Have our Armed Forces turned against us?

THE U.S. MILITARY COMMITS TREASON

The JAG Corps was founded by Gen. George Washington on July 29, 1775 and is the oldest "law firm" in the U.S.

Dear Editor:  The following letter was sent this evening in response to the ruling of Col. Denise R. Lind in the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who seeks to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief:

September 2, 2010

Adm. Michael Mullen
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC  20318-9999

An open letter to Admiral Mullen:

Admiral Mullen, this is not the outcome expected from a military organization led by a champion of apolitical neutrality, a champion who has frequently stated his love of country, the Constitution and his obligation to the people of the United States of America.

In my opinion, Admiral, in the court of public opinion, the Army has been tried in this matter by its own hand and found guilty.  Guilty of political bias!  Guilty of misprision of felony! And guilty of conduct unbecoming members of the U.S. military.

I see no clear-cut demonstration of the political neutrality to which you frequently refer, but what I do see is the failure of a military system to live up to the oath sworn to protect the Constitution and to honor those who have fallen serving their country in defense of the principles of the Constitution, which has been dishonored right here and now in front of us all.  I also see the blatant failure of the senior military command to live up to its stated commitments and obligation to the people of these United States.

But by far, aside from the greatest injustice and disappointment over this clearly politically-motivated decision, I see a deeply-rooted conflicted paradox.

We go to great extremes to provide Col. Lakin, this undisputed, highly-decorated military warrior, with the finest weapons of destruction so that he may protect himself on the field of battle. But on the field of American justice we deprive him of the basic tools with which to protect his honor.

At this moment I am deeply ashamed of your conduct, Admiral Mullen.  I feel as though you have dishonored the corps, let down all of those who serve under your command, and misled me as well as the rest of the people of this country.

Please read this.

From an item previously posted:

Admiral Mullen, will you honor your oath and, along with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, take the necessary steps to ensure that any and all orders from your “Commander-in-Chief” are, in fact, lawful orders from a Constitutionally-qualified and eligible person for that position, and, if not, also take the necessary steps to remove him from the chain of command? I and a desperately-awaiting nation are awaiting your response to this burning question:  Can any orders, Executive or Commands,  from an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief, be considered “Lawful Orders”?

There is more….

Even more…

Since it is apparent that the Army has no ability to effectively deal with such a political issue and the national security is at stake, it would seem urgent and essential that this matter be moved to a neutral, unbiased jurisdiction composed of disinterested public citizens, citizens convened as a citizens’ grand jury as guaranteed under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and a grand jury totally free of any influence or direction from a judicial system which has also proven itself incapable of administering constitutional ethical justice.

As I see the circumstances, only under these conditions can justice be served.  Anything less will constitute a violation of human and civil rights.

Arnie

68 Responses to "Have our Armed Forces turned against us?"

  1. HighlanderJuan   Sunday, September 5, 2010 at 6:12 AM

    @NeilBJ – there are strong and believable indications of widespread election fraud at both the national level and at the precinct level.

    Too many votes were cast:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23495809/Jon-Christian-Ryter-Forgot-the-Past-Here-apos-s-the-Future

    Fraud at the precinct level:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34325799/Fred-Dardick-Two-Articles

    So, you see, the people may not have truly elected Obama in 2008 by their votes.

    Regarding eligibility, as long as Obama’s father was a British subject, he will never qualify as a natural born citizen, and therefore will never be eligible to be POTUS, regardless of the people’s votes.

  2. AuntieMadder   Sunday, September 5, 2010 at 3:46 AM

    It started in the primaries.

    This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign…Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America…We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote…
    http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/index.htm

  3. AuntieMadder   Sunday, September 5, 2010 at 3:28 AM

    “If Obama were… a man of honor…” You’re too funny, Terence Brennan. And if frogs had wings…

  4. sk1951   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM

    He is funny but ya…I like it.

  5. sk1951   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

    He was validated.

  6. sk1951   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM

    Found a way? It is called usurpation by the courts. It is illegal what they are doing. Their claim is that NO ONE has standing. What a load of….

  7. sk1951   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:15 PM

    Honor? He uses the courts to sue states that are trying to protect themselves from invation.

  8. sk1951   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:14 PM

    “PROOF” of voter fraud. Why is this not making it to court? Make sure you read exibit 6 and 7
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/

  9. Terence Brennan   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM

    If Obama were a natural born citizen, and if he were a man of honor, he would stand by LTC Lakin’s defense and voluntarily prove his eligibility to be Commander in Chief. He would pardon Lakin. He would apologize to the nation, and to this soldier for putting him in this terrible position.

    Instead Obama daily proves himself to be a coward and self-serving fake.

    This so-called “Commander in Chief” would rather send his honorable soldier to prison for doubting him.

  10. Bob1943   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM

    Yep, something so obvious as Obama’s eligibility problems, several them actually, are spoken not at all by the lame stream media, including Fox, and talked about not at all by virtually all, if not all, of Congress.
    It’s as if they all know the only way to protect Obama from the hazard that would end his fake presidency is to speak of it not all…..too pretend it doesn’t exist.

    The Constitution, the rule of law, transparency, common sense and personal integrity all are tossed aside to protect the usurper president.

    Do they all believe that they are doing the right thing?

    Is it fear, or is it that they agree with the Obama regime, and are willing to do anything to keep the dismantling of America and the ignoring of her Constitution in progress?

    Waiting over 2 more years to maybe vote out someone who has no Constitutional right to be president seems like a bad option. We must keep up the pressure. We have the truth on our side….do not give up.

  11. Chance   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    Yes. And we must also keep Hilliary Clinton off the ballots. She is also a Marxist and proudly carried her communist card way back in the 80’s.

  12. NeilBJ   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 12:53 PM

    What makes me very uneasy, and I am not one who likes to advocate conspiracy theories, is the fact that without fail, everyone in a position to consider Obama’s Constitutional eligibility has found a way to avoid the issue.

    What is even more troublesome are the inane and childish reasons that judges have used to dismiss the legal challenges.

    His eligibility has been twittered on the Internet.

    It would be an embarrasement to Obama to have his records revealed.

    The voters have determined he is eligible by their vote.

    I am counting on the last best hope for resolving this issue, and that is the citizens in every state challenging his placement on the ballot in the 2012 elections.

  13. NeilBJ   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    I read this far in the McCain ariticle and quit.

    “Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.”

    That is exactly the controversy, whether mere birth on U.S. soil, independent of the status of the parents, makes one a natural born citizen.

    Yaser Hamdi, born on U.S. soil to Saudi parents and who later joined the Taliban, would technically be eligible for President (assuming he would also be able to meet the age and residency requirments). I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

  14. Al Tallant   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM

    Unfortunately, McCain belongs to the Bilederberg Group, so he is one of many-like Clinton;s, Geitner, Soros, and many others who are behind the push for “ONE WOLRD GOVERNMENT”

  15. Al Tallant   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM

    I agree with your idea of suing the book publishers-this would be another avenue that has not been tried. I aslso agree that Obama seemss to- so far- have the upper hand in lying to everyone.
    However, to correct one point, while I am not a big fan, of McCain’s, he did produce an authentic birth certificate at the same time Obama refused to do so. McCain is legitimate since both of his parents are U.S. citizens-UNLIKE OBAMA!

  16. HighlanderJuan   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM

    Regarding legal action between the federal government and the state governments:

    Under the Constitution itself at Article III, Section 2, we have the following statement:

    “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2)

    This treatment of the states by the Constitution as being of similar legal status of [foreign] ambassadors and public ministers, confirms Samuel Adams’ position that Congress is a body composed of ambassadors from the states of the Union. Retired attorney Publius Huldah notes that Hamilton, a dedicated Federalist, acknowledges this in Federalist Paper number 81 where he discusses the sovereign representatives:

    The Federalist No. 81 [Alexander Hamilton] – The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority

    “…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union.

    The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…” [Emphasis Added]

    Former ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes agrees, and makes the following additional points:

    “Why must sovereign entities [states] be dealt with only at the highest level of government? When dealing with foreign entities, such careful courtesy is intended to guard against misunderstandings or insults that, however slight in themselves, can be magnified by passion or calculation into costly confrontations, international incidents or war. Though the relatively permanent civil peace of the United States tempts us to forget it, the same threat lurks beneath the formal arrangements of civil government. In addition to respecting true principles of justice, the whole purpose of the statesmanship involved in the Constitution of the United States is to extenuate this threat by providing a framework for government that anticipates its usual causes and deals with them by peaceful means.”

    Such misunderstandings and insults were a precursor of our War of Independence and our War Between The States. Given this, and understanding that the federal government knows very clearly the Constitution and its controls about the ‘court of proper jurisdiction’ when dealing with the States, why has the federal government chosen to sue Arizona in a federal district court, rather than in SCOTUS, in its current dispute regarding protecting our country’s borders? Is this an attempt by the federal government to marginalize the power and sovereignty of the State of Arizona? Similarly, the question of why did the State of Virginia file its lawsuit against unconstitutional and forced federal medical insurance in the federal district court instead of filing it in SCOTUS – does Virginia not recognize its own supremacy?

  17. HighlanderJuan   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

    @meeko – the federal government produces no wealth – all federal money comes from the income producing states. The states are self sufficient by themselves (or should be).

    Which brings up another question about funding for the federal government. Since the states created the federal government, it is up to the states, not the people, to fund the federal programs. So why is the federal government allowed to directly tax the productive people in the states, and why do the states not prevent that from happening. Oh, you bring up the controversial and questionable Sixteenth Amendment. That same amendment that may not have actually received the required states passage, and which can be repealed by those same states?

    I think we are at a point whereby the productive states have to ask and answer the root question of whether or not they know best how to use their own resources and their own money, or whether a socialist central government, which holds the states in high disrespect, knows best how to spend the state’s money. I think I know how the people would respond. State government – TBD.

  18. A pen   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 8:47 AM

    The Supreme Court;

    “The characteristics of a “totalitarian dictatorship,” as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) are the existence of a single, dictatorial political party substantially identified with the government of the country in which it exists, the suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the subordination of the rights of the individual to the state, and the denial of fundamental rights and liberties characteristic of a representative form of government.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=1

  19. enoughalready   Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 7:29 AM

    This is disgusting. “Equal” justice for all…what a load of crap. You can’t get “justice” because one party might get ’embarrassed’. The fact that she would say that this was a congressional issue…Congress is elected by WE THE PEOPLE…we all have standing!!! Every judge who has thrown these cases out needs to be thrown out. This man is being denied due process and the right to defend himself. The Army should be defending him. What happened to their code of “leaving no man behind?”–they’ve abandoned Lakin. Obama is a usurper.

  20. thistle   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM

    Arnie….another great letter and another ‘Thank You!’ from my household. I (almost) had hope for Adm. Mullen when he came out last week and said that this national deficit was one of the worst things for our national security (my thoughts were, “has he finally awakened???”) but other than that, we have heard next to nothing from him or the others. It’s so hard to know where our Joint Chiefs of Staff really stand. Are they 100% behind Obama or are they keeping their thoughts hidden and just following orders? The silence on LTC Lakin kinda tells its own story I guess. I’m still in shock & extremely saddened over the ruling of Judge Lind. Thanks for another great letter Mr. Rosner.

  21. JeanWTPUSA   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 11:01 PM

    McCain will never get involved, he was not eligible to be POTUS either. He was born in a hospital in Panama, not on a military base in the Canal Zone. Google michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/mccain.pdf

    One option may to be to sue Obama and the publisher of Obama’s two books, “Dreams From My Father” and “Audacity of Hope” for fraud. Just Google James Frye, “A Million Little Pieces,”
    to find out what happens to big fat liars that sell books.

    Another avenue may be to figure out a way to sue Factcheck and Snopes for misleading the public, although I am not sure what laws would apply. Consumer fraud, influencing the outcome of an election, false advertisement…who knows.

    Further options may be to use the HI UIPA. I believe that the “vexatious requester” law is discriminatory, harassing and unconstitutional. There must be some HI statutes that applies.

    I do not think the cases currently in the Court system or the USMJ will be fruitful. We need a solid plan “B.” God bless everyone that is fighting hard and I pray for Ltc. Lakin, but I believe HE needs a better defense. Check out the latest article on the BirtherReport.com to see some recommendations.

  22. Bob1943   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    This guy has Glenn Beck pegged just right. Give this a look and listen, you’ll like it:

    http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=9648

  23. James   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    Does anyone have Denise R. Lind contact information: Email, phone, and mailing?

  24. MRR   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:29 PM

    Bob is right. McCain is hiding and he is part of the fraud in the first place. Also I hope that nobody forgets who is responsible for the fact that he was re-elected to the Senate. Palin.

  25. Bob   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

    RIGHT ON Kathy !!! McCain is gutless and hiding – what a disgrace is right. I tries this before, see Bob says: Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM

    Nobody in Government is listening, and are all co-conspirators. It will take another civil war to get us back on track.

  26. Publius Huldah   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

    Jim, I think the enlisted person is obligated to obey only “lawful” orders – s/he does not take an oath to obey the president.

    Yes, the officer’s oath is expressly to The Constitution alone – and the officer swears or affirms to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. “Domestic enemies” could include the president. The current president is an enemy of the Constitution. Can anyone contradict this? DO IT, IF YOU CAN!

    If the JAG judge indeed ruled as reported herein, she disgraced herself, and violated her Oath of Office. Coward. Oath breaker. Her Oath is to defend the Constitution from its domestic (and foreign) enemies, not to protect the president from “embarrassment”. That judge has an INDEPENDENT DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM PRETENDED PRESIDENTS who seek to destroy it and our Country. She may not properly shove that duty over to Congress. Otherwise, what is the purpose of her Oath? Is her Oath to defend the Constitution herself or is it to say, “Let Congress do it”?

  27. 2discern   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:26 PM

    At this point my guess would be Arizona. The logical choice. Even though the stress caused a senior moment on camera, no worries she (Gov. Brewer) has the guts to do what is right and tell barry soetero stay away from my state with your power grabs.

  28. Bob1943   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:17 PM

    Your idea is good, but, I think the chances of Obama just fessing up are greater than the chances of getting McCain to do anything on this.

  29. Joe The Blogger   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM

    Who appointed Col. Denise R. Lind to cover-up for Obama?

    If you follow this back, up the chain of command, you will eventually get back to The Usurper-in-Chief. All of the links in this corrupt chain must be exposed.

  30. Kathy   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM

    Someone needs to get a hold of McCain (a so-called hero) and pin him against the wall. He is disgraceful if he does not force Congress to investigate Obama’s eligibility. What kind of a soldier is he if he lets Lakin go down for standing up for our Constitution, military men and all of us? He is no hero, he is a disgrace if he allows this to stand. He was forced to show his BC; no one has a better opportunity to get the discovery necessary than John McCain.

  31. Don Butcher (CSM)(USA Ret)   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 4:51 PM

    This government is the most cowardly, spineless, irresponsible bunch of
    people ever assembled. They know nothing, see nothing, or suspect anything thats taking place around them. The only ones who know anything is Obama and his cohorts. Everyone seems to be under a spell (brain-washed) and wait to do what they are told. I hope and pray that some one will come to their senses and realize the seriousness this country is in. I con-
    gratulate Arnie on his great articles informing lots of us on this situation
    facing our nation.

  32. noway2no   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 4:51 PM

    Where does the Federal money come from? The States to a great degree and of course We The People. Those two entities need to stop sending them the loot.

  33. NUTN2SAY   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

    I was wondering. Do you think a “Posse Comitatus” is in play here?

  34. Chance   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM

    I was so mad I fired off a hasty letter to Mullen for allowing this. The others will get theirs:

    September 3, 2010
    Adm. Michael Mullen
    Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20318-9999
    Dear Admiral Mullen:
    Well congratulations. You have single handedly destroyed our Constitution by not allowing discovery for LT. Col. Lakin. Not only that, by your actions, you have confirmed that Obama is a fraud. This is no ordinary trial and the circumstances are not ordinary. We have never before had a fraud in the White House. You know it and we know it. It HAS reached critical mass.
    The fact that Obama’s father was Kenyan and has dual citizenships disqualifies Obama from being Commander in Chief. And – if his father turns out to be an American, Obama is still a fraud. His Selective Service card is a fraud and his social security numbers, (all 39 of them) prove it. Can you say racketeering? Right now he is using a social security number different from the number he used as senator.
    We also know Pelosi committed fraud and treason by certifying twice that Obama was eligible for POTUS. He will never be OUR president. Never!
    You should have long ago taken Obama from the White House in handcuffs. He is not an American and he shows that every day. Too bad if he is embarrassed. He knew what he was doing was wrong and so did you. You are all guilty of misprision and treason!
    I keep hearing there will be rioting in the streets if he is removed. I don’t hear about the rioting if he is not removed! If there is blood, it will be on YOUR hands.
    Please honor your country and do the right thing by removing Obama and his cohorts.
    I certainly hope you will reconsider this disgraceful act of not allowing discovery for LT. Col. Lakin (and other military) and the citizens of this country. Indeed, you will suffer the consequences of the wrath of the people by not doing so. You have treated Gitmo prisioners better than our own military. Disgraceful!
    As far as we are concerned, Lt. Col. Lakin is the only one doing his duty by not following Unlawful orders.
    Sincerely,

  35. jetstream   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    I think it’s now clear that the military KNOWS Obama is ineligible and they are actively participating in the usurpation. The judge has made a “determination of fact” that Obama is ineligible when she states that the evidence would be “embarrassing” and impeachment should be handled by Congress.

    All branches of the government are acting in concert to override the Constitution! Another example is the Arizona case which was filed by Holder in federal district court rather than the Supreme Court under an unconstitutional approval of concurrent jurisdiction endorsed by Congress for many years. This Article III case can ONLY be heard by the Supreme Court according to the Constitution. Read more here.

    I think HighlanderJuan is right. It’s now up to the States to demand federal compliance with the Constitution. Otherwise, the final word on the future of this country will be heard from We the People.

  36. Ben Dover   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 1:09 PM

    Lind should be impeached from the bench. Since she’s not a civilian, hopefully someday her gutless dereliction in this matter will lead to HER court-martial. Then Leavenworth.

    Lakin, on the other hand, will be remembered by history as the true patriot that he is.

    This is not just about a birth certificate. It is about the most severe crime in the history of the Presidency. BHO admits that his father was a joint Kenyan/British subject; by definition, this means that Barry CAN NOT be a “natural born citizen” as defined by law (the child of two native-born parents) in order to be POTUS. Additionally, he “gave up” any U.S. citizenship (which he may not have had anyway) when he was adopted by Soetoro and officially (as recorded) recieved Indonesian citizenship. Obunghole is a joint Kenyan/British/Indonesian citizen. This is FACT. He holds his office illegally, and is more than apparent that he’s seeking to do as much damage as possibly to our national stability–in EVERY area–because he knows his time is running out.
    Let us not forget that his right-wing, white-supremacist, black-hating, tea-partying, conspiracy-nut Birther GRANDMOTHER, a KENYAN of AFRICAN DESCENT, stated PUBLICLY THAT HE WAS BORN IN KENYA. Crazy old racist bat, right? Says she was “in the room when he was born,” and she’s “so proud to see a Kenyan as President of the United States.” Yep, RECORDED. She SAID IT.

    Just a LIAR, right? Proud of her grandson? No, of course not. She just wants to join the birther/tea-party right-wing-extremist racist crowd, right?

    Time for all the DOLTS out there to WAKE THE HELL UP. IMPEACH THE BASTARD.

  37. plain jane   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    I see nothing european about what he is doing to us.

  38. Harry H   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 12:28 PM

    Judge Denise Lind apparently thinks she took an oath to protect the alleged president from embarrassment! How does such midget mentality make it onto a judge’s bench? And how can she propound such imbecilic nonsense with a straight face? Not embarrass a lying, usurping, foreign imposter posing as Commander-in-Chief? Why does the Wizard of Ozbamia deserve such an obviously contrived pass, because he is half-black, maybe? Black Privilege, maybe?

  39. Joe The Blogger   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

    I agree with the general thrust of your arguments, but I think that some of the enemies of ‘We The People’ are actively scheming to break up The United States.

    Ask yourselves this question. Would people, such as Vladimir Putin, like to see the break-up of The United States, as revenge for the break-up of The Soviet Union? The Communists have been pulling strings for decades and I have no doubt that they continue to do so. Do you think that it is a co-incidence that the recently exposed Russian spy-ring were allowed to return to Russia without undergoing a public trial? Soon after this story broke, the B.B.C. reported that this spy-ring had infiltrated Obama’s White House. I believe that this aspect of the story was subsequently suppressed.

    Putin is not the only one who would love to see the break-up of The United States. There is also the Islamic Caliphate conspiracy. Who knows, perhaps the Empire of Communist China is also pulling strings. They own many people in Washington D.C.

    ‘We The People’ must restore our Constitutional Republic in such a way as to make The United States stronger than ever. The survival of LIBERTY on our planet depends on us.

  40. jtx   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 11:13 AM

    Another fine letter, Arnie – TYVM and keep up the good work.

    Col. Lind’s “decision” in the Sep. 2 “hearing” is pathetic at best. Firstly, it was not a hearing at all in the normal courtroom sense since the “good Col.” obviously already had her decicision printed and ready before the 1100 kangaroo court (and that’s clearly what it has shown itself to be) convened.

    At 1100 the court listened to presentations from both sides – but not for too long – and Col. Lind then “took a long lunch break to finalize her decision and findings”.

    WHAT?!?!?!?!!! A “long lunch break to finalize her decision (meaning it was already ready) whieh decision took 40 minuted to read. Who is trying to bamboozle who here since a “40 minutes of reading” could not possibly be prepared with cites and authorities, etc. during a “long lunch break”. What BS!!

    LTC Lakin is clearly being railroaded and is receiving no “hearing” or “court consideration” at all. Why do these pissants work so assiduously to protect a man who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies???

    Does not the idea of misprison of felony apply to members of the military?? Did they learn nothing from the Nuremberg Trials???

  41. A pen   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:57 AM

    Obama already told us what he would do if any state stood against him. He will follow Lincoln’s precedent and declare war, count on it. The only way to end this usurpation is by indiscriminate use of daisies and peanut butter before the government can assemble a loyalist army . They have the brass obviously bought off but not the rank and file. The danger is the Milgram paradigm playing out once again. Once a court can be secured from the grip of fear there can be a jury and a lawful hearing.

  42. thinkwell   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:57 AM

    I have followed with interest the theory of the blogger butterdezillion that an unholy evil alliance of Soros and Islam are using threat of contrived financial meltdown to coerce the otherwise loyal members of SCOTUS and many in Congress into their seemingly perplexing silent and passive acceptance of Obama and his enablers. This theory explains then President Bush’s very uncharacteristic 2008 pre-election, bail-out panic TARP “rescue.”

    In a CSPAN video, democrat Representative Kanjorski explained how members of Congress were told by the Federal Reserve that a “tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars.” Kanjorski that this electronic transfer occurred over the period of just a few hours, paraphrasing the following disclosure by Bernanke and Paulson:

    On Thursday (Sept 18), [sic (Sept 17)] at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

    If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

    We are no better off today than we were 3 months ago because we have a decrease in the equity positions of banks because other assets are going sour by the moment.

    The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that our salvation (if any) will be coming through citizen grass root actions at the State rather than the federal level. Thank goodness for Jan Brewer and other like-minded brave souls. Personally, in order to live free, I’d rather live in post melt-down poverty (or not live at all) rather than than submit to the tyranny of a capricious all-powerful regime and/or the shackles of shariah law.

    I am not suggesting giving up efforts through the federal court system to expose the naked fraud of the most destructive and anti-American President ever. I just think that it is important to recognize that the “fix may be in” too firmly at the federal level at this point (although there is always the chance that certain individuals in positions of power will wake up and being willing to risk career and perhaps their very lives in order to defend our wonderful American experiment). By all means continue the probative attacks on all fronts because who knows where the defenses of evil will crumble, but apply the most effort where it is most likely to do the most good (probably at the State level).

    Like you, I think many may be underestimating the power of the States under the Constitution. We suffer under what is approaching tyranny because the federal government has usurped powers far beyond that which the Constitution enumerates. I look to see one or more sovereign States call the federal government’s bluff by asserting their rightful independence up to (but fully within) the boundaries set forth by the Constitution. For example, Arizona could simply declare the federal court’s decision striking down most of Arizona State immigration law as Constitutionally overreaching and therefore null and void. This should be done in State court under full due process of law.

    Arizona would then ignore the illegal federal mandates. This would put the federal government in the position of having to use deadly force to get their way and I doubt that they would have the nerve because many of the other States and a large portion of the people would then rise up in solidarity against the feds. Obama would have to willing to risk civil war and, although he is probably sociopathic enough to callously cause the deaths of hundreds or thousands of “his countrymen” that he seems to despise so much, I think he is too much of a wimp and weakling to risk it.

    We the People should call his bluff wherever and whenever we can. And we have to be willing to risk hardship to do it. That stated, butterdezillion’s advice about taking out Soros’s weapons of mass financial destruction first is well taken. As Patten said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

    At the same time it is important to keep up the pro American, pro Freedom “buzz” (thanks Mrs. Rondeau) because people need to know that they are not alone and that their individual actions are not yet meaningless. There is still time to win back America.

  43. meeko   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM

    EMBARRASSMENT

    “Embarrass” is derived from the French, where embarrasser means to “block” or “obstruct.” Thus, the first meaning in the OED, going back to 1683 is “to encumber, hamper, impede (movements, actions, persons moving or acting). “The Character of Ambassador, which would delay or embarrass me with Preparations of Equipage.” Or, from 1734, “Hannibal..ran to the assistance of his troops, who were thus embarrassed.” One might also say, in 19th century form, that the contours of the country would embarrass the enemy to a considerable degree. This doesn’t mean that it would make them feel ashamed of themselves; it suggests, rather that it would set up a road block, an impediment, a hindrance, a difficulty.

  44. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM

    “What would happen if a sovereign state governor or legislature declared that, since the Democrat Party and president elect had not shown Obama to be lawfully eligible for the office, and that fraud had been committed against the people of the state, that the state would require a new election of POTUS, and that the Democratic Party would NOT be allowed to offer a candidate in the election in that state because of the election fraud perpetrated by the party on the state?………….What would happen if one or more states recognized and restored their own individual state sovereignty, developed the necessary set of brass cajones, and actually confronted the unlawful actions being performed by the federal government?”

    If you could find ONE brass cojone, much les a set, in the entire 50 states governments, I would be pleasantly surprised. Once they get elected, they seem to be automatically neutered?!?!?

  45. meeko   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:51 AM

    Grrrrr……an order must be obeyed ‘unless obeying the order would be committing a crime.’ Since deploying to Iraq is not a crime, LtC. Lakin is bound by the rules of the military to obey, regardless of who gives the order…..that is why he will be found guilty and why the judge made it perfectly clear that Obama’s elligibility didn’t matter at all……case closed

  46. meeko   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM

    The word ’embarrassment’means something different in a court of law when referencing politcal question doctrine……..do some research:

    What people perhaps not know is that the term is commonly used when discussing political question issues.

    When such questions arise in the course of litigation the courts will refuse to take jurisdiction of the action if it necessarily involves such a determination or if the question has been settled by the action of the political departments of the government the judiciary will accept and follow their conclusions without question 38 There are two reasons for this rule In the first place courts ought not to usurp the functions of the political branches of the government nor intrude upon their jurisdiction And second in public affairs of the state or nation such as may be made the basis of executive or legislative action the judicial tribunals must not hamper or embarrass the other departments by prejudging the questions which they will have to decide or attempting to review their decisions already made .

    Source: Handbook of American constitutional law, Henry Campbell Black

  47. meeko   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM

    Without Federal financial assistance, all the states would be bankrupt, would not be able to provide police, firemen….could not build roads or bridges……couldn’t support their judiciary and state governments……..good lord…….the states cannot survive without federal money, especially ‘RED’ states, as they are generally more poor, receive more federal aid, and pay less in taxes……really bad idea. Sorry.

  48. Mia   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM

    I agree that the states must assert their sovereignty to fight the federal tyranny.

    But I have to disagree that Obama will not retaliate… just ask Jan Brewer or Sheriff Joe. AZ is in the forefront of this fight, and suffering the consequences.

    However, you’re 100% right that as more and more states assert their own sovereignty, and protect each others’ backs from the fed machine, we can overwhelm the feds.

    And We The People must take our stands also. The rallies and protests, the petitions and open letters, all have served a valid and valuable purpose.

    I think our greatest concern and goal at this point should be to do anything and everything possible to ensure our elections are not stolen — AGAIN!

  49. Jim Campbell   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:29 AM

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=198465 I guess the Judge in this trial telling the Col to “find” a new defense has abrogated his oath to uphold the Constitution. An officer has swears an oath to the Constitution “not the president” Contrast with the enlisted personnel who take an uphold to do both. This judge must be removed. He had demonstrated his failure to protect the Constitution.

  50. RacerJim   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me—
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    History ignored is history repeated!

  51. Chance   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM

    By Lind’s and Mullen actions, they have proved to the world that Obama is a usurper! I just wrote and told them so! I am sending it returned receipt and restricted! and sending to all Chiefs of Staff and media.

  52. Tom the veteran   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:12 AM

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
    John F. Kennedy

  53. Impeachtheboob   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    I give you the words of my father…a Korean war vet.

    Every year or so I dust off this quote and remind myself that what we see going on around us was recognized and commented on eloquently over the years.

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
    — French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiast (1801-1850)

  54. HighlanderJuan   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 8:42 AM

    Actually, I think the county sheriffs are the highest law enforcement officers in the state. Can you imagine how Joe Arpaio would respond to the responsibility?

  55. Stock   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 8:11 AM

    When all avenues of peaceful decent, discourse and settlement of differences close, there leaves little for a peaceful and disengaged people to do. They wait for the oppression to disappear, for someone else to act. Surely it will go away and change. Surely this is not happening to us. Surely we will cooperate and everything will be fine. And then they come knocking at your door. You can relive History or……..

  56. Tom the veteran   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 8:10 AM

    Can some legal eagle out there, who actually knows law, please tell us if Lt. Col. Lakin will finally have “standing” once the kangaroo court finds him guilty? If this great Patriot is allowed to go to jail, before Obama, then our Republic is truly lost.

    For God and Country

  57. HighlanderJuan   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM

    It would appear that the federal government is NOT self-regulating, and will only circle the wagons when confronted with its own unlawful and unconstitutional actions.

    So, the people’s answers must come from the states – those sovereign entities that created the federal government in the first place (see: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/12/state-sovereignty/ ).

    My prescription for resolving issues with the federal government is to do it from the state level. What would happen, for example, if Lakin’s home state of Colorado defined itself as the arbiter of this matter and would provide individual and unique personal protection for Lakin, regardless of the federal court decision? Would the feds declare war on Colorado for this picayune matter? I think not.

    The states are sovereign and provide a shared and explicit (Article 1, Section 8 ) sovereignty with their offspring, the federal government. It is up to the states to control and rein in the errant and unconstitutional federal government. It is almost impossible for individuals to have any impact on the federal government because the people have no power against the self isolated federal government and the ruling elite in Washington. As I have said before – this is NOT our federal government and it has long since ceased acting for the benefit of either the states or the people. The federal government provides resources and support only for the ruling elite.

    Which, of course, brings us back to the Obama eligibility situation. Since the federal government has now shown us all that it will never self-regulate, it is my position that the states must regulate the federal government.

    What would happen, for example, if a state declared that Obama had lied and deceived the state into thinking that he was eligible to be POTUS (that’s criminal fraud, by the way) when he, in fact, was not.

    What would happen if a sovereign state governor or legislature declared that, since the Democrat Party and president elect had not shown Obama to be lawfully eligible for the office, and that fraud had been committed against the people of the state, that the state would require a new election of POTUS, and that the Democratic Party would NOT be allowed to offer a candidate in the election in that state because of the election fraud perpetrated by the party on the state? That, in absence of the new election and the nullification of the acts performed by the usurper since 2009, the state would withdraw its own ambassadors to the federal government and would nullify and resist each and every unlawful and unconstitutional federal action taken by the federal government against the state.

    What would happen if one or more states recognized and restored their own individual state sovereignty, developed the necessary set of brass cajones, and actually confronted the unlawful actions being performed by the federal government?

    It is my opinion that under those circumstances we would start to see some results. Unfortunately, right now, the states have rolled over on their backs and are asking to have their bellies rubbed by the federal government. Truly disgusting.

  58. Toria   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 7:15 AM

    KARL ROVE: Does Obama Care About Being Commander-In-Chief?

    September 02, 2010Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:00:00 GMT11:09 PM EST

    Suggesting that only by withdrawing from the world can a president “jump-start industries,” reform education, and make “tough decisions” about issues at home leaves the impression that Mr. Obama has little interest in being commander in chief, that his real passion is domestic issues and his goal to mold America into a European-style social democracy.

    What army was Barry in NONE, doubtful he even registered for the mandated draft and what name did he use? Mr. Rove he obviously does not care about being Commander in Chief, because he isn’t qualified and has 0 experience. Respect, there isn’t any!

  59. William   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:57 AM

    So we allow “Terrorists” sitting in Gitmo the use of U.S.C. 46 in their defense, but deny that same basic right to an American Military Officer?

    How is that not Judical discrimination at the least?

  60. Benaiah   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:53 AM

    Thank you Arnie!

  61. Tom the veteran   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:44 AM

    Although the magnitude of disappointment cannot be expressed in words, the ruling was certainly not unexpected! There can only be one explanation; we must be living in the Twilight Zone! I’m beginning to believe that the crime of usurpation has taken a back seat to tyranny! What the heck is going on in our country? Are we living in two worlds? Have We the People been so soundly asleep and complacent that we have allowed our quest for self-gratification blind us from a licentious government who has ever so slightly yet incrementally turned our Constitution on its head? Have we regressed into serfdom? Has someone repealed the 13th Amendment? How can this be happening? In a country where we’re, “supposedly”, protected by the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, how then can we be denied the ability to produce the evidence that will prove our own innocence? How about the 14th Amendment and “Equal protection under the law”? Sure, there’s a Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the military is administered thru Congress which is administered by the U.S. Constitution! So even though military personnel have their own rules of conduct, surly you’re not saying that they don’t warrant the same protections offered under the Constitution? If that’s true, then why do they pledge to protect and defend it? Why have so many died? The Lord works in mysterious ways and we must believe he has master plan. We must believe that He’s allowing these setbacks for the greater good, which I’m beginning to see. As each of these setbacks occur, it becomes more apparent and glaring just how corrupt our government has become. The lack of media coverage, both TV and Newspaper, will produce its own backlash! As the old saying goes, “the silence is deafening”. The more they hide it, the more it comes into plain view. We are most definitely headed towards critical mass, but I have no idea in what form it will manifest. We can hope it’s peaceful, but I fear at some point it will turn ugly.

    For God and Country

  62. Kevin J. Lankford   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 6:41 AM

    It has been obvious for some time now that this is a prevaricated travesty and this latest decision should be seen only as more proof of the extent of the corruption we must contend with. Our options have drastically diminished and becoming unpleasant to consider.

  63. plain jane   Friday, September 3, 2010 at 12:07 AM

    Yes Joe, it was my understanding from those in the military that they are to always question. I tell you this is very frightening because now what?

    If you form a grand jury, don’t you need a militia there to enforce the decision. A grand jury alone has no power, imho. We’ve been there already.

  64. ch   Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 11:11 PM

    Why is eligibility a “political” question…I am getting tired of this game. It is a legal question, a question for courts, a criminal question, for not only fraudulently campaigning, posting fake birth certificates, making false claims about parents, but also signed affidavits by detectives that he has used other social security numbers. Since when is a “crime” a political question? Since when does Congress decide constitutional law? This seesaw balance of power is sitting heavy on the ground. Holder needs to be taken to court also, for playing games with our laws. He is equally responsible for this charade. They want everybody to think it is a “political” question to be settled by Congress….are you kidding. How on earth could the political party that created the scam, and is in control of Congress, settle a question about their imposter? What Constitution would be designed this way. Our is not! The tap dance of the artful dodger. Dr. Lakin is a hero……and has proven Obama is not eligible……because Obama cannot defend himself in a court of law, and refuses to provide the easiest and simplest of documentation. Checkmate…..thank you, Dr. Lakin. All orders are invalid, until we have a legitimate Commander in Chief.

  65. Jeanetta Nipper   Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM

    I am sickened thinking we have a military command that is so influenced by politics and status quo they have become both toothless and gutless. God help us all. The civilians are doing their dead level best to awaken the giant in order to flush out the traitors, but if the military turns against the rule of law we are doomed. It only means that eventually the military will become the arm of the government keeping the masses like us under control.

  66. jetstream   Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM

    Army Col. Denise R. Lind said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.

    How does she know the evidence would be embarrassing? Why would impeachment be necessary unless he was NOT eligible? Why wouldn’t the evidence prove he is a natural born citizen?

    Does this mean that the military already knows he is not eligible?
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I personally believe it does. And since when does “embarrassing” qualify as a reason not to make records public? A furor was created shortly before the 2000 election about a DUI ticket which George W. Bush received more than 30 years before.

  67. dotdotcom   Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:17 PM

    There is an article at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=198465 and here is an excerpt: “She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.”

    So, the possibility that BO might be embarrassed is more important than LTC Lakin’s access to evidence that could prove his innocence? So, LTC Lakin should be sentenced to 4 or more years of hard labor so that BO won’t be EMBARRASSED??? GRRRRRRRRR THEY ARE REALLY PUSHING WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!

  68. Joe The Blogger   Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:02 PM

    REMEMBER THE NUREMBERG TRIALS. Orders must be lawful – otherwise there is a duty to disobey them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.