Call for nuts

I'm looking for more treasonous nuts because I'm fairly scared of what may be going on here. If you have any leads, post them in the comments here.

I'm not looking for lawsuits--specifically, I'm looking for anything where people are telling other people not to obey laws, regulations, and executive orders signed by Obama or to refuse to comply with military orders coming from Obama.

This might just be a couple nuts, but it's also possible that these people might just get active enough to cause some civil unrest, and I think that keeping tabs on them might be a good idea.

I can't promise to post about this all the time, but it does capture my attention.

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.