Thursday, February 28, 2013

Obama is releasing criminals and should be impeached

What is "sequestration"? By definition, sequestration is "a legal writ authorizing a sheriff or commissioner to take into custody the property of a defendant who is in contempt until the orders of a court are complied with." The word is derived from British law and amounts to the act of taking someone's property until a debt has been paid.

In the U.S., budget laws allow the executive branch to "undo" congressional appropriations with small, across-the-board spending cuts. In its current use, sequestration amounts to $1.2 trillion in across-the-board government spending cuts scheduled to occur over the next decade.

Sequestration, or automatic $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, thats 10 years for the low information voter, coming equally from domestic and defense spending.

(Obama determines what reduction in proposed spending is reduced. There is no real cuts in reducting the budget!!. Story Reports

What's the next key deadline after sequestration takes effect? On paper, the government runs out of money March 27, although it has ways to continue funding itself beyond that date.

.................................
New Woodward Book Confirms “Sequester Idea Originated with obama the liar in chief!


“The book ‘The Price of Politics,’ by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts” which would jeopardize our national defense “originated in the White House – and not in Congress”

(The sequester reduction in spending originated in the white house from obama!) Story Reports

President Barack Obama’s top deputies believed the prospect of massive defense cuts would compel Republicans to agree to a deficit-cutting grand bargain.

“Then-OMB Director Jack Lew, now the White House chief of staff, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors pitched the idea to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Woodward writes. Under the deal, which Republicans accepted after several rounds of bargaining, the federal debt ceiling was raised — staving off a potential financial crisis. …

“Administration officials ‘had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger,’ Woodward explains. ‘It would require a sequester with half the cuts from defense, and the other half from domestic programs….’”

................................

Obama administration officials have repeatedly said the looming ‘sequester’ defense cuts would “hollow out” our armed forces and devastate our national security.

(This is exactly what obama wanted another "crisis" to further destroy the US economy. Now obama has complete control of what reductions occur.) Story Reports

................................

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obamas-release-of-illegals-impeachable-offense/ Rush Limbaugh

The Obama administration’s release of hundreds and potentially thousands of illegal-alien criminals from U.S. detention centers in connection with possible budget cuts is being called “an impeachable offense” by the nation’s highest-rated radio talk-show host.

“In what used to be considered – if we can remember this far back – normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense,” broadcaster Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday. “This is action being taken against the country. … It is sheer madness to be doing this. It is petulant, it is childish.”

“This is in direct violation of the oath of office,” he continued. “Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and the people. We’re just opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened. Before there have even been any budget cuts. This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live nearby these detention centers. This is on-the-ground, hard, cold reality."

This is exacting harm on the country and it's entirely unnecessary. None of these so-called budget cuts are necessary. None of this panic is necessary. It is not even going to be felt, in reality, if the sequester actually does happen.

For the record, these illegals being released really are criminals; otherwise, they would never have been detained, Limbaugh said. It was the [Obama] regime that detained them in the first place. These are not Bush' prisoners. These are Obama's prisoners. They were detained and imprisoned by the regime in the first place. And let's not forget, thanks to Obama's executive orders, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the immigration people, no longer detain any illegal aliens unless they've been convicted of a serious crime. That's who we're talking about here. You have to commit a serious crime before we detain you if you're illegal. This isn't just a bunch of discriminated-against freedom fighters that have been wrongly jailed finally seeing freedom.

..................................




Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Barack Obama uses a relative's social security number (Harrison J. Bounel)

Supreme Court denies Obama birther eligibility case Noonan v. Bowen
.......................
This is only one of a number of suspicious activities in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously a case Lightfoot v Bowen A-084524 by the same attorney Taitz was deleted from the docket of the Supreme Court on inauguration day January 21, 2008, ostensibly to give an impression that there are no more challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Only after the enormous pressure from the public, media, State Representatives and sworn affidavits from attorneys the case was reentered in the public docket.

Clerk in charge for STAYs Danny Bickle repeatedly made incorrect statements claiming that all files were deleted due to some type of computer malfunction, which was not the case. Later, in March of 2009 during a meeting with attorneys and book signing in Los Angeles Taitz was able to discuss the case with Justice Scalia, who was absolutely clueless that the case even existed, even though according to the docket he was a part of the conference of justices who denied that case dealing with the legitimacy of the U.S. President and he voted to deny that case.

One can believe that a judge would forget a case about some trivial dispute, but not a case dealing with the U.S. Presidency he supposedly discussed in conference only a month and a half earlier. It is clear that the case Lightfoot v Bowen was decided by the clerks, the names of the justices were printed on the order when the justices had no clue the case even existed. In a case at hand dealing with the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency this is HIGH TREASON, for which guilty parties should be getting a life in prison or death penalty and the nation is entitled to know who these people are.

In a different case Rhodes v MacDonald 10A56 (entered by the Supreme Court as Taitz v MacDonald) a docket entry showing Justice Clarence Thomas denying an application for STAY was made retroactively on a weekend when Justice Thomas was thousands of miles away giving a seminar in Utah. When Taitz demanded to see an actual signature by Justice Thomas on the order to deny stay or on the cover page of the application, she was referred to Eric Fossum, the same employee, who signed the denial letter in the Taitz v Astrue case, who admitted to her on the phone that there is no signature of Justice Thomas either on the order or on the cover page of the petition. As such, there is no proof justice Thomas ever saw the petition or ever read a word written in the petition. When citizens went to the Supreme Court and requested copies of the pleadings in aforementioned cases, they were told that there are no such documents available.

Noonan v Bowen is a case which provides an undeniable evidence of usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by a criminal, a citizen of Indonesia who claims that his name is Barack Obama, who is using all forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number and a last name not legally his. Allowing this usurpation to go on is an act of HIGH TREASON.

The nation has a right to know who is committing high treason: 9 justices of the Supreme Court of clerks, who hide the pleadings and sworn affidavits from justices. For that reason plaintiffs respectfully demand signatures of the justices on the order or on the front page of the application. If there are no actual signatures of the justices the plaintiffs and the nation as a whole will know that the justices never saw a word of pleadings an the case was “ruled upon” by court employees with unknown allegiance.

Plaintiffs also demand to know the names of the court employees who summarized the case, provided it to the justices and compiled the list of approved or denied applications. Plaintiffs, U.S. Congress, law enforcement and World Community at large deserve to know who committed HIGH TREASON, who should be tried for high treason, who should be getting a penalty which is customary in such cases, which is a life in prison or death penalty.

Conclusion:

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.

Not addressing this case represents high treason against the United States of America and people of the United States of America
....................................

Orly Taitz - an attorney for the plaintiffs - conveyed some additional allegations against the president beyond what was included in Noona's case pleadings. This week, an unidentified source has informed the California-based lawyer that the reason why Michelle Robinson Obama (a graduate of Harvard Law School) ceased to have a law license in Illinois is because she got in trouble for letting Barack Obama use a relative's social security number (Harrison J. Bounel).

The SSN 042-68-4425 is simultaneously tied to Obama and Bounel in background check systems.

The plaintiffs also protested lower-level clerks' decision to withhold the Supplemental Brief and other case pleadings from several of the Supreme Court justices. Taitz had vouched for a thorough review of the arguments to as many of the high court's judges.

Court records show that on Dec. 26, 2012, or three weeks before Obama's second inauguration, Chief Justice John Roberts reversed Justice Anthony Kennedy's rejection and ordered the case distributed for conference on Feb. 15.

However, on that day SCOTUS released its list of granted petitions and Noonan v. Bowen was not included.

Plaintiffs and their attorney are demanding an immediate investigation of both the actions of the employees of the Supreme Court of the United States in hiding pleadings and exhibits from the Justices and Barack Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security 042-68-4425.
........................

online petition requesting a formal investigation into the president's government IDs and SSN


The right to bear arms is a constitutional issue



..........................

10th Circuit rules that concealed carry is not a right

It is very clear, however, that the right to bear arms is a constitutional issue, so states that try to ban carry of any form are infringing. If this gentleman wanted to carry in Denver, which has asserted a "Home Rule" authority to ban open carry, and that authority has been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, then he would have had a very valid argument. Unable to carry openly due to the city ordinance, and unable to carry concealed due to state law, his right was truly infringed. I don't know if he needed to carry in Denver, but, whatever, that wasn't the argument he made.

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

............................
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


The territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit includes the six states of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.

.........................

The U.S. Constitution and 44 States have Constitutional provisions enumerating the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

(Colorado has an open carry law. Their state constitution has it written in stone that concealed carry is not justified. People in Colorado do have a right to bear arms. They will be able to still bear arms in the open.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution gives the right to Americans to own a gun. It doesn't include a provision that you must carry it around in your home only!!! Colorado has restricted that right to open carry only.

To me the right to bear arms means concealed or open in any state.

Many states have constitution provisions for people to bear arms that the federal government can't over ride.

South Carolina is one of them.) Story Reports

South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

(Its strange that the drudge report has nothing about the 10th circuit court of appeals ruling on concealed carry?? I did mean to say the 10th circus court of appeals. My advise is to go out and buy a handgun or rifle. You have the right to defend yourself against crinimals of any kind including criminals that try to take away you Constitutional right to protect yourself.) Story Reports

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Anthony Johnson Father Of Legal Slavery in the US Was A Black Man!!


Anthony Johnson, a black man, THE FATHER OF LEGAL SLAVERY IN TH US.
................................
..............................

Father of U.S. slavery was a black man

One colonist, Anthony Johnson, a black man, by indenturing his own family members, was able to secure 250 acres of land. His sons, utilizing the same strategy, gained an additional 650 acres. The Johnsons settled on “Pungoteague Creek” on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and thrived for almost 40 years.
.................................

It is well known that the first colonials arrived on these shores following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

In 1619, all indentured servants (white or black) had specified periods of servitude ranging from four to seven years and received precisely the same treatment and rewards. At the conclusion of their respective periods of servitude, each was entitled to freedom, citizenship and a land grant of 25 to 50 acres. Throughout the early colonial period when all land was held in trust for the king, the basis of land disposition were grants, dispensed by the local government in accordance with the king’s wishes.

Land grants in Virginia were issued in accordance with a particular system. Under this system, every person who paid his own way to Virginia would be entitled to 50 acres of land, known as a “headright.” There was no stigma attached, and all families, black or white, subsequently enjoyed all the rights and privileges of other citizens in the community. A father could indenture a family of four, and since each family member was entitled to 50 acres at the conclusion of the period of servitude, they were given their freedom and the family would qualify for a parcel of 200 acres.

For the indentureds, there were both economic and civic benefits associated with this practice: British law protected the rights of the individual, the master’s power over his indentured servants was limited, and a specific skill must have been taught.

The Virginia Company, however, changed the rules. They would now allow anyone to pay a person’s transportation to the colony in exchange for a period of indentured servitude, subject to certain caveats. Under the new rules, knowledge of a skill of any kind was not included in this contract and whoever paid the cost of passage would receive the 50 acres of land for each passage purchased. Indentured servants would now get nothing but a trip and often found themselves without rights or freedom.

Indentured servants, especially whites, could (and often did) slip away, become part of another settlement and simply disappear. A permanent, economically beneficial solution for the elites was sought and implemented.

..............................

Anthony Johnson, a black man, raised livestock, prospered and as was customary with prosperous landowners, indenturing one black and several white servants.

Johnson had sued in court and won several cases, but one case in particular would set the stage for a dramatic shift in the workforce. There are several reports as to the origin of this landmark case, which would indelibly change the American cultural landscape and impact relationships between blacks and whites for centuries.

One report says John Casor, a black indentured servant, “swindled” Johnson out of the remainder of his servitude. Another says the family convinced Johnson to free Casor. Still another says Casor “convinced” a white neighbor, Robert Parker, that he was being illegally detained. Whatever the reason, Johnson was not satisfied with the status quo and took Casor and Parker to court, alleging that Casor had not been obtained as a servant, but as a slave.

(Don't just sweep this under the rug and ignore the fact that a BLACK MAN sued in court to turn his black indetured servant into his black SLAVE! Don't forget to include this in black history month in the future! Anthony Johnson, a black man, is THE FATHER OF LEGAL SLAVERY IN THE US!!!!! Read the records below document b and c depositions. It is a fact anthony johnson's family asked him to set his "slave" john castor free but he would not. Anthony johnson considered John castor as his slave before he went to court. The court found that John castor a black man was anthony johnson's slave and this set a precedent, a legal decision, for LEGAL permanent ownership of a person as a SLAVE! Yes Anthony Johnson a black man was the FATHER OF LEGAL SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!) Story Reports

Understand the true significance of this case. Johnson was not suing to have John Casor fulfill some measure of a debt of servitude. Instead, he insisted the court grant his petition that “he had ye Negro for his life.” He was claiming the services of John Casor for the remainder of Casor’s natural life. To my knowledge, there is no earlier record of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime. Anthony Johnson was asking the court to award him John Casor (who had committed no crime) as a slave.

Parker and one other influential landowner, both white, sided with Casor. However, the court ruled for Johnson. In the original language taken from the original documents is the decision of the county court:

................................

“Court of Northampton; Eight Mar, Anno1654:
Whereas complaint was this daye made to ye court by ye humble peticion of Anth. Johnson Negro ag[ains]t Mr. Robert Parker…”

Read it slowly and in modern English:

“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman. The court seriously considering and maturely weighing the premises do find that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unrightly keeps the said Negro John Casor from his rightful master Anthony Johnson, as it appears by the Deposition of Capt. Samuel Goldsmith and many probable circumstances. Be it therefore the Judgment of the court and ordered that said John Casor, Negro, shall forthwith be turned into the service of his said master, Anthony Johnson, and that the said Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit and execution. (Eighth March, Year 1654)”

This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World.

Johnson – who had himself been captured in Angola and brought to America as an indentured servant – was a black man.

From evidence found in the earliest legal documents, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation’s first official legal slaveholder.

The father of legalized slavery in America was a black man.

Do we celebrate that as part of Black History Month?


.....................................
Court Cases Of Anthony Johnson

Document B: Anthony petitions for his slave, John Casar, in 1654

Document B:

Anthony petitions for his slave, John Casar, in 1654. The deposition of Capt. Sam’ll Goldsmyth taken 8th of March 1654 saith that being at the house of Anth. Johnson negro about the beginning of November last, to receive a hog head of tobacco, a negro called John Casar came to) this dep’t and told him that the came into Virginia for service, or eight years per judgement and that he had demanded his freedom of Anth. Johnson his master and further said that he had kept him his servent and the charge then he should or ought and desired that this dep’t would see that he might have no wrong where upon your dep’t demanded of Anth. Johnson his indenture the said Johnson answered he never saw any the negro replied when he came in he had an indenture Anth. Johnson said he had the negro for his life, but Mr. Robert and George Parker said they know that the said negro had an indenture in one Mr. Careys hand, on the other side of the bay, further the said Mr. Robert Parker and his brother George said (of the said Anth. Johnson did not let the negro go free) the said negro John Casar would recover most of his cows from him the said Johnson then Anth. Johnson (as this dep’t did suppose) was in fearce (FOLIO 226) (upon this discourse) Anth. Johnsons son in law, his wife, and his own two sons, persuaded the old negro Anth. Johnson to set the said John Casar free more saith not.
Sam’ll Goldsmyth Teste Edm. Matthews clk cur Walczyk, Frank V. transcriber, Northampton County Virginia, Orders, Deeds, & Wills, 1651-1654 Book IV.
Peter’s Row, New York. 1971. Pg. 192-193.


Document C:

Anthony returns to court over John Casar, in 1654. Where as complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anth. Johnson negro agt.

Mr. Robert Parker that he detaineth one John Casar a negro the plaintiff servent (under pretense that the said John Casar is a freeman) the court seriously considering and maturely weighing the principles do find that the said Mr. Robert Parker most instly. Keepeth the said negro (John Casar) from his said
master Anth. Johnson, as appeareath by the deposition of Capt. Sam’ll Goldsmyth and many probable circumstances. Its therefore the judgement of the court and ordered that the said John Casar negro shall forthwith be returned into the service of his said master Anthony Johnson and that the said Robert
Parker make payment of all charge in the suit atr exec. Walczyk, Frank V. transcriber, Northampton County Virginia, Orders, Deeds, & Wills, 1651-1654 Book
IV. Peter’s Row, New York. 1971. Pg.193.

.....................................
Some African Slave History: 1st Colonist to Own Slave for Life was Former Black Indentured Servant

Slavery inside Africa was rampant long before Europeans began their infamous slave trade routes. Huge numbers of Africans were enslaved by Africans and when the slave went astray from his Black master’s wishes, the punishment was often harsh. Islam bought and sold/provided slaves under the rule of Islamic law. No one in the early known histories of the planet is void of slavery of one type or the other. In the American colonies of the 1600s, the first slave-for-life as ruled by a court, was owned by a former Black indentured servant, brought here from Angola.

Anthony Johnson was captured by slave traders in Angola. We do not know the color of the slave traders. He was sold as a slave to a White businessman in Virginia and worked in tobacco fields.

At this time in the history of the American/British colonies, slavery was considered “indentured servitude.” There was a contract, and after a period of time, the indentured servant was freed. That’s what happened with Anthony (Antonio) Johnson. Johnson’s owner released him, gave him a plot of land to farm, but before that happened, he married female slave, Mary, who worked on the same plantation. After about 14 years, both were freed and about 15 years later moved to Northhampton County, Virginia where Anthony Johnson became a successful businessman, eventually owning 500 acres and 5 “indentured servants.” Two-hundred and fifty of his 500 acres came from a “headright” claim.

Johnson was sued by one of his indentured servants, John Casor, for being held in servitude beyond his contracted period. Casor lost the case and is documented as the first person in the colonies to be declared a “slave” by a court. In the lawsuit resolution, Johnson received Casor’s servitude as a “servant for life (1653).

John Casor indentured servant

Johnson’s life took many twists and turns but by 1665 he was living in Somerset County, Maryland where he started his tobacco farming business – named TORIES VINEYARDS.

Upon Johnson’s death, his property was seized with a court allowing the seizure by determining that a freed Black man could not be a “citizen of the colony.” His surviving family was allowed to keep some land. Eventually, his grandson lost it all by not paying taxes. Lesson: just because you have been a slave, doesn’t mean you don’t want a slave for yourself.

...............................

(Don't just sweep this under the rug and ignore the fact that a BLACK MAN sued in court to turn his black indetured servant into his black SLAVE! Don't forget to include this in black history month in the future! Anthony Johnson, a black man, is THE FATHER OF LEGAL SLAVERY IN THE US!!!!! Read the records below document b and c depositions. It is a fact anthony johnson's family asked him to set his "slave" john castor free but he would not. Anthony johnson considered John castor as his slave before he went to court. The court found that John castor a black man was anthony johnson's slave and this set a precedent, a legal decision, for LEGAL permanent ownership of a person as a SLAVE! Yes Anthony Johnson a black man was the FATHER OF LEGAL SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!) Story Reports