tenth Amendment. Power and authority is either specifically delegated to the Fed in the text of the Constitution, specifically withheld from the Fed by way of the Bill of Rights, or in the absence of any such reference to power and authority, the Tenth Amendment applies.
In the case of gun rights, the Founders specifically denied the Fed any power via the Bill of Rights, specifically prohibiting the Fed from playing around with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _{shall not be infringed}.” –
Yet, operating in direct contradiction to this Second Amendment language, the federal government has assumed a power not assigned to it by the states, to regulate the right of _{the people} to keep and bear arms. A case of the people’s past silence, being intentionally misinterpreted as their consent, which allowed the fed to step across boundaries it is specifically prohibited from crossing in the Bill of Rights.
As a result, the states have been forced to restate their border sovereignty and state rights in new state sponsored legislation, including Second Amendment protections for their citizens who wish to keep and bear arms, whether anti-second amendment leftists in Washington DC like it or not.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

My home state of Tennessee passed both Tenth Amendment and Second Amendmentlegislation, supported in such number as to override our Democrat governor’s attempts to veto.
But Obama’s Fed responded by issuing a letter, under his Justice Department headed by Obama buddy Eric Holder, on the letterhead of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms signed by Assistant Director Carson Carroll, advising the state that “federal laws supersede states laws.”
Like hell they do!
The states DO NOT serve at the pleasure of the Fed. The Fed exists and serves at the pleasure of the states, a FACT that most states seem in a rush to point out to Obamanation.
The US Constitution supersedes both state and federal laws. Don’t confuse the US Constitution with federal laws passed by congress or passed by judicial fiat via the courts. Federal laws take precedent over state laws ONLY in matters specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. If no such authority is assigned to the Fed, then no such power exists at the Fed.
When the federal government makes laws pertaining to matters NOT assigned to it under the US Constitution, which it has had a habit of doing for decades now, both in congress and in the judicial branch, the states are in NO WAY bound by those laws. Those laws are by definition, unconstitutional, no matter how they were passed.
As the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the federal government has NO power to regulate the people’s right to keep and bear arms, and the Tenth Amendment clearly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”- Obama’s Fed, Justice Department and ATF, have NO constitutional authority over the states in the matter…
Tennessee State Rep. Matthew Hill is exactly right. They (the Fed) can send threatening letters all day long and those letters are completely irrelevant, as they are at odds with the Constitution. The ATF letter relates to federal laws written on matters NOT assigned to the federal government to begin with, matters therefore reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.
Even the overly politicized US Supreme Court has recently defended Second and Tenth Amendment rights in its related rulings.
The Question of Enforcement

Clearly, Obama and Co. think they won the right to run roughshod over the states and the people last fall. If our Founders had given us a pure democracy, they would be right. But in a Constitutional Representative Republic, they are dead wrong!
Still, it’s also clear that they intend to force their will upon the masses, regardless of public or state dissent, or constitutional limitations. The “silent majority” has been silent for so long, that modern leftist think that they are now the new majority, free to run roughshod over the new “silent minority.”
Under this fantasy, they proclaim the right to ram their leftist agenda down everyone else’s throat. “We won - you lost—so shut up and take it!”… is the general sentiment displayed by O-bots on message boards across the blogosphere…
That sentiment has now reached within the ranks of the US Military, where a growing number of soldiers are beginning to challenge Obama’s right to issue orders and Obama minions are publicly attacking them with a vengeance. The heated chatter got so vicious on Military.com last week, that the publication removed ALL comments on the subject from its web site before the discussion could spin out of control.
Active duty soldiers are refusing Obama orders. Reservists are refusing recall and deployment orders. Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick has filed criminal “treason” charges against Obama. Flight Surgeon, Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graeff has sent a letter to Sec. of Defense Gates, stating the following…

“Enough is enough! You must be aware at this point of the tempest brewing among the Rank and File. I am writing you in an effort to appeal to your sense of concern for the Military; a concern we share not only for the Military as a whole but for each and every individual who wears the Uniform in the Service of our Country. I am in this regard specifically asking you for your help. I implore you to not wait until the “pot boils over” and we find ourselves in total disarray. –
I am convinced, beyond any doubt, that the moral well being and efficiency of our fighting forces to defend our Country is soon to be hanging in a precarious balance if not already. In my humble estimation this is NOT a theoretical possibility to construct a thesis or a contingency plan about. It is a reality and is happening right now. Resolution of this issue must be accomplished in the most expeditious manner available at your disposal to gain immediate relief to those of us who are struggling to fully comply with our sworn Oath to the Constitution while being conflicted by questions relating to the qualifications of the POTUS to hold the office in full and absolute compliance with the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”

So, how does Obama plan to enforce his global vision upon the masses when the US Constitution which provides for a federal government, delegates no such authority and an increasing number of soldiers and law enforcement are taking a stand against a “potential domestic enemy” in an effort to uphold their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution? 

Once Silent running out of Tolerance

Convinced that the Constitution is under constant threat from within today, Americans normally happy to avoid the subject of politics altogether are building a head of steam to thwart the current constitutional crisis. They are erecting lines of defense at the state borders before Obama can capitalize on one of his many manufactured disasters by removing the people’s right to stand opposed.His Department of Homeland Security has already redefined “domestic terrorist” to include anyone who disagrees with Obama. His minions have already labeled anyone concerned with the Constitution, “birthers,” in a childish name-calling effort to silence the dissent. His left-wing press has affixed the title of “racist” to anyone who dare doubt Obama’s anti-American Marxist agenda, or his mystery messiah status.
Pelosi has made certain that Republicans have no voice in congress and Holder has made certain that the people will not find a legal forum to resolve Obama’s overt agenda or hidden past in any court.
Growing increasingly desperate to restore the Constitution and fast running out of peaceful means of doing so, the people find themselves in a very real Constitutional Crisis. 

Peacefully Forcing the Fed to Reverse Course

With a tone deaf Fed, the people are turning to their state legislators and the states are moving to close down the Fed. Led by the Tenth Amendment Center, state legislators are rushing to reclaim freedom and liberty on behalf of their citizens.

Step One – Tenth Amendment Affirmation


Step Two – Second Amendment Affirmation


Step Three – Kicking the Fed out of the States


Step Four – Shutting down the Fed by cutting off 97% of Fed funding by repeal of the 16th Amendment


Step Five – Repeal of the 17th Amendment, removing every current member of the senate and sending new representatives of states right to establish a new constitutional senate.


Step Six – cleaning house in Washington DC and establishing a constitutional limited government which will once again serve at the pleasure and benefit of the states and the people

Unlike drug rehab, it doesn’t take twelve steps to reinstate a constitutional Fed, although it could take a twelve step program to break many modern Democrats addiction to free-stuff from the public trough.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...”

If the people fail to quickly alter a Fed run wild, via their state legislatures, they will be left with no option but to abolish and start over from scratch.Republicans in Washington DC have either lost their way or lost their nerve. As a result, they have lost all power.
But Republicans, Independents and even Blue Dog Democrats across the nation in state legislatures, are acting in defense of their citizens and the Constitution, and the people MUST take a stand with those state legislators, immediately.
Visit the Tenth Amendment Center for an up-to-date picture of where your state stands in the march to reclaim states rights and reign in the runaway Fed.Contact your state legislators and get behind their efforts to affirm state sovereignty and rights. Even Obama does not have the power to force his will upon fifty states who stand united and opposed!

JB Williams Most recent columns

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/JB Williams can be reached at: JB_Williams@comcast.netOlder articles by JB Williams
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13119

Bombshell: Orders to deploy revoked for soldier challenging prez

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.
"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"
She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.
"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.
"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.
Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."
"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White house has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation."You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.
Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.
He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."
Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."
According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."
The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."
"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.
"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office."We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."
She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.
"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."
Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:
"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"
Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.
The mystery letter

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)

Obama has maintained he was born in Hawaii, and at least one hospital, Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the president declaring his birth there.As WND reported, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm that the letter which was used by the hospital to solicit donations is, in fact, a real correspondence.
When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code and had no presidential or White House seal, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.
WND also reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.
And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.

Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.

The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

"Where's The birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Chelsea Schilling, Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

WAS AMERICA SOLD?

By Nancy Levant
July 3, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

In 1992, George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order 12803, which gave D.C. the authority to sell America’s infrastructure. They called this authority “Infrastructure Privatization.” E.O. 12803 tells us this power cleared the way for the “disposition or transfer of an infrastructure “asset” such as by sale or by long-term lease from a State or local government to a private party.”

E.O. 12803 also lists examples of America’s saleable and/or lease-able infrastructure:

• Roads
• Tunnels
• Bridges
• Electricity supply facilities
• Mass transit
• Rail transportation
• Airports
• Ports
• Waterways
• Recycling/wastewater treatment facilities
• Solid waste disposal facilities
• Hospitals
• Prisons
• Schools
• Housing

E.O. 12803 tells us that this list represents infrastructure “examples.” Let us, therefore, assume that this is not the complete list of America’s saleable infrastructure.
However, this list is a stunning confession.

Notice that all items listed in 12803 are the very same infrastructure items listed in all Martial Law Executive Orders (see here). Martial Law kicks in to power during declared states of emergency and with the single signature of the president. Strangely (and ignorantly), we currently have multiple declared states of emergency:

• Act of March 9, 1933, a declared state of emergency at the request of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This state of emergency was never lifted.

• Global pandemic - Level 6
• Mortgage/housing crisis
• Banking/lending crisis
• Automobile industry crisis
• Insurance industry crisis
• Healthcare crisis
• Southwestern border crisis
• Black market drug crisis
• National education crisis
• Nature/global warming crisis
• Jobs/unemployment crisis
• On-going weather and forest fire crises
• Extreme and unread congressional legislation crisis due to on-going crises

What are the odds of complete and total social and “natural” crisis in every single facet of our lives and all at the same time? I will tell you how it was accomplished with simple math:

Federal Reserve System + Politicians + Tell-A-Vision = Assembly Line Crises. It is called the Hegelian Dialectic Show.

Everything in the country, including the current planet-sized medical emergency, is in crisis. So enters Martial Law.

Think of our president’s promises to “change” the country and to fix the economy (which the Federal Reserve and Congress destroyed) by rebuilding America’s infrastructure, including “21st Century schools” and by greening-up our living standards and conditions (International Code Council, Carbon Credits, Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, etc.) - minus, of course, privately owned land and homes (Agenda 21). In the last six months, consider the massive growth of the Federal Government, the national debt, and the powers of the Federal Reserve Central Banking System - all with stated intentions of fixing the economy that they single-handedly destroyed - and fixing it with “infrastructure” projects.

As Martial Law militarily guards all of E.O. 12803’s infrastructure as listed in the Order, and with homeland paramilitary armies holding practice drills with foreign armies, local law enforcement, and emergency responders all across the nation (and with a big drill planned July 27th through July 31st in FEMA Region 6),

And with all public schools, private schools, and universities forced to have “lock-down policies” and to be forced-used as quarantine holding tanks, and with all Americans having been repeatedly told to prepare for an emergency (meaning an emergency that will bring Martial Law into the full light of day, which the “drills“ have clearly done),

AND the very same infrastructures listed in Executive Order 12803 are also listed in all Martial Law Executive Orders, and all these infrastructures having been for sale, lease-able, or having been sold during the last 17 years- including our children’s schools, our hospitals, and our homes - I suggest to you that you are witnessing Central Banking Debt Magic at its finest moment. Wouldn’t you love to know how much money has been made by selling our nation to the highest bidders?

Let us review:

1. The country’s infrastructure has been for sale for 17 years. Roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling/wastewater facilities, solid waste facilities, prisons, hospitals, schools, and housing -- this being of “examples” of saleable infrastructure and not the entire list of saleable items according to E.O. 12803--so the question begs: What exactly has been sold to “private parties in our nation? We would like to see the complete list. We know that many highway systems have been sold to foreign countries, but what of the other listed items? Have they been sold as well?

If so, who owns them, and more to the question, which D.C. department sold them and for how much? Did the Federal Reserve and Congress sell our nation? Where is the paperwork? Did they repay any of America’s debt that they purposefully created with their pyramid fiat money lending schemes? And why are they still raising our taxes if America is no longer America but belongs to foreign nations or “private parties?” Since the Federal Reserve is a “private” corporation, did the Fed buy any of America’s infrastructure “assets?”

As American “housing” is on 12803’s list, and since D.C. recently took over the mortgage industry, has the housing market been sold and/or leased to a “private party” like a foreign nation or the Federal Reserve Corporation? Are the American people tenants to unknown parties? Are American children occupying foreign-owned schools, and are our loved ones lying in foreign hospitals that are clearly chock-full of foreign doctors? Equally, who, exactly, is financing the building of 21st Century schools and classrooms complete with foreign curricula? The questions beg: who are the foreigners....the foreigners or the American people?

More to the point, who is dissolving, partitioning, and/or divvying up our nation? Is it Obama? Geithner? Bernacke? Bushes? Clintons? FDR? Wilson? American morons?

It would seem that we are preparing for the Big Transfer - the transfer of our nation to and beneath a new authority or several new authorities. It now makes a great deal of sense why foreign troops have been cross-training with our new paramilitary systems, and yes, there are foreign troops on American soil, which I fear may not be American soil at all. Equally, multiculturalism suddenly makes a great deal of sense. I believe we can call it “behavior modification” so that we the stupid people will behave and be obedient under the new rules of new and foreign leaders.

I ask you, has our nation been sold out from under us, and without our knowledge? Could there be any other possible explanation for selling the most critical components of our country, while at the same time creating new, multicultural and cross-trained armies; permanently bankrupting the nation and selling its debt to foreign countries, and having Martial Law orders written specifically to protect the sold “assets” of our nation--including our schools and homes? Are America’s new owners to be protected by new Martial Law armies, cross-trained with foreign armies, while our “traditional” military is spread all over the planet - except here with its nation’s people? Are we being transferred to new ownership as we speak?

Consider:

Washington D.C. debts were sold to foreign nations.

• Washington D.C. = politicians
• Debts = Federal Reserve Central (Fiat) Banking
• Sold = Wall Street

Is it not realistic to think that big league politicians, bankers, and CEOs are loyal to no nation when they were massively enriched by internationalized banking, internationalized trade, absurd and illegal taxation, and by interest rates forced upon the people of this nation, while at the same time selling our nation to other central banks around the world and “private parties” - and for personal profit? Truth is, they sold the infrastructure first, and then they sold we the people as tax generators and life-long human resources to their global banking and business partners in crime.

What is the crime, you ask? The Federal Reserve, which is a piece of a global banking cartel, and their politicians and CEO partners who made counterfeiting and Ponzi/pyramid schemes legalized theft on continental scales. Your country is 1) not your country and, 2) not what you thought it was for at least 100 years. You are going to have to seek God’s grace to be relieved from the bitterness of that truth. Today, we don’t know under whose authority we live, but Washington, D.C. and the Federal Reserve do know.

Big, big changes are on the horizon. All I can tell you is to remember that freedom, granted to all by God, is first and foremost a state of mind. Pray for guidance. Prepare yourselves because Obama spoke the truth. It is all about “infrastructure.” The promised change has arrived. The question is this: who owns America? Who have the American people been committed to serving and beneath what form of government?

We can pretty much assume that Asia owns a very large chunk of America, as does Great Britain, India, Middle Eastern countries, and perhaps Mexico and Canada, as well. We can also assume that Martial Law armies will be guarding all the sold “assets” during what could be an extraordinary and massively tyrannical transfer of power. The love of money is the root of all evil. No truer words were ever spoken.

Please join Darren Weeks and myself on the Republic Broadcasting Network’s Govern America radio program every Saturday morning, 8:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M., Eastern Standard Time. Happy Inter-dependence Day. Please join us. Click here to listen live.

© 2009 Nancy Levant - All Rights Reserve

Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing).

She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality. To book an engagement with Nancy Levant, send an email request to:

Not available

http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy134.htm