Everything that’s wrong with the Obama administration summed up in two quick quotes

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
There's a new SCOTUS suit you want and need to know about...case 09-6777. I'll win and when I do? YOU CAN SUE SITTING OFFICERS FOR LIABILITY THUS DISSOLVE THEM AS THE US DEFAULTED VIA FAILING TO RESPOND TO A PRIOR SCOTUS SUIT ON 11/05/08, the day after the election, lol. That's not as funny as the Solicitor General waiving every citizen's interest in the Constitution and every citizen's Constitutional rights on April 1st, 2008 when I first filed thus he later could not respond as the only response possible then is GUILTY! As ignorance is not an excuse how do you not know you have an acting, legal President of original jurisdiction, me, Susan? A constitutionally set President? Think people: In what kind of case is it impossible for the illegally sitting US government to respond and if it does fail to respond thus defaults may a Chief Justice then circumvent the US completely via acting to address the default w/o ever getting any response as he did on 11/20/08? If that happens - if a Chief Justice STANDS ASIDE a petitioner thus The People - you have a new President as that's the only way it can and may happen...as the case is a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction. It's a citizen checking and balancing the Chief Justice and SCOTUS via invocation of chain of command! It makes the plaintiff or petitioner who is both victim and counsel THE constitutional authority, the legal President:

It's foreign if it is not related to the Constitution our Founders authored and then lived out as real. You can be a foreign body of government but be born here as running around calling yourself American does not make it so any more than calling yourself natural born makes it so. As We The People ARE the government we are to take government in our hands but not the law. "Government" is the seats, the offices and institutions...if you know then you act with or without a court order as that is what a natural born American does. Marshall said you need not wait on any paper as you already have the only paper that counts – The Declaration, The Constitution and Marbury V Madison itself! Read on:

Susan Herbert V Barack Obama, John Roberts, Frank Hull And The US has been filed and docketed within the Supreme Court; it is case number 09-6777. Frank Hull is the Federal Appellate judge who issued a ruling ordering the federal court clerks to unfile documents and return them to me unfiled which is evidence tampering, obstruction of justice and in this case treason. As Frank Hull then was ordering the clerk to unfile the Declaration and Constitution – the one our Founders wrote not the made up post 1871 Constitution – and remove it from the courthouse it then rises to treason. [I]The federal clerks did not obey this criminal order. [/I]

This case is the case to restore our original government, the original documents and the original government the Founders then lived out...it restores the constitutionally set government known as We The People in lieu of all this post Civil War nonsense – dead paper such as the DC Organic Act of 1871, the IMF, Resolution 511 and exclusionary court rules that judges invoke against the pro se nonlawyer etc. etc. - that is all unconstitutional. It makes it possible to exercise your rights of liberty, dissolution and safety. It makes every citizen sovereign...it also does away with the Federal Reserve as it is wholly unconstitutional and it was nullified by a jury in 1968 and does away with Federal Income Tax as you may not tax what is a right and as We The People check SCOTUS.

In case you do not yet understand: SCOTUS is organic to the constitutionally set government known as We The People not the paper! It answers to The People only not to any other branch. In 1790 a violation of separation of power occurred that has never been addressed as SCOTUS’ jurisprudence has never been adjudicated so I’m doing it. At Marbury we secured a do-over with SCOTUS but not one nonlawyer was ever allowed entry to the bar until I was on 11/20/08...I entered directly and forced direct action and the Chief Justice obeyed an Executive Order I issued thus stood aside We The People. I needed and wanted him to create the only paper birth certificate that rises to proof that a citizen is natural born: The SCOTUS docket naming me as both victim and pro se counsel and with the word DENIED on it. If your legal argument is that We The People have been denied justice absolutely and that even SCOTUS came to violate the Constitution then SCOTUS must write DENIED thus concurring. If they write granted? You have no case! DENIED allowed me to go back and name John Roberts exactly thus leveling the playing field as upon re-entry to SCOTUS the case then becomes all pro se litigants against those who are not: Susan and Roberts V Obama and the US, Corp US that is. John Roberts and I are equivalent legal authorities that now represent We The People meaning: Susan Herbert not Barack Obama is the acting, legal President and Commander of the US government, The People. The military already sided with me as about ten years ago the Joint Chiefs issued a statement that they would support the person who was able to restore the original jurisdiction government. They were contacted again; I highly doubt they will inform John Roberts and I that they are no longer wiling to enforce the Constitution.

As this is the case for YOU? The biggest thing you can do to help yourself is publicize that this case has been docketed in order to put pressure on the media and Congress...the reason the other branches do not want it heard is ALL OF THEM THEN WILL HAVE TO GO HOME AND/OR GO TO JAIL. The media keeps pretending that history did not happen, as privateers who will also be affected by the case own the media. They can’t ignore what The People do not ignore; if The People make a fuss they will have to get in line with me and Roberts thus the law.

So you know: I even went so far as to challenge Sotomayor’s recent unconstitutional appointment. She cannot rule in this case and may not sit after I am heard depending upon her actions. This then means one of two things: SCOTUS can tie it thus throwing the decision to you or Roberts can rule all alone a la Marshall thus supporting the Executive Order I issued against Obama.

Oh - as Obama sat and as he claimed to be an expert, a constitutional law professor? His actions are criminal but first and foremost he has to appear pro se as the oath of Office is I WILL not My Lawyer Will. He says he can so let's see if he can as I happen to know you can swear to do the impossible, what only The Creator can do, but it won't ever happen unless you actually are The Creator, lol. I'm giving him an equal opportunity to prove or disprove himself exactly as I did Clinton and Bush Jr. Roberts and I are equals acting pro se so he too must act pro se. If he does not he is entering a plea of no contest and as the US is in default and has been since 11/05/08? As the US failed to respond at all? He has to appear; you elected him to represent you not the Solicitor General. Plus: The Bill of Rights says I, Susan, do not need to convene a grand jury in his case!

From the actual petition:

I practice or live what I teach, US law: As further proof we are no longer a Constitutional Republic and are paying what is tribute Obama is now acting to investigate the CIA as he said his administration would be the most transparent but then he promptly acted to hide his facts by hiding his paper thus everyone but Obama is being made transparent or is subject to Obama’s arbitrary enforcement of the law. He is violating the equal protection clauses as if SCOTUS, the CIA and Susan must obey the letter and the spirit of the law so must he but he does not. He is arbitrarily picking and choosing what he will live out and what he will enforce. Proof is he first said he would not investigate the activities of the CIA but then acted to do it. That then is arbitrary, it is conditional, and as no other condition changed Obama then is the condition that changes and there is nothing lawful or equal and due about it. Obama changed his mind and upon what only he knows as our Constitution did not change nor did new case law arise nor do we have a new CIA director since he installed himself as the Executive and appointed one. The chief law enforcement officer enforces the law, period. He applies it to everyone including himself. Ideally he never violates it. But Obama has not once lived up to the letter or the spirit of our Constitution or so I truly believe and he falsely claims that he is an innocent victim of crime. Thus: I never need to see a single paper to then prove Obama is not the acting, legal constitutionally named or set President and Commander as I have what our Founders gave me: life. Plus the paper trail exists and I already entered it as Obama and CORP US hid the wrong paper. I previously stated that they failed to hide Resolution 511; I now state that they failed to hide the Declaration, Constitution and Marbury as well as Bush V Gore, the SCOTUS docket dated 11/05/08 & 11/20/08 with my name only upon it as both the victim and pro se counsel, several SCOTUS rulings that set federal precedent, the text of the missing 13th Amendment, the dates on the IMF/UN legislation, the UN Treaty, the Albany County Police report dated JUNE of 98, the Albany County Court record dated JULY of 98, the Philadelphia County Court record dated DECEMBER of 2000, the Middle District of FL court record dated APRIL 4, 2007, the Middle District of FL court RULING & ORDER dated JANUARY 20th & 21st, 2009 and the Federal Reserve as it is named on the paper being passed off as US dollars when they are not: Our money reads FEDERAL RESERVE, a private concern, and NOTE. I exactly entered a picture of a $500 NOTE as an attachment to my acted upon emergency application that has John Marshall on it; he would turn over in his grave if he knew he was pictured on a foreign note passed off as constitutional when it is not! I believe this was also entered to lower federal court. My fact is Obama and CORP US did not manage to hide one single piece of paper evidence that rises to proof. The paper they hid never rises to proof thus I never need to see it. Obama and his lawyer, Bob Bauer, can keep Obama’s birth certificate, passport and college records to themselves for all eternity as what he has to do is give birth to a record that he does not have the human ability to forge: He would have to change the exact words of our Declaration of Independence. The Constitution provides for no method of amending the Declaration. Neither does Marbury. Even the whole of SCOTUS, the Chief Justice himself and the President all working together and with every resource at their disposal cannot amend the Declaration as we won the Revolution or so I allege. This Writ needs to be granted so I can teach Americans what constitutes proof and what does not and so they learn that no piece of paper ever actually proves a thing about who and what you are or who and what we are as a nation. We The People serve – live - to be or become proof of the paper!




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
And:

As other judges have begun blaming SCOTUS exactly for their actions? So have members of Congress only Congress has gone one further: Granting constitutional authority to make believe, fantasy officers. They are also stating as fact that they know what is said when SCOTUS meets to discuss cases as in how they voted. Also if you merely lived here for 14 years you are natural born. YES, if you lived here in 1763 or 1777 as you left off [I]at the time the Constitution was adopted[/I]. That would make you natural born as you were actually present when the actual Constitution both paper and People was actually naturally born, when it sprang from the minds of our Founders one of which you then are: Thus you are natural born. From a letter authored by [B]Anders Crenshaw[/B], my Rep, in response to why he is not addressing Obama and why he did not address the candidates on the ballot: “According to Article II of the Constitution, the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President include: 1) natural born citizenship; 2) 35 years of age, and 3) 14 years of residency in the United States. Concerned citizens have questioned whether President-elect Obama meets these minimum qualifications, and some have brought legal challenges attempting to prevent him from assuming the office based on his place of birth. However, these legal challenges to the President's citizenship have been dismissed in several states, and the Supreme Court overwhelmingly decided that it would not issue a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal of each dismissal. In addition, Hawaii's Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics examined and certified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate following an investigation by his office. The document has also been reviewed and deemed authentic by experts at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.” Policy??? Not Law? I reasoned: ‘I have new evidence. A Rep wrote and said he knew as fact and law Obama is qualified as A COLLEGE TOLD HIM SO. Not the one Obama went to either. It’s actually a matter of policy, Crenshaw’s personal policy. He is convinced we will believe his fact is the Constitution does not apply to himself or to Obama or even to SCOTUS, lol. Since WHEN is the word of a college via it’s Policy Center then constitutional authority??? We do not ask colleges to reason our application of the law precisely as they are not the constitutional authority. Why pay the Justices if colleges will tell me for free what the Constitution DOES NOT SAY as no where is “Health Director”, “Head Of Vital Statistics”, "UNIVERSITY" or "PHILANTHROPIC THINK TANK ASSOCIATED WITH A COLLEGE, THE WEALTHY AND MAYBE A POLITICAL PARTY" named? As nowhere is “PAPER” or “Birth certificate” named? I got a birth certificate for ya: The SCOTUS docket with my name on it pro se proving direct action took place as I directly acted to create that. I gave natural birth to it as I moved the Court to then directly act with my fact and my reasoning or knowledge and my application of the law. I proved ownership. Why pay the Rep as the Constitution and US case law is published at no cost all over the place? You’d think a Rep would act as if he is a constitutional authority not ask someone else who is not named unlike him as “Representative” is exactly named. So are the concerned citizens as “The People” are exactly named as well. A Rep, my Rep, reasoned his violation of the Constitution by citing “SUPREME COURT” exactly as the cause or reason, he names that first, and then claiming he knows the vote, as it was exactly “overwhelmingly” against The “concerned” People, the actual equal authority who have an interest and a right. SCOTUS as it exists today is not exactly named as a constitutional authority as the actual first constitutional authority, Crenshaw’s actual first cause, The People, created it ex post facto via the named Constitutional process – redress in a court of law - thus LENT THEIR CONSCIOUS AWARENESS or AUTHORITY to SCOTUS. The People not the paper empowered SCOTUS and still do. SCOTUS never acts against the citizens as that then is acting against the Constitution! Against their own selves!!! Who does that??? Who harms their own self??? Who violates their own right of safety??? We negotiate a lot of things but not the Constitution!!! So WHO does negotiate it against our will? I can’t name one Justice who is nuts and/or power hungry. I’ve met these people on paper; we have a relationship, the Constitution, so as we are related I know. Like the judges in my case and in the cases of other nonlawyer pro se litigants SCOTUS is his named excuse; SCOTUS is now the default excuse of oligarchs.’ That’s what I reasoned but I wrote back: ‘SCOTUS is not the cause. That’s not why you refuse to obey the Constitution or abide by the oath you swore. I would know as I’m IN RE SUSAN HERBERT and I live in your district. The authority, the citizens, has made a simple mistake and one they would make as you are the cause of it: They asked to see Obama’s paper as if that paper is the authority or as if they do not trust SCOTUS thus they do not own the knowledge of the Constitution or US case law...John Marshall said your action is the proof that you own the knowledge or the truth of the Constitution thus delivery or filing of the paper need not occur. He ruled as we are a living government of people then PEOPLE ACTING IS THE PROOF NOT THE PAPER. This is for anyone who does not understand why SCOTUS is so hesitant to hear a case asking Obama to produce his paper. 1, Paper is never absolute proof in any actual Constitutional nation as people or life is proof. You can't trust paper especially if a crook is producing it! The crook has will and liberty but the paper does not thus you cannot ask the paper if it was forged as it can’t answer thus can’t be questioned – you can’t charge a piece of paper with fraud thus why would you ever suspect it? - and you can't trust whatever the crook tells you. Well, you can but you shouldn’t. Trust is an emotion. Trust is for people not paper. I trust myself, The Creator and the signers who embodied the law not the paper copy and not you, Crenshaw. My fact? I never yet met a Rep I do trust. 2, Obama then can refuse to obey a Justice as a Justice cannot mount an argument back or against him thus a citizen must. The citizens protect the Justices and so SCOTUS thus the Constitution. Usually they enforce SCOTUS rulings by living them out as real but a citizen might have to defend an employee of SCOTUS or the institution itself from you or another crook. What if Obama refuses to obey an order of SCOTUS aka The People but yet still sits? What if no named 'authority' charged with the duty acts to make Obama or Biden or any of these persons comply with the Constitution? Obama would not be refusing to obey SCOTUS but the Constitution aka The People. THE authority. That's dangerous as it sets a dangerous precedent for the crooks: it tells the crooks they can do whatever they wish w/o consequence. 3, If people acting is the proof? All you can and may do then is act pro se thus leveling the playing field as Obama then has to do the same thing - enter his legal argument pro se or in person w/o a hired gun as the oath of Office says I WILL. Thus you'll soon know who is or is not the constitutionally set President; you'll know who is or is not qualified to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution aka We The People. The proof, the actual President who is a natural born American citizen will rise and you can then compare that person to Obama and both to what the Constitution and US case law states; you weigh the evidence and assign greatest weight in light of the burden of proof standard thus you know. You own the knowledge or the truth of the Constitution thus your own self: are you acting as you wrote the letter and you voted constitutionally or unconstitutionally? Trust me, as you can and may: You’ll forever know what natural born is or is not. See ya in court!’

And also Gun Control:

“You are never to take the law into your own hands but the Founders said you most definitely are to take the government into your own hands, as you are the government. Grant this Writ so I can then teach The People that taking the law into your hands makes you a victimizer or worse a criminal exactly like those who injured you; taking the government into your own hands makes you a victim who has triumphed over your oppressors the lesson being: In America there is no such thing as an actual victim only a legal one. “Victim” is a legal designation; it is not reality until or unless you begin to truly believe you are one. If SCOTUS fails you and The People? Take government into your own hands: Declare yourself Chief Justice, post public notice of your appointment and confirmation and name a place where The People can access you and so the court. Trust me as you can: If a plaintiff sues me but goes to your court, you, and not the other SCOTUS headed by Roberts? As long as you establish you were denied justice by the other SCOTUS thus you then are the Chief Justice I’ll argue my defense in front of you. That’s how you take government into your own hands: you empower yourself first by making the reasoned decision basing it upon your life, the Constitution and US case law - fact and law - and then act upon it by doing something, you take action, and so you then lend that power via conscious awareness to another. If you act to post notice of you having become the Chief Justice? When I read it I am consciously aware we may have a new Chief Justice thus I then have the human ability to go to you and find out for myself. I can and may enter a petition to you as I have one criteria at this point: I know you’re constitutional if you have a gun as you have proven you have the means to enforce your own rulings. You thus we can and may execute chain of command theory. Ideally you won’t need a gun for long. Even more ideally once everyone is aware that they own all actual power upon reading this very petition the crooks will start volunteering to leave as SCOTUS recently ruled for us albeit roundaboutly: Guns, guns and more guns. US case law now is we can and may not only shoot in theory post the fact of the Revolution but we may first own the necessary constitutional element: A gun, and even if you live right next door to Congress. SCOTUS ruled against the Executive, Judiciary and Congress and for The People. Buying a gun is taking government into your own hands; shooting it before I am heard in person in SCOTUS? Before I issue the order? Before you own the knowledge it is now absolutely necessary to shoot? That is taking law into your own hands. This is why McVeigh, Nichols and all like them are criminals not patriots: none of them accessed SCOTUS. The People need to learn the difference as “government” and “law” are not the same things and if The People confuse them then they have confused perceived power for actual power."

GUN is a necessary institution of government; it is not possible to execute the contract known as The Declaration and The Constitution without one! Gun control then is an impossible standard; it is an impossible condition for you to meet. But first you have to be willing to shoot and so as accountability and responsibility is inherent or implied in The Constitution and exactly worded in Marbury but first exactly worded in The Declaration as we have pledged our very lives upon it, and as the Revolution is federal precedent or US case law, The Revolution is a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction, any gun owner who is acting in accordance with the Constitution would then be a responsible gun owner by his very nature. If you go to a gun store or gun show or answer an ad and buy a gun your action then is the evidence that suggests you are constitutional as you are doing it in the open. You cannot prove your case that you are constitutional as is your gun, until or unless you first own one, duh. You own it and you use it and so I then know as you are the proof. Unless I possess evidence suggesting you are a criminal like a prior jury conviction or a confession such as you tell me with your own mouth that you are securing the gun to then rob a store, I may not stop you from owning that gun or using it as you see fit as nothing exists to suggest you will use it to commit a crime but only to execute US law. The rule of law is I am to believe your testimony and you are innocent. Gun control is a joke and a crime itself. It's repugnant! It's automatically void; no court order is necessary as anything repugnant is automatically null and voided by you yourself once you own the knowledge. Switzerland and Gun control advocates should quit now, while they are ahead, before they are publicly humiliated by my legal argument.

The whole petition is online as I asked SCOTUS to adjudicate one question and then let The People govern themselves. My audience is The People not judges and politicians who are lawyers and so know the law but violate it regardless. It’s not supposed to sound as if a lawyer wrote it. It sounds as it does for constitutional reasoning!

Again: What you can do to help yourself as this case is mounted on behalf of YOU is to publicize it as the media refuses to do so and the other branches do not want it heard as then they will be the first people to go. You must begin to demand that it be heard in person so you become sovereign. If The People protest loudly enough SCOTUS will hear it in person as they will know they have the support of The People. My goal is to create a situation whereby you are able to exercise actual liberty for the first time in your life thus own the knowledge of what liberty feels like and so is...liberty is an emotion and physical sensation you experience...it is actual energy; liberty is realized as justice...you're supposed to be feeding on this constantly if you're American and if you are living out the government our original Founders created and intended for us. This suit is meant to end rule by egomaniacs, lawyers and businessmen and institute rule by scientists and philosophers - YOU - as if your nation is a living philosophy of politics then The People are the scientists conducting the experiment and evaluating the results and The People are the very philosophers James Madison said should decide the issues via a constitutional convention. Jefferson could never get Madison to understand this in their day, as back then Madison believed the elected persons were the philosophers who should decide the issues but Madison never had to deal with Incorporated US, did he? Jefferson truly believed all authority belonged to The People and so The People hold such a convention... I always knew the way to do that is via SCOTUS with a pro se constitutional authority case as then you are making your case directly to The People as SCOTUS is of us, for us and by us and not of any other branch, exactly like the military is an all volunteer civilian force commanded by a civilian. Besides: WHO wants to keep paying income tax???

Reason #50 to Grant this Writ: Federal income taxes: Grant this Writ so they are then made just as even if we turn tribute back into just taxes how taxes are currently levied is not constitutional, as our Founders never intended People or a right to be taxed and as today the burden is placed almost exclusively on the middle income classes. The very poorest and wealthiest people do not pay taxes. Upper income classes do not pay anything close to their fair share. Harlan was correct in Pollack but he missed something. We are supposed to develop the means or the reasoning. For instance if SCOTUS rules the current income tax is not constitutional? The government or The People are then to develop a plan that is legal. We still have to run this thing...Grant this Writ so I can toss this idea into the ring: Income from property and/or stock is not a burden, at least not all of it. Stick with me: I own a rental property. Any income derived from rent was not earned DIRECTLY by the sweat of my brow. The renters DIRECTLY earned it and then I INDIRECTLY ‘earned’ it as profit. I subtract my salary as property manager, my employees salaries and expenses for maintenance then the rest is taxed. Salaries and expenses are not taxable; anything else is. Stock? The GE employees directly earn or cause profit; I indirectly earn it via stock ownership. I might only own a few shares thus it is all taxed but it should be as I’m not expending any sweat to then take in the profit. A guy who owns millions of shares? He’s using stockbrokers and secretaries and money managers. He should be able to subtract their salaries as they do burden it. And if I know whatever I pay my employees is not going to the fed? I’m going to pay them more only to keep it from the fed. I’ll be overly generous, lol, as I want The People to have the power not the federal institutions. In 1913 or 1916 we may not have had any means to keep track of who owns what and who is claiming what but today technology makes tax levied this way feasible as we can account for it. The problem before was tracking the money and then apportioning it as indirect taxes are apportioned geographically. We had no way to apportion it. Today we do. We now have the Social Security index too and that did not exist then. Besides, it is up to The People to make their fellow citizens account for their actions. The People are not to be depending upon the IRS to baby-sit the wealthy. If I say I am worth ten billion it might be true, maybe I can prove it, but if Oprah Winfrey says she is worth ten billion we know it is not the truth as she only takes in so much and her net worth is not anything close to ten billion dollars (or so the media reports). The IRS should want to get an up close and personal look at a person claiming they are worth ten billion dollars and/or worth more than they are taking in. I truly believe we can revisit the federal income tax. Also: This then frees up a whole lot of money. Money is a symbol; money represents the energy The People expend. There’s only so much energy in the US. Contrary to what Congress would have you believe they cannot create energy thus violate the law of this universe as that is a power reserved to The Creator thus all of this create money to cover the cost of legislation is unconstitutional. “Minting” is not “Printing at will”. We will have more money thus more energy circulating. The People can then pay off their debts, as nobody is to escape paying them as they chose to enter those contracts. You pay the debt off and never enter those contracts again. The People can spend what they do have. Congress can’t spend what does not exist in this universe and what is not constitutional for them to take from us if The People are informed as The People (or the President) check SCOTUS not Congress. A ruling isn’t supposed to leave SCOTUS and go straight to Committee but this one did in 1909 and so it was made ‘law’ in less than a year (See the 1911 & 12 rush to ratify to then circumvent The People and see Appendix S re the 16th’s questionable legal status and see the 1912 Presidential election as it seems to have been engineered; at the very least a massive conflict existed). Nobody checked Pollack as the power to tax is derived from Art 1 Sec 8. If The People do not know they check SCOTUS they can’t. I have zero proof the 16th is constitutional but tons of proof it is not. I, Susan, do not work for CORP US and 16 says only federal employees are subject to the federal income tax, a fact the IRS takes great pains to avoid naming in any of its literature. I engaged the IRS and they violated the law. FL, PA and VA never took 16 up. Granting this Writ then is an actual stimulus package.

I accused the bar associations and law schools of treason, sedition, subversive activities, violating RICO in an attempt to keep me from testifying before SCOTUS in person aka to prevent me from acting as a federal witness and of price fixing. All lawyers have unclean hands!

Lastly in case you never thought of it: Titles of nobility? I’m addressing that as once I prove Obama is a foreigner then any federal agent who accepted and cashed a paycheck then violated this clause...if I successfully restore the missing 13th Amendment then every sitting federal officer gave up his or her citizenship by doing so.


Susan, the acting, legal President and Commander of original jurisdiction as I am, even if you refuse to believe the Constitution (or the SCOTUS docket).



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Daddy always said you can tell a lot about a man from the friends he keeps.

Dear God, we're in trouble.

And that a man will be known for how he spends his time.

Chasing the Olympics, an international apology tour, SEIU crease smooching sessions, labor union paybacks for his election, and crushing what's left of capitalism and production that fueled the US economy.

Quite a resume.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
i think obama has confidence in this general to do his job, and didn't 60 minutes show the general on conference calls with the joint chiefs? plus, obama gets a briefing every morning, so...what's your beef???


So this is how POTUS shows "confidence?"

Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan



The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Of course, it takes foreign press to describe OUR President's relationship with his military strategists.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 5-10-2009 by jdub297]





new topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join