Category Archives: Secretary of Defense

Judge Lind decision flawed, Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin, White paper, Citizen Wells open thread, September 4, 2010

Judge Lind decision flawed, Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin, White paper

Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin September 3, 2010 researched and Prepared by J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington

We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind’s decision, which Lakin’s defense team must seize upon in orderto alter the current course of this trial.

  • Lind’s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
  • Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.
  • Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a “penal system” unlike the US Justice System – as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.
  • Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.
  • Lind’s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is “not relevant” in matters ofmilitary command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 – “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as totheir legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. – By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. – That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.”
  • Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin’s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney’s sworn affidavit.

At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he “unlawfully” refused orders. If his orders were not “lawful,” including but not limited to, emanating from a “lawful”chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOTGUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.

Read more:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12ad99e56f2bb6c8&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D2485918dad%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12ad99e56f2bb6c8%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQq8K2LEI7Jyn8E46_77A76s6qtiA&pli=1

Denise R. Lind, Lakin judge, Court Martial hearing, Judge Lind is wrong, Citizen Wells open thread, September 3, 2010

Denise R. Lind, Lakin judge, Court Martial hearing, Judge Lind is wrong

Reported here yesterday September 2, 2010 from a World Net Daily article.

“A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the court-martial process for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama’s eligibility to be president to be evaluated.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence that will be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial for Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to those records.

With her decision, Lind plunged into lockstep with a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ any access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin’s civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.

Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant being put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.

Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the courtroom, disagreed.

She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president and anyway, it should be Congress that would call for impeachment of a sitting president.”

I stated the following and I stand by that now.

“It is apparent that Judge Lind does not know her ass from a hole in the ground. First of all, impeachment is not necessary or appropriate for removing a usurper, an illegal occupant of the White House.

Judge Lind’s first duty is to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Secondary to that is her duty as a judge to the defendant, the court and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In regard to her statement about embarassment of Obama. First of all, Obama is not POTUS. Secondly, this situation of a usurper occupying the White House is already an embarassment to the nation.”

Judge Lind and all of the superior officers up the chain of command above Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, up to, and including, Barack Obama, who is masquerading as Commmander in Chief, are full of crap and most likely guilty of treason. I am calling for the removal of Judge Lind with a replacement more familiar and adherent to the US Constitution and military rules and protocol.

I have previously done much reading on the topics of chain of command and the duty of officers to obey and disobey orders. More to follow.

Barack Obama, Commander in chief?, US Constitution, Oath of office, US Military, ZachJonesIsHome, Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission, Military service, Natural born citizen issue will not go away

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

 
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

I never refer to Barack Obama as president. The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution reveals why.

Zach, the name I use for the owner of the Zach Jones Is Home blog, has been a patriot blogger for almost two years, in the struggle to expose the truth about Barack Obama and to save this country. I have had many phone and email discussions with Zach. He has been an invaluable contributor to this blog and to the combined efforts of citizen journalists. In the article below provided by Zach today, January 1, 2010, Zach writes of his and his family’s military service. I would like to thank Zach, his family and all of those who have served this country in the military. I would also like to thank Zach for his efforts to reveal the truth about Obama and to take back this country. 

From Zach Jones Is Home, January 1, 2010.

“American Soldiers – Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission – The Whys and Whats Becoming Harder to Answer?”

“Families that honor military service are spread all across this nation.  I grew up in one. Even as a teenager in the sixties, I remember knowing that freedom wasn’t free.  My father had served in Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and served as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials. How could I not know the price of freedom? WWII, now that was a just war.  Everyone knew it.  Everyone knew the war had to be won at all costs because failure clearly meant tyranny and death for an entire people, the Jewish people. Everyone knew, even the media knew the Whys and Whats.  Why they were fighting? What they were fighting for? They knew the cost of winning and losing! And,  victory wasn’t a dirty word.

However, my brother and I served in the United States Navy during a time in America’s history dominated by numbing callousness, selfishness, and indifference.  The loss of the Vietnam War brought about by the media and endless protests of duplicitous, naïve dreamers and schemers; the festering pain of Watergate continuously exploited by politicians in D.C., the good but lackluster caretaker President Ford portrayed as a bumbling stumbling fool on Saturday Night Live, the My Lai massacre and Lt. Calley’s conviction not quite distant enough to avoid its stench, and a war/corruption weary people’s vote for change promised by Jimmy Carter all marked this period.  Amazingly, like today, Carter’s change didn’t live up to expectations. Instead it brought gas lines, high inflation, 20+ percent interest rates and high unemployment – despair.”

“It was a perfect storm that had brought us Carter Presidency.  And with it’s battered and bruised image, the United States military seemed to have a hell of time riding out that storm until President Reagan could put his hands to the reigns. Reagan’s zero-tolerance drug testing came along after I got out and things started turning around rather quickly according to my brother.  I believe the foundation that President Reagan built (or rebuilt) continues to serve soldiers today and will not be easily surrendered by the military leadership.”

“See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well.  Neither is going with the flow.

But it’s the military leadership, the career guys and gals, who have a shot at controlling or changing the flow. Yes, sometimes they fail, but it’s their job to address the issues. It’s especially egregious when they, like politicians, just won’t see or acknowledge that something is becoming a problem – when they don’t want to get ‘their’ hands dirty or risk jeopardizing ‘their’ career paths.  Two words – Ft. Hood.

And so I come to write this conflicted accolade to today’s American Soldier.”

“Soldiers serving in the first few years after 9/11 must have had an incredible sense of the Whys and Whats that carried them through each and every day.”

“Today, we have Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic controlled Congress (dominated by the radical left since 2006) and they are galloping as fast as they can towards creating a socialist system that would make Vladimir Ilyich Lenin proud. If you look past the rhetoric you easily see that they are attempting to create larger and larger voting blocks that are wholly dependent on the federal government, hands out, afraid to question anything, afraid to vote for anyone calling for personal responsibility. Having a nation of sheeple, like birds at a bird feeder, is not good for the country or our future. Look at the recent action Obama took diminishing our American sovereignty on Dec. 17. Constitution be damned.  Does anyone really think the Second Amendment is safe?”

“I use the phrase “defending freedom overseas” instead of “around the world” because, as much as I love them, I’m not sure they are defending our freedoms at home.  I can’t really blame the enlisted soldier because when I was in the military, I didn’t have time to keep up with what politicians at home were attempting to do to us. I basically thought politicians were all self-serving pieces of crap and the voting process would weed them out.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. (The statement that politicians “were all self-serving pieces of crap” is still accurate, but the vote might not be able to undo the damage they are doing to our freedoms and the Constitution.)

And the military leadership continues to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and ignore “the flow” that’s becoming more and more turbulent.

(And the American soldier is expected to accept “the flow” as he or she finds it?)”

“All of these illustrate situations where officers up the chain of command, including the “Commander In Chief”, appear ready to shirk their duty to the Constitution and America Soldiers under their command so they can protect their relatively trivial career ambitions and/or pursue their personal political agendas.

This is when it becomes hard to answer the Whats and Whys.  What does support and defend the Constitution mean?  Who are the enemies of the United States?  Why am I defending something that seems optional for my superior officers?   What is really important to the chain of command – advancement, career or the Oath? Who are the Oathkeepers? Why should I obey my superior officers when they choose to ignore parts of the Constitution? What’s the point? What am I doing that protects the Constitution and the Freedoms of my family and friends?”

“The duty – I think of this as the soldier doing his or her best to live up to the oath they took when they enlisted.  Basically the duty is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms/protections flowing from it to each and every citizen.”

“The “natural born citizen” issue will not go away and I’m sure it’s on the minds of many in the military; it affects morale, re-enlistment decisions, and how many traditional military supporters view the institution.  It’s similar to how the epidemic of drug use in the 70’s military effected civilians & soldiers who knew about the problem and cared about what it said about the institution.”

“To the American Soldier – Thank you for your service and sacrifices for this country.

I am truly sorry to be in the position of having to speak so bluntly about an institution that I love.”

Read the rest of this great article from a friend, soldier and patriot:

http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/american-soldiers-tortured-duty-tortured-mission-the-whys-and-whats-becoming-harder-to-answer-the-bopac-report/

Major Nidal Hasan, Homeland Security, Presidential transition task force, George Washington University, Non partisan think tank, For the Administration taking office in January 2009

Major Nidal Hasan, the Muslim shooter at Fort Hood, apparently was in attendance at the Homeland Security Policy Institute, Presidential Transition Task Force. From the Task Force report.

“Initiated by HSPI’s Steering Committee in Spring 2008, the Task Force sought to further policy discussions of the top strategic priorities in the area of security in order to generate actionable recommendations, for the Administration taking office in January 2009, designed to effectively meet the most vexing challenges the United States faces today.”

Here are some exerpts from the report.

“The nation is in the midst of a crossroads in its consideration of security policy. A coherent strategy to address 21st century threats to the United States, one that treats national and homeland security as a seamless whole, has yet to emerge. Washington is now marked by a new Administration, a new tone, and a new space – offering a rare opportunity to catch our collective breath, to think creatively and anew about the most vexing challenges this country faces, and to put the most powerful of those reasoned ideas into action.”

“The Task Force held internal deliberations, which included a number of briefings from subject-matter experts at the forefront of their fields.1 From these discussions and debates, four strategic priorities emerged that serve to inform the new Administration:
• development and implementation of a proactive security strategy at the federal level that integrates international and domestic aspects of security, is founded upon the concepts of resilience, and is effectively resourced;
• enhancement of a national approach to preparedness and response through the development of a risk-based homeland security doctrine that effectively draws upon and coordinates all available assets (governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the public);
• realistic public discussion of the threats the nation faces and constructive engagement of the American public in preparedness and response efforts; and
• re-invigoration of the United States’ role in the world, through a recognition that our security and that of our allies depends upon the stability and engagement of other nations.”

“Findings
• The US has adopted reactive rather than proactive strategic approaches to homeland security and national security.
• The US has not built sufficient resilience into its strategic security posture.
• Since 2003, homeland security and national security policy have been treated as separate and distinct enterprises.
• The budgeting process for homeland security investment priorities is opaque and oriented towards the short-term.”
“Recommendations
The President should:
• develop homeland security doctrine that includes a multi-layered approach to threat response—utilizing all aspects of the federal government, to include homeland and national security entities—to improve regional capability;
• incorporate anti-crime and counterterrorism planning, “intelligence-led policing,” and all-hazards preparedness into preparedness planning;
• utilize and foster State and local law enforcement intelligence relationships with DHS via fusion centers;
• continue incorporating the National Guard into Northern Command’s mission; and
• encourage the formulation of strategic relationships with academia and the private sector at the national and regional levels to inform security policy.”

“Recommendations
The President should:
• employ a strategy that amplifies voices within the Muslim world that seek to counter radicalization and recruitment, and that exercises care regarding the use of lexicon;
• foster respect for and adherence to international law in the form of longstanding, fundamental and widely accepted norms; and
• engage productively with international organizations and institutions to build security abroad”

“Crowley specified, saying it was imperative for the next ad-ministration to practice transparency and the rule of law, which means closing Guantanamo Bay. HSPI Director Frank Cilluffo went further, stating that we ought to abandon the label “Global War on Terror”, which has the effect of elevating our adversaries and isolating our allies. In response, Crowley agreed and suggested the British term, “struggle against violent extremism,” as a more viable alternative.”

NidalHasanHomelandSecurity

NidalHasanHomelandSecurity2

Homeland Security report:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=124df4300250bab2&mt=application%2Fpdf&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D2485918dad%26view%3Datt%26th%3D124df4300250bab2%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHBy-hbj6S1hvA22vNmfZDbIrweHCUhVjg

Judge Clay D Land ruling, Judicial misconduct, Captain Connie Rhodes motion, September 16, 2009, Orly Taitz, Rules for judicial conduct, 28 U.S.C., Judge Land guilty of judicial misconduct

*** Update below September 17, 2009  5:30 PM  **

Despite the lack of respect for the US Constitution, the rule of law, concerned American citizens and not obeying their oaths of office by judges and state election officials over the past year, I, Citizen Wells, respect the office of the judiciary and do not take lightly charging a judge with judicial misconduct. However, due to the serious nature of the Captain Connie Rhodes’ motion, it’s consequences for the military and nation in general, and the non judicious attitude of Judge Land in dismissing the motion, I believe it is the lesser of evils, and certainly in the best interest of ongoing jurisprudence, to check this judicial abuse of power.

The Citizen Wells blog reported yesterday, Wednesday, September16, 2009, on the ruling by Judge Land.
Citizen Wells response to Judge Land ruling
For simplicity’s sake, we reported on the ruling by Judge Land. We will leave to others to debate the courtroom banter, motion word smithing and argument methodologies.

This is indeed a serious matter. At stake is the integrity of our judicial system, upholding the US Constitution and rule of law, insuring that we have a qualified president and supporting the military as they faithfully uphold the oath they have taken to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Judge Land, as a District Court Judge, is subject to the RULES FOR JUDICIAL-CONDUCT AND JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS.

“These Rules govern proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 (the Act), to determine whether a covered judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts or is unable to discharge the duties of office because of mental or physical disability.”

“these Rules provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of misconduct and disability proceedings under the Act.”

“(e) Disability. “Disability” is a temporary or permanent condition rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. Examples of disability include substance abuse, the inability to stay awake during court proceedings, or a severe impairment of cognitive abilities.”

Disability, such as “severe impairment of cognitive abilities”, will not be addressed, although after reading the ruling, that possibility did occur to me.

“(h) Misconduct. Cognizable misconduct:

6 (1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the  business of the courts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

(A) using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
(B) accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office;
(C) having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case;
(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner;
(E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements;
(F) soliciting funds for organizations; or
(G) violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure.”

First, note, “Misconduct includes, but is not limited to”

Judge Land is obvious guilty of two of the offenses above.

 

(D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner

Egregious defined: “conspicuously bad : flagrant <egregious errors>”

(Note dictionary example – “egregious errors”)

This motion was filed by a captain in the US Military who was required to take an oath to defend the US Constitution. The following was also made clear to Captain Connie Rhodes:

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Land’s persistent reference to “birther” and “birther claim”, aside from having political connotations, is condescending  and demeaning. Judge Land is  both ignorant and misinformed regarding Obama’s eligibility.

“5 of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”

Judge Land dismisses an alleged birth certificate with an attached affidavit yet he quotes the COLB, Certification of Live Birth, a document with no affadavit of authenticity, which is not a birth certificate and refers to the presence of another document. Judge Land has requested no authenticating of the COLB.

“Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.”

Judge Land has made another demeaning statement. The irony of that statement is that any middle school student knows that the president must be a natural born citizen and that the judicial system is part of the checks and balances to prevent a usurper from taking office.

“Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.”

There is no reason to believe that Captain Rhodes was motivated politically. What is readily apparent is that Captain Rhodes takes her oath of office seriously.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

This clearly qualifies as an unwarranted and hostile attack upon the character of the plaintiff.

(E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements

“To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes.”

Judge Land’s repeated use of the term “birther”, a hallmark insult from the far left and Obama camp, reveals not only his political agenda but a disregard for the US Constitution, an officer in the US military, the plaintiff’s attorney and decent American citizens. That term has no place in the courtroom, especially being flung by a misinformed, biased judge.

“Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.“

“Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.”

Judge Land uses as the basis for part of his decision a politically motivated, display of an unsubstantiated COLB.

 

Summary
Judge Land, who is clearly misinformed and makes uninformed decisions that certainly appear to be politically motivated, should be brought before a judicial review board. And, if Judge Land believes that he is making well founded statements based on substantiated facts, then the spectre of his ability to sit judiciously on the bench arises.

It is hoped that one or both of two scenarios will occur.

1. Someone will file a complaint.

 
2. I believe it is in the best interest of the judiciary system to self police this matter. Confidence in the judiciary and other branches of government is at an all time low. The American citizens need a clear signal that they will get fair treatment in court and that the judicial branch of government will fulfill it’s crucial part in the checks and balances system of our government.

How to file a complaint:

http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jud_conduct_and_disability_308_app_B_rev.pdf

 

** Update **

“Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D, filed today an Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment, pending the filing of a Motion for Re-Hearing, in the Case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.

Yesterday, Judge Clay D. Land garnered nationally notoriety for his rejection of Captain’s Rhodes’ case, with a severe ruling that was widely faulted by legal experts across the nation.

Attorney Taitz in today’s filings details the errors of Land’s ruling.  What follows is The Post & Email’s summary of Tatiz’s Motions, using a copy forwarded us, by Mr. Neil B. Turner.

First, Attorney Taitz alleges that Judge Land’s ruling “violates the 5th Amendment rights” of her client, “to due process of law, in particular, by” the Court’s “violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia, to wit:”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/taitz-files-emergency-stay-and-motion-for-rehearing/

 

Obama, Martial law, Flu pandemic, Emergency, Manufactured crisis, Pentagon request, Federal troops, Nationwide vaccinations, US Northern Command, Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters

This blog is not here to start rumors or manufacture a crisis in Obama camp, Saul Alinsky style.

We are devoted to covering stories that are largely ignored, diminished or downplayed by the MSM.

The Citizen Wells blog has been urging everyone to keep their eyes and ears open. To stay vigilant.

Our biggest concern is another manufactured crisis from the Obama camp and the potential for Martial Law. Martial Law would give the usurper, Obama, nearly total control, especially when he is losing control over the American public and some in Congress.

The following article is from The Progressive, a site that many of those following this blog would normally not agree with on many subjects. However, we can find common ground in this article:

“The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.
By Matthew Rothschild, August 12, 2009

“The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained

Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.””

“But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.”

Read more:

http://www.progressive.org/wx081209b.html

If that does not scare the heck out of you enough, read these exerpts from Creative i:

“Militarization of public health in the case of emergency is now official

According to CNN, the Pentagon is “to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”

“The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command’s Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.

The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.

It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.

Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.

As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called “execution order” that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.

Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said.” (CNN, Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak, July 2009, emphasis added)

The implications are far-reaching.

The decision points towards the militarization of civilian institutions, including law enforcement and public health.

A nationwide vaccination program is already planned for the Fall.

The pharmaceutical industry is slated to deliver 160 million vaccine doses by the Fall, enough doses to vaccinate more than half of America’s population.

The Pentagon is already planning on the number of troops to be deployed,. with a view to supporting a mass vaccinaiton program.

It is worth noting that this involvement of the military is not being decided by the President, but by the Secretary of Defense, which suggests that the Pentagon is, in a key issue of of national interest, overriding the President and Commander in Chief. The US Congress has not been consulted on the issue.

This decision to mobilise the Armed Forces in the vaccination campaign is taken in anticipation of a national emergency. Although no national emergency has been called, the presumption is that a national public health emergency will occur, using the WHO Level 6 Pandemic as a pretext and a justification.

Other countries, including Canada, the UK and France may follow suit, calling upon their Armed Forces to play a role in support of the H1N1 vaccination program.

US Northern Command

Much of the groundwork for the intervention of the military has already been established. There are indications that these “regional teams” have already been established under USNORTHCOM, which has been involved in preparedness training and planning in the case of a flu pandemic (See U.S. Northern Command – Avian Flu. USNORTHCOM website).

Within the broader framework of “Disaster Relief”, Northern Command has, in the course of the last two years, defined a mandate in the eventuality of a public health emergency or a flu pandemic. The emphasis is on the militarization of public health whereby NORTHCOM would oversee the activities of civilian institutions involved in health related services.”

Read more:

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=9290

Keep your eyes and ears open.