U.S. House Stenographer 'Couldn't Be Better' After Late-Night Rant.

*Source: Reuters



(Reuters) - A House of Representatives stenographer who was pulled from the chamber ranting about Freemasons during this week's vote on raising the U.S. debt ceiling said on Friday she "couldn't be better" when asked how she was feeling after the outburst.

In a brief phone interview, the stenographer, 48-year-old Dianne Reidy, declined to comment on what motivated her to stand up on the House floor on Wednesday night and make comments including: "The greatest deception here is this is not one nation under God. It never was."

Reached at her Maryland home on Friday, Reidy declined to elaborate on her comments, saying: "It's not where I'm going, it's where God's going."

Reidy was hauled off the House floor during Wednesday night's vote to end the federal government shutdown and increase the U.S. borrowing authority. She was interviewed by Capitol Police officers and taken to a hospital for a brief evaluation.

Her husband, Dan Reidy, told the New York Post that his wife had been working extremely long hours and having a hard time sleeping during the 16-day shutdown.

"Two weeks, waking up in the middle of the night," Reidy told the Post. "She's like, 'I can't sleep, God's got me in the work.'"

Freemasons are a centuries-old fraternal organization. Several of the country's founders, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere, were Freemasons.

Officials with the House Office of the Clerk did not immediately respond to questions regarding Reidy's employment status.

(Reporting by Scott Malone in Boston; Editing by Eric Beech)

Stenographer Dragged Off House Floor After Protest.

*Source: Fox News & Soundcloud

A House of Representatives stenographer was dragged off the floor during the vote to end the partial government shutdown and raise the U.S. debt ceiling after a bizarre protest in which she began ranting at members.

Fox News identified the stenographer as Dianne Reidy, who went to the Speaker's Chair while the vote was in progress and said, "Praise be to God Jesus Christ." She also appeared to make references to America not being one nation under God because “Freemasons” wrote the Constitution. She also seemed to say something about a “house divided.”

A woman tried to calm Reidy as others summoned police.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the presiding officer, banged the gavel to restore order several times, but did not deter Reidy, who screamed "You cannot serve two masters" as she was removed from the floor.



According to Ros-Lehtinen, Reidy "came up to the podium area beneath where I was standing and asked me if the microphones were on. I said that I didn't know. I assumed that perhaps I was chatting too much to the helpful parliamentarians around me. Then she suddenly faced the front and said words like 'Thus spoke the Lord.' And, 'This is not the Lord's work.'

"I hammered to get control and hush her up. She said something about the devil. It was sudden, confusing and heartbreaking. She is normally a gentle soul."

Reidy was questioned by U.S. Capitol Police after her removal from the floor and was later taken to a local hospital for a mental health evaluation. It was not immediately clear whether criminal charges would be filed.

The disruption stunned members of Congress already jumpy after two weeks of partisan invective over the partial government shutdown and Thursday's debt ceiling deadline.

Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, told Fox News, "You have a lot of members who are concerned about who is allowed on the floor when something like that happens."

Fox News' Chad Pergram and Nicholas Kalman contributed to this report. 

Bolton Clashes With Stossel Over Obama’s Drones, Accuses Libertarians Of ‘Defending The Confederacy’cuses Libertarians of "Defending the Confederacy"

*Source: Mediaite






John Stossel‘s annual show from the International Students for Liberty Conference features not only the usual friendly libertarians, but a handful of liberals and conservatives who willfully engage a potentially hostile crowd of 1,000+ libertarian students.

As our readers are likely aware by now, Ann Coulter happened to be one of the two conservatives brought on to debate the students. And it was, shall we say, tense.

The other conservative featured in the program was John Bolton, former Bush official and he of the “neocon” variety. Last year, Bolton’s appearance on Stossel’s show (full disclosure, again: Stossel is my former boss) resulted in a bit of controversy. But despite the not-so-warm reception last year, Bolton returned again to discuss why he believes a neoconservative foreign policy is best; and continue his defense of President Obama‘s “sensible” targeted assassination program.

“It doesn’t seem morally right to just take the word of some government officials that this guy’s a terrorist and send a machine to kill him, and kill civilians along with him,” Stossel said to Bolton.

“The commander-in-chief authority vested by the Constitution in the president gives him the direction over the war capabilities of the United States,” Bolton replied. “And his efforts, both in the Bush and the Obama administration, to go after the terrorists, I think is entirely justified.”

“So America can kill anybody anywhere?” Stossel asked.

“Of course not,” Bolton shot back, “listen to what I just said.” He re-asserted that the Constitution authorizes, “subject to congressional checks,” the power for the executive to take out enemy combatants.
Stossel then asked the $64,000 question about blowback: “Don’t you think that makes us new enemies? When the drone sends something down that kills a group of people, they kill children and cousins. Doesn’t that make new terrorists who will try to kill us?”

“I believe that our military does everything that it can to avoid civilian casualties,” Bolton said. “That is not avoidable sometimes because of the way the terrorists conduct themselves, living among civilians.”

One student from George Mason University (my alma mater!) grilled Bolton over the fact that, throughout his use of drone strikes President Obama has been subjected to very little, if any, congressional authority. The audience applauded. Here’s Bolton’s answer:

“The framers of the Constitution had just won our country’s independence by war. They knew what the threat was that we faced as a small country. They knew we needed an energetic capability to defend ourselves. They wanted a strong commander-in-chief. They created a Congress that had power over the purse — the principal check on the president’s war-making power. And that check is there. If Congress doesn’t want to wage war against the Taliban, against al-Qaeda, against whomever, they can cut off funding for it.

So… apparently Bolton believes appropriations process is an actual check on the president assassinating American citizens without due process. Not sure how that works out in the former ambassador’s mind. In case he forgot: the due process itself is supposed to act as a check on executive power.

The Skeptical Libertarian editor Daniel Bier then asked a question that drew massive applause from the students: “The large majority of Americans support giving the president the authority to kill American citizens without charges or trial or due process. My question is, if you were identified as a threat by some nameless official in the administration, would you want due process?”

“The issue is whether we are in a war situation, whether we are operating under the war powers of the Constitution or whether we are in a law enforcement situation,” Bolton responded. “The two have radically different approaches. We killed tens of thousands of American citizens, maybe hundreds of thousands with no due process in the Civil War, and it was the right thing to do.”

As the room erupted into some booing at the notion of suspending due process for any reason, Bolton snapped back, “You want to discredit a movement, defend the Confederacy. Go ahead.”

Because the segment had to end for time’s sake, Bier never got the chance to respond. So I’ll give him the space here:

“It’s ludicrous to compare the deliberate assassination of a 16-year-old American citizen, who is not engaged in hostilities against the United States, who has never been charged with a crime, and was in a neutral country, with shooting back at Confederate soldiers on a battlefield. If Ambassador Bolton wanted to make a more apt Civil War comparison, he could have cited Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus for citizens in the North, the deportation of an anti-war congressman, or the imprisonment of dissident journalists. It’s a clever rhetorical twist to equate support for due process with support for slavery, but it’s a complete non-sequitur. Mr. Bolton never answered my question, and so it seems he’s quite comfortable with the idea of a single man deciding who lives and dies, without any restraint or judicial review. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, not God.”

(By the way, for those wondering: the liberal guest on the show was former Rep. Dennis Kucinich.)

Dr. Scott Johnson: [12.24.12] End Time Current Events

[12.24.12] End Time Current Events

**PDF: [12.24.12] End Time Current Events**

*Part 1 Table of Contents:

• New Faked Rigged CNN Poll: 52% of Americans favor major restrictions on guns or making all guns illegal, according to a CNN/ORC poll. 
• “To Conquer a Nation, first Disarm its Citizens.” Adolf Hitler 1933
• Why there are no shootings in Israeli schools
• Gallup Poll: 64 Percent of Americans Want School Officials Armed to Protect Children
• Another Perspective: Arm the Teachers and School Staff
• Media Blackout: Oregon Mall Shooter Was Stopped By An Armed Citizen
• Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
• Numerous school massacres stopped by gun owners who wielded their weapons in defense of children
• Man Attempts To Open Fire On Crowd At Movie Theater, Armed Off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet
• Audio: Newtown Massacre – Obama’s Hypocrisy
• Americans in denial about school violence and the obvious solution: Arm school personnel
• From a Listener: Why I carry a gun……
• Let’s let facts guide the gun control debate for a change
• Solution to School Mass Murders–Free Concealed Handgun License Class to Teachers/ Administrators
• Watch the video: How to stop a massacre
• HOUSE DEM: ‘Turn in your guns’…
• Stampeding Gun Control Through Crisis: Never let a crisis go to waste – especially when it is an opportunity to abridge our Constitutional rights
• Obama seems poised to declare military dictatorship in America over Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
• Senator Jay Rockefeller Calls for Gun Control and More Psychoactive Drugs
• ‘This Is Not Some Washington Commission’…Obama taps Biden to lead gun grab…

*Part 2 Table of Contents:

• Eric Holder, Obama Propose To Use Executive Orders To Impose New Gun Control Laws
• Reuters Calls for Obama to Act as Dictator to Ban Guns
• China Calls for ‘No Delay’ on Gun Controls in U.S.
• Bloomberg Organizes Celebrities To Push For Huge Gun Grab
• Obama Targets Gun Shows
• US lobby issues point-blank ‘no’ on gun control
• Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy weapons
• Firearms Supplier Sells More Than Three Years Worth Of Gun Magazines In Just Three Days
• GOA Defending Your Rights on the Firing Line
• Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control
• Meanwhile 501c3 Corporate Whore Religious Leaders Push Congregants for Gun Control, Sensing a Watershed Moment

*Part 3 Table of Contents:

• Brooklyn churches seeing more gun buybacks
• Large turnout for Camden churches gun buyback
• NYPD Sponsors Gun Buyback Program At Evergreen Baptist Church In Brooklyn
• Baltimore church gun buyback takes in 461 guns in wake of Conn. Shooting
• At St. Mark’s United Methodist Church in Laurel more than 150 guns were turned in at gun buyback event
• Oakland’s Saint Benedict’s church gun buyback nets 300 guns
• Christ Temple Missionary Baptist Church in Evanston hosts gun buyback
• See Scott Johnson’s Teachings on the 501c3 Corporate Church of America: Feds Train 501c3 Clergy To ‘Quell Dissent’ During Martial Law (3 Parts)
• Top Online Gun Retailer Suspends Sales of Firearms: “Effective Immediately”
• First Amendment Rights Gone: Connecticut Police Spokesman: Newtown Will Prosecute Independant Journalist Whistleblowers (Video)  
• Facebook now threatening to shut down accounts of users who question official narrative on Sandy Hook shooting
• Warning–Language by bloodthirsty, demon possessed liberals: Liberals Call For Murder Of NRA President, Members & Repeal Of Second Amendment: Liberals are ticked off over a shooting that took innocent lives and they turn right around and want to murder innocent people that have done them absolutely no harm!
• Watch & Listen to LIVE Police Audio & Television Footage proving there was more than one shooter @ Sandy Hook Elementary School
• Footage Of Police Arresting Second Man In Woods Right After The Sandy Hook Shooting
• Newtown: Two Shadows Running Past Gym while police are heard saying “THEY are coming toward us.” & “We got THEM”
• I am the devil: Former classmate reveals school gunman had ‘online devil worshiping page’ as childhood barber recounts how he never spoke and just stared at floors
• Beyond Evil “Kindergarten Killer” Video Game–NRA Says Games Like This Responsible For Mass Shooters
• Listener Comment REGARDING the AUDIO of THE Sandy Hook SHOOTING & SSRI Medication Side Effects
• Newtown Murders: Astonishing Hunger Games Coincidence, and killers mother now a Doomsday Prepper??
• Sandy Hook Reference Coincidence In Batman: Dark Knight Rises Movie
• SANDY HOOK & AURORA In The “BATMAN: Dark Knight Rises” Movie!!
• Proof of Satanic Sacrifice? Sandy Hook Mapped In Dark Knight Movie & On Satanic Ley-Line
• ALERT!!! SANDY HOOK MAP OVERLAY ON GOOGLE MAPS IS AN EXACT MATCH!!!

**Dr. Scott Johnson**
http://www.contendingfortruth.com

New Obama Executive Order Seeks ‘Control’ Over Communications During ‘Crisis’

*Source: WhiteHouse.Gov

For Immediate Release

July 06, 2012

Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.

Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.

Sec. 2.1. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System) (PPD-1).

Sec. 2.2. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall: (a) issue an annual memorandum to the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (established in section 3 of this order) highlighting national priorities for Executive Committee analyses, studies, research, and development regarding NS/EP communications;

(b) advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions; and

(c) have access to all appropriate information related to the test, exercise, evaluation, and readiness of the capabilities of all existing and planned NS/EP communications systems, networks, and facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP requirements.

Sec. 2.3. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall make recommendations to the President, informed by the interagency policy process established in PPD-1, with respect to the exercise of authorities assigned to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606). The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall also jointly monitor the exercise of these authorities, in the event of any delegation, through the process established in PPD-1 or as the President otherwise may direct.

Sec. 3. The NS/EP Communications Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established an NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (Executive Committee) to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.

Sec. 3.2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of Assistant Secretary-level or equivalent representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;

(b) develop a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;

(d) promote the incorporation of the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications under all circumstances;

(e) recommend to the President, through the PPD-1 process, the regimes to test, exercise, and evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;

(f) provide quarterly updates to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP, through the Co-Chairs, on the status of Executive Committee activities and develop an annual NS/EP communications strategic agenda utilizing the PPD-1 process;

(g) enable industry input with respect to the responsibilities established in this section; and

(h) develop, approve, and maintain a charter for the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4. Executive Committee Joint Program Office.

Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee's performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order. Staff of the JPO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Executive Committee. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide resources to support the JPO. The JPO shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of the JPO shall include: coordination of programs that support NS/EP missions, priorities, goals, and policy; and, when directed by the Executive Committee, the convening of governmental and nongovernmental groups (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)), coordination of activities, and development of policies for senior official review and approval.

Sec. 5. Specific Department and Agency Responsibilities.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership, including: communications with or among the President, Vice President, White House staff, heads of state and government, and Nuclear Command and Control leadership; Continuity of Government communications; and communications among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to support Enduring Constitutional Government;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.1(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and

(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.

Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications;

(d) receive, integrate, and disseminate NS/EP communications information to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as appropriate, to establish situational awareness, priority setting recommendations, and a common operating picture for NS/EP communications information;

(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;

(f) maintain a joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of NS/EP communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis, or emergency;

(g) serve as the Federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense when activities referenced in section 5.1(a) of this order are impacted, consistent with the National Response Framework. If conflicts in or among priorities cannot be resolved between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, they shall be referred for resolution in accordance with section 2.1 of this order; and

(h) within 60 days of the date of this order, in consultation with the Executive Committee where appropriate, develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a detailed plan that describes the Department of Homeland

Security's organization and management structure for its NS/EP communications functions, including the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, Wireless Priority Service, Telecommunications Service Priority program, Next Generation Network Priority program, the Executive Committee JPO, and relevant supporting entities.

Sec. 5.3. The Secretary of Commerce shall: (a) provide advice and guidance to the Executive Committee on the use of technical standards and metrics to support execution of NS/EP communications;

(b) identify for the Executive Committee requirements for additional technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(c) engage with relevant standards development organizations to develop appropriate technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(d) develop plans and procedures concerning radio spectrum allocations, assignments, and priorities for use by agencies and executive offices;

(e) develop, maintain, and publish policies, plans, and procedures for the management and use of radio frequency assignments, including the authority to amend, modify, or revoke such assignments, in those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to the Federal Government; and

(f) administer a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum-dependent telecommunications resources belonging to and operated by the Federal Government and certify or approve such radio spectrum priorities, including the resolution of conflicts in or among such radio spectrum priorities during a crisis or emergency.

Sec. 5.4. The Administrator of General Services shall provide and maintain a common Federal acquisition approach that allows for the efficient centralized purchasing of equipment and services that meet NS/EP communications requirements. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the procurement authorities granted by law to an agency or the head thereof.

Sec. 5.5. With respect to the Intelligence Community, the DNI, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the DNI deems necessary to implement this order. Procedures or other guidance issued by the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the DNI.

Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and

(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.

Sec. 6. General Agency Responsibilities. All agencies, to the extent consistent with law, shall: (a) determine the scope of their NS/EP communications requirements, and provide information regarding such requirements to the Executive Committee;

(b) prepare policies, plans, and procedures concerning communications facilities, services, or equipment under their management or operational control to maximize their capability to respond to the NS/EP needs of the Federal Government;

(c) propose initiatives, where possible, that may benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(d) administer programs that support broad NS/EP communications goals and policies;

(e) submit reports annually, or as otherwise requested, to the Executive Committee, regarding agency NS/EP communications activities;

(f) devise internal acquisition strategies in support of the centralized acquisition approach provided by the General Services Administration pursuant to section 5.4 of this order; and

(g) provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with timely reporting on NS/EP communications status to inform the common operating picture required under 6 U.S.C. 321(d).

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word "agency" shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, is hereby revoked.

(c) Executive Order 12382 of September 13, 1982, as amended, is further amended by striking the following language from section 2(e): "in his capacity as Executive Agent for the National Communications System".

(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Now Obama's Birth Certificate Is 'Irrelevant'.

*Source: WND

Let me tell you a little story.

A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!

On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.

It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.

Within a week or 10 days, Obama did just that.

Obama, counting on a compliant media not asking any questions, not looking at the actual document, not questioning why he withheld it for so long, issued a bogus birth certificate. He didn’t overestimate the semi-official, state-sponsored press.

The document has been deemed fraudulent by virtually every forensic expert who has examined it. It has been characterized as a forgery by the only law enforcement investigation that has looked into it.

After WND’s forensics experts examined the document, the optimistic Corsi told me: “Now we’ve got Obama right where we want him. We forced him to release a fraudulent document. Now he will have to live with it.”

But has he?

In the latest legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility last week, Obama’s campaign counsel, Alexandra Hill, argued in a New Jersey hearing against a request to produce the birth certificate as evidence in the case.

Rather than simply produce the document Obama claims is legitimate, with an image posted on the White House website, Hill argued that New Jersey law does not require Obama to present a valid birth certificate to establish his qualifications under Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution to be on the New Jersey Democratic Party primary ballot.

She further told Judge Jeff S. Masin: “We do not believe the president’s birth certificate is relevant to this case.”

Did you catch that?

The president’s birth certificate is not relevant to the case.

The judge agreed.

He explained that New Jersey law does not require Obama to produce any proof he is eligible to be president to be placed on the primary ballot.

New Jersey law, he explained, allows a nominating petition endorsing a particular person for president to be filed without the consent of the person endorsed. Masin said, “There is no obligation upon the person endorsed to prove his or her qualification for office.”

Once again, we have another official ruling that shows there is simply no mechanism in the United States of America for establishing the constitutional eligibility of a president or a presidential candidate.

That should be shocking news to every American – and especially the “watchdog” press. But few are even aware of this latest courtroom skirmish. No matter what you believe about Obama’s eligibility, the fact that our political system is failing the Constitution and the people should concern everyone.

But back to Obama’s non-defense of the document he produced to quell the furor a year ago: Is he now running away from a document he knows to be fraudulent and indefensible? It would seem so.

And that’s the conclusion of the lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s probe of the matter.

“What is emerging in the various state legal challenges to including President Obama on the presidential ballot appears to be an attempt by the White House to divorce itself from the Obama long-form birth certificate released,” said Mike Zullo.

Zullo questioned why the White House did not instruct Hill to champion the birth certificate as legitimate.

“The White House appears to be acting as if the Obama birth certificate is of no consequence in establishing the fact of Obama’s birth,” Zullo continued. “Instead of producing the birth certificate to the New Jersey secretary of state and arguing to Judge Masin that the document was legitimate, Obama’s legal counsel did everything she could to keep the document from coming into evidence. Why?”

Many of us know the answer to that question.

But too many others don’t care enough to even consider the question.

Judge Napolitano: “Obama Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism”.

*Source: Info Wars

“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 6, 2012

Constitutional expert Judge Andrew Napolitano says he fears that the president is skirting “dangerously close to totalitarianism” with his recent questioning of the authority of the Supreme Court to conduct a review of ObamaCare.

Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday, the Judge warned that Obama was systematically flouting the system of checks and balances established by the founding fathers.

“A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.” Napolitano said.

“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”

“I think he has some problems with understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power.” the Judge added.

During a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden in February, Obama said “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” adding “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”

Earlier this week Obama appeared to challenge the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take an “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his health reform law.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

The president then stated “…for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said. “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

In essence, Obama appears to be making the case that the Constitution is outdated because it allows for “an unelected group of people” to make judicial decisions.

Judge Napolitano points out that this is an extreme view for anyone to take, let alone a president.

“There are equal branches of the government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.” Napolitano noted.

“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”

“This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson.” The Judge urged.

Watch the video below:

John 3:16 Valentine's Day Messages Confiscated by Elementary School

*Source: Christian Post

The American Center for Law and Justice has come to the defense of a Wisconsin mother, Melissa Wolf, whose child was told by his elementary school that he couldn't distribute Christian-themed messages to his classmates as a part of Valentine's Day.

"Essentially, a student has a right to free speech unless that speech is substantially disruptive to the school ... There's no way that distributing John 3:16 is disruptive to school operations in any way, shape or form," David French, the ACLJ attorney who is representing the boy's mother, told The Christian Post on Monday.

The ACLJ is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on defending "religious and constitutional freedoms," according to the group's website.

Second-grader Dexter Thielhelm, a student at James Madison Elementary School in Sheboygan, Wis., was sent to school on Valentine's Day with homemade valentines to pass out to his classmates. Each valentine consisted of a plastic water bottle that was filled with heart-shaped candy and came with a note that said "Jesus Loves You" and had the text of John 3:16 printed on it.

According to a letter sent from the ACLJ to the Sheboygan Area School District on Feb. 17, a teacher notified the school's principal, Matthew Driscoll, when Thielhelm began distributing the religious messages. Driscoll said the religious note had to be removed from each valentine before Thielhelm could continue giving them out.

The school district is arguing that students and parents should have been notified before any religious materials were distributed, giving them the ability to opt out of receiving any unwanted material.

"There was no prior notice to the school district or parents that a direct religious message would be presented to students," Joseph Sheehan, the district's superintendent, said in a written statement obtained by the Sheboygan Press. "Accordingly, there was no opportunity to request parent authorization for students to accept or refuse to accept the message, which forced the district to take this action."

But French says the U.S. Constitution protects the free speech rights of Thielhelm as long as he is not being disruptive, and the school is not required to give parents and students the chance to "opt out" of materials being distributed by a student.

"This is student's free speech. The opt-out provisions usually apply when you're talking about a school program, not the student's free speech," said French.

"The fact that it was religious is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. It's not like religious speech by a private citizen is any more suspect, or is any less protected, than any other form of speech."

Sheehan told the Sheboygan Press that the school district is now working with the Wisconsin Association of School Boards to develop a new policy on the distribution of religious materials in the district's schools.

The Green Bay Press Gazette reports that Wolf has two other children who attend James Madison Elementary, and their valentines were also confiscated by the school. She also has another son who attends one of the school district's charter schools, Lake Country Academy, but was able to pass out identical valentines to his classmates without any such problems.

French says the school board needs to acknowledge Thielhelm's free speech rights, and allow the boy and other students to distribute religious messages as long as they are not being disruptive.

"People need to understand that religious speech isn't second-class speech," French asserted.

Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states

Source: WND

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend he was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.