Have you ever asked the question, “Why do so many people bend, break, and/or ignore the law?”
The comment on Philip Berg’s site, the attorney who brought the first action against Obama in Berg v Obama, if true, indicates that the number of people bending, breaking and/or ignoring the law exceeds my wildest expectations and goes to the highest levels of our Republic.
written by larry, January 25, 2009
I am a retired (25) police officer and spent 26 years in the United States Air force as a MSGT in charge of Training for the 482 Security Police Squadron. Was in Vietnam and also served in the Gulf War. For the last year I have been watching this site on a daily basis not believing that Barack Hussein Obama has become our president. I coach a High School softball team and everyone of my players had to produce a birth certificate to be eligible to play through the state. I hate to say this, but we in a total crisis and something will happen if this man is allowed to continue to lead this once proud nation. I have never posted before but know many FBI, Secret Service Agents, CIA and many other Federal Agents who have told me they are not to discuss this issue about Obama or they will be terminated from employment. We all need to take a step back and pray that something will come out on all of these lawsuits. I spoke to the Supreme Court Justice in my state who advised that the US Supreme Court have been ordered to throw out any case that deal with the fraud President elect. May God Help us All (Emphasis added and typos corrected)
The jest of the Respect article is that “it comes down to a pervasive belief (on some level) that many of our laws are not reasonably related to the protection of our society”.
…Instead of developing only laws that address conduct that has the potential of harming others in our society, we develop laws that tell the individual adult that he or she cannot consider a decision they are facing, together with its possible consequences and then choose to live with those consequences.
As stated by George Orwell, “On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”
As a result, the consequences (if you will) are that many adults will decide to do the thing they are considering (even if it is illegal) and take the risk. And from that very act, one loses a certain degree of respect for the sanctity of all laws and may become more likely to shrug their shoulders when they see someone else violating some other law(s) that could be construed as an unreasonable infringement on free choice. The individual might also feel the need to cover up his/her indiscretion. (Maybe by lying on applications to licensing boards, lying on tax returns, doing favors of position to others to attempt to cover up, lying to the courts, etc.)…
… And it is always important to remember that children are watching parents violate the law and will learn that they too should be able to pick and choose which laws they are willing to follow.
We definitely need laws that restrict individual conduct for the health and protection of society. However, such laws need to have a direct relationship to a clearly articulable danger to others or society; and have the ability of reducing that danger….
The perfect example of the phenomenon of loss of respect for the sanctity of the law is (the Obama selection for Secretary of the U. S. Treasury) Timothy Geithner’s blatant failure to pay his taxes. Then later in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid’s downplaying the importance of such a failure to pay taxes as an innocent mistake. Really? I don’t think so. What it really is - is reflective of today’s world of situational ethics.
So, does the Constitutional requirement that anyone serving as the President of the United States must be a “Natural Born Citizen” meet the test suggested in the Respect article? Every law should only ‘address conduct that has the potential of harming others in our society’. I believe that it clearly does. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that whoever was President would not have even the possibility of divided allegiance, or in other words “a conflict of interest”. If the President is or was a citizen of say Indonesia, Kenya, or the United Kingdom as Obama may be, would that person be able to make decisions in the best interest of the U.S. when those interests are in opposition to the interests of one of these countries?
Would such a President be inclined to utilize more of U.S. tax dollars to benefit these counties? Would such a President use force against these countries if circumstances demanded it? The ‘others’ potentially harmed in our society would taxpayers and our military personnel.
So what has happened regarding the legal challenges thus far? The courts have refused to look at the merits of any of the allegations against Obama. They have been relying on legal fictions such as “standing” as their rational for choosing not to hear the cases. Standing is a legal term that basically says that only parties with a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation can bring the action. This makes sense but seems fairly subjective and capable of abuse by the courts.
Nevertheless, we should all be closely watching the cases coming up that have as plaintiffs -people with connections to the military, candidates in the 2008 Elections, and Electors of the Electoral College. (See Hollister v Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Keyes v Obama, Broe v Reed, et. al.) It seems very clear that either of these types of plaintiffs would be able to overcome the courts’ reliance on the lack of standing argument to hide from addressing the underlying issues. If these plaintiffs are denied a hearing on the merits of their allegations based upon lack of standing; then regrettably, it may well be the case that there is no justice or equal protection under the America legal system. American’s justice is most likely for sale to the highest bidder.
With that being said, one of the remaining possibilities that may sway a court to look at the evidence of Obama’s ineligibility (if the court has any sense of right and wrong) could be a case with criminal charges involved. Such a case might be one where a courageous man or woman on active duty in the military refuses to follow one of Obama’s orders as Commander in Chief because of their reasonable belief that an ineligible President’s orders are unlawful.
Lawful orders are lawful orders and unlawful orders are unlawful! How can anyone serving as President who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” issue any lawful orders?
Another possibility could be the case where a criminal defendant is charged with something under a law signed by an ineligible President. Such a law should be of no legal effect and the defendant should walk.
The accusations reflected in the above comment that the people who America counts on to protect the Constitution and the rule of law (judges, FBI, etc.) are turning a blind eye or are being intimidated by their superiors and that the outcomes of all of these cases are predetermined are deeply troubling. If this is true, then how can anyone have respect for our laws and government?
Chief Justice Roberts, you must not allow America’s highest and most precious ideas, equal protection under the law and the notion that justice is blind, to be trampled on and tarnished by the possibility that Obama’s ineligibility could cause a fair amount of grief in our streets. The possibility that a majority Americans could lose faith in ‘the rule of law’ would have much worse consequences. You are the keeper of the fabric that holds America together, its sense of fair play and equal protection under the law!
To quote again from Respect regarding a person who chooses to violate a law:
…And from that very act, one loses a certain degree of respect for the sanctity of all laws…
Please don’t let the ‘one’ referred to be Chief Justice Roberts, because if you lose your respect for the sanctity of the law, America will be lost on her path.
All people are asking for is conclusive proof that Obama is eligible (or not) to serve as President.
America could live with either result if it is honestly and fairly determined.
__________________
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment. Michael Badnarik
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Homeland Security Department still is requiring high-level approval before federal immigration agents can arrest fugitives, a rule quietly imposed by the Bush administration days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt has been living in the United States illegally.
The unusual directive from the Homeland Security Department came amid concerns that such arrests might generate "negative media or congressional interest," according to a newly disclosed federal document obtained by The Associated Press.
The directive makes clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, who at the time was living in public housing in Boston. She is now believed to be living in Cleveland.
A copy of the directive, "Fugitive Case File Vetting Prior to Arrest," was released to the AP just over two months after it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. It does not mention President Obama or any members of his extended family.
The directive is still in place, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Kelly Nantel told the AP. It originally was distributed Oct. 31 by e-mail to immigration officers by an assistant director at the agency. Obama was elected president five days later. Nantel said the directive called for close supervision over any cases that could be high profile. She said it was not specific to Obama's relatives.
The White House said late Sunday that Obama "has not contacted any government agency regarding Ms. Onyango's case, nor has any representative of the president." It said Obama's administration wasn't briefed on why the directive was issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and will consider whether to overturn it.
SNIP
__________________
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment. Michael Badnarik
YES, excellent ... George might just have set Barry up
In office for a week, and the FOIA is already making it seem that this administration should have said ... Everything will be opaque.
Transparency leads to further questions !!
Do not question the chosen one
It's kind of strange that our own government set conditions so no one in the lower ranks could question Obama's Illegal Alien Aunt, and stated "concerns that such arrests might generate "negative media or congressional interest" as justification.
WTF does this mean ?? ... They did not want people of influence to question Obama's Aunt
__________________
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment. Michael Badnarik
Linear Mode
