States may make whatever laws they wish (consistent with their State Constitutions) except as prohibited by the US Constitution.
Only Laws made by Congress, which are pursuant to the Constitution, qualify as part of the General Government Law of the Land.
The Sovereign State of Arizona recently made a law which provides for the cooperative enforcement – with the federal government – of federal immigration laws throughout Arizona. The People of Arizona are suffering terribly from massive Invasions of their Southern Border; and because the federal government refuses to repel the Invasions, the People of Arizona are forced to defend themselves.
On February 9, 2009, a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelson, Jr.
All of the defendants have been served with a copy of the complaint and have 60 days to respond to the complaint. Will they stand up like honest citizens and answer the complaint, or will they hide behind high priced lawyers like Obama has been doing?
Computer scanning expert Doug Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey say they will accompany attorney Orly Taitz on August 8, 2011, when she presents to the Hawaii Department of Health a subpoena that should allow her to examine Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.
Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b).
CORRUPT JUDGE
I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.
The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” Continue reading →
A Kenyan lawmaker told the nation’s parliament last month that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is therefore “not even a native American.”
During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country’s minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America’s election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:
“If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation,” Orengo posited, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”
Orengo held up the U.S. as a country no longer “living in the past,” since Americans elected a Kenyan-born president without regard to “ethnic consideration and objectives.”
Debate is then recorded in the Kenyan government’s official March 25, 2010, hansard – a traditional name for printed transcripts of a parliamentary debate – as continuing with no other MPs mentioning or attempting to correct Orengo’s comments about Obama.
Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.”
Principle II
Principle II states, “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Principle III
Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
Principle IV
Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders’”.
In recent times, a third term, “Lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V
Principle V states, “Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”
Principle VI
Principle VI states,
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Principle VII
Principle VII states, “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.
Why did Obama just recently stop the lawful return from South Korea of 100,000 World War II antique surplus M1 Carbine and M1 Grand rifles that were to be shipped to the curio firearms market in The States? The relic riffles are not considered an item purchased by drug cartels. Buyers of relic rifles have for decades been excluded from certain registration requirements; that has resulted in government not being able to track the weapons. It is apparent Obama does not want these relic riffles in the hands of Americans.
Recently you may have read about the Obama government ordering hundreds’ of new X-Ray Vans that will be traveling our streets, without warrants secretly x-raying Americans, peering though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to X-rays. X-ray vans are an affront to privacy, literally allowing government/police to view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly exposed) to X-rays by police when in their vehicles and in their homes? Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer. Police intend to use the X-Ray Vans to search for drugs and weapons.
X-Ray Vans can ALSO be positioned to secure perimeters by the military or police to control civil unrest and instances of revolt, to screen and stop Citizens carrying guns, cameras; any item. Why did the government order hundreds X-Ray Vans?
Obama the last six months and certain members of Congress have proposed or taken steps to give President Obama unprecedented power to crush Americans’ civil liberties, to incarcerate without trial Citizens that speak out—effectively gagging and Locking down America. For example: In April 2010 Obama during a national security speech, asked Congress for the Power to imprison Americans not on evidence or probable cause, but on government’s word someone might support or commit a violent act in the future; Thought Police?
Obama wants to curtail the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments including allowing the FBI warrant-less wiretapping of all Americans’ electronic communications including no warrant searches of Internet Activity and emails. No doubt that will make Citizens afraid to communicate by phone or email and worry, someone might say something inappropriate during a phone call or send email that will cause their arrest if they don’t report it to police. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. US private contractors and their operatives (people/asset bounty hunters) work so closely with police exchanging information to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police. Under Obama’s no warrant proposal anything said on a phone or in an email can be used by government against someone in a trial or civil proceeding, e.g. an asset forfeiture proceeding, the latter requiring only a civil preponderance of evidence to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
On March 4, 2010, Senator John McCain introduced S.3081 The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” If passed, the government can use (only suspicion) or less to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to McCain’s S.3081, Government would not be required to provide (detained individuals) Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. Americans could be interrogated and held indefinitely in military custody on only suspicion of being an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially (supported) hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners or civilians. “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government; Government could allege attending a protest supported hostilities.
When you read McCain’s bill it appears “suspicion” is not necessary for government to detain and interrogate Americans. If the government is allowed warrant-less wiretapping of Citizens’ phones, Internet Activity, e.g. email, any statement or comment could be taken out of context, used under McCain’s bill to deem someone supported or engaged in hostilities to cause their indefinite detention. Note that Government is already referring to lawful demonstrators as Terrorists, and increasingly spies on lawful Americans and protesters that speak out. See McCain Senate bill S.3081:
When one objectively views Obama’s recent actions and certain Members of Congress, e.g. John McCain on March 4th 2010 introduced S.3081 that would curtail Constitutional Protections, jailing Americans without probable cause or warrant; government spying on Citizens in their homes using hundreds of X-ray Vans; Obama’s request FBI/NSA without warrants wiretap all Citizens’ phone and other private electronic communications, one might ask, does the Obama Government intend to Lock Down America? If you think about it, much of what Obama has already done and intends, will crush our Constitutionally protected freedoms amounting to Marshal Law although the President is not calling it that.
Compare where the U.S. is headed, crushing political dissent, government/police intimidating Citizens from speaking or writing their opinions, with Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Laws shown below.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
NAVARRE, Fla. – Barack Obama had a close encounter of the eligibility kind today as his motorcade drove past an electronic billboard on Highway 98 here asking the question,“Where’s the birth certificate?”
The trip was part of Obama’s tour of areas hit by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the billboard was courtesy of WND’s 13-month continuing campaign to raise the issue of the president’s constitutional eligibility for office.
“We were able to get this billboard up in a hurry because it is electronic,” explained Joseph Farah, chief executive officer of WND and the mastermind of the advertising campaign that has visited more than 50 cities in the past year. “This is the first time we believe Obama has actually had to drive by one of our boards.”
The campaign has been sustained by contributions from WND visitors and others who have discovered it from simply driving past a billboard as Obama did today.
“It has certainly changed my life,” explains Farah. “A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a ‘birther,’ I became radioactive – just like Lou Dobbs.”
But, Farah says, even though “the establishment media” are in lockstep on the issue, the billboard campaign has fundamentally changed the public’s mind to the point at which all the polls are shocking the elite, and state legislatures are passing bills to ensure this never happens again in future presidential elections.
Billboard near Talledega, Ala.
“There’s no denying it,” says Farah. “No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It’s going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012.”
“I’m quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say ‘yes’ – and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose,” Farah said.
Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion – even if the media don’t get it.
“People simply shouldn’t have to conjecture about where they think their president was born,” he says. “It ought to be a matter of public record – and it clearly is not.”
“The impact of the billboards is magnified by local television and talk-radio shows in every market they enter,” explains Farah. “It’s not just the billboard. It’s the earned media that comes along with it. It’s astounding. We have turned millions of people around on this issue with the billboards. It’s just that simple.”
“There are all kinds of things we need to do right now to get our country back on track, but I can think of nothing more important than for us to see that our Constitution is observed, followed, adhered to and honored, especially when it comes to such simple, straightforward matters as the eligibility of the president of the United States,” says Farah. “Please help me bring this matter to a head right now.”
On February 9, 2009, a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelson, Jr.
