Lakin court martial, Barry Farber interview video, Orwellian lies told by media, Citizen Wells challenge
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
The Lakin court martial and Obama birth certificate issues continue to be misrepresented by the media. The usual suspects are involved, The Huffington Post, NBC News, CBS News. The list of Orwellian wordsmiths goes on and on. I am ready to challenge these journalistic prostitutes to a debate or simply get them to answer the question above. An article is forthcoming.
I will not abandon LTC Terry Lakin and I support him 100%.
Here is a Barry Farber interview of LTC Terry Lakin from September 3, 2010.
Citizen WElls 
Rubio Backs English as Official Language
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/marco-rubio-charlie-crist/2010/09/18/id/370767?s=al&promo_code=AC8F-1
CC
“These people may just attach themselves to a DIFFERENT guru and believe themselves relieved and enlightened?”
I left you a comment at :
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/obama-pravda-article-obama-the-narcissist-liar-and-con-man-birth-certificate-con/#comment-15For Immediate Release: – 09/17/20109651
Phil Berg on Fan the Fire Now!!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsheartnetwork/2010/09/19/fan-the-fire-with-cj-and-tallulah
Gingrich Calls For Federal Ban On Shariah Law In US
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich-calls-for-federal-law-banning-shariah-law-in-us.php
Sam Sewell | September 18, 2010 at 8:34 pm |
===============================
Oh, yeah – sorry I didn’t respond earlier – I got it and directed other people over there with a post a made a thread or two ago. Thanks.
LM | September 18, 2010 at 11:29 pm |
That’s so weird.
Our government and our laws by their nature ban sharia law.
To call for a federal law banning sharia law seems to concede that we aren’t ALREADY banning sharia law.
If the the law Gingrich is calling for never materializes or is defeated, does that mean sharia law by default?
I guess I should be glad Gingrich recognizes the danger and is calling for action.
I have zero trust left for anyone in our current Congress.
!?!! | September 19, 2010 at 12:33 am | LM | September 18, 2010 at 11:29 pm |
That’s so weird.
Our government and our laws by their nature ban sharia law.
To call for a federal law banning sharia law seems to concede that we aren’t ALREADY banning sharia law.
If the the law Gingrich is calling for never materializes or is defeated, does that mean sharia law by default?
I guess I should be glad Gingrich recognizes the danger and is calling for action.
I have zero trust left for anyone in our current Con
!!!!!!!!!!!
Our govt should ban Shariah law, but I’ve read two cases in the last month that judges dismissed..and one was acquitted and the Islam/Muslim raped his wife and beat her in view of the neighbors…is this by definition ‘banning’ Shariah law??
Remember…our governing body is not to be trusted—they are fleeing when the SHTF to other non-Muslim countries…just my thought.
My friends, neighbors, and church members are terrified of this Shariah law even being allowed to be spoken in our nation, let alone enforced by Islam/Muslims.
CW I have been with you, your site from the beginning, promise me we fight till the end. Lt.Col.Lakins is my hero. There are many Orly, Larry,…You know you pray,..please God send us someone….I can not let the liars win!! The irony of them wanting to give him a brain scan…. 9/28/02 car accident…TBI (traumatic brain injury) takes my brain to memories being taught NBC..Commander in Chief…..parents must be U.S. Citizens born on OUR soil, or if at a time of war, other area’s deemed American Soil.
….find no fault with the introductory claus [S61 Bill], which is simply declartory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…
Stay safe, God Bless.
CC,
Your responce to the 9/11 Thruthers topic was spot on yesterday. I’m glad I missed it. Nevertheless, I believe you handled it professional and with rationale. Good job.
>>Margie | September 19, 2010 at 2:29 am | CW I have been with you, your site from the beginning, promise me we fight till the end. Lt.Col.Lakins is my hero. There are many Orly, Larry,…You know you pray,..please God send us someone….I can not let the liars win!! The irony of them wanting to give him a brain scan…. 9/28/02 car accident…TBI (traumatic brain injury) takes my brain to memories being taught NBC..Commander in Chief…..parents must be U.S. Citizens born on OUR soil, or if at a time of war, other area’s deemed American Soil.
….find no fault with the introductory claus [S61 Bill], which is simply declartory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…
Stay safe, God Bless.<<
So well stated. I agree with everything.
Pete
LM,
Great article above on Gingrich and the federal ban on Shariah Law.
However (and I of course could be inccorect) I believe that Shariah Law could never be implemented in the U.S. without first amending the Constitution, of which derives our fundemental laws.
Having said that, that is not to say some liberal lower level judges would enjoying pushing the envelope and may be in out best interest to pose a federal ban as an additional safegard.
Come to think of it, having a federal ban on Shariah Law in the U.S. would be a “devistating” psychological blow to those who wish its implementation if nothing else – ain’t going to happen here folks, move on or out…..
Ok LM, you convinced me, I’m for it…….
>>>>CC,
I bit and read your links downstairs. Please answer me this: What about the 911 “conspiracy” do you find so offensive? The idea of an American coverup? Or the idea of Israeli involvement?
====================================
There is NO DOUBT that the complete and true story is unavailable.
There is LITTLE DOUBT that various shady figures have yet to be identified. For instance, if you want an American name, even a NeoCon name, I am very suspicious of Paul Wolfowitz for involvement in this and a lot of other things. Can’t prove, just suspicious.
Similarly neither you or any other 9/11 CT’er can prove anything either. Just suspicions.
Is it POSSIBLE that specific Israeli individuals or rogue elements were involved, sure. Is it POSSIBLE that a few rogue individuals that are associated with Bush administration are involved, sure.
But the following are outrageous and repugnant:
1. Muslims not involved, or even Muslims played a weak role.
2. False Flag operation by official (as opposed to rogue) Bush Admin.
3. Israeli/Zionist operation.
4. That any TRUE AMERICAN would prematurely jump to any of the above conclusions as long as any other possible explanation were still standing.
For example – a preview of my promised Pentagon essay:
For every anomaly, there are multiple competing theories and explanations. It is very premature to latch on to any one of them.
That summary is VERY PROFOUND and it would be wise to contemplate it very carefully and thoroughly.<<
The 911 incident still has many unanswered questions. The incident is like an onion, with so many layers it's hard to get your head around it. I agree with what you posted, CC, and even have found an 'reasonable hidden explanation' for the building 7 collapse (gasoline and diesel storage tanks fuel fire ignited by falling burning debris through a sub-standard ventilation system–that nobody wanted public because the CIA violated building codes). I have never said that I have the answers to 911, and the fact that Jayna Davis book the third terrorist links some of the same names to Oklahoma City and 911, advertises muslim terrorists.
One question that I ask of 911 Truthers, that they quickly dismiss, demonstrates that they are incapable of looking at the incident apolitically. "If the World Trade Center was a Controlled demolition, then the planning and implementation would have taken at least 1 year, and every demolition expert has agreed to this fact. Therefore, I ask why Bill Clinton and his Administration gave the order for 911?" Most obviously, if it wasn't Bill Clinton and the Democrats whom initiated the 911 attacks and demolition….it wasn't possible as the truthers have defined it! Suddenly, the Bush Derrangement syndrome is exposed and they go…ah…ah….no it was George Bush!
Perhaps the SADDEST thing about 911 is those whom have taken a tragic event, and tried to blame George Bush for murder, instead of accepting the corrupt incompetence of the Clinton Administration handling of the CIA and the FBI–see Jayna Davis book. Like you said, there are many possibilities. Since childhood, I have been told by wise people to "never put to sinister plan what can be attributed to pure ignorance and bumbling" and there is no doubt that Clinton's handling of the FBI and CIA were pure ignorance and bumbling. That is a definitive conclusion of the 911 report, missed by the truthers, "the FBI and CIA were NON-FUNCTIONAL agencies". BTW, just 8 years earlier the CIA was considered the premier intellegence community under George Bush Sr..
I do absolutely agree with the 911 that there has been a conspiracy on 911. The conspiracy has been to NOT OUT a POTUS (Bill Clinton), agents, and agencies whom were incompetent (including the CIA) and 'spun' the Oklahoma City debacle, and MANY OTHER EVENTS, to things that they were for political gain–not protection of American Citizens, that likely resulted in the 911 disaster.
What have we learned from 911? We have learned that the media has decided what is real. For instance, like blaming George Bush for 911 (8 months into his new presidency) and the economy 2 years into anothers term (Barrack Obama–with a almost 4 year democratic party congress–and control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even longer), demonstrating a complete left wing bias. We have learned that the Muslim world feels that it is at war with the United States. Last, the war began with Jimmy Carter administration whose policy resulted in Islamic Radical beliefs becoming an entire government, and 911 is an extension of those political decisions.
Finally, we have learned that the media prevents accountability for an entire political party, the democrats, by propaganda and this is destroying this Constitutional Republic much faster than the terrorists. I'm not sure about all the 911 facts, but I'm sure of this.
Pete,
Well said, my sentiments also.
The TPM article by Evan McMorris-Santoro clearly asserts Gingrich is radical in his views.
“Gingrich’s anti-Shariah talk inserted him directly into the most extreme end of the Islamophobic push-back against mosque projects all over the country…Gingrich, who’s been looking more and more extremist lately, now has made himself into the latest voice of paranoia crying that the Muslims are coming to take over us all.”
These liberal elites posing as journalists continually report that anyone opposed to Shariah Law is Islamophobic and extreme which is a total falsehood. Defending the Constitution is only extreme in the minds of the elites and their progressive cohorts. To the rest of us, it is a patriotic duty.
Philo,
Do you think that what the media “meant” to about Gingrich was that:
“He is looking more and more as a constitutionalist” every day…?
Obama urges blacks to vote and “guard the change”
http://tinyurl.com/3y7e9az
More racism from the so called post racial prez. Those who take the time to educate themselves can see its just a continued attempt to divide the American people by pitting blacks against whites.
However, it works as blacks still overwhelming support Zero.
indymac | September 18, 2010 at 9:28 pm |
” … there are several posters on this site who are here only to distract and spew a bunch of bull that is designed to obstruct real truth from being spread on this site….”
============================================
Exactly. Notice the obots take up both sides of any subject that they want to use to distract from legitimate issues like NBC, BC, Grand Jury Indictments, and the bo/bp Poisoning of the Gulf.
Here is an article about the obot tactic of arguing both side of the issue used to distract from intelligent debate of legitimate issues:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html
SirWilliam at 10:16 am
Philo,
Do you think that what the media “meant” to about Gingrich was that:
“He is looking more and more as a constitutionalist” every day…?
———————————————-
He is a Constitutionalist for the most part but sometimes his “establishment roots” come through and I have to disagree with him. However, Gingrich is hated by most in the media because of what he represents as a Conservative. They tried to crucify him as Speaker and will do the same if he decides to run for President. I think that is why he has hesitated on running for office.
I agree Philo
Philo-Publius | September 19, 2010 at 10:10 am |
These liberal elites posing as journalists continually report that anyone opposed to Shariah Law is Islamophobic and extreme which is a total falsehood. Defending the Constitution is only extreme in the minds of the elites and their progressive cohorts. To the rest of us, it is a patriotic duty.
====================================================
AMEN!
FreeSpeech,
Thanks for keeping the oil spill upfront and never forgotten, and the media wishes to bury this issue.
Funny how Pelosi and the media kept up their websites even 5 years after Katrina to bash Bush, but are quick to cover for the annointed one.
First the media declairs he can walk on water, then claim he can’t fix everything?
What, the SOB can walk on water but not Oil Slick?
Last time I checked, oil was denser than water…….or is his BS getting too heavy to carry him anymore?
Sir William,
A couple of questions please:
Are there more emails than the ones released in the Post and Email article?
Was there more than one phone conversation between you and Ms Kelley?
Were the conversations recorded?
The reason I ask these questions is because in the P&E article you state that you have documentation that Ms Kelley stated that no directive for the destruction of passport applications was ever given, but yet the emails you released do not even mention anything about this, other than stating a FOIA request needed to be submitted in order to get the information.
I have been debating this issue on another blog, and it would help if you could at least show SOMETHING that states that a directive was not given.
I remember during the Presidential primaries how Bill Clinton would drop a vague but curious “bomb” regarding Obama. We all know how clever the Clintons are and sometimes when they would speak, it was almost like they were sending out some kind of code.
Last night I was watching C-Span and literally fell out of my chair. It was a forum held at the National Constitution Center. Tony Blair (promoting his new book) and Bill Clinton were discussing their past and present political lives. I have the link posted below and you can fast forward to around the 48 minute mark. I do not remember the incident Clinton brings up, but thought it was extremely curious that he would choose to mention it during this forum. More Code??? Please listen to the tape and tell me what you think.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232751
IB,
I will be more than happy to answer your questions.
What webiste are you debating on?
What username are you using on that website?
Also IB,
If you are looking only at the P&E website, there is only 2 pages of the affidavit shown, there were 5 total plus an addition 7 pages that were coupled with that.
The Clerk initionally only scanned in 2, which is shown at the P&E site. I had to send in the original and those pages were later added.
Sir William,
Thanks for replying. I use the same username and avatar (even though I’ve taken quite a “ribbing” for my avatar, I like it)
Here’s the thread:
The debate starts on Sept 10th at 10:08am.
You might find the debate entertaining.
I would be grateful for ANY evidence that the GSA didn’t put out this directive.
I read CW every day, even though I don’t comment very often. I enjoy CW and appreciate the work he has done, and like CW, I’ve been the brunt of an article or two on other blogs over the Larry Sinclair issue.
IB,
Furthermore,
I read your questions as misleading, intentional or not is simply another matter.
For example:
You asked, in part: “The reason I ask these questions is because in the P&E article you state that you have documentation that Ms Kelley stated that no directive for the destruction of passport applications was ever given..”
Answer: that is not what I said, nor is that what Beth Kelly said. What was said and what was also stated in her responce confirmation of email as well as over the phone, was that the GSA does not, nor has it ever, issued a directive to the U.S. State dept for the handling of non-government passport destructions records. As stated, and in her email as well as phone, the GSA directives are a matter of public records and listed on our website, and their directives of passport handling, only appies to GSA employees.
She also referred me to the NARA, of which they too, only issue directives to the handling of passport records and retention programs, to NARA Employees, hense they too do not engage in the practice of yielding directices to the U.S. State dept records program of non-gov employees. Beth kelly confirmed this in our email exchange.
So as I said, unless Ann Dunham, was a GSA employee, these practices did not apply to her, as confirmed.
Now of course, I cannot prove or disprove that Ann Dunham was or was not a GSA employee, that would be a different matter.
But……
She did confirm that the GSA does have a policy to destroy their own employee passport applications, and so does the NARA, and so does other governmental agencies, pertaining to their “employees”
So yes, they do have a policy and have in fact complied with that. I said this, but again, it only applies to their employees.
In other word, I never said, nor in the defense of Beth Kelly did she ever say, that the GSA has never issued a directive to destroy passport documents. They did, and have of which was provided to me and the general public. But again, in defense of myself and the GSA, it only applied to the GSA “employees” and it specifically states such in the directive.
Make better sense?
I would suggest that you read the full 12 pages, attached with the emails and the responce reply, 9 pages.
If you need the Scribd links for that, let me know and I will post them for you. If you have any questions after that, let me know.
Iterested Bystander,
I have reviewed the website you provided and see the confusion, mis-statements, mis-analysis, ect.
I am there now, and have posted, waiting moderations.
This should be interesting upcoming. I have also save this site in favorites and will check it daily.
Sir William,
All I can do is quote the article:
“What I found out is that the GSA has never given a directive to the U.S. State Department of how to handle U.S. Citizen passports.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did they actually come and say, “We never gave any such directive?”
MR. RICHARDSON: Oh, absolutely. It’s documented, in my hands, and contained in emails, and the GSA’s directives are a matter of public information and are on the GSA website.”
How that differs from the question I asked, I guess I don’t get. Maybe if I “qualified” my question and wrote “for the general public”, it would have been better asked.
All you have to do is read the exchange at the linked site, and you will see that I defended you, and now I need more help.
Nothing in the emails would satisfy me that the GSA didn’t put out directives about passport applications for the general public, and I was simply asking whether there are more emails, or if the phone conversations between you and Ms Kelley were taped?
What really interests me is that if there was a directive given, the policy was for a 15/20 year destruction policy, and that policy was followed ONCE that we know of.
Now if Strunk would have gotten a letter back stating that all of Stanley’s records were destroyed, since the request was made 15 years after Stanley passed, I could see that. However there were records available from 42 years ago at the time of the request.
I find it interesting that the policy was followed ONCE.
Then I read the article where you state no directive was ever given.
All I did was ask you some questions, and I can’t get answers for any of them.
Interesting.
Maybe you could answer this:
Did the P&E contact Ms Kelley to verify your information? I can’t find an answer to that question either.
I need the link to the full affidavit.
Thanks Sir William.
Sir William commented this:
“In other word, I never said, nor in the defense of Beth Kelly did she ever say, that the GSA has never issued a directive to destroy passport documents. They did, and have of which was provided to me and the general public. But again, in defense of myself and the GSA, it only applied to the GSA “employees” and it specifically states such in the directive.”
That’s not what the information in the article states.
Were you misquoted?
JJ | September 19, 2010 at 12:47 am |
Our govt should ban Shariah law, but I’ve read two cases in the last month that judges dismissed..and one was acquitted and the Islam/Muslim raped his wife and beat her in view of the neighbors…is this by definition ‘banning’ Shariah law??
Remember…our governing body is not to be trusted—they are fleeing when the SHTF to other non-Muslim countries…just my thought.
My friends, neighbors, and church members are terrified of this Shariah law even being allowed to be spoken in our nation, let alone enforced by Islam/Muslims.
==============================
You are dead right on this one. There are two MAJOR problems with Sharia Law:
1. The obvious one is that it will become integrated into our whole body of law and be applied to us and we will have to accommodate or even enforce it.
2. The second is very tricky and insidious: Even if applied to a segment of the population (e.g. Muslims), and even if they are allowed to do it voluntarily (i.e. if both plaintiff and defendant agree), it is STILL UnAmerican. We are a country of rights. Women have certain rights that we especially look out for, same with children, and many more we almost take for granted. In a Sharia court those are left at the door.
CC,
Your responce to the 9/11 Thruthers topic was spot on yesterday.
=============================
Aw shucks, blush blush.
Glad to be a light bearer!
Pete | September 19, 2010 at 8:54 am |
================================
Now it is YOU who are “spot on”. Thanks for the elaboration.
I can’t prove such a high number, but I am personally convinced that 99% of “truther” activity is a direct offspring of BDS.
I think it is almost undeniable that at least 50-60% of it is. And a huge minority (maybe as much as 20-30%) is based on an insidious form (specifically trying to make an absurd and false distinction between Zionists and Jews) of Anti-Semitism.
A revealing example:
Some of us are old enough and may have lived in the south and first-hand witnessed the last stand of actual white racists – to hide or justify their latent racism – the divided “them” up into Good N-ggers and Bad N-ggers. Then they directed all there hate at the BN’s and righteously claimed that they loved GN’s. Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now. We all see through the charade. Oh, and don’t forget – some of the N’s bought into this and even promoted it because they saw it as a way to distance themselves from the hate. “Hey, don’t be so broad with your criticism, I’m a GN, one of the BN’s did that, go pizz on THEM!). This too has a direct analogy in the Zionist/Jew discussion.
It continues to concern me when I see folks talking about being taught one must be born on “US Soil” to be President.
This plays into the “Lies of the Left” stating O was born here, so this is all that is required.
Is The Law of Nations mentioned in the Constitution or not? Yes it is, under powers of Congress, Article I. It is Capitalized so it is talking about a specific Law of Nations. I have not seen anyone come up with a reference to any other Law of Nations than Vetal’s. Read it all the way 212 through 219.
This definition of NBC says it does not matter where one is born. You will learn to honor the “country of your father”, from your father, no matter what soil your mother was standing on at the time you happen to be born. Learned, allegiance, is what is important to be President. And it comes from your father! Not the ground. You are Born, ” in the country of your father” no mater where your mother happens to be standing at the time, unless they have moved their permanent residence.
It is an insult to the whole military and their families to say if your son was born off US soil he is not American enough, to be deemed NBC, unless it was “declared, time of war”.
Being an anchor baby does not make you less a foreigner, nor make you loyal to the country you where born in, if your parents live as foreigners!
Obama is no NBC because his father was a foreigner, and does not matter if he was born in DC! He is a foreigner, because he was raised a foreigner, and idolized his absent African Colonialist father. His mothers family were communist. They picked Frank Marshall Davis, another communist, for his black father figure. His heart is not with the US, as a USNBC would be.
Thus the NBC clause in the Constitution must be upheld, or we become just another UN country.
If we allow a Muslim to be President, our Christian heritage and our Christian based Constitution will be erased!
Interested Bystander,
I think you are confused. No, the P&E did not mis-quote me.
Let’s go back to the FOIA.
1). The State Dept. Claims that due to a GSA directive, they destroyed some documentations pertaingin to passports.
2). The GSA states and claims, they have never issued a directive to the U.S. State dept on how to manage U.S. passports, to non GSA employees or any other goverment branch, or U.S. citizens.
3). The GSA does claim that the did in fact issue a directive pertaining to the Destruction of applications of passports, issued by the GSA to GSA “employess”, in 1985, of which they do not deny. But that does not apply to the U.S. State dept handling of “our” passports, the non-GSA employees…
In other words, yes, they did have a directive, issued in the 80″s, to destroy passport documents…..IF YOU WERE A GSA EMPLOYEE AND WORKED FOR THEM !!!!
Other than that, it did not apply to you………….
Was Ann Dunham a GSA Employee? Not that we know of.
Interested Bystander,
I am having trouble copying the link from Scribd on the 2nd supplemental, however, if you go to obamareleaseyourrecords.co., under the Strunk FOIA which discusses the 2nd Supplement, there is a direct link to the Scribd, which includes my full affidavit.
Let me know if you have problems getting there
Obama drops ‘Creator’ from Declaration quote
President gives no credit to author of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=204973
He like his cohort, Elena Kagan, do not understand the concept of God given rights or natural law. That’s why she could not answer a direct question about this during the confirmation hearings.
Progressives believe our rights come from the government and they are the government (for now) so rights can be given or taken away at whim. To justify their position, progressives say the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document.
Here is the lame responce, and a false one at that.
IB,
Yes, I see that you are defending my stance, and appreciate it, although it is not necessary. First, all have either not read the entire second supplemental, or making assumptions. Second, I see no history of this website with the link given – ie, a home page, and lastly, how popular is this website to debate anything with only 38 responces in nearly 2 weeks?
Not to forget the fact that my comments have been setting in moderation for a couple of hours now.
It appears that if you wish to understand anything pertaining to the FOIA, you best bet is to stay on this website of CW.
IB,
After you review and analyze the full12 page respoce from me in the FOIA, plus review the 9 page responce from the DOJ, and it would help if you read prior too, but not needed, let me know what else you need for answers to your questions.
Please read this article and explain how you think it affects the efforts that we have made to bring this country back to the Republic that our forefathers founded. http://constitutionalvoices.org/bloggers/freedomblogger2/?p=1416 Go to page 9 in the yellow box on the right. The United States is NOT a Country! It is a Corporation & That Is Not Good for Constitutional Rights. Is this the reason that we cannot get a case heard in the courts on O’s elligibility?