The Arizona Sentinel

April 6, 2012

How many judges can obama buy off??

Filed under: Federal, My Posts, Sovereignty — Tags: — thearizonasentinel @ 7:02 pm

Two Obama Eligibility Cases Filed By Two Presidential Candidates 

at U.S. Supreme Court: One Set for Conference on April 20th

BACKGROUND: WASHINGTON D.C. – POTUS Write-In Candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley today(3/28/12) filed his Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Petition presents the Supreme Court with record evidence that: (i) Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, §1 of the Constitution and thus is ineligible to be President and (ii) that the “Certificates of Live Birth” released by Mr. Obama are in fact forgeries. Additionally, Sibley is filing a Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. By these documents, Sibley is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite the resolution of his Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court before the Honorable John D. Bates. Significantly, though eighty-five (85) days have passed since Sibley’s filing of the lawsuit on January 3, 2012, Judge Bates has refused to rule upon any of the pending matters in that suit.

Sibley’s filings procedurally forces the Supreme Court to declare whether they will take up the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President or allow the question to be relegated to a judicial process that would not reach the Supreme Court until well after the November 6, 2012, election, let alone before the September 3, 2012, Democratic Convention.

Sibley stated: “Obama’s eligibility to be President is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. I have properly invoked the federal statute which authorizes challenges to the eligibility of federal office holders and procedurally have now moved that question from the District Court through the Circuit Court of Appeals and now, with these filings, to the Supreme Court. If they deny my Petition to expedite resolution of the significant and fairly-posed question of Obama’s eligibility , it is a clear statement that they will refuse to allow that matter to be properly and promptly adjudicated. In that case, I fear “We the People” will have lost “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.”1 For if the Supreme Court will not take up the issue of whether the Government is being administered according to the rule of law, then the government is clearly being administered instead by the rule of whim and caprice.”

Sibley concluded: “Thus I call upon the Supreme Court to forthwith resolve this heretofore unresolved question: Is Barack Hussein Obama, II, eligible to be President of the United States?”

READ THE PETITION HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88294802/Montgomery-Sibley-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-United-States-Supreme-Court-3-28-2012

The second case filed at the Supreme Court is Judy v Obama/Kemp. Judy is one of the Georgia plaintiffs and a 2012 presidential candidate. Background on the Gerogia challenge here and here.

READ THE PETITION HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88295689/Judy-v-Obama-Kemp-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-U-S-Supreme-Court-4-5-2012

The Memo Bush and Co tried to destroy! Its time to cut the head off of the Snake, DC!!!!

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , , — thearizonasentinel @ 6:51 pm

New Bush-Era Torture Memo Released, Raises Questions About What Has Changed And What Hasn’t

Posted: 04/ 6/2012 3:40 pm

George W Bush Dick Cheney Torture

WASHINGTON — A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to “war crimes.” The memo’s release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn’t.

The Bush White House tried to destroy every copy of the memo, written by then-State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. Zelikow examined tactics like waterboarding — which simulates drowning — and concluded that there was no way they were legal, domestically or internationally.

“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here,” Zelikow wrote. The memo has been obtained by George Washington University’s National Security Archive and Wired’s Spencer Ackerman.

On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama formally disavowed torture, banning the types of techniques Zelikow had objected to so strongly in his memo.

But while Democrats are using the memo as evidence of a new post-torture era under Obama, human rights activists, civil libertarians and opponents of excessive secrecy say they see many ways in which the country’s moral compass is still askew — and in some ways even more so than before.

“If your baseline is the Bush years, it’s night and day,” said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. “If your baselines are a set of first principles, as the ACLU calls for, or as us openness advocates call for, then your situation is: Is the glass half full or the glass half empty?”

Obama has refused to pursue legal action against those who may have engaged in law-breaking under his predecessor’s watch — saying he prefers to “look forward instead of looking backward.” To some, this indicates there is little assurance that the U.S. won’t torture again in the future.

“The administration has clearly disavowed torture, and that is an important and welcome thing,” said Jameel Jaffer, a national security expert at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“But they’re steadily building a framework for impunity.”

When it comes to issues like warrantless surveillance, “continuity is the rule and not the exception and in fact in some very important areas this administration has gone even farther than the Bush Administration did,” Jaffer said.

Most alarming, says Jafeer, is the issue of the targeted killing of American citizens who are terrorism suspects.

Jaffer said the idea that the government can mark an American for death without any judicial oversight is something the framers of the Constitution “would have found totally foreign to the project they were engaged in.”

“I think there are many Democrats out there who are quiet because they trust President Obama,” Jaffer said. But, he added, “there’s no doubt that the power we’re giving President Obama will be available to a future president.”

Jaffer noted that another way things may be worse today than during the Bush era is that at least back then, many people thought things would change dramatically once Bush left office, and that his actions wouldn’t establish legal precedents.

“We didn’t worry so much about that because the Bush Administration was seen as an outlier and an aberration, and the Bush precedent wouldn’t have been seen as weighty,” Jaffer said. By contrast, “It’s not at all difficult to imagine [future presidents] citing President Obama in their defense of carrying out more targeted killings of American citizens.”

“Now we’re making many of these emergency powers permanent … and bipartisan. We’re enshrining these things into our permanent law.”

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, sees some good and some bad in terms of where the government stands on national security issues today. “The Obama Administration has made significant and substantial changes to counterterrorism policy as it relates to human rights and civil liberties — for example, in their detention policies and their recognition of the limits of military power and the importance of following traditional laws of war in an armed conflict,” she said.

And yet, she said: “The administration has done much less to fix the problems of too much surveillance, without enough good reasons, of too many people.”

Transparency about what the administration is doing and why “is mixed,” she said, with both “important disclosures and inexplicable withholdings.”

Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said he doesn’t think it is all Obama’s fault. He blames congressional Republicans for blocking Obama’s attempts to close the Guantanamo prison, for instance, and the intelligence agencies for much of the rest.

“The intelligence agencies are at the front of the resistance,” Blanton said. “They’re resisting accountability for what they themselves did.”

Ten months into Obama’s presidency, White House Counsel Greg Craig resigned, a move some saw as a purge and grim sign for any hope that the president would keep fighting on these issues. Craig is known to have advocated strongly for Obama to hold fast to the principles that he has espoused in regards to dealing with torture suspects — regardless of the immediate political consequences.

Where does that leave us? “I wouldn’t call us an outlaw nation,” Blanton said, “but I don’t think we’ve come to terms with our gang period.”

Also on HuffPost:

America , are you ready to lose another freedom, Restricted , travel by permission! Only in America!! I have to congradulate the two party system!!

Filed under: Border Security, My Posts, Sovereignty, State — Tags: , — thearizonasentinel @ 11:03 am

After Huge Ammo Buy, DHS Purchases Bullet Resistant Booths

Paul Joseph Watson

The Department of Homeland Security recently stoked concern by contracting a company to provide them with 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. Now the federal agency is also purchasing bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

A press release from Shelters Direct brags about how they are providing the DHS with bullet resistant guard booths. Images of the booth from the company’s website suggest the guard shacks will be used to control checkpoints.

“This guard building features a standing seam hip roof, a thru-wall HVAC unit, (2) UL 752 BR Level 3 sliding doors, UL 752 Bullet Resistant Level 3 glass and a Low]E coating. Other noticeable highlights of this prefabricated steel building include metal halide security lighting, decorative window grille frames, and a “Stop & Go” light with controls,” states the press release.

The purpose behind the bullet proof booths is unknown, but the DHS has publicly announced that it plans to increase the number of unannounced checkpoints manned by TSA VIPR teams and other federal agents beyond the 9300 that were set up last year alone.

The DHS’ Federal Protective Service stoked controversy in January when it set up a checkpoint and posted agents armed with semiautomatic guns outside a Social Security office in Florida.

The armed agents checked identifications of locals as part of Operation Shield, an unannounced drill centered around “detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities.”

Last week, defense contractor ATK announced that it had been awarded an “Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition” by the DHS.

The contract stipulated that ATK would provide Homeland Security with 450 million rounds of bullets over a five year period. The federal agency also purchased 200 million rounds of bullets back in 2009 and has an open bid for up to 175 million rounds of .233 caliber ammo.

As the American Dream blog pointed out, “The Department of Homeland Security is only supposed to be shooting at people very rarely. It simply does not make sense that they would need so much ammunition.”

With guns and ammo flying off the shelves at record levels due to fears that a second term in office for Obama could lead to a fresh assault on second amendment rights, the DHS may be attempting to head off any potential ammo shortage.

The feds are also seeking to arm hundreds of newly hired security guards tasked with protecting government buildings.

Some fear that the DHS is preparing for the threat of civil disorder or a crisis in Mexico that will lead to a mass migration of people across the southern border.

In December, DHS chief Janet Napolitano directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

frank p.

When someone says they want to end my existance

it cancels everything else they say.

I then do my best to cancel their existence since I was warned.

I’m just kinda funny that way….

The WordPress Classic Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Recent Items

Reading on an Extreme Budget

Scanned Retina Resource

http://scannedretina.com/

A Lawman Speaks for Liberty

Border and National Security, Private Property rights, Removing Federal agencies from the states,American Energy Policy, Constitutional Conservative

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers