Obama Absent for Eligibility Hearing in Georgia

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!
Mark Matheny
January 27, 2012

Obama failed to show at an Eligibility hearing in Georgia.

.

Results Of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing In Georgia

The National Patriot By Craig Andresen January 26, 2012

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am  EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27^th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14^th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Read the entire article

Sales of U.S. New Homes in December Unexpectedly Decline

Alex Kowalski
Bloomberg
January 26, 2012

Sales of new U.S. homes unexpectedly declined in December for the first time in four months, capping the slowest year on record for builders.

Purchases of single-family properties decreased 2.2 percent to a 307,000 annual pace, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of economists called for a rate of 321,000 home sales. Last year marked the worst year for the industry in records going back to 1963.

The threat of further price declines may be dissuading some Americans from buying a new home even with mortgage rates near all-time lows and more people finding work. Following a lull in 2011, a wave of foreclosures may hamper the recovery in real estate as more distressed properties are put on the market.

Read more

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, January 26, 2012

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject ofdemonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

Read the entire aeticle

VIDEO: Military Helicopters Conduct Covert Exercises Over U.S. Bank Building

Five black helicopters conduct special ops in LA

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 26, 2012

Video was captured last night of five military helicopters buzzing over downtown LA, conducting what the LAPD has described as a special ops urban warfare drill.

The footage, captured by CBS Los Angeles, shows a huge Black Hawk helicopter hovering over the US bank building along with four other OH-6 choppers, known as “Little Birds”.

CBS reporters noted seeing the Black Hawk conduct a drop off in a nearby park before taking to the sky above LA again.

The helicopters, staged at Dodger Stadium throughout the exercise, were later spotted flying low over the Staples Center as the LA Lakers played inside.

Watch the footage below:

Former U.S. Army aviator David Duran was told CBS affiliate KCAL9 News that the training is likely a dry run for a future mission.

“They do a lot of mockup training,” said Duran. “But it’s always best to get the closest terrain layout to what the objective is.”

“If it’s a mountainous terrain, they go to the mountains; if it’s a desert terrain, they use the desert; if they’re in a coastal terrain, they use the coast,” said Duran. “If it’s an urban terrain, you know, whatever’s needed.”

As we highlighted Wednesday, a statement issued Monday by the LAPD,  says that the exercises, closed to the public, are “designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.”

Training sites “have been carefully selected to ensure the event does not negatively impact the citizens of Los Angeles and their daily routine,” a department spokesperson said.

The drill is set to continue through Thursday.

The exercise is yet another in a spate of recent military drills to hit heavily populated areas throughout the country.

Back in April last year, residents of Brickell, Miami witnessed at least three large Black Hawk-like helicopters conducting military exercises over their heads. Some initially believed it was a movie shoot.

Further exercises of the same nature were reported in Boston in August:

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Would Jesus Have Booed Ron Paul's "Golden Rule for Foreign Policy?"

DownsizeDC
by Jim Babka

January 26, 2012

This is an open letter to my fellow Christians. If it moves you, please share it with other believers. It is intended to be a chain letter, to spread and cause discussion. 

Here is The Golden Rule as expressed by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ . . .

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..." And in this instance its "golden" because it "...sums up the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 7:12 (NIV)]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2012, in the South Carolina Republican debate, candidate Ron Paul said the following...

My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we're not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy. [loud boos begin to drown out Paul] Don't do to other nations what we don't want to have them do to us. [indecipherable angry shouts can be heard]

The booing stunned me. Maybe it wouldn't have a while back. Maybe I would've booed too. After all . . .

I was brought up in a fundamentalist church, educated at a Baptist school, thanks to parents who listened to Christian radio. My father was a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. I was a College Republican and a "dittohead" (Rush Limbaugh fan). In my adulthood, I taught Sunday School in two mainstream Evangelical churches.

Therefore, I understand that South Carolina crowd. But there's no disputing that many of them booed the words of their professed Messiah.

My heart has grown and my mind has transformed. So when the booing happened during the debate, I thought . . .

"Would Jesus have booed?"

Jesus advocated The Golden Rule. Ron Paul advocated applying The Golden Rule. But the Christian crowd booed the words "golden rule."

Someone committed an error. Was it Jesus? Was it Ron Paul? Or was it the church-going crowd?

Is there any way to defend that crowd without rejecting Jesus? 

As I said, maybe I too would have booed in the past. I suspect I would've justified myself as follows . . .

1. The Golden Rule doesn't apply to government, which according to Romans 13 was given the "power of the sword" to "terrorize evildoers."
2. Ron Paul was being naive. These are dangerous Muslim terrorists, and they want to kill innocent Americans. The Golden Rule doesn't apply to Al Qaeda. They will see meekness as weakness and hurt us some more.

Indeed, according to Romans 13, government leaders are to be a terror to evildoers. The "power of the sword" may be required.

But candidate Paul advocates policies that accord perfectly with Romans 13. He admits that war is sometimes necessary. His only caveat is that Congress must first declare it. Mr. Paul argues that this legal impediment helps to ensure that war is pursued rarely and with sufficient cause. This position has the virtue of being consistent with Christian tradition (Just War) and the Constitution.

But is it somehow naive? And if so, was Jesus naive?

Consider what some call the hardest verses in the Bible, Matthew 5:38-42. They come from the Sermon on the Mount . . .  

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

And these thoughts are echoed in Romans 12:17-20 (see also Proverbs 25:21-22) . . .  

"17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Is this how we conduct our foreign policy? Is this how we defend ourselves? Or is it possible that Jesus knows more about true security than either our politicians or that Christian crowd in South Carolina?

Didn't our Savior admonish us, AT A MINIMUM, to at least stop for a moment and ponder the following possibility . . .

• that listening to our enemies,
• considering their concerns,
• and treating them always as we would want to be treated,
• even going the extra mile with them

. . .  might help them decide that they no longer want to terrorize or attack us? Conversely . . .

Isn't it possible that our hyper-aggressive, vengeful approach has actually created more enemies for us than it has killed? Don't Christ's words strongly suggest that this is not only possible, but probable?

And haven't Christians made this mistake before?

Every good Protestant knows that a lot of harm has been done to the reputation of the church due to crusades and inquisitions. But what American Evangelicals don't seem to know is that in certain other parts of the world the crusades are still underway, AND WE ARE THE CRUSADERS.

Stated differently, millions of Muslims think Christians are not ambassadors of The Gospel (good news). Instead, they view "Christian" America as a military force, intent on occupying and looting.

This problem goes back decades. Our politicians have constantly propped up foreign rulers who are friendly to us, but oppressive and offensive to their people. This has made the American people complicit in the crimes of dictators. It has made people hate us. By contrast . . .

A Golden Rule foreign policy takes note of the actual motives of your enemy, not the made up propaganda ones like, "They hate us because we're free."

Moreover, in the economy of God's Kingdom -- where the last are first, the greatest is the servant, and enemies deserve love -- love is a battle strategy! It's a way to quell your enemies, even to heap coals on their heads.

It's also the parsimonious method of achieving victory. Lives are saved, literally and spiritually. It avoids the killing of innocents, the death of troops, and the destruction of the bodies and minds of war survivors. And the profiteering of bankers and agents of death are all minimized or eliminated.

Having a Golden Rule foreign policy is not a doe-eyed innocent's suggestion that suddenly the lion is now ready to lay with the lamb. It's NOT pacifism. Rather, it's an assertion that there's far more war than there needs to be. It's the faith that a Tower of Babel, full of wise men (politicians), can't accomplish nearly as much with coercive force as can be achieved following God's instructions, from Scripture, with grace. 

But what if they STILL want to kill us? 

Well, even candidate Paul voted to go after Bin Laden following 9/11. Having a Golden Rule foreign policy doesn't rule out a Congressional declaration of war (something that hasn't happened since 1941). Sometimes, you have to fight.

But the policy of our current leaders, in BOTH parties, is that we should be LOOKING for fights, until every nation is acting in OUR interests. Listen to the words of the other GOP candidates; you'll hear it. In the debates, they've been especially fond of saying that Pakistan and Afghanistan should be looking out for U.S. interests.

How would we feel if some other power was trying to make us look out for them, instead of our own interests? Oh wait: That's The Golden Rule popping up again.

You see, we want to be treated a certain way! Jesus taught us to empathize. He said that we must show AT LEAST equal respect to others. But, as you've already seen, he actually advocated going even further. He said we should consistently treat people even BETTER than they deserve!

The equal respect part of this -- The Golden Rule -- is very nearly a universal ethic. It can be found in virtually every major religion and most major philosophical systems. It teaches us, as does nature, that we cannot expect to be treated well if we don't treat others with decency. That makes The Golden Rule the most practical rule in the world.

It's a law of reciprocity. But compare it with other forms of reciprocity, like an eye-for-an-eye. The Golden Rule is an ethic that is not only more gracious, but also potentially rich with opportunity. It's reflected in the words, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," when we all know that instead, the man who spoke those words could've called ten thousand angels to his aid. 

Instead of booing, shouldn't we pause and prayerfully consider whether our Savior's wisdom applies?

Who was wrong? Was it Jesus? Ron Paul? Or the Christians who booed the Golden Rule?   
  
I think the answer is obvious. What do you think?

Opening A New Theater of War In The North American Homeland

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
January 25, 2012

State of Emergency Communique #1: America, Canada, and Mexico are financially and mentally colonized nations. But financial fraud and media propaganda are no longer enough to keep the people down. Due to the political awakening across the continent the need for the boots has come.

“It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded.” – Professor Peter Dale Scott, “War, Martial Law, and the Economic Crisis,” Global Research, February 23, 2011.

“They take our tax money and then militarize the police, and use the regular military against us.” – Alex Jones, “Military Industrial Complex has declared war on the US,”Russia Today, January 19, 2012.

“It’s not just for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars anymore. The Department of Homeland Security is interested in a camera package that can peek in on almost four square miles of (Constitutionally-protected) American territory for long, long stretches of time.

Homeland Security doesn’t have a particular system in mind. Right now, it’s just soliciting “industry feedback” on what a formal call for such a “Wide Area Surveillance System” might look like. But it’s the latest indication of how powerful military surveillance technology, developed to find foreign insurgents and terrorists, is migrating to the home front.” – Spencer Ackerman, “Homeland Security Wants To Spy On 4 Square Miles At Once,” Wired, January 23, 2012.

“There is a genuine, dangerous disconnect between the Washington foreign policy apparat and the broad American people as a whole. And I think you saw evidence of this on February 15 (2003), when there were peace demonstrations in as many as 300 American cities. And I think that there is a real difference between what I call the American oligarchy, which now pretty much controls not only the White House but the Congress and the Supreme Court, and the American democracy.” – Lewis Lapham,“Lewis Lapham’s attack on American plutocracy,” Allan Gregg’s YouTube Channel, January 20, 2011, (Original broadcast: March 2003).

“How low have we sunk, Mr. Obama? You portray yourself as a man of honor and a defender of constitutionalism, but you have opened the gates to lawlessness and authoritarian rule.” – Philip Giraldi, “Creating American Terrorists,” The Council For The National Interest, January 19, 2012.

“A North American Homeland Security perimeter goes well beyond keeping people safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources, as well as corporate interests and is a pretext for control over the continent.” – Dana Gabriel, “The Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter,” Be Your Own Leader, December 11, 2011.

“All the power and policy of man cannot continue a system long after its truth has ceased to be acknowledged, or an establishment long after it has ceased to contribute to utility. It is equally vain, as to expect to preserve a tree, whose roots are cut away. It may look as green and flourishing as before for a short time, but its sentence is passed, its principle of life is gone, and death is already within it.” – Anna Letitia Barbauld, Selected Poetry & Prose, pg. 275-276.

The process of global state-building has been going on for a long time. At the mid-way point of the existence of the American republic the U.S. Constitution came under attack and America’s national sovereignty was destroyed by international banks and corporations.

Read the entire article