text:
Skip to comments.Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
So you agree with Judge Lind? The 20th Amendment allows Joseph Stalin to LAWFULLY "act as President"? Even if it can be known that he is Joseph Stalin, a foreign enemy of the US Constitution? And every officer in the US military, having already sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution from the Joseph Stalins of the world, is required to follow the orders initiated and authorized by a known foreign enemy combatant in the White House, because the orders they receive are all lawful?
You agree with all that? Please consider that the states said they couldn't protect and defend the US Constitution because that is Congress' job.... and Congress says they can't protect and defend the US Constitution because that is the states' job (and/or because Stalin presented online what has now been confirmed as 2 different forgeries).... and the courts say they can't protect and defend the US Constitution because it's nobody's business whether the CINC is a foreign enemy combatant after all and it is either the states' or Congress' job. And the courts say that military officers don't have enough vested interest because it is only their oath, the potential for losing protections under the Geneva Conventions, and (in one instance) 4 years of reservist's pay (which the judge ruled to be less valuable than $500) which is at stake.
Please also consider that law enforcement has confirmed that the media was threatened if they reported on Stalin not being eligible and the 2 people who were going to present a petition to allow Stalin's primary challenger to expose him as a foreigner were killed within days of agreeing to do so. Also keep in mind that tyrants are ALWAYS "elected by the people". Usually by a 100% or higher vote. The Reichstag "lawfully" voted to give Hitler unconstitutional powers - never mind that the communists who would have opposed him were already purged by Hitler without due process or that Hitler's armed military was milling all about while the vote was being taken... Even a hostage process appears outwardly to be "lawful". That's why the mafia tactics work. That's why the officers' oath recognizes that there may be foreign and domestic enemies to the Constitution who pose a REAL danger (IOW, they are embedded within the system where they can do real damage).
BTW, Mr Rogers, you are about the only person opposing Lakin who actually engages with reality. I respect and appreciate that. Anything less than that is a waste of time for both of us.
Maybe the Constitution contemplates that any factual disputes about qualifications should be decided by the states' electors and indirectly by the people who select the electors (nowadays the voters).
You are a total waste of my time, but for the sake of any lurkers: Before making any ruling she said that she would not accept any argument on the basis of Obama's ineligibility, because the eligibility of the President is "irrelevant" to the lawfulness of Lakin's orders.
That means it could have been Joseph Stalin who ordered the Afghanistan surge, and the orders to Lakin would still be "lawful".
The very quotes that BigGuy22 (who has never posted on anything on FR except opposing the "birthers") gives from Lind show the reasons she gave for saying that the eligibility of the President is "irrelevant". What he's quoting makes my point. BigGuy just doesn't want to admit that this is what she actually ruled. She effectively ruled that Joseph Stalin, if sworn in as POTUS, could LAWFULLY order combat operations anywhere in the world, and there's not a dang thing anybody in the military could do about it. Even if Stalin came right out and said to the world that he is Joseph Stalin and he will bring America to her knees and make Russia lord of all. It is "irrelevant" because the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, and the protocols and rules of the military allow foreign enemy combatants to give lawful orders to the chain of command, as long as they first take an oath of office.
Troll noob.
You sound like you could be a follower of Mau Zedong. If you were the judge you wouldn't jail Lakin nor give him a trial; you would call him insane and be done with him. That's how Islamists in Afghanistan wormed their way out of executing the Muslim who converted to Christianity, as sharia (the top law, over any Constitution) demands. They said he would have to be crazy to convert from Islam so they wouldn't execute him because he is insane. It's circular logic. No True Scotsman. No sane person would ever say that Obama is ineligible, therefore we dismiss the case of anybody who claims it because we already know they MUST just be insane... It says that any evidence is "irrelevant". I believe in Iran they call it "judge's knowledge". It flies in the face of everything about the Federal Rules of Evidence, which is why red-blooded Americans still smell the stink no matter what legal dancing and prancing the lawyers do with their naked emperor.
Thanks for showing your true colors. No need to respond to you any more.
" Even if it can be known that he is Joseph Stalin, a foreign enemy of the US Constitution?"
I said:
"If Joseph Stalin was elected to the Presidency by the majority of voters of the USA, IAW the Electoral College, and approved and accepted as such by Congress, and took an oath from the CJ of the Supreme Court,
and if he had gone to Congress and been given approval for combat operations, and Congress funded the costs of the war, then..."
Now, would America vote for someone who lived in Moscow, spoke no English, and ruled a foreign country? Don't you think SOMEONE would notice during the election? Do you think no one in the Electoral College would notice? Do you think there would be no one in Congress who would notice?
Bill Ayers is an enemy of the US Constitution. Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents Ayers from becoming President?
If Congress thought you were right, they could remove Obama this afternoon. But ZERO of 535 members of Congress agree with you. ZERO of 50 states agree with you. The state of Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii. The term 'natural born citizen', as used at the time the Constitution was written, allowed for the child of aliens to be pone. But you want the US military to determine if Obama was born in the USA and eligible to be President. You want the US military to overturn the election and use whatever force is needed to remove someone who received a majority of votes, with no objection from anyone in Congress, in two elections.
What were the Founders more afraid of - someone fooling everyone and getting into office when born overseas, or the danger of a standing, professional army?
Massachusetts: "And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature."
Pennsylvania & North Carolina: "And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."
Maryland & Delaware: "That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature."
"A Farmer" also mused in this essay: "I was persuaded that the grave would have closed on my bones, before this question would be publicly proposed in America. Are we then to look up to a standing army for the defence of this soil from foreign invasion?" In his sixth essay, he included as a "great and manifest" defect in the proposed government "the manifest danger to public liberty from a standing army, without limitation of number, in time of peace."
The Anti-Federalist who used the name of "John DeWitt" wrote extensively about the evils of standing armies in a series of essays published in the Boston American Herald in late 1787:
They shall have also the power of raising, supporting and establishing a standing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I see not why in your several houses."
Where lies the security of the people? What assurances have they that either their taxes will not be exacted but in the greatest emergencies, and then sparingly, or that standing armies will be raised and supported for the very plausible purpose only of cantoning them upon their frontiers? There is but one answer to these questions. They have none.
The advocates at the present day, for a standing army in the New Congress pretend it is necessary for the respectability of government. I defy them to produce an instance in any country, in the Old or New World, where they have not finally done away the liberties of the people. Every writer upon government, Lock, Sidney, Hamden, and a list of other have uniformly asserted, that standing armies are a solecism in any government; that no nation ever supported them, that did not resort to, rely upon, and finally become a prey to them.
It is universally agreed, that a militia and a standing body of troops never yet flourished in the same soil. Tyrants have uniformly depended upon the latter, at the expense of the former. Experience has taught them, that a standing body of regular forces, where ever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary.
There is no instance of any government being reduced to a confirmed tyranny without military oppression; and the first policy of tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and defence, and to rely solely upon standing troops.
It is very true, that the celebrated Mr. Wilson, a member of the Convention, and who we may suppose breathes, in some measure, the spirit of that body, tells you, it [a standing army] is for the purpose of forming cantonments upon your frontiers, and for the dignity and safety of your country, as it respects foreign nations. No man that loves his country could object to their being raised for the first of these causes, but for the last it cannot be necessary. GOD has so separated us by an extensive ocean from the rest of mankind, he hath so liberally endowed us with privileges, and so abundantly taught us to esteem them precious, it would be impossible, while we retain our integrity and advert to first principles, for any nation whatever to subdue us.
DeWitt also equated the "revenue, excise, impost and stamp officers" that would be introduced under the new Constitution with a standing army.
Patrick Henry (17361799), in his June 5 speech in the Virginia ratifying convention against adopting the Constitution, likewise denigrated standing armies: "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?"
"Brutus" wrote more about the evils of standing armies than any other Anti-Federalist. Sixteen of his essays were published in the New York Journal from October 1787 to April 1788. In four of these essays (numbers 1, 8, 9, 10), he explains how the establishment and maintenance of standing armies breeds fear, is destructive to liberty, and should be viewed as a scourge to a country instead of a benefit. Since I have already explored at length the opinions of "Brutus" on this subject in a previous article ("Brutus on the Evils of Standing Armies"), I only present here something he said in his ninth essay on this subject:
That standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people was proved in my last number If it was necessary, the truth of the position might be confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I presume it would be useless, to enter into a laboured argument, to prove to the people of America, a position, which has so long and so generally been received by them as a kind of axiom.
What do you think would have been the opinion of any Founder on the idea that the military gets to choose who is or is not President?
The thing I can't understand, butterdezillion, is what you think the alternative could be. What system would permit Col. Lakin, or your nephews, to refuse to obey a command from their superior officers when Obama or Stalin is the president that would not also permit the same thing when Bush or Reagan is president? How could the military function if every member had the option of refusing an order until they were satisfied of the legitimacy of everyone up the chain of command? And could this refusal happen at any point—at the moment they were ordered into combat, for instance?
Who, under the Constitution, is empowered to decide factual, legal and constitutional issues concerning the qualifications of candidates?
That's the important question. This fellow's case has demonstrated only that the federal executive and judicial branches are unwilling to decide that a lieutenant colonel has been empowered to decide in even a preliminary way the factual, legal or constitutional issues concerning Obama's qualifications to be president. Those two branches of government have taken the position that this lieutenant colonel exceeded his authority and that he had no right to impede the orderly operation of the military while he litigates and debates his theories of our constitution.
That really shouldn't be too hard for you to accept, but accept it or not, that is the simple reality of this case.
"That means it could have been Joseph Stalin who ordered the Afghanistan surge, and the orders to Lakin would still be lawful."
For the record, I agree with you. Even under the absurd hypothetical that Joseph Stalin had been elected President and had ordered the surge, Col. Roberts's order to Lakin to report to his office would have been a lawful order, as the order itself did not depend on Obama's authority but rather on Roberts's own authority to issue orders. Had Lakin refused to show up, as he did, he would have been guilty of refusing to obey a lawful order and would have been imprisoned and dismissed from the service, as he was, and as he deserved to be.
Do you think that Col. Roberts lacked the authority to summon Lakin to his office? If so, I'd love to hear your legal explanation for why you think that's the case.
Remember, however, the Chief Judge of the 1st Judicial Circuit explained very clearly, with reference to case law and to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why you are wrong about this. If your only response is to conjure up absurd bogey-man hypotheticals and you can cite no laws or cases to support your position, I doubt that anyone is going to be swayed by emotional rants.
You really believe that Joseph Stalin could lawfully "qualify" as POTUS under the US Constitution, as required by the 20th Amendment?
Do you believe that officers who have sworn on their sacred honor to protect and defend the US Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic - and lay their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line EVERY STINKIN' DAY OF THE YEAR have enough vested interest to get the legal answers necessary for them to carry out their oaths?
If the courts we have now existed at the country's founding, nobody who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution would have enough "vested interest" to even constitute a case if they questioned the Constitutionality of a foreign enemy combatant in the White House. King George III could have been installed as President and not one of those oath-takers' lives, fortunes, or sacred honor would be worth enough to these stinkin' judicial cowards to even make a case.
Is that cool with you? Is that really what you think those Founding Fathers meant when they said that the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged?
What more can a man lay on the line than his life, fortune, and sacred honor? If that isn't enough then NOTHING will EVER be enough. What did John McCain stand to lose from a usurper winning the Presidency, that Lakin DIDN'T stand to lose? McCain wouldn't lose his honor. Wouldn't lose his fortune. Wouldn't lose his life. He'd lose the chance to be king for 4 years. Do the courts really believe that 4 years of White House cuisine is worth more than a man's life, fortune, and sacred honor?
Geez, this country is hopeless. We've sold our birthright for a bowl of soup. I hope the Lord spits us out as a nation; we deserve NONE of the blessings He's given us over the years. I am disgusted and appalled that this is what has come of this nation.
The courts, and not one of them has subjected ANY evidence to the scrutiny required under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
All the people's petitions to the government for a redress of grievances have been sent away without ANY evidentiary hearing. It's a travesty. OUR CONSTITUTION is none of our stinkin' business, in the eyes of this government. Even Stalin would be proud of Soros' coup.
"King George III could have been installed as President and not one of those oath-takers lives, fortunes, or sacred honor would be worth enough to these stinkin judicial cowards to even make a case."
And the answer to that one is known to all of us. The Founding Fathers decided that it was the Congress, not the judiciary, who would have the power to act in a case like that. They can call for eligibility hearings at the drop of a hat if they believe there is cause to do so.
They have failed to act. They have made it clear — each and every single one of them — that they had no objection to the vote of the Electoral College. I know you don't like it, but the fact remains that the only remedies available are the ones prescribed under the Constitution. Your manic diatribes notwithstanding, no one — at least, I hope no one — will attempt to address this issue using unconstitutional means.
And demanding that the military oust the President is about as unconstitutional as you can get.
Like me, you cannot prove who fathered Obama. Like me, you have no idea who fathered him other than what you read on the internet. Like you and me, Obama doesn't know who fathered him other than what people told him. As a result, none of us know whether his father was a citizen of the United States, Kenya or China.
Those who believe that he is unqualified should quit wasting their time hanging around courthouses and shift to an impeachment strategy. The House clearly has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to convict and remove.
Forget the judges. They are just going to demand that you prove what your claiming and, as set forth above, you can't. Take it to the Congress.
And, quit driving yourself crazy over all this.
I almost answered this, thinking you were Mr Rogers, who I addressed the question to. You, BG, won't even acknowledge that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be "irrelevant" to the lawfulness of Lakin's orders. So you haven't even met the requirement of honesty required for me to engage with you.
I'll wait for Mr Rogers to respond, either on the board or privately.
"You, BG, wont even acknowledge that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakins orders."
LOL, you are lying again! Take another look at Post 208, in which I said, "For the record, I agree with you."
The truth means nothing to you, that's clear. Maybe you're too emotionally worked up to see clearly.
If one judge gave the demand that anybody prove anything, I would be dancing a jig and calling this issue over.
They won't.
Congress can't even get Obama or his AG to turn over documents that have been subpoenaed. Obama and his entire regime are lawless. You don't seem to understand what that means.
But this discussion isn't about my sanity (thank you for libeling me...), about impeachment, or anything else. It is about Lt Col Terry Lakin, and what he was willing to do for this country. The military screwed him, claiming that Joseph Stalin could have been President, and the orders Lakin received would still have been LAWFUL. Lind said that because she INFERRED that if Lakin had to obey the orders then they must be lawful, even though Lakin would also be required to obey unlawful orders if given under the authority of a de facto president such as Joseph Stalin.
2008 was a coup, and like every coup, it required a complicit military hierarchy. In this case her name is Denise Lind.
Terry Lakin shines in stark contrast to her. One Day Lakin will receive the honor he is due, when the truth is revealed. Denise Lind will be gnashing her teeth, revealed as a tool of this country's enemies. She could have instructed the military to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Lakin so that the factual issues could be determined before she determined whether the orders to Lakin were in accordance with military requirements that all orders comply with the US Constitution - in this case specifically the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution. That would have resulted in the proper people making the proper determinations - WITHOUT giving a middle finger salute to the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization for the Use of Force, and all the laws, regulations, and protocols of the US military.
What she did is a disgrace, and I am eagerly awaiting the Day when the truth is revealed. There is in incorruptible Judge; of His government there will be no end. It is in effect right now, and though the wheels of His justice sometimes grind slow they grind EXCEEDINGLY FINE. Those who trade temporary popularity or ease of life now for innocence later will one Day rue the day they were born. I call her to repent.
"You really believe that Joseph Stalin could lawfully qualify as POTUS under the US Constitution, as required by the 20th Amendment?"
Of course not. But it isn't the military's job to work it out.
If Joseph Stalin ran for President, and a state in the country said he was born in the USA, and all 50 states certified him to stand for election, and the majority of voters voted for Stalin, and no one challenged his eligibility (or lost in court if they did), and the Electoral College voted for him, and all 535 members of Congress agreed Stalin won the election fair & square, and the Chief Justice swore him in...
THEN he could act as President.
The US military doesn't certify elections. It doesn't determine who gets to run. And the Founders would have been stunned if anyone thought a standing army SHOULD decide who won the election, or gets to be President. In fact, that was what they FEARED!
You bring up a lot of stuff. And that's part of your problem with this case: courts don't deal with lots of stuff, they deal with the specific charge and statute at hand. They're just not going to get into what the Founders meant.
But you didn't answer my question. How does the military function if every individual member has the right to refuse orders until they "get the legal answers necessary for them to carry out their oaths"?
Beyond his case, the courts have made it clear that they won't get involved in any of this. I don't think they believe that the Constitution empowers them to determine qualifications of presidents.
Clearly, however, no one disputes that the people as voters have a right to decide upon a candidate's qualifications. No one can question their power in that regard and that may be where we have to win those arguments.
And, then there is the power of impeachment. There is no doubt about that power.
But, the courts won't play.
"THEN he could act as President."
And, even then, the Congress (between the two houses) would have the unquestioned ability to remove him from office if they thought the circumstances warranted it.
So then you DO agree that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be "irrelevant" to the lawfulness of Lakin's orders?
Let me lay this out flat. AFter 9-11-01 Congress authorized the use of force to fight terrorism, at the sole discretion and decision of THE PRESIDENT. The lawfulness of combat operations in any particular foreign country was specifically made by Congress to be TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT. A person legally able to "act as President" can order troops to Iran right now if he so desires. Nobody from SecDef down to (for instance) company commanders can do that right now; they have to wait until they have authorization from THE PRESIDENT, according to Congress' legal authorization to use force. Those are the conditional terms of Congress' legal authorization; they are critical to the lawfulness of ANY foreign combat operations against terrorism.
The 20th Amendment says that if the President elect FAILS TO QUALIFY by the beginning of his term, the Vice President elect must "act as President" until a President shall have qualified.
Joseph Stalin would fail to qualify. Every time. He's not eligible to be President unless he is a natural born US citizen, and he can never be that. Joseph Stalin could NEVER lawfully "act as President" according to the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution. No vote of Congress can get him to qualify. No electoral vote can get him to qualify. There is no way he can qualify. Period.
There are no orders that Joseph Stalin could ever give that would be lawful because the 20th Amendment would always prohibit him from "acting as President".
If people didn't know he failed to qualify he might act under "color of authority", and his orders must be obeyed under the de facto officer doctrine UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED THAT HE ACTED APART FROM THE CONSENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. That doesn't meant that his orders were ever LAWFUL (something which can only be determined when the evidence is examined and it is seen who the 20th Amendment COMMANDS to "act as President"). And without the approval of a Constitutionally-acting President, there is no authorization to use force, because Congress left that decision to the President to decide. If the person who is Constitutionally required to act as President (Joe Biden) did not decide to approve additional forces in Afghanistan, then that use of force FAILS TO COMPLY with the terms in Congress' authorization to use force. Without the lawful order of Joe Biden, all orders down the chain of command lack the legal authorization of Congress because they failed to meet the conditions of the authorization. They are UNLAWFUL.
Joseph Stalin could never qualify and thus could never lawfully order combat under the terms of the Authorization to Use Force. If the chain of command implemented combat operations without meeting the legal requirements of Cognress' Authorization to Use Force, those implementing orders would all be unlawful.
The ONLY WAY to know if the orders were lawful is by knowing which man is required by the 20th Amendment to "act as President" - Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.
The 20th Amendment makes no exceptions. It doesn't say that if the President elect takes an oath then the requirement to qualify is null and void. It doesn't say that Congress certifying the President elect as the electoral winner nullifies the requirement to qualify. (In fact, it specifically says that the President elected by the voters and certified by Congress can still "fail to qualify" - and in that situation is Constitutionally DISABLED from "acting as President".)
None of those things could get Joseph Stalin to "qualify". And none of those things could get Barack Obama to "qualify" either.
Lind had one job: to find out whose approval for combat operations would fulfill the conditions of Congress' authorization to use force, so she could determine whether Lakin had disobeyed a lawful order (the charge against him), or had done the lesser crime of failing to obey an order he was required to obey. She should have ordered the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin, to have the judiciary determine the facts of Obama's birth so it could be determined who can lawfully authorize foreign combat operations under the Authorization to Use Force.
If she had done so, the military would not be deciding who is President OR who can "act as President" - the civilian courts would be REQUIRED to give our military officers the answers they need in order to be able to keep their oaths. No problem with the military overstepping its bounds. The judge could have simply forced the SecDef to do what integrity should already have compelled him to do, when Lakin came forward for clarification in the first place.
There would have been no "political issue" problem because the 20th Amendment gave Congress no role in deciding who would "act as President" if the President elect failed to qualify; they are only given the responsibility if BOTH the President elect and Vice President elect failed to qualify - and they have already enacted law giving the order of succession so that job is already done.
There would have been no problem with "standing". The SecDef would automatically have standing.
It would have been a win-win. It would have been right. But it wouldn't have served the communist-Islamist coup, and that's why the powers-that-be would not let Denise Lind do what both her oath and the US Constitution compelled her to do.
If he can't qualify, then how could the 20th Amendment ever allow him to "act as President"?
Where in the 20th Amendment does it say that being elected, certified as the electoral winner, and/or taking an oath of office wipes out what it specifically says - that failure to qualify means a President elect cannot "act as President"?
You're right; the military should not decide who is Constitutionally able to "act as President". SCOTUS should ultimately do that. They wimped out by refusing any cases. What Lind should have done was to order the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin. That would FORCE the civilian courts to do what the military courts can't, but which our military heroes like you and your son need in order to keep their officers' oaths.
The civilian courts should NOT be giving you, your son, Lakin, my nephews, or any of our fighting heroes the middle finger salute. That's all I'm saying. Denise Lind could have compelled them to do right. Instead she acted as puppet to the coup and pretended that even Joseph Stalin could lawfully "act as President" - a man who could NEVER "qualify" as required by the 20th Amendment.
Maybe it would be helpful if you answered my question from earlier.
Do you believe that Col. Roberts did, or did not, have the authority to order Lakin to report his office?
Denise Lind would not accept any argument regarding the eligibility of Obama.
So you are wrong. Lind specifically told him he does NOT have a right to present his evidence. She called it irrelevant. The CENTRAL POINT she made in order to keep Lakin from presenting evidence was that EVEN JOSEPH STALIN COULD BE PRESIDENT AND COULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE. This in spite of the 20th Amendment saying that if the POTUS failed to qualify he could not "ACT AS PRESIDENT".
The Authorization to Use Force specifically required the PRESIDENT to decide where, when, and to what extend force should be used in foreign countries. Their legal consent was conditional upon that. If Joseph Stalin was President and forbidden by the 20th Amendment to "act as President", then the terms for legal authorization to use force would not have been met, and the entire combat operation would be unlawful.
Lind knew that, and her claim that the SecDef or anybody else could decide on a "surge" in Afghanistan without the consent of a lawfully-acting President is a travesty. The only LAWFUL authorization for those guys to even fly to Afghanistan is because Congress said it's OK as long as the President says it's OK.
He had the authority to order him to report to his office. He did not have LAWFUL authority to order him to get on a plane to any foreign country for combat operations without the approval of a CONSTITUTIONALLY-ACTING President. That was the condition that CONGRESS placed in the Authorization to Use Force, which was the lawful authorization for ANY COMBAT OPERATIONS.
"Youre right; the military should not decide who is Constitutionally able to act as President. SCOTUS should ultimately do that. They wimped out by refusing any cases."
The Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. I'd bet my last penny that they figure: "Hawaii says Obama was born in the USA, and we've already argued in WKA that anyone born in the USA (with few exceptions, none of which apply to Obama) is a natural born citizen. Thus, he is qualified."
Do you really think the US Supreme Court would refuse to take a case if they thought there was any chance Obama wasn't qualified?
"What Lind should have done was to order the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin."
Lind didn't have the authority to order the SecDef to do anything. Her authority is under his. That would be like a LT ordering a Colonel to go do something.
And the way the military framed the charges, it really DIDN'T matter who the president was. The order to appear in your CO's officer has nothing to do with the President. The order to report to such and such a Fort on such and such a date doesn't fall under the President. It falls under Congress, which has given the Army authority to require that.
The charges against Lakin were narrowly drawn. I think that was intentional. I think they drew up charges that would be easy to prove and which would NOT require anything from the President. That way, the issue wouldn't come up.
In a court, your reason for doing something isn't important (usually). What really matters is what you do. And Lakin was ordered to show up in his CO's office, and he did not do so. That didn't involve Obama. Any CO can give an order like that, and who is president doesn't matter.
The military had almost 2 years to give Lakin answers before he realized they were never going to give him answers.
Why did the SecDef not file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of all his officers who didn't know whether to obey orders from Obama, or from Joe Biden? Did the SecDef just take it in his own hands, to interpret the 20th Amendment? I thought the military wasn't supposed to do that. I thought the military was supposed to refer any legal questions like that to the civilian courts. Why didn't they do that? They had almost 2 years and did NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.
If the military leadership would stop fellating the people who promote them, maybe we'd have some real men to represent the real men who are doing our fighting.
"He had the authority to order him to report to his office."
And an order from a commanding officer with the authority to give it, which does not require the commission of a manifest crime, is by definition a lawful order. Lakin knowingly refused to obey a lawful order.
The court-martial existed for the sole purpose of determining whether Lakin had committed crimes, and it seems to me unquestionable that he did.
You guys are no match ...you're up against an impenetrable fortress.
It's now just a question of when you'll say uncle, not if.
Just a PSA...
Lakin's order was to show up in order to deploy to Afghanistan. That was in his order. It DID depend on the PResident, according to the Authorization to Use Force.
If SCOTUS is willing to use "judge's knowledge" in order to keep evidence from being subjected to the scrutiny required by the Federal Rules of Evidence, then they are just as unlawful as the Soros coup. As are the military leaders who refused to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of their officers.
What I was working on when Lind forbade Lakin from arguing the President's ineligibility was the proof that the 1960-64 birth index was altered to include legally non-valid names, as well as other evidence proving that the HDOH has been criminally altering and misrepresenting records as well as disobeying the laws. This was to overcome the "presumption of regularity" - the presumption that the HDOH would have told us if something was wrong. Instead, the evidence shows that the HDOH is criminally complicit in deceiving and/or downright altering records on Obama's behalf. WE have even more evidence of that now, including the indirect confirmation of HI registrar Alvin Onaka that the record they have is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.
The day after I was in contact with Lakin's people regarding the evidence I have to refute the "presumption of regularity" (a legal protocol allowing Lind or SCOTUS or whoever to accept Hawaii's statements at face value because there was no evidence of dishonesty or deception).... the sheathing on the wiring in my husband's van either decayed uniformly all at once, or else was cut.
Within about a week my daughter's computer, which I was using because my own computer had been hit by a massive virus, was hit by a trojan so bad I could not even start it.
Around the same time, Lind ruled that she wouldn't accept any evidence like mine - claiming that Joseph Stalin could have been President and Lakin's orders to appear for deployment to combat in a foreign country would still have been "lawful".
Lakin has a right to a fair hearing on whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. He was accused of several things, including the failure to obey the LAWFUL order to show up for deployment to Afghanistan.
Lind's job was to determine whether the orders he refused to obey were lawful orders. Deployment to combat in a foreign country is only lawful if it meets the conditions set forth in Congress' authorization to use force in foreign countries. The one condition they gave was that it had to be the decision of THE PRESIDENT.
Lind could claim that Lakin had to obey the order even if it wasn't lawful, on the grounds of the de facto officer doctrine. But her first order of business was to take what was set before her - the claim that he had failed to obey 2 LAWFUL orders. I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn't, and Lind did not distinguish between the two, even though the terms of the Authorization to Use Force are explicit in their demand that it be approved by the President. The lawfulness explicitly depends on the approval of the President, and the military's regulations say that all orders down the chain of command must be in compliance with the US Constitution and the legal authorizations. Lind totally blew that off. Deliberately.
The charges against Lakin didn't include failing to go to Afghanistan.
"Charge I stated, on April 12, Lakin intentionally missed his US Airways Flight Number 1123 from Baltimore/Washington International Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Charge II cited two specifications of Lakin, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by LTC William Judd, to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Col. Gordon R. Roberts, orders which were his duty to obey, failed to obey those orders by wrongfully not reporting as directed.
Notice they did not charge him with not going to Afghanistan, but not going to Baltimore/Washington International Airport and catch a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina.
They drafted the charges narrowly, and did so to prevent Lakin from arguing his orders were to deploy overseas to combat. I think they would have won, and won easily, regardless. But they wanted to make sure it never came up.
"Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain, Puckett told WND. He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed.... This leaves us with a client who stands accused of missing the movement of an airplane, two failures to obey orders to meet his brigade commander, failure to report to Ft. Campbell, and failure to report to his unit, said Puckett."
Nobody within the electoral system or any state court can compel the production of a candidate's records. Hawaii can refuse to honor subpoenas from other states.
And the system won't even demand records. We've gone through how many state ballot appeals and NOBODY would require legal documents to be provided.
And the HI state registrar has indirectly confirmed that they CAN'T provide any legally probative records, because what they've got is legally non-valid. The White House image was forged to hide that fact.
Let me get this right. The only way the military would be able to charge him with failing to obey the unlawful order to deploy to Afghanistan is if he was on the plane when it reached Afghanistani airspace and immediately jumped out.
Do I have that right?
" I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasnt..."
OK, well I'm glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here's what she said about that:
"The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged."
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don't involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.
" I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasnt..."
OK, well I'm glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here's what she said about that:
"The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged."
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don't involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.
Just found this link:
It is the transcript of his court martial...runs over 500 pages. I'll skim thru it later. But see page 48...
There isn't such a thing.
Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote but he lost a majority of the Electoral vote. That is how George W. Bush was elected President in 2000.
2000 popular vote:
2000 Electoral vote
The page is unresponsive.
If the military evaded the issue it just makes me despise those "leaders" even more.
Joseph Stalin takes office. An officer requests clarification as to whether Joseph Stalin can Constitutionally act as President; the military leadership won't do anything to get answers. The officer sacrifices his own career by disobeying orders in order to let his fellow brother-in-arms know how to proceed and the military leadership worms its way out to make sure that Joseph Stalin's qualifications can never be adjudicated.
At best it is willful ignorance. Given the intelligence we have suggesting that the Sept 2008 run on the bank was a terrorist act to get Obama elected, that foreign Islamists funded Obama's election (with the full knowledge of Obama, since it was only allowed because the security protocols were specifically DISABLED to allow this to happen - as well as Obama's communications to the Egyptian ambassador in Jan 2010 suggesting that Obama was aware of who buttered his bread since he told the world Muslims to be patient with him; even though he had been in office a year he hadn't yet pushed the Muslim agenda because he had to get Obamacare passed first....), that Obama has posted 2 forged BC's in order to hide that his HI BC is non-valid, the proof of Selective Service forgery of his draft registration, etc...... these people known darn good and well that Obama is the equivalent of Joseph Stalin.
They are Schultz from Hogan's Heroes: "I KNOW NOSSING!!!"
I'm sorry, Mr. Rogers, but at this point I have nothing but sorrow and disgust over the coup and the people who have enabled the coup. The very people who have sworn to protect us from this very thing have instead betrayed us all. They've trashed everything. Those in the military who adhere to the Constitution are being purged. Those who have shown themselves true in battle were first given pamphlets urging them to consider whether their loved ones would be better off if these wounded soldiers committed suicide... and now, lo and behold, we're losing more military people to suicide than to anything else. And it's not the traitors who are dying. It's the good men. The true men. Our heroes sit on the top of a building in Benghazi painting targets for an armed drone that never comes because Obama the foreign enemy combatant in our White House, is getting his beauty rest so he can appear to the adoring fans in Las Vegas while a true hero dies alone, the only person willing to defend US personnel and allies there.
I don't recognize this country any more. This is not America. If this is how Americans act then I'm ashamed to be called an American.
I don't want to talk about it. This conversation is over.
The "popular vote" is only a point of interest, not a valid qualifier in a Presidential election. No government election authority can utilize it.
IOW, there is no such thing as a national election.
When I said he could file a lawsuit, I meant that he could file one in federal court. The court might or might not dismiss that case, but he was free to file it.
I am not surprised that he couldn't present that kind of evidence in the context of the court-martial. The purpose of the court-martial was to prosecute Lakin for refusing to follow orders. His desire to litigate the qualifications of the president is not inconsistent with his obligation to follow orders. He could have done both simultaneously. His mistake was that he thought he could give his desire to litigate priority over his obligation to follow orders. In other words, he was not at liberty to allow his litigation activities to disrupt his military duties. Our soldiers depend upon one another and there were soldiers who were depending on Lakin.
Nobody doubts that Lakin was genuinely interested in pursuing his constitutional theories, but he was required to do so in a manner that did not interfere with his continuing duties as a soldier. Until removed from office, Obama is the president and as such is the Commander in Chief.
A word on Joseph Stalin: If you have sufficient imagination to create in your mind a scenario in which Joseph Stalin was somehow able to convince a majority of voters (and their electors) that he was a natural born citizen and should be president, then you have sufficient imagination to finish that scenario such that Stalin takes the oath and serves as president until Congress removes him from office by impeachment. In the meantime, he would be the president and the Commander in Chief.
How would "an electoral system" subpoena records?
There are very specific rules which must be followed when subpoenaing records from another state. I'm not aware of any court case relating to Obama's eligibility in which a valid subpoena was issued to Hawaii and they refused to honor it, but I may have missed it. Which case are you referring to?
Well, there are still Obama side family members living, and (I think) Obama's sister.
Of course getting that DNA would require Horatio Caine or Sidney Bristow.
I'll bet that most of our presidents never even had birth certificates or any of the kind of records you're talking about. I just don't believe that our Founding Fathers thought that any candidate would be required to produce a birth certificate. And, what difference does it make? You know now that any document that Hawaii produces is just used by some as further evidence to convince themselves that Obama must have been born in Kenya.
If a court ever permitted a litigant to try to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, it would be a very short trial. I mentioned before that even Obama has no knowledge about his own birth other than what he has learned from others. However, notwithstanding that fact, the rules of evidence permit Obama to competently testify regarding the circumstances of his own birth "even though [he] had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact." Federal Rules of Evidence, Section 804(b)(4)(A). So, Obama can take the stand and testify that he was born in Hawaii.
Who can and will testify that he was not born in the United States?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
11/4/2012 (4 years ago)
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
11/4/2012 (4 years ago)
Published in Year of Faith
Keywords: sunday homily, homily, homilies, catholic online, fr. james farfaglia, sabbath, work on sunday, mass, liturgy
CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - When I was growing up as a kid in Connecticut, Sunday was always lived as a very special day. Our parish was always at full capacity and every store was closed except for the newspaper store and the delicatessen, which both closed by Noon.
Something has changed.
It seems as if Sunday is just another day just like all of the other days of the week.Â
This Sunday's liturgy speaks to us about something which is fundamental for our lives as a Catholic people: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with your entire mind" (Matthew 22: 37).
One of the principle ways in which we live out these words of Jesus is through our celebration of the weekly Sabbath.
Let us recall the words of Sacred Scripture regarding the third of the Ten Commandments:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it" (Exodus 20: 8-11).
During his pontificate, Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote an excellent document on how we must live each Sunday.
Regarding the Third Commandment he wrote, "In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the Church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God, announced and expounded by biblical revelation.
But, man's relationship with God also demands times of explicit prayer, in which the relationship becomes an intense dialogue, involving every dimension of the person. The Lord's Day is the day of this relationship par excellence when men and women raise their song to God and become the voice of all creation" (Dies Domini; 13, 15).Â
I am sure that we will all agree that the Sunday that we lived as children is something of the past. However, I believe that as a Catholic people, we need to recuperate the real meaning of Sunday as the Lord's Day and witness to all those around us the proper way to live out the weekly sabbath.
Secularism and materialism are trying to eradicate all sense of God and true religious practices from our modern society.
A very well known businessman told me that one day he gathered all of his employees together for a short meeting. Even though he is a Muslim, he attends Mass every Sunday with his Catholic wife. He knows that most of his employees are baptized Catholics. He expressed his concern about the morals of many of his employees and he urged them to go to Mass every Sunday and get things right with God.Â
During the meeting, he asked his employees if they knew what Easter is all about. One girl said, "That's the day the Jesus was born." Filled with amazement, he then said to the group, "Tell me then, what is Christmas all about?" Another girl said, "That's the day when we give presents to each other."Â
If people do not know what Christmas and Easter are all about, how will anyone even grasp the meaning of Sunday? For all Christian people, Sunday is the weekly celebration of Easter. "Sunday is a day which is at the very heart of the Christian life" (Dies Domini; 7).Â
How then are we to live the Sabbath, the Lord's Day? There are two fundamental aspects to the Sabbath.
First, we need to worship at our parish and secondly we must refrain from all unnecessary physical work.Â
Regarding the first practical aspect of the Sabbath, Sunday worship must be at the very center of our lives.Â
Pope Paul VI once said: "The Mass is the most perfect from of prayer."Â Saint Gregory the Great wrote that "the heavens open and multitudes of angels come to assist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."Â
Saint John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests said: "If we really understand the Mass, we would die of joy."Â
And the beloved Saint Padre Pio said that "it would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do without the Holy Mass."
We need to go to church every Sunday unless we are sick or the weather keeps us inside our homes. We need to dress appropriately for Mass, because the church is God's house. We need to worship at Mass with full and active participation.Â
Punctuality is a must.Â
The second aspect of our Sabbath is the prohibition from all unnecessary physical work. "Just as God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done, human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health" (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 2184, 2185).
This means that we are to do housework, yard work and shopping on other days, not on Sunday.
Although it is true that some people will have to work because they are involved with service orientated professions (hospitals and restaurants), employers of these types of professions have a moral obligation to provide their employees time for worship and adequate rest.Â
Aside from the problems that secularism and materialism have caused in our culture, the bottom line is the fact that most of us simply just do not know how to rest. We are a very active people and we need to recover the true sense of leisure.Â
Sunday rest is not simply baseball or football and a couple of six packs of beer, nor is the solution eight hours of spiritual reading. We need to recapture the real meaning of leisure.
Leonardo Da Vinci once said, "Every now and then go away, have a little relaxation, for when you come back to your work your judgment will be surer, since to remain constantly at work will cause you to lose power of judgment. Go some distance away because then the work appears smaller, and more of it can be taken in at a glance, and lack of harmony or proportion is more readily seen."
During my years in Spain and Mexico, it would be inevitable that interesting conversations with either Spaniards or Mexicans would take place regarding the differences between their countries and ours.Â
One man put it bluntly: "Look, the difference between us and you is that we work in order to live, and you live in order to work."Â
The root of America's extreme activity is a profound restlessness rooted in troubled consciences and lives that have lost the sense of what it means to be a creature of God.
This frantic pace of life is being put to sleep with sex, drugs, alcohol, excessive entertainment and frantic work schedules. Most people equate true leisure to laziness and irresponsibility.  Â
In ancient Athens a man noticed the great storyteller Aesop playing childish games with some little boys. He laughed and jeered at Aesop, asking him why he wasted his time in such frivolous activity.
Aesop responded by picking up a bow, loosening its string, and placing it on the ground. Then he said to the critical Athenian, "Now, answer the riddle, if you can. Tell us what the unstrung bows imply."
The man looked at it for several moments but had no idea what point Aesop was trying to make. Aesop explained, "If you keep a bow always bent, it will break eventually; but if you let it go slack, it will be more fit for use when you want it."
Father James Farfaglia is a
contributing writer for Catholic Online and author of Get Serious! - A Survival Guide for Serious Catholics. You can visit him on the web at www.fatherjames.org
and listen to the audio podcast of this Sunday homily.
By Fr. James Farfaglia
The consideration of Jesus' baptism, gives us an opportunity to remember our own baptism. If you do not know the date of your own baptism, it is a good idea to go through your personal files and find out when it occurred. CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic ... continue reading
By Fr Samuel Medley, SOLT
I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard; My face I did not shield from buffets and spitting. HYTHE, KENT, UK (Catholic Online) - I didn't steal any cookies mommy! says a little boy whose mother asked him if he was hungry, wiping the ... continue reading
By Catholic Online
The Spirit makes one man a teacher of divine truth, inspires another to prophesy, gives another the power of casting out devils, enables another to interpret holy Scripture. The Spirit strengthens one man's self-control, shows another how to help the poor, teaches ... continue reading
By Deacon Keith Fournier
It is not accidental that the Bible, from beginning to the end, uses marriage as a metaphor and a symbol to reveal the plan of God for the whole human race. Marriage was God's plan from the beginning as we see in the first book of Genesis. Throughout the Old ... continue reading
By Deacon Keith Fournier
"A sower went out to sow. And, as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for ... continue reading
By Michael Terheyden
How we interpret the Bible is of immense importance! It directly affects what we believe about Christ, the Church, and our faith, but it is also related to many of the grave problems in our society and the world. Yet, despite the gravity of this situation, we have good ... continue reading
By Deacon Keith Fournier
We celebrate the Feast of Christ the King. It is one of many opportunities the Catholic Church year offers to each one of us to consider the creature called time, receive it as a gift, and begin to really live our lives differently. This is one of ... continue reading
By Deacon Keith Fournier
On the Solemnity of the Feast of Christ the King, the Sunday which marks both the end of the Church Year and the end of the Year of Faith, inaugurated by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope Francis greeted thousands of the faithful and presided over Holy Mass and the ... continue reading
By Father Randy Sly
Becoming a House of Prayer is the best discipline we can take on. St. Ephraem of Syria states that Virtues are formed by prayer. Prayer preserves temperance. Prayer suppresses anger. Prayer prevents emotions of pride and envy. Prayer draws into the soul the Holy ... continue reading
By Deacon Keith Fournier
If this day you only knew what makes for peace- but now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your ... continue reading

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Gym Class Heroes' new album is out today! You can pick up a copy of it before the weekend at Target for only $7.99 or download it instantly on iTunes. If you've gotten the singles we've released from the album there already, the money you spent on those counts towards your purchase of the album!
If you still haven't the album, click HERE to listen to it on Spotify along with an exclusive track-by-track commentary from the band and some exclusive remixes!


text:
More:Global Counterterrorism Forum Documents
On September 22, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered remarks at the launch of the Global Counterterrorism Forum at the United Nations in New York. The Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) is a new multilateral counterterrorism body with 30 founding members (29 countries plus the EU) from around the world. During today's launch, Secretary Clinton said:
"All of us are here because we recognize the threat that terrorism poses to people everywhere. We understand terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but, unfortunately, given advances in technology and communication and travel and so many other of the ways we live together today, terrorism has become truly global and, unfortunately, an ongoing threat to us all.
"Ten years ago, I was a senator from New York, and so I have a very personal and longstanding, searing set of memories from what happened just a few blocks from here in New York with the attacks on the World Trade Center. But since that time, terrorists have claimed so many other victims, as we saw in this movie. And they were victims of al-Qaida and its affiliates, of other terrorist groups like the PKK, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, the FARC, just to name a few. And the stories we saw today of victims and survivors reminds us that no one is immune. All of us, unfortunately, are at risk -- those of us who live in societies, in countries, in nation-states, who go about our business every single day.
"From London to Lahore, from Madrid to Mumbai, from Kabul to Kampala, it's innocent civilians who have been targeted. And no country can afford to sit on the sidelines and no country can afford to go it alone.
"Now, in recent years, together we have made real progress against violent extremism. But I think we all recognize we can do more, which is why we are here. We can build an international counterterrorism network that is as nimble and adaptive as our adversaries, that can mobilize resources and expertise from across the globe, and that can not only meet today's challenges but prepare for tomorrow's.
"This begins, of course, with robust bilateral cooperation, and I want to thank the many nations around this table with whom the United States has a very strong bilateral partnership against terrorism. We are proud of all the work that we have done over the years to strengthen these partnerships. Our efforts continue with regional organizations, such as ASEAN, the African Union, the Organization of American States, the OSCE, all of which are helping members build capacity and pool expertise.
"At the global level, the United Nations and the international counterterrorism policy and legal framework that it has developed, including the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy, help to reinforce our efforts.
"I want to echo Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's recent call for all states, every state, to work to finalize the Comprehensive Convention Against International Terrorism, which India introduced more than a decade ago.
"But as important as all of these elements are, all of us have been convinced that a crucial piece of the puzzle against terrorism is missing. We need a dedicated global venue to regularly convene key counterterrorism policy makers and practitioners from around the world. We need a place where we can identify essential priorities, devise solutions, and chart a path to implementation of best practices.
"It is our hope that this new Global Counterterrorism Forum will provide that venue. Now at the outset, let me say we will not always agree on every issue, but we do agree that there are urgent needs and challenges that are not being addressed and that each member gathered here today has unique expertise to contribute. We know that what works in Turkey or the United States may not work in Indonesia or Colombia, but let us pledge to learn as much as we can from one another. And our work here has the potential to have a double impact: improving the coordination of counterterrorism efforts across borders and between regions, and then helping countries better address terrorist threats within borders.
"And this is not a group whose impact will be limited just to its members. We intend to strengthen the capacity of other governments, multilateral bodies, and civil society groups all over the world. To be effective, we need a clear and forward-looking agenda that galvanizes solutions around the core questions at the heart of our work.
"First, how do we work together to support frontline states and nations in transition develop justice systems that are rooted in the rule of law, respectful of universal human rights, but very effective against violent extremism? Across the Middle East and North Africa and beyond, governments are turning their backs on repressive tactics. They are writing new counterterrorism legislation, reorganizing their police, and reforming their judiciaries. So this is an opportunity to develop and share best practices and to mobilize resources, technical assistance, and political will.
"Second, what are the best ways to work together to deepen our understanding of the process of radicalization and terrorist recruitment and undermine the appeal of extremism? Over the last ten years, we've learned a lot about how terrorist networks find their followers and maintain support and protection in particular communities. But there's much we still don't know about how best to disrupt their efforts and deny them support. This forum can serve as a clearinghouse for research and analysis into these challenges, bringing together experts to design effective strategies for countering violent extremism, and helping ensure that both governments and NGOs are trained to understand the phenomenon of radicalization and how to address it.
"Third, how can we collaborate together to improve border security and other transnational weaknesses that are exploited by terrorist networks? This forum can help us improve coordination and build working-level partnerships between law enforcement, intelligence, customs, and judiciary officials, who deal with these problems on the ground every day.
"And finally, and perhaps most importantly, how can we ensure that we are always thinking and acting strategically in our counterterrorism efforts? Now, we've made important investments over the past decade in intelligence gathering and military capabilities. Looking ahead, I think we now need to focus on helping states develop more effective civilian institutions and counterterrorism partnerships. I think we need to use all the tools in our arsenal, including the power of our own values, and to make it unacceptable, socially exclusionary, for those to support and advocate, give aid and comfort to family members, friends, and kin and larger networks who are attracted or involved in groups that do not renounce violent extremism.
"This forum can help us, if we take seriously the need to develop a work plan together. Today is just the beginning. We don't want another debating society. We want to catalyze ourselves to action. I can pledge the United States will be an active partner, and I'm pleased that, even starting today, we have a number of concrete proposals to discuss."
You can also read the Secretary's remarks here on state.gov.
Palgye in South Korea writes:
terror? economy.
Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:
Walking out during a speech from Iran's president makes our side look petty and thin-skinned, if not downright infantile to the rest of the world.
America is THE champion of free speech but can't confront assertions made in another's speech? Now if Ahmadinijad began cursing at a UN representative, a walkout would be expected. But listening to a recital of a nation's historical record, however distasteful, is part of the job. The US did about the same thing before invading Iraq, bombing Libya, etc. So they can take the heated rhetoric but we can't?
Will the US representative walk out during Pakistan's speech?
The Pentagon alleges it was the ISI behind an attack on the US base in Afghanistan.
How about a walkout on Saudi Arabia?
17 of the 19 airline hijackers on 9/11 were alleged Saudi citizens.
Then there is Israel which opened fire on the USS Liberty and nearly sunk it.
Instead of the US walking out, why not just stay out of the UN permanently?
W.W. writes:
counterterrorism :
the power of our own values is the only strenght that has left us from securing borders to an unappropiated tolerance toward who does not want to be tollerated.
Our Hypocrisy inchoerency is what it stop us from evolve toward peace prosperity and security for our own species.
what we are facing and what we are fighting it is just what we have been creating for our lack of Consciousness examination.
We all are able to preach good cos we are acting and doing in our daily action exactly the opposite of what we preach othrwise there won't be any need to know what we want for our progeny and not for ourselves.
We all are weak and that cos is the interest of a nation to have its citizen weak but it won't be the end for poor slaves and taxed people it will be a new beginning it will be a new world without corruption nepotism finance
economy violence.
What this tribulation it has created will bring a new society free from what today destroyed it
Palgye in South Korea writes:
Ahmadinejad in Iran, the political foundation for the weak, the political capital to even think it's very poor. In his speech outside of the people who gathered for the meeting, rather than to target Iran in a speech to target his political enemies will think. Please, check again, while the size of the pie even more dramatically in the Middle East continued to evolve a policy what about? Rather than the words we choose now, if we're united in one direction to think we should look forward to. Translation by Google.
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Dipnote Bloggers,
So like,...where do I sign up to be a part of this global forum?
Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:
A suggestion -
When a hostile adversary is scheduled to speak at the UN, schedule the US representative to speak last, or at least after the adversary has spoken. Make notes and respond to his accusations while they still are fresh in memory.
Walking out just looks childish - if you want to show displeasure, say it with words after the guy sits down.
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Reality meets suggestion-
Nope, I think walking out is simply a sign that folks arn't going to sit around listening to BS, when they have better things to do.
Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:
Weaklings and girly men pout and walk out on heated rhetoric.
Real Americans don't run from a fight.
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I suppose we could just remove the Iranian government from power and we wouldn't have to listen to Aminidijad's rants @ the UNGA every year, how's that grab you?
I mean honestly, someone should have a big hook standing by to be deployed the next time...at least folks don't have to suffer through another one of Ghaddafi's hour-long rants..., don't hear anyone complaining about that....(chuckle).
Haven't you ever heard of the "terminator" approach to diplomacy Z? That's when folks walk out to send a message that when the idiot decides to get serious, "We might be back."


text:
- Bachelor of Arts
- MA in Clinical Psychology
- Graduate Education
- MEd with Multiple Subject Credential
- MA with Multiple Subject & M/M Education Specialist Credentials
- MA with M/M Education Specialist Credential
- MA in Education with a Concentration in Leadership & Social Justice
- MA in Education – Nature-Based Early Childhood Education Concentration
- Clear Credential
- Multiple Subject Credential
- M/M Education Specialist Credential
- Master of Business Administration
Multiple Subject and Education Specialist-Mild/Moderate Disabilities Credentials: Frequently Asked Questions
What type of graduate degree can I earn in the Education program at Antioch?
You can earn a Master of Arts degree in Education with a specialization in Social Justice and Educational Leadership.
What type of teaching credential can I earn in the Education program at Antioch?
You can earn a California Multiple-Subject Preliminary Teaching Credential, which authorizes you to teach in a self-contained classroom in California, typically at the elementary level. You can also earn an Education Specialist Credential to work with students with Mild/Moderate disabilities. Some students may be able to earn both credentials at the same time.
How can I earn a credential and Master's degree at the same time?
Antioch made a decision to develop its teacher credentialing courses at the graduate level. After all, teaching is a serious professional endeavor; the preparation offered should be equivalent to graduate level study in other fields. You will begin earning units toward your MA degree with your first class. Once you complete the requirements for the Preliminary Credential, you continue in the program for four additional half-time quarters to complete your MA. If you already have a basic teaching credential, you can earn the education specialist credential and the MA degree in a little over a year.
Are there special requirements I have to meet before being admitted?
Basic Skills Requirement
As described in the Admissions Application, you must take and pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST). This test is required of all students in teacher preparation programs in California. The CBEST is offered a limited number of times each year. Please be sure to review the registration deadlines and test dates as soon as possible. You can get more information about the CBEST by accessing its web site at www.cbest.nesinc.com.
Subject Matter Requirement
In addition, you must have registered for or taken the CSET prior to enrolling in the program-however, passage of the CSET is not an admissions requirement. Passage of the CSET, including the writing subtest, will meet the basic skills requirement in lieu of the CBEST.
If you already have a CA basic teaching credential, you likely have already passed these exams.
Can I observe a current class?
Yes! One of the best ways to evaluate if any program is the right one for you is to sit in on a class. Please call to find out the current course offerings and let us know if you are interested in visiting a class.
If I am currently teaching, will I be able to continue teaching in my own class while enrolled in the program?
This is decided on an individual basis, depending on the credential you are earning and your classroom situation. Special education teachers, in particular, are eligible to use their own classrooms for some of their student teaching requirement and can enroll in our intern credential program.
What if I work full time, but not as a teacher?
Graduate school is challenging and requires a significant time commitment. It is up to you to evaluate your circumstances to determine whether you can handle both full-time employment and full-time graduate study.
Our courses are held in the evenings and on some weekends. All students, however, must be available during the school day to meet student teaching and other field work requirements throughout the program.
Can I transfer in course work I have taken from another teacher education program?
Technically, Antioch can accept in transfer up to nine quarter units of coursework. The content of transferable coursework, however, must be at the graduate level, must be very similar (if not identical) to that which we offer in our program, and must meet CTC State standards. The Program Chair makes decisions about the transferability of coursework.
Can I waive the pre-requisite courses if I have already taken them?
Yes. If you have taken a comparable course within the last five years at a regionally accredited college or university, you do not need to take the course again at Antioch.
What types of support does Antioch offer?
A hallmark of an Antioch University education is the close, personal attention students receive from faculty and staff. In the Education program, you will work closely with your faculty mentors, credentials counselor and instructors, and receive regular and close supervision of your practice. In addition, Antioch continues to provide support for its teachers long after graduation.
How much will it cost for me to go to Antioch?
At most private universities, the cost of tuition is often the biggest concern for prospective students. We believe, however, that an Antioch education can be affordable. Our Financial Aid Office can help you apply for grants, college work-study programs, and loans. You can also charge your tuition, or arrange to pay on a payment plan. There are also special grant and loan assumption programs available to students preparing to teach.
Finally, are there some other things you would like to share with me about the advantages of being an Antioch MAE/TC student?
• You will be guaranteed a space in all the classes you need.
• We offer small classes with passionate faculty who are eager to engage you in discussion of educational theories and teaching methods.
• You will take classes with the same students each quarter, thus developing a thriving support system of colleagues with whom you can study and collaborate.
• You'll have the opportunity to develop close, genuine, supportive relationships with program faculty and staff.
• Antioch is an informal, relaxed environment where you can get to know all university staff on a first-name basis.
• You will be part of a diverse community of enthusiastic learners; a common thread that weaves across all University programs.
• You will work closely with our Student Teaching Coordinator to identify a Cooperating Teacher who best meets your needs and interests when you begin Student Teaching.
• You will receive assistance in resume development, interview skills and protocol, district application procedures, and will be kept up to date of local job fairs and other job-seeking strategies and opportunities. Our students are sought after by schools throughout the tri-counties.
When can I start?
The credential programs are designed as a "cohort" educational experience. The cohort (12-25 students) model provides a supportive environment whereby students begin their studies as a group and take the same classes. The multiple subject program begins only once per year, every summer. The education specialist program begins in fall for students who already have a basic teaching credential.
Mandatory Program Orientation Week: Four days in mid-June from 4:30- 7:30pm
Summer Quarter begins: Beginning of July
Please note, deadlines vary for federal and state aid programs. Please read financial aid materials carefully.


text:
Vietnamese Rice Soup
- 1 (4-pound) chicken
- 5 quarts water
- 3 tablespoons ginger, minced
- 3 small yellow onions, peeled and halved
- 2 garlic cloves
- 4 dried wood ear mushrooms
- 2 tablespoons peanut oil
- 1/2 pound shiitake mushrooms, stemmed and sliced
- 1 pound medium shrimp, peeled, deveined and halved lengthwise
- 1 cup jasmine rice
- 1/4 cup small tapioca pearls
- 2 scallions, sliced thinly on a bias, for garnish
- 1/2 cup chopped cilantro leaves, for garnish
- 1/4 cup chiffonade fresh basil leaves, for garnish
- Vietnamese fish sauce (Nuoc nam), for garnish
Place chicken and 5 quarts of water into a large stock pot and bring to a boil over high heat. Skim the foam that rises to the top. Reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer, add the ginger, 3/4 of the onions and garlic. Cook until chicken is cooked through, about 35 to 40 minutes. Transfer the chicken to a plate and allow to cool. When cool enough to handle, remove the meat from the bones. Return the bones to the pot and continue to simmer until the broth has reduced by half, about 1 1/2 hours. Reserve the chicken meat on the side.
Soak the wood ear mushrooms in a bowl of warm water until soft, about 30 minutes. Drain, slice and set aside. Heat peanut oil in a 12-inch skillet, over medium heat. Thinly slice the remaining onions, add to the pan and cook until translucent, 4 to 5 minutes. Add the shitake mushrooms and cook until mushrooms are soft, about 2 minutes. Add the shrimp and cook until just pink, about 1 minute. Remove from the pan and set aside.
In a medium size saucepan, bring 4 cups of water to a boil. Add the rice, reduce the heat to medium and cook, stirring occasionally, until rice is al dente (tender but still a little firm) about 8 minutes. Drain the rice in a colander and rinse under cold water until cool. Set aside.
Strain the chicken broth into a medium pot, discarding the bones and vegetables. Add the drained rice, shredded chicken, and wood ear mushrooms; bring to a boil over high heat. Reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer until rice is very soft, about 10 to 12 minutes. Rinse tapioca in cold water, and then add to soup. Continue to simmer the soup, stirring frequently, until the tapioca turns transparent and soup begins to thicken, about 30 minutes longer.
Add the shrimp, onion and shiitake mushroom mixture to the soup, season to taste with salt and freshly ground white pepper, and simmer for another 2 or 3 minutes. Ladle into warm bowls and garnish with scallions, cilantro and basil and a dash of fish sauce, all to taste.
Recipe courtesy of Emeril Lagasse, Emeril's Food of Love Productions, copyright 2007
Cooking Tips
More Recipes and Ideas
Rice Stuffing With Butternut Squash
Recipe courtesy of Food Network Kitchen
Baked Shroom Rice
Recipe courtesy of Claire Robinson


text:
Sixth baby draws criticism
December 28, 2007
I had two miscarriages after my first daughter was born. Although they were early in the pregnancy, I felt a deep sense of loss and despair for the babies I lost, and it took me a long time to recover and move forward.
I hated having to tell everyone that the baby didn't make it. I dreaded the uncomfortable silence and awkward conversation when I saw a friend or bumped into a random acquaintance at the supermarket. After our losses, my husband and I decided we would wait until the second trimester to share any future pregnancies. Perhaps it was the fear during the first trimester or the emotional roller coaster of not knowing if I would be able to carry to term, but I always expected family members and close friends to be excited or at least supportive about our pregnancies. With baby number two or even number three, family and friends were happy for us, but as we added more children, we increasingly saw puzzled looks and heard disapproving comments.
I shouldn't have been surprised by the lack of excitement for my pregnancy with baby number six, due at the end of the spring. I realize that some view big families as impractical, slightly insane, and not something they would want to do, but I was a bit sad about the outright disapproval some family members expressed.
My husband's parents went as far as telling me that they felt depressed by the news (I am still wondering how grandparents could be depressed about the prospect of many grandchildren, but I am not a grandparent), and several of our friends seemed to want to offer condolences rather than congratulations.
People only seemed to focus on our ability to provide for our children financially. "Are they destined to share a room?" Yes, they will have to share rooms until we win the lottery. "What car will you drive?" I am happily adjusting to the idea of driving a large and utilitarian looking van. "How will you pay for weddings?" We have four girls and a boy, but he is adopted, so we'll probably have another girl and haven't figured out the solution to this issue yet. "Can we be a large military family?" Yes, it's the same lifestyle whether we have one child or 10 children.
These are all issues that my husband and I have analyzed, and if we were that concerned about money, we wouldn't have a large family. But we are very excited about this pregnancy, not only because we love children, but because I really couldn't imagine growing up without a large, noisy but close-knit Italian family.
A new life should always be celebrated: it's an amazing gift.
I thought about Jamie Lynn Spears, Brittney Spear's sister and the star of the popular Nickelodeon show "Zoey 101" and the criticism she has been under since announcing her pregnancy. I and most parents don't approve of the behavior that led a 16-year-old to become pregnant, but I didn't hear a lot of support and encouragement for her decision to keep the baby — a brave and admirable one for such a young person.
A new life is an amazing gift no matter the age of the mother or the number of children. If we can't rejoice in such an event, what can we look forward to?
Anita Doberman is a freelance writer, mother of five and wife of an Air Force pilot stationed at Hurlburt AFB in Florida. The family expects to be moving to Cannon Air Force Base in the next year. Contact her at: