Lighter blogging.

Just an FYI--

The crazies are either getting less crazy or learning to keep quiet about treasonous tendencies, so I'm probably going to be blogging less here in the coming months.

I still have a few posts that alert readers sent in that I plan to write about Real Soon Now, so don't worry. I haven't forgotten about it.

Letter to the Rain God

So this isn't too much treason, but I have to.

Letter to the Attorney General of the State of Washington

Mr. Robert McKenna ,
Attorney General,
Washington Office of The Attorney General
1125 Washington St, SE
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100



I always loved this AG. Those of you who haven't finished the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy won't get it.

And yeah, treason:

Mr. Neuenschwander believes, that should he be recalled, along with current active/inactive/ retired members of the Armed Forces of the United States, are currently carrying and in the future out the orders of The President of the United States under duress

Hey, look! Keyes v Bowen is gutted!

You wouldn't know that from Orly:

In regards to Alan Keyes, again, it was not heard on the merits yet.

Let's see...

SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
[...]
The Court is not persuaded that petitioners will be able to amend their First Amended Petition to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
[...]
DEMURRER OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND CALIFORNIA ELECTORS TO PETITIONERS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
[...]
The Court is not persuaded that petitioners will be able to amend their First Amended Petition to state a
cause of action against President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, or the named California
Electors. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
[...]
MOTION TO QUASH OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, AND 55 CALIFORNIA ELECTORS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION OF THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE NOT BE TAKEN.
[...]
The motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED.

It's not dismissed due to standing. It's gutted due to mooted due to the fact that the election is over, the fact that there's no legal recourse available, and the fact that Bowen did her job, regardless of what the facts are. So, er.

Treason, though. It's a blog about treason. Let's see...

If he doesn't produce, he needs to be removed from office immediately

That'll do.

While I'm on the subject:

Dear Senator Kyle

Is that Kyle Reese from the Terminator series? Awe. Some.

Or is that Senator John Kyl, who does not have an e in his name? Significantly less awesome.

It is your duty to subpoena all of Obama's vital records, and if he cannot prove Natural born status, remove him from office ASAP. It will not be an impeachment

I love the smell of extra-constitutional actions in the...I guess it's evening.

OK. Let's go over unlawful orders again

Knoxville (Tennessee) News Reports on Birth Certificate Issue

Every such person swears to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the commander-in-chief. But, if that commander occupies the position illegally, then those personnel have an affirmative duty (under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to disobey any order given by an unlawful authority.

No, they don't. They have a negative duty not to obey an unlawful order, regardless of its authority.

Let's go back to the Manual for Courts-Martial. 14.c(2)(a) reads, in part:

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

Illegal orders are orders issued by the proper authority that compel the soldier to commit an illegal act. George W. Bush could give illegal orders under his authority as president. So could Barack Obama. I, however, cannot issue an illegal order unless I become president or join the military. In any case, unless your orders come directly from the president (in which case, your rank is either General or Colonel in the Army--not sure about other branches of the military), the officer issuing the order is not Barack Obama.

As for the negative/affirmative stuff, it's pretty simple: If your CO orders you to guard a water pump and shoot any civilian who tries to drink from it, that's pretty obviously illegal. You do not have to shoot those civilians. But if you see the enemy trying to drink from the pump, you do not have the obligation not to shoot her.

So good luck trying to get someone to believe your interpretation of the UCMJ.

To my knowledge, it hasn't happened ... yet.

Although Obama recently increased our troop strength in Afghanistan, he has not yet attempted to start any new war.

Hasn't attempted to start a new war...yet. Is Obama like a foreign-food diner? "I'm in the mood for a Thai war tonight. I've got my leftover Côte d'Ivoire war in the fridge, so maybe I'll have that war tomorrow."

If he does, and if soldiers disobey, the Manual for Courts-Martial is on their side. (As a former Air Force law-enforcement supervisor, and leader of counter-terrorist teams, I am familiar with the UCMJ provisions and the MCM procedures.) One cannot be punished for disobeying an order if the order was unlawful.

There are two possibilities. Either you're not a former AF supervisor, or you need to brush up on the MCM. It is most definitely not on your side.

Uh...

Doc Orly is (predictably) not making sense:

Sarah Novascone, the 14th Amendent has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

Uh...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Sarah Novascone, Natural Born Citizen and Citizen have two different definitions.

Most people remember this amendment from Civics class as "That amendment that allowed black people to be citizens." So if you're saying that it has only something to do with citizenship, but not natural-born citizenship, that's tantamount to saying that the 14th amendment did not change the ability of black people to be natural-born citizens.

Which would mean that you don't believe that black people can be president.

Now, I'm not sure if that's what you meant to say. For one thing, you're pretty incoherent. But even if it isn't, you're wrong and stating that makes you look like a racist.

Just sayin'.

Oh, perfect timing!

New Oath Keepers Blog

Have you take an oath to defend the Constitution and will NOT follow the orders of a Usurper?

Oh, Lord. Let's take a look at the site.

http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

Huh. While it's a little startling that these people feel the need to say these things, I'm not seeing any mention of Obama. So, uh, I think that's a swing and a miss for Doc Orly.

Sorry for the delay

I'm sorry about the non-posting.

I just got a new job (it was quite sudden). Well, it's just sort of a trial period now, but it may be a real new job. So that's been keeping me busy. Back soon, but I'll leave you with this:



Apparently, the person who created this is not aware of all internet traditions.

Also, apparently this person is not aware of any design traditions, or even that we didn't have two parties in this country until 1841, and after that, there were two other extended periods of one-party rule: after the Civil War and after the Great Depression.

Also: we were living under Communism from 2001-2007. Who knew? This person, evidently.

Can it be? Donofrio makes sense?

Leo Donofrio is making some sense. I still think he's an idiot and probably hallucinating, but he seems to know that sticking your hand in a rat trap is a Bad Thing. Doc Orly doesn't seem to get that and will probably send Donofrio to the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I originally thought that this was going away after the inauguration, but I forgot the When Prophecy Fails scenario. Judging from that and other similar cults, once Easterling gets court-martialed, Donofrio will be attacked as an agent of the enemy.

Military POTUS Eligibility Madness

A few weeks ago, I suggested hypothetically that active military might have standing to bring a class action to question Obama’s POTUS eligibility. After reviewing various sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pointed out to me by various readers, I came to the conclusion that such a law suit would probably not only fail, but would also subject soldiers to potential court martial.

I decided to have nothing to do with any such law suit involving military plaintiffs. Their burden is already so large. This is our burden.

Then, after seeing a consent form issued by Orly Taitz within which active military were being asked to state that they might disobey orders from President Obama, I realized that these men were truly being put in serious jeopardy. I responded with a blog which suggested that any soldiers who had a problem with Obama’s eligibility should consult a JAG lawyer or their personal attorney rather than going to the internet for advice.

I hoped the issue would go away, but it didn’t. This week an active military officer signed a consent form to be a plaintiff in a future law suit brought by Orly Taitz. Besides erroneously reporting that the officer had defied a Presidential order, the officer’s name was released and inflammatory and contemptuous statements were also released via World Net Daily, Orly’’s blog and the Drudge Report.

I complained vehemently and eventually the incorrect headline which grossly and erroeneously stated that the officer had defied a Presidential order was changed at all three sources.

Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Review the following statement by the officer:

“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor…”

This statement should never have been made public. If Orly Taitz is going to solicit active military to join her potential law suit and sign consent forms thereto, then she should be charged with the responsibility of knowing the exact punishment her clients will be subjected to, and she should be protecting them from any unnecessary jeopardy.

The Easterling thing is exploding nicely

Military.com - Officer Calls Obama 'Usurper' President

"We are taking a look at that ourselves right now," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said. "We are always trying to balance our ... military requirements under the Uniform Code of Military Justice versus critical freedoms that all Americans enjoy."

Welp, looks like Lt. Easterling will probably enjoy a nice dishonorable discharge.

While I'm here, I'd like to note Doc Orly's response:

Open Letter Response to the Lt. Easerling (sic) story covered by Bryant Jordan of Military.com

Can't even get her own client's name right. I'm sure there's a metaphor or something in there.

1. In a letter you questioned the very existence of officer Easterling and Mr. Tulley stated that information was given by a third party with an ax to grind. As a reporter you could check Officer Easterling's existence, instead of questioning that. Mr. Tulley claimed that I am a party with an ax to grind. Based on what? His imagination. That is a defamatory statement and I expect retraction and apology.

If there were one way to describe Orly, axe to grind would not be it. Obviously biased would be the phrase I prefer.

Also, for those of you looking for point #2, there is no point #2. Point #3 is, presumably, No Pooftahs.

As far as the last comment goes, about Chief of staff saluting Obama, I don't know if I should respond seriously or laugh. In Germany chief of staff saluted Hitler, didn't make him legitimate. In our recent history chief of staff saluted Nixon, as he was getting into helicopter and leaving office disgraced during Watergate.

Doc Orly apparently missed a few days in history class. See, while Nixon did use dirty tricks to get validly elected, Hitler was actually validly elected without any dirty tricks (well, unless you want to count Dolchstoßlegende, in which case, it was the fault of the voters for not thinking critically). In both cases, the election was valid and they were president and chancellor, respectively. Which was the point that the original author made.

I don't think that's proper address

Dr. Taitz's Military Action Welcomes' Officer Easterling

You don't address military officers as "officer." You use whatever rank that particular officer is. Otherwise, you can't tell a lowly second or first lieutenant from a colonel or a general. I wonder what rank he is...

I was promoted to 1LT on Feb. 2, 2009

Ah! First Lieutenant. An O-2 pay grade, the second lowest in the officer corps (which he joined straight out of basic training in this case).

Wake me up when you have a captain. I probably won't pay any attention then, either, but at least you won't be embarrassing yourself.

You say you want a revolution...

Tea Party revolution brewing

The kettle’s whistling. Tea Parties are popping up all over the country. People are flocking to these sites which have cropped up practically overnight in search of information about rallies, demonstrations and Tea Parties in their cities. The revolution is brewing!

You know, for self-proclaimed patriots, these people seem positively giddy at the thought of personally killing their fellow countrymen (and women).

Screwing for chastity

What will YOU do when “they” come for your neighbor???

So someone puts up a sign saying that Obama is a traitor and someone should make a citizen's arrest. Given that the person in question does not live in North Carolina, the only state to allow citizens' arrests, I can see how someone might get the wrong idea and why they might send for the Secret Service, though I think that's taking things way too far.

And then, hang on a tick...

THIS is exactly why we need to organize on a local level first!

Oh.

RESISTERS

Ah.

Are you going to RESIST or are you going to sit at your computer writing letters that are ignored, or planning for your ‘big protest’ several months from now??

Uh, well maybe she only means...

What WILL you do WHEN they come for your neighbor?? What will you want your neighbor to do when they come FOR YOU??

Uh... nevermind.

Yes, Yes This Is Cause For Alarm Is Cause For Alarm

Yes This Is Cause For Alarm

Greg on his blog justly pointed at the need to restore the Militia of the several States as if we are to restore, defend and uphold the Constitution, and thereby the Constitutional Republic, against current conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny from within it is essential we work on State and Country level.

Yeah, that sounds an awful lot like treason.

It's that time again!

Hey! Did you hear about the bill that some guy introduced to repeal the 22nd Amendment? Interestingly, the author of the article appears to have at least one brain cell, because he notes that the same people introduce the same bill every for Congress, since Reagan.

(Ditto the bill to reintroduce the draft. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a perennial bill to reintroduce Prohibition.)

The angriest dog in the world

[Someone here said they liked the Fire Joe Morgan style of analysis I did. I like that too, so I'm doing this, even though it's not strictly treason. I started this as a way to deal with the crap I see from the birthers, and I think this still falls under that category. I don't even know who Joe Morgan is. I stole this style from Sadly, No!, who do have Fire Joe Morgan on their blogroll. --Ed.]

Rob Lamb wrote an Open letter to Eric (beeping) Holder
Posted on February 20th, 2009 by David-Crockett

I know what you're thinking. (bleeping) means fucking, right? In fact, careful analysis suggests that the term is not fucking. I'll leave you to figure out what it is.

Coward? You say that I am a coward? SCREW YOU.

Aww, how cute! Ron Lamb shows that the biggest words can come from the littlest penis of all.

Years ago, while one day opening my business, I was robbed at gunpoint by four BLACK men of thousands of dollars, and I was shot in the chest.

Apparently, he was robbed by very stupid criminals, who rob a store in the morning, i.e. when the store has no money. A store that has thousands of dollars in the morning isn't necessarily raking in the dough, but if you need more than $2000 in the morning, you'll probably have at least ten large by noon. I used to work as a cashier for a news stand, and each day, I started with $250 in the drawer. For an eight hour shift, I'd usually make a drop of no less than $500 once a shift--often I'd have them drop $1000 or more. At three registers and more in the safe in the back, we probably started each day with $1000 and left each day with $10,000--probably closer to $20,000 since we did Western Union and that money didn't go into out till.

Unless, of course, they were four crazed junkies who needed money for their next fix and were willing to stake out this guy's store and wait until morning but not to wait until later in the day when the business would actually have some real money.

The four men were caught, but never accused, never arraigned, never tried, never forced to repay what they stole from me, never required to help with my medical bills, and they sure as hell didn‘t pay my mortgage.

In addition, they were never brought to civil court and ordered to pay damages to this guy because he's a nice guy and decided not to press charges. Psst, Rob! In order to get damages, you have to sue them. Also, this case is an attorney's wet dream. Even Lionel Hutz could sleepwalk through such a case. About the only way that I could see you losing such a case would be to hire the auto expert from the car wax infomercials who sets fire to the hoods of cars and who is also a master chef in the cookware infomercials.



Above: I cannot guarantee that he would win your case.

But I tried to keep my little business afloat, to pay the bills for my very young family. I ended up with thousands of dollars in medical bills, thousands more in bills from the business, I could not pay back. We lost our home, we lost automobiles, we lost everything but our family, and our dignity, because

because you didn't know that lawyers (and especially personal injury lawyers) don't need retainers and often work on a contingency basis?

because I eventually repaid everybody.

Oh! So close.

But the cowards got off scot free.

because Rob refused to sue them.

NO, HOLDER, THE COWARD IS YOU.

The tiniest penis of all is hard! And big! Well, OK. Maybe not big, but certainly hard! Rob suffers from feelings of inadequacy, and he will use everything he can to convince you that his is not the tiniest penis of all!

All of you have been made aware that there is a huge issue with Soetoro’s legitimacy to hold the office of President.

He's got a point. I mean, Soetoro can't be president. I hear there's some other guy named Barack Hussein Obama that they got to do the job.

The cowardice that comes from the too many millions of people who do not have the intestinal fortitude to pay attention in school, work hard, do the right things in life, get a job, any job, stand up for themselves, and start their lives with heads held high; instead they blame drugs, alcohol

Rob, Rob! Yoo-hoo! You're kinda getting off the topic, such as it was. Do you have a point, or at the very least, a theme? This diatribe, it's going to be shorter than the speech from Atlas Shrugged, right? Please?

and a vile, contemptible, loathsome system which has been gone for over a hundred and forty years.

Ah! You do have a theme. Let me see if I have this right.

Holder is a coward. Holder is a coward because he did not pay attention in school. Attorney General Holder does not have a job. Holder also has not started his life with his head held high. Holder blames the fact that he doesn't have a job on the fact that he uses drugs and alcohol. He also blames this on the fact that his ancestors were slaves in the United States.

Do, um...do I have that right?

Millions of Americans of all colors do the right thing every day, but there are far too many who use the cowardice of ‘injustice’ to write off all their lack of self esteem.

If anything says lack of self-esteeem, it has to be the office of Attorney General.

Injustice? Sure, there are still injustices. Just remember, I received no ‘justice.’

Because you refused to sue the imaginary people who fake shot you to fake steal thousands of imaginary dollars from your phantom business.

TAKE YOUR COWARDICE AND SHOVE IT.

The littlest penis of all demands attention! Rob is mad and he will stand here looking petulant until the world grovels at his feet!

You can read the rest. It's really not worth it.

Is that a threat?

Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist

OK, folks. He's got a doomsday device, and he's not afraid to use it!

10th Amendment treason

I've been more or less silent on this issue, since the 10th Amendment issue is something between the several states and the federal government, and I surely don't want to get involved in a debate between them. But a recent post has suggested that...well, see for yourself:

In respect to a situation in which, the man holding the office of President, and a majority of men holding the offices of Representatives and Senators in Congress, and a majority of men holding the offices of Justices of the Supreme Court should all league together in a conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny, they would be breaking the law, Dr. Viera justly pointed out that:

Under these circumstances, the Constitution would ex necessitate empower and require “the Militia of the several States” “to execute the Laws of the Union” against the conspirators and their henchmen and hangers-on,

Oh, goody. I do love me some armed revolution.

Make Conspiracies Fast!

Phil Berg is going Amway:

I hereby request all of obamacrimes.com supporters to

1. go to your computers;
2. send a message to everyone on ‘your address’ book to go to obamacrimes.com and read it;
3. ask everyone on ‘their address’ book to read and send on to everyone on their address book; and
4. if they can, make a contribution to obamacrimes.com [on our web site to donate online or mail in]. I am requesting donations of asking four [4] friends to contribute $15.00 each or donate $60.00 themselves

Sorry. Carry on.

Dirty bomb planned by slain Neo-Nazi applicant

I think that would fall under the category of treason, though I'm not sure where he thinks Obama was born.

(and no, he's not a Neo-Nazi. The FBI found an application to become a Neo-Nazi, so presumably he never sent one in.)

Lincoln's birthday

I see Citizen Wells is talking about Lincoln's birthday. A lot.

Which suggests that they may have something planned for the 12th.

Procrastination theatre, day two

I just can't bear to face it. The treason brigade is getting obvious, and it's depressing.

So have a brief intermission.



In 1956, Leon Festinger wrote a book called When Prophecy Fails. Basically, Festinger followed a UFO doomsday cult around until the day when the end of the world was supposed to come, and then followed them around after it failed to occur.

What would happen when it became obvious that they were wrong? Would they simply go back to their jobs and families? Sadly, no. They actually became more vocal in their beliefs and sought out media attention that they had shunned before.

The treason brigade certainly never shunned media attention, but they do seem to be getting much more vocal as their cases keep getting denied. I don't know what the endgame for the cult was, but I think we can expect something very similar with the treasoners.

Now playing: Farewell Ferengistan

I'm not dead, just trying to take a weekend to relax.

It seems to be working, by the way. I've found some more treason, but I'm so happy right now and don't want to spoil it.

Treason should resume tomorrow.

Blast from the past

Dr. Conspiracy (are you reading Dr. Conspiracy's blog? You should.) reminds me of this fun bit that used to be at Doc Orly's blog, but was since removed:

If the law enforcement and government of this country does not step up to the plate and doesn’t announce official investigation of this matter immediately, we need to protect ourselves, we need civilian militia, we need our own investigating services, we need new government.

I suppose I can't say anything about wanting a militia. It's one of our rights per the Constitution, and I do not want to abridge any of those rights. But when you talk about new government...well, I think someone else said it better than me:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world...

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out...

You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait...

You say [it's from] the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead

Violence! Violence! Ooh!

New Hampshire talks Civil War against feds!
The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step today by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a "breach of peace" with the states themselves that risks "nullifying the Constitution."

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!

Unclosed parenthesis in original.

This is it folks! Doc Orly is gearing up for war. Funny, though. The bill doesn't seem to say anything about war. In the interest of fairness, I checked, and this doesn't seem to be the sort of perennial legislation like bills designed to reinstate the draft or repeal presidential term limits, so it's not necessarily drafted by a crank who does nothing but this one issue over and over.

I have reported on thisblog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.

The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

Full disclosure: I, too, think that the US is headed for a breakup. Few countries last this long without a breakup. The only counterexamples I can think of are the Ottoman Empire and a few of the Chinese dynasties. Rome, Greece, Britain, Austria-Hungary all lasted a few centuries and then broke up, and we're reaching that age and starting to show signs of strain.

But that's very different from Civil War. I think if we continue our backbiting ways of politics, we may well see a civil war in a few decades. But we may also see something analagous to the Velvet Divorce--an agreement to split up the country into smaller countries or administrative regions larger than states but with more cultural cohesion.

There's certainly no need for war.

Also, we are not overdue for a rebellion. Orly endorses the concept of millions of people fighting and dying? Would she like to have her friends or loved ones on the front lines? Sadly, given her pathological perspective, I suspect the answer would be yes.

And this year? I'm sorry, but I've got other things planned for this year. Try back in a decade or two. No, frankly we're going to need more elections to heighten the tension in the country to a warlike level.

And one more thing: if you're going to start a war this year, how are you going to train your troops for the battle in time? Unless, of course, you're telling trops that they should disobey orders, which you said you weren't doing.

It's not treason, by jingo!

Maybe I misjudged Doc Orly. She says I've got it all wrong.

More False Rumors in regards to the military

Mr. Kreep has told me and later has forwarded an e-mail from a gentleman that goes by name John Jay, though I don't believe that this is his real name.

No kidding. A guy's named after the Committee to Re-Elect, and you think it's a pseudonym?

OK, that was a cheap shot, but you have to take humor when you can get it in this subject.

Mr. John Jay (or whoever he is, probably part of Obama administration)

Yes. Because anyone who disagrees with you is obviously part of the Obama administration. Which reminds me, I should probably talk to Barack Obama and see if I can get paid for this blogging. I've always wanted to be part of a presidential administration.

is sending e-mails to different people, saying that I just urge members of the military to disobey orders, that for no reason I am just telling people to disobey orders.

Well, color me shocked. That's exactly what I was saying. If he's wrong, then I guess I must be wrong, too! Let's read on.

This is not saying to disobey orders

Good! I'm glad. Dr. Orly, I do humbly and sincerely apolo--hang on, there's more.

If members of the military are following orders of somebody, who is a foreigner and not a legitimate President and commander in Chief, they are following illegal orders and can be subject to court martial.

Uh. So let me get this straight. You claim that you're not telling people to disobey orders, but you're also telling people that if they obey orders, they'll be court-martialed for following illegal orders?

That, uh... that sounds like you're telling soldiers to disobey orders.

Surprise, surprise, surprise

Citizen's grand jury! Citizen's grand jury!

We need volunteers to coordinate and form citizen's grand juries all over the country.

As I read more and more of this half-wit's drooling commentary, I find myself increasingly at odds with the ideas I've had before. It is, after all, a good idea to have independent grand juries. This is, of course, not what Orly wants. Orly wants a group of people to indict Obama, and if they don't, it will only be proof that those people are in on the conspiracy.

Two things

Thing one: I'm starting to see a lot of nObama blogs pointedly stating that military personnel should not refuse to follow orders. It's a step in the right direction, but they started the whole thing to begin with.

Thing two: Donofrio doesn't seem to be in full possession of his mental faculties. In fact, I think I've seen this guy before.

Deer Genral Riper, pleez comit treeson

More international treason!

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic
Written by Zach Jones

So the question becomes, when does an individual soldier, Joe the Private, have sufficient reason to know or believe that an order flowing down the “chain of command” from the Office of the President constitutes an “unlawful order”?

Ooh! A multiple choice quiz!

Does it happen when an individual member of the military comes across reports on the internet of more than 30 lawsuits challenging the eligibility of the current occupant of the Oval Office?

Does it happen when some bozo on the internet says that he totally knows that the president is a replicant? I'm going with no.

Does it happen when superior Officers such as Lt Col. Earl-Graef start raising their heart felt concerns?

Does it happen when a retired officer outside of his chain of command issues a lawsuit of indeterminate merit? I'm going with no, again.

Does it matter that the main stream media may be deliberately ignoring the issue for their own purposes?

Geez, I think I'll have to say no.

What should the individual soldier do if he or she in their heart of hearts believes the President of the United States is a fraud and cannot issue any “lawful order”?

Speak to a superior officer, and either get straight or get busted out of the service.

The soldier could be determined in a Court Martial to be fulfilling the obligations of their oaths or they could be found to be committing mutiny or sedition under the UCMJ!

You don't say!

There is however another important group of people (besides the civilian Judges) who, I believe, have the power to investigate and resolve Obama’s ineligibility issue. If just one person of this group has courage and conviction for the truth, he or she can remove the possibility that a another member of our armed forces, acting alone, would decide that they must as a matter of conscience refuse to obey an “Order” coming from Mr. Obama.

This group is made up of every person in the military chain of command that has the power to convene a “Court of Inquiry” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice!

He goes on to explain the group of people who are so entitled:

(1) the President of the United States;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the commanding officer of a unified or specified combatant command;
(4) the Secretary concerned;

No, no, no, no.

(5) the commanding officer of a Territorial Department, an Army Group, an Army, an Army Corps, a division, a separate brigade, or a corresponding unit of the Army or Marine Corps;
(6) the commander in chief of a fleet; the commanding officer of a naval station or larger activity of the Navy beyond the United States.
(7) the commanding officer of an air command, an air force, an air division, or a separate wing of the Air Force or Marine Corps;

That would be a L. Colonel or above, a Commodore or above, and I believe a L. Colonel again.

(8) any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(9) any other commanding officer in any of the armed forces when empowered by the President.

No, and no.

So you want to tell a lieutenant colonel to start a court-martial against the president? I do realize that your poster boy for this, Earl-Graef, is a retired L. Colonel, but you're going to have to show me somebody who is active duty before I believe that anyone is that stupid.

It is NOT my intention to express anything that could be remotely be interpreted as an “intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”!

Uh huh. Should have thought of that before you expressed an intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority.

Oh, no. Not another blog

I was hoping I wouldn't have to follow the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog. The sewage that that idiot pumps out is absolutely disgusting. Honestly, would you want to read this sort of thing all day?

Now that the jug-eared, lawn-jockey and house negro for the dhimmicrat party has his scrawny ass parked in the Oval Office...

But Sadly, No! links to an article, and I feel like I should follow up on it:

Until Barack Hussein Obama has proven his eligibility for the office, he is not my president.

Funny, see, that's not true. The interesting thing about the government is that once you elect it, it's the government, regardless of what issues you think there may be with it. Furthermore, if you do think he's ineligible, you can take it up with the courts, which have routinely laughed this crap out of their courts. But until you actually succeed in the conviction of impeachment hearings, Barack Boogedy-boogedy Obama is still your president.

Until Barack Hussein Obama’s paid henchmen in ACORN have been investigated thoroughly and, if found guilty, punished to the full extent of the law, he is not my president.

Okay. You're going to have to explain this one. Richard Nixon sabotages Muskie's campaign. But I don't think you're stupid enough to claim that Spiro Agnew was the president. See, no matter what electoral shenanigans went on during the campaign, it doesn't change the outcome. You can't unring the bell and the people won't forget the information that they learned during the campaign. And they won't change their votes.

He can play president all he wants, ignorant fools often get a huge kick out of indulging in their delusions, and his mindless followers can bleat and bray about their Anointed One at the top of their lungs, but he still isn’t my president.

Uh huh. Can you show me an Obama supporter who talks about the Anointed One?

His every word, his every deed, every “law” that his Congress passes shall be weighed, by me, against the words put down by our Founders centuries ago and, if found wanting in any way, I shall ignore them as I would ignore a fly hitting the windshield of my car.

And if he and his tyrannical henchmen try to force me to obey his illegal orders, laws and regulations, I shall meet them with force as well. If I die, I shall die a free man. If I live, I shall have done my country a great favor.

Oh, goody. Here's treason. So until he can personally prove to you that he meets whatever standard you so choose, you won't acknowledge him as president? And if you wind up breaking the law, you'll fight the law by force?

I remember people like Gandhi and Thoreau and Jesus, who opposed the state because it was unjust (though in the case of Jesus, He was more or less indifferent to the civil authorities). And now, it's come to this?

If you had said that you opposed all civil authority, you might have a point, but you suggest that some people would be acceptable presidents, but this guy, for some unintelligible reason, isn't. I get so tired of these piddly little schoolhouse games.

Oklahoma Treason

Doot de doot. Just checkin' the ol' internet. Wonder if...

Oklahoma Rebellion
by Walter E. Williams

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War

Awesome! Totally crazy, and not even the first sentence is over! See, my American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed) defines civil war as A war between factions or regions of the same country. What aspect of that did the American Civil War not meet?

A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government

I see. It doesn't meet your definition, which, coincidentally, is defined in such a way that the Anerican Civil War doesn't meet it.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Right. See, wars of independence are usually declared after we know who won, not by some guy with a website. They don't say the victors write the history books for no reason, you know. And guess what? It turned out that the South couldn't operate independently of the North. So it's not really a war of independence. More of a war of emo Jefferson Davis.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "...that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Yeah, good luck with that.

See, here's the thing: If you ask just about any foreigner what the American Civil War meant, you're likely to get one of two responses. Either they won't know, or they'll say that it was the triumph of the federal government over the state governments. We see these things a little bit differently in the states, but the Civil War was really a watershed moment for the federal government. It really attained ascendency during that war and tilted the balance of power far away from the state capitols.

As much as I'd like to see a greater balance between federal and state governments, I know that that ship sailed a long time ago.

I suppose this isn't treason, per se, but it is rebellion fetishism. I figured I ought to follow the situation.

Quickie

Doc Orly has a question:

What are they waiting for? For people's anger to reach the boiling point and a revolt to start? Is that the end game?

No, that would seem to be your position.

Treason goes international!, take 2

Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders
By Mark S. McGrew

Oh, good. Nothing says competence like accepting crazy theories about someone's name.

I know that World leaders are fully accustomed to conducting business with all manner of criminals, terrorists, dictators and other illegitimate “leaders” of Nations.

Uh huh. Like when world leaders have to sit down with people like Hitler and Stalin? Or do you mean more like some guy whom a bunch of whackadoodles on the internet say isn't qualified to be president? Because I don't think I have a problem with the latter.

But Obama may be different, as no one knows his real name, his place of birth, who his true parents are or even his actual birth date.

First off, we do know all of that. Second...I'm not really sure how to finish that. It's difficult to top something as nutty as what he just said.

Because Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States, any agreements he makes are subject to change or removal by the current American government of by future administrations, far into the future. Any and all agreements he makes gives foreign powers permission to deny them, rescind them or renege on them, far into the future.

Now we get into the real nutty stuff. I'm sorry your guy lost, but please stop wishing that his laws will be rendered null. It's just going to angry up your blood when you realize that it won't happen, and I don't want to be near you when you get angry.

Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.

And there's the money shot. Treason!

By the inaction of the President of the Senate to call for objections, the certification of the Electoral votes was illegally obtained. This is another reason that makes Obama ineligible to be President, as well as neutering the US Congress.

Now, before you go off thinking that this guy means that Congress invalidated itself by doing this (a silly concept), let me tell you that we'll address that...right now:

No State or county or city in America has to obey his orders or his laws or any laws passed by an illegally operating Congress. In fact, it can be argued, and probably will, that any person arrested for any crime in America can use, as his defense, that no laws in America are valid because of America illegally operating Congress and an ineligible President.

Yes! Yes! Treason! Not only does Mark tell soldiers (in fact, JCS members) to disobey any orders coming from the president, and not only does he tell civilians to disobey orders from the president, but somehow, he comes to the conclusion that the Congress is invalid, despite having nothing to do with whatever non-issues the president is facing. And then, he tells people to disobey all laws, presumably including state laws, which have nothing to do with any issue at the federal level, but do include the bulk of the laws that you would disobey.

You know what? Please start breaking these laws. I'm not talking about murder or arson, but something simple like smoking in a non-smoking area. Then go to court and use this as your defense. I'd feel safer with you bozos behind bars.

Treason goes international!

Well, I honestly thought the well had run dry. I was filled with hope that this stupidity had passed and I was going to look foolish with a defunct blog that has only four posts.

Why couldn't I have been wrong?

Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders
By Mark S. McGrew

Well, we know this will end well. The more astute readers out there will note that this comes from Pravda, the former Soviet propaganda machine. In the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pravda has become a sort of Weekly World News that remains vaguely anti-American. Given the fact that Doc Orly claims to have hated the Soviet Union, you wouldn't think she'd be linking to it, but she does. She also links to a site called Count Us Out, which I will have to monitor for further treason.

But as to the quality of the report, I'd like to mention that the article on Obama also links to an article on underwear fashion that I recognize from the last time I visited Pravda a few months ago. They also have a great article about how birds can see through time.

What do we know about birds? It may seem at first sight that there is nothing amazing about them. However, the feathered tribe makes the group of one of the most ancient creatures on earth, which makes them the subject of numerous legends, myths and mysteries.

Seriously. It sounds like it could have come out of Birds of Britain.

Sorry, I'll try this post again.

Could it be...treason?

Dr Orly is looking for active members of the military from Nashville-Fort Campbell area that want to challenge Obama.

I wonder why...

The Obama Oxymoron Oxymoron

I thought this crap might die down and we'd all be able to laugh at it as no one but those in insane asylums would ever again make reference to it, but this message made me reconsider:

At the gut level, there is something inherently incongruous about the terms "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Commander-in-Chief" being in the same sentence.

Let me guess: it's because he's got a dirty furriner name and not a Real American™ name like Buff Hardback or Rip Steakface.

Having served as, among other things, a military law-enforcement supervisor, I am familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the primary set of laws under which the military operates.

Oh, I see where he's going with this. It's against the UCMJ to commit treason, and since every senator, every representative, the entire electoral college, all Supreme Court justices and several state secretaries of state are now committing treason against us, not to mention the fakey-fake president...

It is also honor that causes a wise subordinate to -- rarely, and with reasonable trepidation -- rise up to disobey an order that is unlawful. Or, in the potential case of a soon-to-become President Barack Hussein Obama II, an order given by a person that is unlawfully in a position of command.

Well, no. It looks like I got that wrong then. You're saying that you're not even basing this argument off of the UCMJ, but rather off of something that you think the army forgot to include in the UCMJ?

Enter: an honorable man.

For Gregory is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Obama's inauguration.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Gregory says he was ambitious;
And Gregory is an honourable man.

This is awesome. It's full of such unbelievable unintentional hilarity. If these people weren't actually serious about treason, I'd think someone got me these kooks as a very belated Christmas present.

Colonel Hollister raises the question -- finally... and officially -- of whether military personnel under an Obama administration would be required to obey the orders of a commander-in-chief that has obtained that position by fraud.

You know, it's at times like these that I remember what someone once said about Watergate: the president of the United States was forced to step down by the legislature, and not a single soldier stepped up to take up arms for him. It's one of the most beautiful and humbling things about democracy. And now, these people are trying to undo it. Obama was elected fairly (as fairly as elections go in this country, at least). We may not agree with everything he does or stands for, and some may work to get him removed from office, but at the very least, we have a duty to recognize proper legal authority. We also have the duty to disobey unjust laws, but there is no reason to suppose that a law will be unjust simply because you don't like election results.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In fact, the suit also raises the question of whether said military personnel would have "an affirmative duty" to actually disobey orders that they believed to be unlawful. This is no trifling matter, no mere intellectual exercise.

I can answer that right now. All military personnel have the duty to disobey unlawful orders. Nuremberg Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

You may note that this explicitly says that the orders are orders of the government, so it doesn't matter if Obama is really the president (which, I hasten to add, he is).

Most of the high-priority areas contain "no-lone zones" -- areas where no one can enter by themselves. The sentries that control no-lone zones do so under rules where "use of deadly force is authorized". In the world of nuclear security, it is still "shoot first, and ask questions later". It must be that way.

I'm just going to pretend that he's right about that, partly because I don't know if he's right, but mainly because I don't care.

But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?

And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully? Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief? This is a real and legitimate question.

This, however, sends shivers down my spine. If the president showed up in person at a nuclear silo, I'd wonder why the heck he'd bother to show up there, since he has a variety of generals, colonels, secretaries of defense and others who are more suited to doing such a job.

Further, if I were a soldier and I received a direct order from the president, I'd refuse to do it.

Just like I'd be ordered to. All orders must travel through the chain of command, and so the President cannot directly order anyone but generals (and possibly colonels) or equivalent ranks to do anything.

Oh, but good job of putting the scary man near the nukes.

For the uninitiated, the best example of a nuclear-security environment gone awry is the 1995 movie Crimson Tide, which starred Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.

For the properly initiated, however, citing Crimson Tide will make you the laughing stock of the weirdo conspiracy nuts.

It matters not that people like "Peggy the Mooch" believe in the Obamessiah, that he will buy them gasoline and pay their mortgage. It matters not that, somehow, an illegal alien has occupied a seat in the United States Senate for four years. It matters not that this illegally-seated senator has managed to conduct a presidential campaign -- despite clearly illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources, and despite not being eligible for the office of president. It only matters that somewhere, someday, someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post.

Uh, if it matters not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

But yes, now we're going to get to the real meat and potatoes:

someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post. Or, hopefully, the officer in charge of the "nuclear football" will simply refuse to hand it over to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Yup, there it is. Treason. Officers who are under the direct control of the President should refuse to follow his orders.

I thought that this was just an isolated incident, but I was wrong.

What this blog is about

Samuel Johnson tells us that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

There are many variations on this theme, but the following, to the best of my knowledge, is my own formulation:

Jingoism is the first argument of the traitor.

It was there for Dolchstoßlegende,* it was there for the Tamil Tigers, Castro based his rise to power off of it, and now, it is part of a certain segment of American culture.

Certain groups of people are claiming that Barack Obama isn't president, and thus that...something. I'm going to ignore most of the crap that these people spew to focus on one very specific issue: treason. The next post will probably explain it better.

* Godwin'd in the first post!