OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.
IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

The Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify

DEMOCRAT SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHERS “RESOLVED” THAT IT TOOK TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

The Post & E-Mail

by Tim DeJong

(May 17, 2010) —  The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father and is therefore not a “natural born Citizen.”

The Constitution is a modest document. Much of its meaning is in what is usually called common law. Some assume common law refers to Blackstone or English Common Law. The framers and many justices, Joseph Story among them, have referred to Vattel as our common law. Given that the first school of law established at a college in the Congress United (between the Revolution and the ratification) was that created at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson, when James Madison was its president, and among its first students was John Marshall, and the stated structure of the curriculum was Law of Nations based upon Vattel and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Can there be any doubt about the intent of the framers when justices including subsequent Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel when quoting “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens?” When the principal author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, cites Vattel “about which there has never been doubt,” the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is confirmed for at least the twentieth time.

US court grants asylum to Obama’s African aunt

Yahoo News

CLEVELAND – A U.S. immigration court has granted asylum to President Barack Obama’s African aunt, allowing her to stay in the country, her attorneys announced Monday.

The decision was mailed Friday and comes three months after Kenya native Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s late father, testified at a closed hearing in Boston, where she arrived in a wheelchair and two doctors testified in support of her case.

The basis for her asylum request hadn’t been made public. People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.

Her lawyer, Margaret Wong of Cleveland, said last year that Onyango first applied for asylum “due to violence in Kenya.” The East African nation is fractured by cycles of electoral violence every five years.

In a November interview with The Associated Press, Onyango said she was disabled and was learning to walk again after being paralyzed from Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder.

Onyango moved to the United States in 2000. Her first asylum request was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she didn’t leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston.

Onyango’s status as an illegal immigrant was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November 2008. Obama said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be followed.

A judge later agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case.

Wong has said that Obama wasn’t involved in the Boston hearing. The White House also said it was not helping Onyango with legal fees.

In his memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama affectionately referred to Onyango as “Auntie Zeituni” and described meeting her during his 1988 trip to Kenya.

Onyango helped care for the president’s half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya

Source:

The Ground Zero Mosque – First You Bomb and Then You Occupy

Canada Free Press

Did you know that downtown Manhattan has a huge Muslim population. That’s right, a Muslim population so huge that it can only be serviced by a 100 million dollar mosque to be constructed in a 13 story building.

With that kind of project, you would have to assume that there’s a local Muslim community in the tens of thousands that need to be served by a Muslim center. In fact there is no such community. The existing local mosques, including a nondescript metal door stamped Masjid, 5 blocks from Ground Zero, mainly cater to vendors selling burned meat from stores and carts, the “Halal Mafia” who insist on sending waves of foul smelling black smoke everywhere in their vicinity and are known to violently assault other vendors who want to do business in their vicinity.

Then there are the employees of closeout and discount stores selling everything from items bought up from stores that have gone out of business to used clothes and pirated movies in the vicinity of City Hall. These are being gentrified out of business as the neighborhood continues attracting a better class of businesses. Also the majority of those who work there are women. There are a few Muslims working at financial firms on Wall Street, but they are a minority, and they are also not neighborhood residents.

The Left’s War on Free Speech

American Thinker

The left pretends to be the biggest champion of free speech. When the New York Times wrote articles about how our government was tracking the activities of terrorists, journalistic behavior which directly endangered the lives of Americans by providing intelligence information to those terrorists who are at war with us, the sanctimonious left insisted that this newspaper was simply exercising its constitutional right of free speech and free press.

In 1977 and 1978, Illinois Nazis planned a march Skokie, Illinois. That predominately Jewish community was home to many Holocaust survivors. The city, noting the intentionally provocative and malicious nature of this march, adopted ordinances to prevent the march.  The perennially leftist ACLU took the side of the Nazis, citing the First Amendment rights of these disruptive goons.

The left at Berkeley in 1964 rallied around the “Free Speech Movement,” which was intended to be disruptive.  By 1965, this movement had become known as the “Filthy Speech Movement,” because it asserted the right of students on campus to yell obscenities with impunity. The left had no problem with that at all, even when the speech inspired — almost called for — riots that destroyed property, frightened people, and produced numerous minor crimes.  Hear what one of its “heroes,” Mario Savio, said at the time: “Government insults its citizens and denies their moral responsibility when it decrees that they cannot be trust to hear opinions that might persuade them to dangerous or offensive conduct.”

Eric Holder: A Liar or Incompetent?

Human Events

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder’s recent comment about Arizona’s illegal immigration law demonstrates that he is either blatantly disingenuous, or that the most powerful attorney in the country is incompetent.

Holder admitted under questioning last Thursday that he has not read the Arizona statute, nor been briefed on the 16-page document by his staff. Nevertheless, our nation’s top law enforcement official has repeatedly said that the law is unconstitutional, misguided, and will be challenged. It turns out his expert legal opinion is nothing more than hysterical, and mostly erroneous, hyperbole—the kind that flies in the face of the vast majority of this nation’s citizens who support Arizona’s refusal to abide continued federal inaction.

When a lawyer with the power and authority of the attorney general’s office offers public legal opinions based on “what I’ve heard about the law,” I suspect that he is looking at a loser case, one he does not want to argue in court.