Diane Logan's Posts (7)

Obama eligibility case lives!
Supreme Court's own precedent cited in new demand for resolution.
Published: 08/15/2014 at 9:52 PM


http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/obama-eligibility-case-lives/


The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born”citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases. Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the
requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.

Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury, the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The president’s eligibility is beingquestioned in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the constitutional experts at William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation.

They are asking the high court to take up the case of Christopher John Rudy, a registered patent attorney who paid to the Patent and Trademark Office “fee increases” totaling $90 under the America Invents Act, “purportedly enacted into law in September 2011 by Congress and the president.” Rudy sued for a refund “on the ground that the AIA was invalid, having been signed into law by Barack Obama, a person who, was not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and thus, was
ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States.”

The courts rejected his claim, insisting they had no authority to look into Obama’s eligibility. The law firms’ brief explained Rudy’s argument. “Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a ‘natural born citizen’ has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court – and thus lacked ‘legal’ standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent
attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90 because of the new law signed by President Obama.”

Read more…
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-new-term-20131006,0,6362653.story
In new term, Supreme Court may steer to right on key social issues. The Supreme Court's conservative bloc has a clear chance to shift the law to the right on abortion, contraception, religion and campaign funding.
Supreme Court could shift laws to the right in fall term 
Supreme Court justices gather for a portrait. A conservative bloc on the court will have a clear chance
in the fall term to shift the law to the right on key social issues such as abortion, contraception and religion.
(Bill O'Leary, Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2010)
By David G. Savage October 6, 2013, 5:00 a.m.
The Supreme Court term that opens Monday gives the court's conservative bloc a clear opportunity to shift the law to the right on touchstone social issues such as abortion, contraception and religion, as well as the political controversy over campaign funding.
If the justices on the right agree among themselves, they could free wealthy donors to give far
more to candidates and parties and clear the way for exclusively Christian prayers at local government events.
In other cases due to be heard this fall, the justices are likely to uphold state bans on college
affirmative action and block most housing bias claims that allege an unfair impact on blacks and Latinos.
They may also give states more authority to restrict and regulate abortion.
The justices are being asked to hear cases from Oklahoma in which they could uphold limits on the use of
the abortion pill and require pregnant women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasound tests to see the fetus.
And last month, Arizona's attorneys asked the court to uphold the state's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy, a measure that was blocked on the basis of Roe vs. Wade.
By next spring, the justices are likely to revisit part of President Obama's healthcare law to decide a religious-rights challenge to the requirement that large private employers provide their workers with coverage for contraceptives.
Dozens of employers who run for-profit companies have sued, contending that providing health insurance that includes a full range of contraceptives violates their religious beliefs.
The upcoming term "is actually deeper in important cases than either of the last two terms," said Irving Gornstein,
executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University's law school.
The last term ended in June on a winning note for liberals, when the court handed down two victories for gay marriage.
They included a 5-4 opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy giving legally married same-sex couples an equal right to
federal benefits.
In recent years, gay rights advocates have pushed cases toward the high court, confident that Kennedy and the four justices on his left would rule in their favor. Last week, Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge to California's Proposition 8, filed suit in Virginia, hoping to force an eventual ruling on whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.
Advocates on the right are using the same strategy.
They have been pushing cases toward the court confident that Kennedy will join the four conservatives to rule in their favor on religion, affirmative action, campaign finance and abortion. In their legal briefs, they argue for broad rulings and a significant shift in the law. Because they believe Kennedy is on their side, they "think they have the wind at their back," said Pamela Harris, a Georgetown professor and former Justice Department lawyer.
So far, the only abortion-related case on the court's docket tests a Massachusetts law that sets a 35-foot buffer zone
around the entrances to abortion clinics. It is being challenged as a free-speech violation by Eleanor McCullen, a 74-year-old grandmother who seeks to talk to women before they enter a Planned Parenthood clinic in Boston.
In 2000, over vehement dissents from Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court upheld an 8-foot buffer zone in Colorado. The new case, McCullen vs. Coakley, to be heard in January, gives the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. a chance to restrict buffer zones to 8 feet or, as the advocates propose, reject them entirely.
Kennedy signaled the potential for a major shift on abortion regulation six years ago. He spoke for a 5-4 majority to
uphold the federal ban on "partial-birth abortions" and declared the "government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."
Anti-abortion lawmakers read this as an invitation to enact new restrictions. "Justice Kennedy's opinion was a foundation changer," said John Eastman, a Chapman University law professor who appealed the decision striking down Arizona's 20-week limit on abortions. "We're optimistic this will force the court to confront the issue of fetal pain."
Since 2010, Arizona and 12 states have adopted bans on abortion after 20 weeks, citing "scientific evidence of fetal pain." Some of these states have adopted laws mandating ultrasound tests for patients seeking abortions and requiring costly changes in clinic facilities.
Although some measures have been blocked by federal judges, the goal was to get the issue to the Supreme Court.
It will be many months before the court decides whether it will take up an abortion regulation, but leaders of the anti- abortion movement are hopeful. The Arizona appeal "may well be the case that leads the Supreme Court to examine and acknowledge the risk of abortion to women," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
First up this fall are campaign funding and prayers at town council meetings.
On Tuesday, the court will hear an appeal brought by the Republican National Committee and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that challenges the $123,000 total limit on how much donors may give to congressional candidates and political parties. They want the court to say contributions, like political spending, are fully protected as free speech.
The lead plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon, a 46-year-old electrical engineer from Birmingham, Ala. If he wins, it will help
those in the political fundraising business because they could solicit millions of dollars from wealthy donors.
On Nov. 6, the court will consider whether town leaders can invite a Christian minister to open their meetings with a prayer to Jesus Christ. The case is Town of Greece (N.Y.) vs. Galloway.
Two race-related cases will also be heard. The justices will be asked to uphold Michigan's voter initiative forbidding "preferential" admissions based on race. The case, Schuette vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, is set for Oct. 15. And the court could limit housing bias claims in a case from Mount Holly, N.J., due to be heard Dec. 4, 2013.
Read more…

Wednesday Marks the Return of the Tea Party.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/18/Wednesday-Marks-the-Return-of-the-Tea-Party?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+18%2C+2013&utm_campaign=20130618_m116382202_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+18%2C+2013&utm_term=More

Wednesday Marks the Return of the Tea Party.
by Mike Flynn 18 Jun 2013

On Wednesday, at two rallies bracketing the Capitol, Tea Party and conservative activists will again take center-stage on two issues dominating the national political dialogue. Reps. Steve King, Louie Gohmert and other members of the Tea Party Caucus will host a nearly day-long dialogue and discussion on immigration reform. On the other side of the Capitol, Tea Party grass roots organizations will hold a rally to "Audit the IRS," in response to the agency's efforts to intimidate conservative organizations.

The immigration event hosted by Rep. King begins at 9am on the East side of the Capitol. The morning event will run until Noon and feature several members of Congress and national conservative leaders. Glenn Beck, who was an early supporter of the Tea Party movement will speak at the event. At Noon, on the West side of the Capitol, Tea Party Patriots are hosting a rally to "Audit the IRS." Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and many member of Congress are scheduled to speak. Glenn Beck and other conservative leaders will also speak.

The event, attended by activists from around the country will draw new attention to the IRS scandal, where the agency targeted groups and individuals based on their political activity. The IRS scandal is simply the most egregious example of an Obama Administration singling out conservative organizations and individuals for differential treatment. The EPA, Labor Department and other federal agencies have exhibited similar behavior.

The Tea Party event runs until 2pm, at which time King's Immigration event reconvenes for more discussion on 
immigration reform. King has invited supporters of the Senate's Amnesty bill to debate the merits of that approach. The event, running until 5pm, will provide more sustained debate on the issue of immigration than will probably occur within the Halls of Congress.

The two rallies are bigger than the sum of their parts, however. They mark the return of Tea Party activists to the national political stage. While dominating the 2010 mid-term elections, the Tea Party was marginalized by the Romney campaign and the national GOP in 2012 and were less of a factor in the elections. The Obama scandals and the polarizing issue of amnesty have forced them back into the political arena.

The looming implementation of ObamaCare and another round of talks to hike the debt ceiling will provoke many activists again take up the banner of limited government and constitutional conservatism. The growing revelations about government surveillance will likely bring newer voices to the movement. When the Tea Party started in 2009, the idea of government growing out of control was a theory. Today, it is a fact. Wednesday marks the beginning of the 2014 mid-term elections.

Read more…

American Student Punished for Refusing to Recite Mexican Pledge

American Student Punished for Refusing to Recite Mexican Pledge

Feb 27, 2013

By Todd Starnes

A Texas high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against her school and her teachers after she was punished for refusing to salute and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.

The Thomas More Law Center filed the suit on behalf of Brenda Brinsdon alleging the McAllen Independent School District violated the 15-year-old girl’s constitutional rights when she was forced to recite the Mexican pledge and sing the Mexican national anthem.

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Brinsdon, who is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father, refused. She believed it was un-American to pledge a loyalty oath to another country.

Ironically, the school district has a policy that prohibits a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance.

The district also has a written policy that excuses students from reciting text from the Declaration of Independence if the student “as determined by the district, has a conscientious objection to the recitation.”

“There is a sad trend in public schools across our nation to undermine American patriotism,” said Richard Thompson president of the Thomas More Law Center. “But it’s encouraging to see students like Brenda stand up for America despite pressure from school officials.”

The TMLC told Fox News the district ignored its own rules when Brinsdon refused to recite the pledge of a foreign country.

What’s most troubling is the different treatment for someone wanting to opt out of reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance compared to someone as a matter of conscience wants to opt out of reciting the Mexican pledge,” spokesman Erin Mersino told Fox News.

A spokesman for the McAllen Independent School District told Fox News they had not seen a copy of the lawsuit.

The recitation of the Mexican pledge and the singing of the Mexican national anthem was part of a 2011 Spanish class assignment at Achieve Early College High School.  The teacher, Reyna Santos, required all her students to participate in the lesson.

When Brinsdon refused to back down – she was punished, the lawsuit alleges. She was given an alternative assignment on the Independence of Mexico. The teacher gave her a failing grade – and then required the student to sit in class over a period of several days to listen to other students recite the Mexican pledge.

The lawsuit states Brinsdon offered to recite the American pledge in Spanish but the teacher refused her request.

“It’s astonishing that this Texas school would deny Brenda her right of conscience and free speech not to pledge allegiance to a foreign country,” said Thompson. “Too many Americans – including those of Mexican descent – have suffered and died protecting our nation.”

And while she is fluent in Spanish and English and is proud of her Mexican heritage, Brinsdon is a “true-blooded American,” Mersino added.

Mersino said it was especially troubling to watch video of students in the class standing up, extending their arms straight out, palms down and reciting the pledge of a foreign country.

“It’s disturbing – it truly was troubling,” she said.

Read more…
I AM DISGUSTED!  Defense Secretary Panetta is thinking of awarding medals to drone operators that would have a standing higher than even the bronze star with a 'V' awarded to combat  veterans who risked their lives of which my husband was one (purple heart and 5 bronze stars, one with a 'V' as well as another with an arrowhead).
4063666455?profile=original
 HOW DARE HE!
Why not just devalue the medals all those brave men were awarded and award a special medal to the president for all the risks he took on the golf course since we are talking about absurdity.
Pat Toomey | U.S. Senator For Pennsylvania
FRIDAY, FEB. 22, 2013

 

 

Expressing Concern Over Status Of Combat Valor Medal

I was concerned to hear that the Pentagon has reportedly decided to rank a new medal for drone operators and others not in direct ground combat above some long-standing combat valor medals. This week I wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for his rationale on this decision.

The new Distinguished Warfare Medal will be awarded to pilots of unmanned aircraft, cyber war experts and personnel involved in combat operations who are neither physically present nor in a war zone facing risks of traditional combat service participants. According to recent news articles, in the military's "order of precedence" of various medals, the Distinguished Warfare Medal is slated to be ranked above some traditional combat valor medals such as the Bronze Star with valor device.

 
WHAT NEXT: Maybe even turn this hallowed ground into a golf course.
4063666367?profile=original
Read more…

Senator Marco Rubio, please stand up!


RUBIO MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM HIGH OFFICE.
By J.B. Williams

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams234.htm
January 20, 2013

If so-called “constitutionalists” were better acquainted with the Constitution (Charters of Freedom), they
would not be supporting Marco Rubio for an office he is not eligible to hold and they would have already removed Barack Hussein Obama from the office he currently holds fraudulently. Marco Rubio is in the unique position to solve our nation’s greatest problem, to remove a foreign agent currently assaulting America from within the Oval Office and set the nation back on a constitutional course towards freedom and liberty. Rubio has an opportunity to be a true American hero. Will he be?

Because Rubio was dragged into the political spotlight by Tea Party folks in desperate search of new conservative leadership, and because he shares in common with Obama, constitutional ineligibility for the
offices of president and vice president under Article II requirements, he is uniquely positioned to bring down the most anti-American regime to ever hold political power in the United States.

Unlike “birthers” who are trying to disqualify Obama on the basis of his unconfirmed place of birth (native born
status), which is still in question due to Obama’s fraudulent efforts to hide his real past and true identity, using nondisclosure and forged documents to remain a total mystery, -- true “constitutionalists” who have studied the matter completely and allowed the facts to emerge without partisan purpose, know the whole truth.

1) The foundations for America are stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Pay particular attention to the parts highlighted.

IN
CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Contrary to contemporary teachings by revisionists, the legal precepts for everything our Founders created is NOT "British common law" which we separated from via the Declaration and the American Revolution. It is "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as stated in the preamble to our nation’s founding document, The Declaration. Just as freedom and liberty are “natural rights” inalienable by men, so is the right of Natural Born Citizenship.

2) Revisionists claim that Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution. However, the US Constitution does not have a definitions section; therefore, it provides no definition for any of the words or terms used in that document. Of course, as the Charters of Freedom were written in plain simple English so that any citizen could read and comprehend their rights and the limited functions of the government bodies they were to form, no definitions were needed. Everyone alive at the time knew the true meaning of every word and every term, including Natural Born Citizen. But 236 years later, dumbed down by revisionist propaganda, Americans may have to do a little homework to rediscover basic truths.

3) During that period in history, the framing of the Charters of Freedom, our Founders left a perfect record of their concerns and intents in the Federalist Papers. Anyone not able to comprehend the simple English carefully crafted in the Charters of Freedom can study the thoughts behind those words in the Federalist
Papers. If you do not know the Federalists Papers, you do not know the Constitution.

4) There is no guess-work or ambiguity… We know from reading the correspondences of our Founders, that they borrowed the concepts for the Charters of Freedom (Natural Law - Laws of Nature - God's Law - inalienable Law of Nations) -- from the internationally recognized authority on the subject at the time, Vattel, recorded in French and later translated to English, The Law of Nations, written on the inalienable laws of nature respected by all nations and inescapable by man. [Most of the Founding Fathers were as fluent in French as they were
English.] Included, was the term Natural Born Citizen, a citizen by the laws of nature, not the laws of man, in fact, inalienable by the laws of man.

In Vattel's Law of Nations, he defines the term Natural Born Citizen, not in one sentence, but in several sections, 211 – 233 of Book One. One truly seeking the truth about our Charters of Freedom and Natural Born Citizenship should read the entire Law of Nations, it is a brilliant work on Natural Law and it is in fact the cornerstone of the Charters of Freedom created by our Founders.

But in short, Vattel defines Natural Born Citizen as follow;

NOTE: "Birthers" mistakenly (or intentionally) cherry-pick a single sentence from several sections on the subject, discarding all else, including the actual definition. - "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - This is NOT the definition of Natural Born Citizen. It is only a general statement affirming that natives are born in country and naturals are born of citizen parents.

Vattel goes on to define Natural Born Citizen and the reasoning behind it...

* "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

** "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

*** "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

This is why Barack Hussein Obama is a total fraud, constitutionally ineligible for office. Unfortunately, so is Marco Rubio, among others.

If Marco Rubio is the great “American Son” he portrays himself to be, the great young constitutionally conservative leader that so many Tea Party folks hope that he is, he must take a stand for the U.S. Constitution
and America right now, as only he can do. Because many of his loyal followers have such high hopes for his political future, Marco Rubio can secure that future by taking the stand that only he is positioned to take right
now.

Unless and until so-called "constitutionalists" get Article II right, they can forget every right they think they have....because if Article II does not exist in force or affect, neither does any other part of those founding
documents that protect the Natural Rights of all American citizens.

I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and become the great leader he wants to be, the leader so many believe him to be. I call upon Marco Rubio to stand and tell ALL Americans that he is ineligible for the offices of president and vice president, as the natural born son of a Father who was a citizen of Cuba (not the United States) at the time of his birth.

Man-made statutes generously gave Rubio and many others like him, American citizenship, via the 14th Amendment, our immigration and naturalization amendment governing the citizenship rights of immigrants through naturalization, or native born rights.

Rubio is a citizen of the United States by way of man-made laws, not Natural Law. Likewise, no matter whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, his natural birth Father was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama’s Father could not confer to Barack Hussein Obama II that which he did not possess, U.S. Citizenship.

Marco Rubio can solve this entire issue and much more. He can stop Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and save the country he claims to care about deeply, as well as freedom and liberty in America. He can do so by standing up before the nation and the world, proclaiming himself ineligible for high office and demanding that Barack Hussein Obama be immediately removed from office and charged with high treason for the most horrific fraud ever perpetrated on the American public and the world.

If Rubio refuses to do so, he is NOT what so many had hoped. He will be nothing more than just another political fraud seeking personal gain at the expense of the U.S. Charters of Freedom and the future of freedom and liberty, not just here, but throughout the free world.

If Article II no longer matters, nothing in the Charters of Freedom matters anymore. I call upon Marco Rubio to take a stand and end this nightmare. Stand and tell the people the truth Mr. Rubio, or become just another disappointment to the people, pandering to the captive Tea Party audience but no less complicit in the massive
fraud.

DO IT NOW… Before a second fraudulent inauguration!

I have sent this call for action directly to Marco Rubio and I call upon you to do the same.

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a
twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is
co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

Read more…

 

A low-quality film mocking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad sparked some Libyan Islamist extremists to attack the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats. Earlier on Tuesday, a group of ultraconservative Egyptians scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and tore down the American flag, angry over the same movie.

So what is this film, and who made it?

The English-language film, portions of which have been online since July, attracted attention in Egypt only over the past few days when someone posted a segment of the movie that had been dubbed into Arabic, according to the New York Times. Some Egyptian TV hosts began airing clips of the film over and over, portraying it as a Coptic Christian and American plot to denigrate the prophet. (Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian from Egypt and critic of Islam who now lives in the United States, told AP he recently began promoting the two-hour film, which might also explain its rise out of obscurity.) The amateur-seeming "Innocence of Muslims" film shows the Prophet Muhammad as a homosexual who endorses extramarital sex and pedophilia, along with other slurs against Islam. (Many Muslims consider physical or visual representations of Muhammad to be blasphemous.)

Though at first it was unclear who made the movie, the Wall Street Journal tracked down and interviewed Israeli-American real estate developer Sam Bacile, who said he wrote, directed and produced the film. The 52-year-old Bacile told the Journal that he made the film to portray Islam as a hateful religion:

"Islam is a cancer," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California.

Bacile told the AP that he is now in hiding, and that his full movie has only been shown once, to a nearly empty theater in Hollywood. The AP said Bacile was "apologetic" about the ambassador's death, but blamed lax security and the extremists who perpetrated the attack. "I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," he said. "America should do something to change it."

The inflammatory Florida pastor Terry Jones, best known for burning a copy of Islam's holy book in 2011, has also been publicizing the film. President Barack Obama condemned the attacks in a statement Wednesday, but also made an oblique reference to the "Innocence of Muslims" film. "While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

Read more…