John L. Perry
Source: Newsmax
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.”
Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
From Rush Limbaugh
The National Post in Canada has published some comments that the French President Sarkozy made about Obama’s United Nations speech that I have not seen anywhere else, and they are blistering. They basically take Obama to task for being a sophomoric, wishy-washy, unrealistic boob. Imagine being told that by a leader of France, of all places.
at the G-20 Meeting:
Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Sarkozy: “President Obama dreams of a world without weapons but right in front of us two countries [Iran and North Korea] are doing the exact opposite.”
Here we go folks. Our dear old Usurper is fast becoming the laughing stock of the world. Everyone has got his number: weak, indecisive, naive. Iran and North Korea could care less what Obama has to say about disarmament.
On the miliary front in Afghanistan, we now hear the Messiah has only talked to General McChrystal ONE time in 70 days. The marines are still trying to win the war and their Commander-in-Denial is busy making TV appearances.
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
I have an American friend in China whose Chinese wife gave birth recently to a boy in China. David practically burned the rubber off the car’s tires traveling to the US Consulate in Shanghai to submit paperwork formalizing US citizenship for his son.
David’s son will grow up spending a lot of time in China and the USA. Where will the son’s loyalties lie? No one can really answer that. It is only speculation.
What happens if China ever goes to war against the USA? If China is winning, do you suppose the son will put on a US military uniform and fight against his mother’s family, country and heritage?
Ruth Ginsburg, quite simply, your grandson is a “naturalized” citizen under the following Immigration Codes and Title 8 of the US Code if, and only if, the proper paperwork was submitted and accepted by Immigration in the United States.
Immigration Section 301(c):
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period for such prior residence is required. If the child was born on or after December 24, 1952, at least one parent will be required to prove residence in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the birth to establish United States citizenship for the child.
US Code, TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
NO WHERE, do these codes or laws state, “such citizen at time of birth shall automatically become a ‘natural born’ citizen.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if you don’t like Article II of the Constitution that states a Presidential candidate MUST be a “natural born” citizen, you don’t have to make up little “grandson” stories to argue your case. You can AMEND the Constitution. Three-fourths of the States can ratify such an Amendment if you can muster together enough votes to do it.
The DNC conspiracy (fraud) is just getting juicer and juicer.
Phil over at the Right-Side-of-Life is calling it “Certifigate.” Yes, I agree! Watergate took Nixon down, Certifigate will do the same for Obama.
Here is the gist of what Phil is suggesting:
But what if Dr. Fukino is merely using the DNC certification of eligibility as the basis for her claims that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?
After all, we know that the Director nor any other State official can reveal personal information regarding any individual’s private documentation. And, in her most recent statement, Dr. Fukino proclaimed that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the documentation they have on file. She couldn’t have said anything about this unless the documentation upon which she bases her proclamation is already public (or risk revealing information in such a fashion as to make it public, by virtue of a public admission on her or her office’s part, thereby carrying potentially very stiff penalties for doing so).
Yet, the DNC certification of eligibility is already public; in fact, blogs such as mine already have it stashed away. Therefore:
Could Dr. Fukino be making her basis on that piece of paper as the rationale for her proclamation?
And, as I’ve repeatedly said before, no political party — as far as anyone has been able to find — is under any obligation to actually vet a candidate; they merely require a self-ascribing document in which the candidate proclaims him or herself to be qualified. The political party operates under no rule or law that requires actual documentation. Not only this, but the Hawaii DoH is similarly under no obligation to otherwise vet what documentation they receive; they’re merely tasked with safely storing and archiving such data.
So, perhaps the real bottom line is this, according to my theory: The HI DoH says that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the DNC’s constitutional certification which is based upon Mr. Obama’s self-ascribed document wherein he states he’s eligible. Therefore, in theory, the DNC and the HI DoH are basing their belief on Mr. Obama’s word, because, thus far, no actual documentation exists to otherwise confirm or deny is eligibility.
And regarding his short-form certification of live birth? Again, we’ve seen an image of this document, and as this posting and blog have clearly shown, we don’t know anything about the documentation to which this COLB points, except for the possible DNC certification paperwork which, at best, is already conclusively shown to be based upon one man’s word.
Could this stuff get any more morbidly fascinating?
source: http://www.therightsideoflife.com
Great article! You should go and read all the details on Phil’s website.
What is the number one job any president assumes when he takes office? It is to protect the people and enforce National Security. So what has the Usuper done lately to protect you? Absolutely nothing! If fact, Obama is busy aiding and abetting our enemies (Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela, Palestine, North Korea) and working hard to subvert our allies (Israel and Honduras). On the domestic side Obama is hell bent on turning our Republic into a “progressive-socialistic” dictatorship.
What is one way to drive a country socialistic? Flood it with “illegal, dependent” aliens that will vote to keep the Usurper and Demogods in office. What better way to meet that goal than to relax “security” on the US-Mexico border?
Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week–as I first reported in my column yesterday–that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.
Read the entire article here on CNSNews.com..
|
|
