Category Archives: Citizen

Larry Sinclair news conference, arrest, NPC, Sylvia Smith, Jane Hamsher, petition, MSM, Sinclair political prisoner, Freedom of Speech, DC Warrant, The Press is failing us

When they tried to silence Larry Sinclair, they tried to silence all
of us.

First came the personal attacks, attempts at discrediting Larry Sinclair and those following his story.

Next came attacks on Sinclair’s family.

Next came multiple death threats made on Sinclair.

Next came a petition encouraged by Jane Hamsher, an Obama supporter,
with ties to David Axelrod and the Obama Campaign, to block
Larry Sinclair’s news conference.

Next came Larry Sinclair’s arrest after his news conference at
the National Press Club. A DC warrant was fabricated for the arrest.

Next came more lies, smears and discreditation attempts by Jane
Hamsher and others aligned with the Obama Campaign.

From the beginning, the press, the MSM, has failed to do their job.
There is enough information, facts, about Obama, to cause any
intelligent, inquisitive news organization to dig beneath the
surface and discern the truth about the Larry Sinclair Story.

Why has the MSM not researched and covered the Larry Sinclair story:

Obama is untouchable. He is the candidate of change.

Fear of being tagged as racist.

Too much emphasis on producing entertainment shows, not news.

Agenda. Many so called news organizations have a far left agenda.
CNN and MSNBC are prime examples of this.

The National Press Club, obviously has many members that are in the
news media. The NPC agreed to allow Larry Sinclair to rent a room
for a news conference. Once the news conference was announced,
a furor (notice the resemblance to fuhrer) developed. Many Obama
supporters on the far left were enraged and questioned the NPC
decision to allow Sinclair to speak. Aren’t these some of the same
people outraged by the detention of prisoners at Guantanimo?

The National Press Club, and Sylvia Smith stood their ground
and supported free speech. However, there are several aspects
of the NPC experience that are troubling:

According to Larry Sinclair, the steps and routes that were set
up to supposedly maximize security, seemed to facilitate his arrest.

I have it on authority that a member of a major news organization
was not allowed in.

I am told from a reliable source that the arrest was supposed
to occur before the news conference and that Mr. Sibley thwarted
that attempt.

My best sources tell me that Sylvia Smith was seen talking on the
phone as Larry Sinclair was being escorted by law enforcement.
This is what I believe she said:
“they are bringing  him down now”.

The petition to stop the Sinclair news conference was accepted by
the General Manager, Bill McCarren. Why did the NPC accept the
petition?

Why did the General Manager of the NPC make this statement?

“Hopefully this man will be exposed for what he really is,”

View the video of the petitions being delivered here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0CpUQf-VE

The above video is from Jane Hamsher’s website, firedoglake.com.

Here are some quotes from Sylvia Smith:
“After a week of relentless e-mails and phone calls from people who were outraged at the prospect of a guy scheduling a press conference to make allegations about Barack Obama, I’m not sure extreme CPR could resuscitate the idea of free speech in some Americans’ minds.”
“My point is that the very thing the people who advocated blocking Sinclair’s press conference said they feared – widespread media coverage – simply didn’t happen because no credible news outlet would publish those kinds of allegations without first verifying them.”

Read more here:
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080622/EDIT0501/806220372

 
Here are some remarks from Larry Sinclair:

“THE NPC WITHOUT A DOUBT HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH DC METRO POLICE TO TAKE ME INTO CUSTODY AFTER THE PC. THEY WERE EVEN PARKED IN OUR (MINE AND THE NPC’S) PLANNED EXIT ROUTE FROM THE BUILDING AFTER THE PC WAS OVER. IT IS CLEAR THE NPC HAD ARRANGED FOR THE PC TO TAKE PLACE AND I WAS EVEN ESCORTED TO THE RESTROOM AND BACK TO AN ENCLOSED ROOM PENDING THE START OF THE PC.”

Read more about Larry Sinclair here:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com

The MSM is not doing their job

The MSM is protecting Obama

David Axelrod and the Obama Campaign are part of a reign of terror.

National Press Club, Sylvia Smith. What is your response to this
mutilation of justice?

 

 

Larry Sinclair news conference, Larry Sinclair arrest, DC Police, Delaware warrant, Political Prisoner, FBI, death threats, DC Judge, What Really Happened

The events leading up to, during and after Larry Sinclair’s news conference seem Orwellian or scripted from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Gulags. You have heard the lies, smears and hypocrisy. You have heard the lies about taking credit for Sinclair’s arrest and about the Colorado warrant. Now for the truth, from Larry Sinclair. I can corroborate much of what Sinclair says. Sinclair is free and here is the experience in his own words:

 “What Really Happened At The National Press Club
Posted by Larry Sinclair on Tuesday, June 24, 2008

First allow me to explain that on Monday, June 16, 2008 I was contacted by Special Agent Brenda Born of the DC FBI informing me that the FBI had identified and located the individual who threatened to kill me, my lawyer and my mother at the NPC.  Agent Born confirmed the individual was a resident of the DC area and was an adult.  What was shocking to me is that Agent Born informed me that the US Attorney in DC had decided not to file charges against this individual and that the identity of the person could not b provided to me or my attorney without the approval of the US Attorney.

As for my arrest at the NPC on Wednesday June 18, 2008 after the conclusion of the PC, I see that no one has bothered to print the truth so allow me.  First, the PC was in fact packed with PRESS contrary to the bloggers who want others to believe otherwise.  Shortly before 1:00 PM a line had formed causing the NPC to ask us to begin sign in because the lobby was filling up.

At the conclusion of the PC, NPC Security head had brought three (3) plain clothed DC Police Detectives into the room and introduced them to me.  All three identified themselves as DC Police detectives and that they had a “Fugitive from Justice” warrant from Delaware.  These detectives did not escort me out in hand cuffs as reported by others.  All three were very professional, polite and respectful.  When asked for a copy of the warrant, they stated they had it in the car.

On Thursday June 19, 2008 I appeared before Judge Melendez in the DC Superior Court.  I asked that the court release me and allow me to immediately report to Delaware authorities which the US Attorney and the Judge refused to do.  Further, even though the Judge and the US Attorney was informed of my being denied access to my medication and medical treatment, the US Attorney demanded a bail of $75,000.00 which was completely inappropriate considering that Delaware did not have a “Fugitive from Justice” warrant against me, and the Judge and US Attorney both KNEW this was in fact the case.

I was ordered held for Delaware which I waived extradition, and I was held in the DC Jail [from 6-19-08 until approximately 10:30am Monday June 23, 2008] and deny access to phone, medication, and medical treatment.  When picked up on Monday June 23, 2008 by Delaware officials, I asked why there would be a “Fugitive from Justice” warrant for my arrest.  I was informed that there was no such warrant issued by Delaware, but that in fact DC had made that charge against me in order for them to arrest me on the “Rule 9″ warrant that was pending from a Delaware “SEALED” Grand Jury warrant.  I was told that what DC should have done was advise me to report to Delaware.  This rule 9 warrant was explained to me as being nothing that anyone could call me a “Fugitive from Justice” on because I had never been served the notice, taken into custody or formally charged on as yet.

Upon my return to Delaware, I appeared before a Superior Court Judge at 2:30 pm at which time I was released on PR bond and released.  I will say that the charge is questionable at best and after speaking with my Attorney I will allow him/her decide what can and cannot be posted here.

So to all those reporting I was taken out in hand cuffs, I assure you I walked out with no cuffs, carrying my bags from the NPC.  I also feel it important to state that the NPC staff conducted themselves with nothing short of kindness and professionalism from the moment I arrive to the moment I left.

Yes there are some questions for the US Attorney’s Office in the FBI investigation of the death threats, the arrest on the Delaware matter and the denying of phone access, medication and medical treatment while being held in custody in DC.  Just as there are some questions as to Judge Melendez’ refusal to allow me to report to Delaware and her holding me over on a DC produced warrant that did not reflect the Delaware issue appropriately, and her failure to order my being provided my prescribed medications and phone access even to my attorney.  There are some questions for the US Marshall’s Office and the way I was treated when I repeatedly requested access to my medication and/or medical treatment.”

Read more here:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/what-really-happened-at-the-national-press-club/#comment-53055

Larry Sinclair is free, Why was Sinclair arrested, Another failed attempt to smear Sinclair, Parties responsible should be held accountable

Larry Sinclair was transported to Delaware and appeared before a
judge. Sinclair was allowed to return home.

Why was Sinclair arrested?

I have it on authority that they tried to arrest Sinclair before
the news conference began.

Did the DC police fabricate a warrant in order to arrest Sinclair?
First Axelrod and the Obama Campaign attack and try to discredit
Sinclair.

Next multiple death threats were made.

Then Jane Hamsher, on her website, encouraged Obama supporters
to sign a petition to try to prevent Sinclair from speaking at
his news conference.

Then Sinclair is arrested before he can answer more questions.

Is this the kind of change you want? This is the kind of change
the German people got with the Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

I intend to get to the bottom of this chicanery.

Larry Sinclair News Conference, video, National Press Club video, Larry Sinclair video, Montgomery Sibley, attorney, official video

The video of the Larry Sinclair news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 is now available for viewing. This is the only official video. Other audios and videos have been offered but this was just set up for viewing by Sinclair’s attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley.

http://www.larrysinclair.org/press.html

 

Tim Russert, journalism, truth, Meet the Press, blogs, internet, challenge to MSM, press, Honor Tim Russert

Tim Russert will be buried this week and memorial services will
be held to honor this man, the son, father, husband, decent human
being and revered journalist.

I was watching one of the many tributes over the weekend. I believe
it was Jack Welch, Russert’s friend and former boss. Russert was
asked to speak at a charity event and responded “just say when and
where.” Russert was to speak near his son’s college, Boston College.
Russert drove a truck up to leave with his son, spoke and then had a
late flight to take back. He was urged to spend the night. Russert
said no, I have a meeting early in the morning. Russert returned
for his meeting. The point was, Russert took care of all the important
aspects, giving back, taking care of family and his job.

How can journalists, media people honor the memory of Tim Russert?
Giving praise and attending memorials are a fine thing. However,
Russert was a man of action, devoted to covering politics and the
news. Russert would want people to do the job he can no longer do,
cover this election.

We are at a turning point in news coverage and information disemination.
The internet is rapidly becoming a primary news source for the public.
Blogs and websites have played a huge role in the 2008 election.
There is a story that is playing out that has barely been touched
by the MSM. A citizen has been trying to get a story before the
American people about Barack Obama. This citizen has had to resort
to utilizing the internet in the form of youtube videos, his own
blog and internet interviews. With little help from the MSM, the
word has gotten out.

Larry Sinclair will host a news conference at the National Press
Club on Wednesday, June 18, 2008. During the news conference, Mr.
Sinclair will answer questions and provide corroboration to his
story. Mr. Sinclair alleges that he and Obama used drugs and
engaged in gay sex on two occasions in November 1999. On the
surface the allegations look preposterous, but after doing the
job a reporter should do, and examining the allegations in the
context of Obama’s life and associations, they become believable.

What is my point? The MSM has not done their job. Obama has been
given a free ride for multiple reasons, one of which I believe
is the fear of being called racist.

Tim Russert was one of the first sources I referred to. In 2007
Mr. Russert questioned Obama about his records. Russert pushed
Obama for an answer and gave us one of our first glimpses of
the real Obama, an elusive character, a master of diversions.

So, you want to honor Tim Russert? Follow this story. Do the job
you are supposed to do.

Cover this election!

Obama natural born citizen?, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama born in Kenya, Is Obama eligible to be president?

** Major Update August 2, 2009 **

Update here

 

Obama has been asked repeatedly to present a copy of his birth
certificate. Obama has refused to supply a copy of his birth
certificate. Is Obama eligible to be president?

Was Obama born in Kenya? I have two powerful sources that indicate
that Obama was born on Kenya. One is a reporter working behind the
scenes. The other is from the following site. The headline is shown
below and states:

“Kenyan-born OBAMA makes history…wins presidential nomination.”

http://www.usafricaonline.com/chido.obama08houston.html
A poster on Larry Sinclair’s blog has provided the following
interpretation of whether Obama meets the citizenship status
to be president:

“MARK Says:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama’s aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would be very insterested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days…”
Click here for more on this story:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/obama-rep-jen-psaki-run-a-campaign-is-to-respond-immediately/

Below are US Constitution, Amendments and court cases that relate to the citizenship requirements for president from Wikipedia:

US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, it does confer on Congress the power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

US case law

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen,” there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the “natural born citizen” clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who “are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity” is automatically a citizen.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court’s ruling was based have changed since 1927.)

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).