Scott Brown pulls an "Obama" on the MA Democrats

The polls are open in Massachusetts from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m today. Please get out and vote for Scott Brown, a welcome change for all citizens regardless of Political affiliations, Race, Creed or Religion.

In Felicia Sonmez article Why Scott Brown Leads she states:

With so much riding on a race that has only garnered nat'l attention
over the past week, we thought it's worth taking a step back and
examining what exactly hangs in the balance, and how conversations with
MA voters have informed our outlook on the election.

This race could spell the doom for Obama and his Minions in Congress. He and his Cohorts in crime have ignored us American citizens, the very people they are sworn to serve, as if we were mindless babies. I resent that and Obama's, and his Congressional 'Yes' men and women for trying to cram their brand of Socialism (Communism, Fascism, etc.) down our throats.

... many Brown supporters and a surprising number of Coakley backers said
they thought going negative on Brown's character hurt Coakley. Some
Dems pointed to the "rape" ads as particularly over-the-top.

Fortunately for us Americans who have an inkling of what our Constitution means, and what our Founding Fathers worked so hard to create in order to provide us with the Freedoms we enjoy, this race may well put our Liberty, Freedom and Constitutional Rights back on track once again.

... by the time Brown began pulling ahead last week, his feel-good ads
showing him in his kitchen, or driving his truck, or campaigning on the
streets of South Boston, had already begun resonating with voters.

Obama may have helped garner a few votes for the Coakley but I think he has inadvertently gotten as many or more for Brown.

He ... is ... a likable, "average" guy -- a blank
slate. Over the weekend, a surprising number of Dems along the trail
had good things to say about Brown as a person: some called him
"handsome," or said he "seems like a nice guy." Even Obama, while
stumping for Coakley, conceded that he "didn't know much" about Brown ...

And Obama embarrassed himself by making fun of Brown's truck. Great job there! Thanks for the help in getting Scott Brown elected.

Brown does seem to genuinely love campaigning. When a guy dressed up as Ben Franklin came up to Brown for a photo, Brown gladly posed with him, joking, "Hey, is that your real hair?"

Indeed Brown seems to be a regular guy, not an aloof Demagogue, that is so common in Congress today. I can't imagine him ever saying to his constituents 'Shut up!' as many Dems in Congress have done over questions of the anti-stimulus "Porkulus" Bill or the Government run restrictive Socialized Medicine Bill.

...Coakley has been trying to saddle him with the Bush mantle and lump him
together with nat'l GOPers. But those claims come off as hard to
believe because he's a relative newbie -- how could anyone mistake him
for Bush's "crony"? -- and he's also never served in DC. ...

This is one time the Democrat 'wool' didn't work on the voters.

( ... he's not exactly a RINO, or even the type of fiscally conservative,
socially liberal GOPer MA voters typically elect). In this case, voters
are so dissatisfied, it's mostly about anti-incumbency. ...

I do believe that people don't want to be reduced to a Third Nation status and the resultant loss of our dollar's value by the scams that the Politicians in DC are pulling on us.

Remember this: Most Professional Politicians are mainly interested in two things. (1) Getting elected and (2) Getting re-elected. These two factors are way ahead of whatever is in Third place (possibly the needs of their constituents).

Read the rest of her article here:  NationalJournal.com

Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?

Exclusive by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway

(Editor's note: Barack Obama's lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with "sanctions," because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth. No legalizing on our part. No exaggeration. No political manipulation. Just the facts in black and white. We have the shocking letter dated April 3 . The president of the United States is threatening sanctions - and the word "sanctions" is used in the threat -- against attorney John Hemenway. Read on.)

After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President. (Hemenway had joined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton's ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.) The entire letter , written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following (and we note that there is no reference in this letter to an existing valid Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, as opposed to a Certificate of Live Birth, and there is no claim that a valid Birth certificate exists which can be shown to the American people, an act that immediately would shut down this query):

"I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court's March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.

Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."

Mr. Hemenway's response to the letter was a promise to "write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to "transparency" and "openness" and honesty in governmental operations-all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter."

Mr. Hemenway added, "The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won't work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me." In his opinion, "many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: "Nada dakazat' kulak!" (You must show them your fist!)"

Hemenway also pledged:

"...to appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called "reprimand") by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as "frivolous" but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11. (This would have given me-and others engaged in this important battle -standing in the Court of Appeals.) I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals. The military, as Colonel Hollister's interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal' and ‘illegal' orders originating from a ‘legitimate' or ‘illegitimate' commander-in-chief. Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn't seek any. The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering'."

For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill's admonition: "If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up-never - never - never." The most important part of that quote is the "matter of principle." It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill. Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle.

If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Last, Hemenway points out: "Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called "Anschluss") and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria. He says his father left Austria in 1940. Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started. In any event, if Bauer's background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?"

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is a retired federal employee, having served fifteen years in the U.S. Congress and five years as a White House appointee at DoD and NASA.

Money, Power, Obama and Redistribution

By MJMotley

No one should be surprised by Barack Obama's hubris in his disenfranchisement  of GM's and Chrysler's boards' of directors and shareholders. His audacity in presuming that he was qualified to run the nation, after having never successfully run anything, was evident. There wasn't anything, in his remarkably thin resume, to suggest that he had earned the privilege to the nation's highest office. With that privilege now his, it should be only natural that he presume to usurp that which used to belong to GM's & Chryslers shareholders and give it to whom he sees fit.

Obama's use of offices held, for that which they were never intended, was how he ascended the ladder of Chicago politics. Example, Obama's position overseeing the  Annenberg_Challenge  grants meant to improve of the test scores in Chicago Public Schools and then using them for the implementation Bill Ayers' social engineering agenda. Ayers' scholastic program  is about building the political power base of the future. That test scores  did not improve even marginally after $100's of millions doled out, or that the Chicago Public Schools system remains the worst in the nation is of no matter. His political allies were generously funded, his political base strengthened, and then used to propel him up the next rung. It is not about doing what is best for his constituents, it is about building power.

Similarly, Obama's seizing of GM & Chrysler is not about the health of America's industry, it is about the health of his union base. Likewise his forcing GM & Chrysler/Fiat to adopt unproven "green technologies" is about saving the financial and political capital of his allies vested in it. Namely the environmental lobby, and the mistaken investors that placed bets on "green technologies" profitability. Obama will now guarantee those investors' returns, and continued green support, through manufacturing subsidies and government service warranties of vehicles that don't work, like the Chevy Volt . He will further insure those investments and political support by seeking legislation to limit the market to offering green products only. We again see the pattern, his financial generosity with someone else's money, in return for political power.

We can also see this in the allocation of funds the Stimulus Bill . Banks that held the "toxic assets" are to be recompensed in full, while we have been left on the holding worthless paper. There is pitifully little in the stimulus for any of the people holding underwater mortgages, but billions for his political base in Community Organizing, Teachers Unions, and Green-Technology speculators.  Are we getting the picture yet?

While Obama may soothe the masses with platitudes about the under-privileged, what he is about is power. And he is assuming ever more of it as Geithner & the Fed assume control of any and all firms that they feel is a "systemic risk". As we observe Team Obama ruling by fiat over our banks and industry, and coming soon, to our health & education systems, plus whatever else they deem as vital.  Contemplate that which they may possibly next construe as a "systemic risk", and prepare to be denuded of further of the rights and protections that used to be afforded us by our Constitution.

As Obama amasses ever greater means of control over our economy, and therefore ourselves, remember that power once given, is far harder to retrieve afterward.

Military Officer Oath Analysis - Defender of Constitution

This is written by one of our MIL Plaintiffs:

There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Enlisted Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath -

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper). (My bold emphasis. ---Al)

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

Let's see if SCOTUS runs and hides again. They failed to live up to their oaths by ignoring the prior cases. I pray they will wise up very soon and honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your service! Not only is Dr. Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation behind you; but it seems you have some extremely impressive support too:

Open Letter from Brigadier General Charles Jones

Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit

Col. Riley former division chief national security agency joins our action

Officer Easterling, Active military officer deployed with the US military in Iraq

• No Image

Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef

• No Image

SSgt Brian A Keith USMC Joins Military Action

Major Cannon former Marine Corps. joins our action

Lt Col. Chuck Miller, USAF (Ret) is honored to be a Plainftiff in Military Action

Officer Grimes joins the Military Action

Their bravery and leadership has inspired others to step up too. They are the leaders. And we thank them all for their service!

Read All Critically Important Articles at DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION
"To defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States"

Read Pat Dollard's: “Ineligible Imposter”: First Soldier Refuses Obama’s Orders
Expanding Mutiny Against “Ineligible Imposter”: Second U.S. Soldier Refuses Obama’s Orders

See previous posts: Are We Slaves Or Do We American Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? By Ed
Reasons Why Obama Won’t Show His Original Birth Certificate By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Gun Bills Blocked By PA Judiciary Committee

[Thank God for that!

For any of you who think gun control is the answer to Crime and to School Shootings, please buy the Window sticker shown here.
I'll even pay for it if you will display it prominently on your front door or in your front window.
(This may be the answer to increasing the intelligence of our gene pool : )

If there wasn't such an obsession with curtailing our rights to own and carry guns Columbine, Virginia Tech & other Massacres would NOT have happened!!! See a thoughtful, well researched article, that achieved International recognition, by our own editor - "The Truth, nothing but the Simple Truth" ---Al]

By Jan Murphy / of The Patriot-News, 11/20/07 10:58 AM EST Updated: 11/20/07 7:22 PM EST

Gov. Ed Rendell may have left the Capitol with a clear conscience last night.

But it was the state's hardcore protectors of the right to bear arms who went home with smiles on their face, after they beat back a Rendell-backed attempt to push through three of the gun control lobby's centerpiece bill through the House Judiciary Committee.

[Damn straight, we're "Hardcore" in believing in the rights of Citizens as provided for by our Constitution. ---Al]

Despite a rare direct appeal from the governor to let their "common sense and backbone" send the bills to the House for a full floor debate... committee members killed two centerpiece gun control bills today, despite hearing a direct appeal for the legislation from Gov. Ed Rendell

[Our home grown "Mafia" Governor].

"What you had before the committee today was feel-good legislation, not good legislation," said John Hohenwarter, state liason for the National Rifle Association...

Gun control opponents see these measures as impeding their freedom to bear arms.

[Same thing Hitler & other Tyrants did to their people before running roughshod over the Citizens]

For more on this story, see Wednesday's (tomorrow's) editions of The Patriot-News.

Read More at PennLive

Tagged: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Columbine, Ed Rendell, Gun Control, John Hohenwarter, Massacres, National Rifle Association, Virginia Tech