NDAA: Open Season for the Police State

I charge that Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly went against the duties of the POTUS; and needs to be impeached. Then he needs to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.

The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), and can include criminal/civil actions.

It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of limitations on the power of an office

Actions he committed against our laws require prosecution.

Few of those who currently serve within the three branches of our federal government have been performing their duties as required by our US Constitution, which they knew before taking those offices and positions defined the way those offices and positions defined the exact way those offices/positions operated.

That Obama:

(1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitutional and the citizens of the United States. (impeachable)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

NDAA

Patriot Act extensions and additions to

Warrantless Search and Seizures

TSA warrantless searches

Denial of First Amendment Rights

Denial of Second Amendment Rights

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

(2) Did not keep the oath required of him by the US Constitution. (impeachable)

President Obama had/has taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had/has violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (*Clinton Impeachment)

Took the Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution” (prosecutable, as he is a domestic enemy attacking us from the inside.)

Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. Hence the need for Statue 1 to define the administration of the Oath. (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”, “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”. (American fully expected a president who followed the US Constitutional definition of how our government operates. Part of his “why he was better candidate” brought up many times while running was that he was a “Constitutional Professor”

“Bound - Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people (defend our Constitution, country from previous domestic enemies)

Keep states their power

The meanings of the words in the Oath: “I”- an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer; “do” - perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or affirm)” - vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will” - a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention; “preserve” - to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction; “protect” - to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction, to maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees, to provide a guard or shield; “and defend” - protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after; “the Constitution of the United States.”

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

o The meanings of the words in the Oath for everyone else: “I”- an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer; “do” - perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or affirm)” - vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will” - a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention; “support” - uphold, bear, carry, sustain, maintain; “and defend” - protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after; “the Constitution of the United States.”

“Bound - Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

o First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

o The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. Hence the need for Statue 1 to define the administration of the Oath.

He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress. Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key principle of liberty--any government that willfully violates the rule of law and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

(1) Committed treason (impeachable and prosecutable)

a. Supplied arms to illegal gunrunners for foreign nation that was later used on American soil to kill US citizens.

Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Got the funding for Operation Gunrunner (Fast and Furious) on his second try, rolled into the stimulus package a month later.H.R.1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ordered the sale of arms to illegal gunrunners for foreign nation used against and killing US citizens on American soil, also resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry using one of the trafficked guns.

ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand," … "That approach distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation." … the activities of other agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, perhaps even the U.S. Attorneys Office and the Department of Homeland Security.

At an oversight hearing last month, three federal firearms investigators testified that they wanted to "intervene and interdict" the guns at the border, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside and let the traffickers proceed. "Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals this was the plan," John Dodson, an ATF agent, told the panel. "It was so mandated." Agent Olindo James Casa said that "on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PNhYk9NuNc&feature=player_embedded#

Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration's new and aggressive 'comprehensive plan' on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge. It's sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”

Obama and Holder walk guns into Honduras also

Maladministration

Misapplication

(4) Committed Murder under Penal Code

Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Info on #3

Maladministration

Misapplication

Using our military for UN war efforts

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm

§ 24.01 Definition of Homicide

[A] Common Law and Statutory Homicide – At very early common law, "homicide" was defined as "the killing of a human being by a human being." This definition included suicide. However, modern law defines "homicide" as "the killing of a human being by another human being." Suicide, therefore, is no longer a form of homicide in most statutes. Homicide is divided into two crimes – murder and manslaughter.

[1] "Human Being" - The common law and majority approaches define the beginning of life as birth for purposes of interpreting the criminal homicide law. A minority of states now treat a viable – or, at times, even nonviable – fetus as a human being under the homicide statute.

Regarding the end of human life, a majority of states, either by statute or judicial decision, have incorporated "brain death" in their definition of "death."

[2] "Murder" – The common law definition of "murder" is "the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought."

[3] "Manslaughter" – Manslaughter is "an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought."

[4] "Malice" – As the term has developed, a person kills another acts with the requisite "malice" if he possesses any one of four states of mind:

the intention to kill a human being;the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another;an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life; orthe intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results.

[B] Model Penal Code – A person is guilty of criminal homicide under the Model Code if he unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being [MPC § 210.0(1)] purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. [MPC § 210.1(1)] The Code recognizes three forms of criminal homicide: murder, manslaughter, and (unlike the common law) negligent homicide.

§ 24.02 Murder

[A] Degrees of Murder – At common law, there were no degrees of murder, and murder was a capital offense. Reform of the common law has resulted in the division of murder into degrees, with only murder in the first degree being a capital offense.

The Model Penal Code rejects the degrees-of-murder approach.

[B] Intent to Kill

[1] "Deliberate and Premeditated" – Typically, a murder involving the specific intent to kill is first-degree murder in jurisdictions that grade the offense by degrees if the homicide was also "deliberate" and "premeditated."

[2] "Wilful, Deliberate, Premeditated" – Nearly all states that grade murder by degrees provide that a "wilful, deliberate, premeditated" killing is murder in the first degree.

[3] "Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injury" – Malice aforethought is implied if a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another, but death results. In states that grade murder by degree, this form of malice nearly always constitutes second-degree murder.

[4] Extreme Recklessness ("Depraved Heart" Murder) – Malice aforethought is implied if a person’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life. In states that separate murder into degrees, this type of murder almost always constitutes second-degree murder.

[C] Model Penal Code – A homicide is murder if the defendant intentionally takes a life, or if he acts with extreme recklessness (i.e., depraved heart murder).

§ 24.03 Felony-Murder

[A] Common Law – At common law, a person is guilty of murder if he kills another person during the commission or attempted commission of any felony. Nearly every state retains the felony-murder rule.

[B] Statutory Law – Under most modern murder statutes, a death that results from the commission of an enumerated felony (usually a dangerous felony, such as arson, rape, robbery, or burglary) constitutes first-degree murder for which the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment. If a death results from the commission of an unspecified felony, it is second-degree murder. The felony-murder rule authorizes strict liability for a death that results from commission of a felony.

[C] Model Penal Code – The Code also provides for felony-murder by setting forth that extreme recklessness (and, thus, murder) is presumed if the homicide occurs while the defendant is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the commission, attempted commission, or flight from one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute. [MPC § 210.2(1)(b)]

§ 24.04 Limits on the Felony-Murder Rule

[A] Inherently-Dangerous-Felony Limitation – Many states limit the rule to homicides that occur during the commission of felonies which by their nature are dangerous to human life, e.g., armed robbery.

[B] Independent Felony (or Merger) Limitation – Most states recognize some form of "independent felony" or "collateral felony" limitation. That is, the felony-murder rule only applies if the predicate felony is independent of, or collateral to, the homicide. If the felony is not independent, then the felony merges with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony-murder conviction. For example, most jurisdictions hold that felonious assault may not serve as the basis for felony-murder.

[C] Res Gestae Requirement – A requirement of the felony-murder rule is that the homicide must occur "within the res gestae [things done to commit] of the felony," which requires both:

temporal and geographical proximity – There must be a close proximity in terms of time and distance between the felony and the homicide. The res gestae period begins when the defendant has reached the point at which he could be prosecuted for an attempt to commit the felony, and it continues at least until all of the elements of the crime are completed. Most courts provide that the res gestae of a felony continues, even after commission of the crime, until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety A causal relationship between the felony and the homicide.

[D] Killing by a Non-Felon

[1] The "Agency" Approach – A majority of states that have considered the issue apply the so-called "agency" theory of felony murder, which precludes any killing committed during the commission of the felon by a person other that the defendant or his accomplices from serving as the basis for felony-murder. However, a killing by an accomplice can be imputed to others involved in the commission of the felony so that felony-murder can be charged against the non-killers.

[2] "Proximate Causation" Approach – A minority of courts apply the "proximate causation" theory of felony-murder under which a felon is liable for any death proximately resulting from the felony, whether the killer is a felon or a third party.

[3] "Provocative Act" Doctrine – A felon may be held responsible for the death of another at the hands of a third party, if the basis for the charge is not felony-murder, but instead is founded on what is sometimes termed the "provocative act" doctrine, which is simply a form of reckless homicide, e.g., a felon recklessly provokes a victim to shoot in self-defense, killing an innocent bystander.

§ 24.05 Manslaughter

[A] Forms of Manslaughter – Traditionally, three types of unlawful killings constitute manslaughter:

an intentional killing committed in "sudden heat of passion" as the result of "adequate provocation" (voluntary manslaughter);an unintentional killing resulting from the commission of a lawful act done in an unlawful manner (involuntary manslaughter). This is akin to criminally negligent homicide.an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act (involuntary manslaughter). This type of manslaughter is sometimes dubbed "unlawful-act manslaughter," or if the killing occurred during the commission of a non-felony, "misdemeanor-manslaughter."

(5) Is a domestic enemy of the USA (impeachable and prosecutable)

"Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Using our military for UN war efforts

(6) Lied to the American People and congress

About Afghanistan, war (impeachable and prosecutable – murder for killings)

Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan." Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis, a 17-year Army veteran recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan.

Lied to the People about NDAA, Patriot Act, Healthcare Bill aka Obamacare

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

On September 8th, 2011, General William Shelton told lawmakers during a highly classified briefing. The four-star general is in charge of Air Force Space Command. According to the Daily Beast, "Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor."

Using our military for UN war efforts

(7) Failed to provide all necessary documents (impeachable)

To the satisfaction of all, or a majority of the American people that he meets the three requirements to run for, or be the POTUS (He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified, while the Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(8) That he denied and took away power from the States (impeachable; anyone injured or killed due to those actions, prosecutable))

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Another aspect of the Constitution’s separation of powers is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national or federal government shares power with the state governments while each maintains some degree of sovereignty.

The Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal government by spelling out its limited powers, which are outlined in the first three Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions actually serve to emphasize the powers reserved exclusively to the federal government (e.g., the power to make treaties with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. Other than the limited guidance given to the states, the Constitution does not direct the states on the establishment and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are certain limited activities the federal government is best situated to handle; there are other activities that are best left to the states; and still others best dealt with by counties, cities, families, and individuals. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

State law enforcement agencies (Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who has spent the latter half of his life teaching sheriffs that they are the top law enforcement officers in their counties despite continuing federal intervention attempts. Dean Wilson, sheriff of Del Norte County (Sacramento), is a great example of this great awakening. He received the loudest and longest applause for his candor in confessing past faults after apologizing for not understanding the central government assault and land grab being committed against the people and what he should have been doing about it. Only in the past year has he done a turnaround and begun to behave as a county sheriff instead of an extension of federal law enforcement

Retired USAF Col. Richard Niemela of Reston, Va. has been exposing the federal monster for years. He told AFP: “It’s the surreptitious domination by international globalists insidiously using unauthorized and illegal tactics to render null and void those historic and unique powers of the sheriff.”

i. The US has actually been militarizing much of its (State) police agencies. the US congress passed the PATRIOT Act, a sweeping expansion of domestic and foreign intelligence-gathering capabilities. This legislation gave the government the ability to easily search all forms of communication, eased restrictions on foreign intelligence-gathering at home, gave itself greater power to monitor financial transactions and created entirely new categories of domestic terrorism to which the PATRIOT Act's expanded powers to police could be applied. It was one of the greatest expansions of government police power in history, an expansion which, after some tweaking, has been mostly validated by the congress and reaffirmed by the courts.

President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security to "develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks" a week after PATRIOT Act was passed. Then a year later, the Department of Homeland Security was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.Today Department of Homeland Security is the third-largest government agency, after the departments of defense and veterans' affairs. Not including the billions the federal government spent on its own agencies, it has also disbursed many billions more to various state and local police agencies, ostensibly for the purpose of fighting the terrorist threat. DHS created new surveillance opportunities for non-terrorist activity. In one notorious case from 2006, it was revealed that Homeland Security had given the remote Alaskan village of Dillingham (population 2,400) $202,000 to purchase surveillance cameras in order to track alleged terrorist activity. Dillingham was not on any known terrorist's target list, so the only people the surveillance cameras were watching were the citizens. But surveillance wasn't the end of it.As reported by Radley Balko in the Huffington Post, a Pentagon program - started in the 1980s - to give military equipment to local police escalated in the 2000s, with even university campus police receiving everything from M-16s to armored personnel carriers. Balko quoted one county sheriff saying that he'd use his new Homeland Security-funded SWAT team "for a lot of other purposes, too ... just a multitude of other things".All over the country, police switched out their traditional uniforms for Battle Dress Uniforms, dubbed by one retired policeman in the Washington Post as "commando-chic" regalia.Former San Jose chief of police Joseph McNamara raised these alarms as early as 2006 in the wake of the Sean Bell shooting in New York. He pointed out that the effects of the drug war and 9/11 had led to "an emphasis on 'officer safety' where paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed".In the name of "officer safety", the Taser became a common tool in everyday policing, deployed with little knowledge of the effects, and a tendency to Taser first and ask questions later. But over the course of the past decade, the body count grew as it became more and more obvious that tasers were sometimes as deadly as the guns they purported to replace.'Pain compliance' And that's the most prosaic of the new policing toys that are becoming available. Reporter Ando Arick analysed the new generation of weaponry in an article in Harper's called "The Soft-Kill Solution - New Frontiers In Pain Compliance". He recounts a 60 Minutes investigation into a new weapon to be used for what the military said was "crowd control in Iraq". The United States has never had fully militarized police before, armed with the kind of high-tech surveillance and weaponry that would never be allowed if the National Guard were called up in an emergency. And neither have we ever had such a malleable definition of what constitutes an emergency.

(9) That he is denying American citizens and those legally allowed being here their Constitutional Rights (impeachable)

NDAA

TSA at airports ("A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." 49 US Code-Section 40103), bus stations, train stations, on our roadways.

Patriot Act

First Amendment

Second Amendment

The Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism." The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

H.R.1955 and S.1959 included in President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural), that also included extension of President Bush's Patriot Act (singular)

The Legalization of the monitoring and censorship of all US Communications, "Anyone Returning from the Wars is a potential Homegrown Domestic Terrorist"- Guilty until proven innocent

US NORTHCOM in relation to the US Insurrection Act

Posse Comitatus Act

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Warrantless Searches

Warrantless Tracking of US Citizens

Warrantless spying on all the information that can be gathered in many ways: cell phone, stuff made to spy on us, etc

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

(10) That he is, and has been; committing “conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” (impeachable)

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded: “Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Took away States power

Misapplication

Maladministration

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.

Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key principle of liberty--any government that willfully violates the rule of law and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

(11) That he wrote legislation (impeachable)

(Obamacare), which is the duty of the legislative branch not the executive branch within the three branches of our government.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(12) That he assigned funding to the Healthcare Bill (impeachable)

Obamacare-legislative branch duty.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(13) That he refused to enforce the US Constitution or existing laws (impeachable)

illegal immigrant, and actually ordered to do the opposite of existing laws.

Did not uphold and enforce US laws as required.

New Hampshire State Representative Harry Accornero has charged Obama with treason for failing to uphold federal immigration law and allowing illegal immigrants to not only remain in the country, but also to obtain work permits via executive fiat. Accornero stated that Obama is “destroying the country.” In a letter submitted to The Laconia Daily Sun today, Accornero said, “Any President or member of congress who allows our borders to be violated by illegals of any country

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.

Took away states power

Taking care of foreign nations people before and above American citizens when sworn to represent America and American citizens: The Republican in charge of doling out foreign aid wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing “grave concern” over cash payments to Pakistan and asked they stop. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, who chairs a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee responsible for foreign aid, is singling out $190 million in “assistance for flood victims who lost their homes” in Pakistan the day after turning down American citizen assistance to those who lost 1000’s of homes due to fire here in the US.

(14) That he was Chair for the UN (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)

Against the US Constitution

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Using our military for UN war efforts

(15) That he lied deliberately to the American public (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder )

Mislead them as to his intentions on NDAA

Patriot Act Extension and additions to

Guantanamo

Healthcare

Attack on Afghanistan

Fast and Furious

Maladministration

(1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President on charges of lying)

Using our military for UN (and other) war efforts

(16) Bribery - ?? The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office.

Not following the Constitution as required, creating a different gov at someone else’s bidding not sure for what reward

Maladministration

Misapplication

(17) Disclosed confidential information (impeachable and prosecutable)

Seal Team 6, Biden also

Maladministration

Misapplication

(18) Took for himself powers he is not allowed to have by our Constitution (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office (NDAA, Suspension of Constitutional Rights, Declaring the US soil as War grounds, Drones flying all over America, Illegal tracking of American Citizens, Illegal monitoring of all American citizens, etc)

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Took away states powers

Putting the USA under UN laws that directly go against the US Constitution and the guaranteed Rights from our government: Gun Rights Free Speech: Internet

(19) He has obstructed justice (re: Nixon Impeachment) (impeachable)

Black Panthers

Georgia vs Obama and other courts vs Obama

Fast and Furious (Operation Gunrunner), which he fought for funding in 2009, and implemented it.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(20) Abuse the power allowed the executive branch by the US Constitution (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Disclosed confidential information

NDAA

Extension and addition to the Patriot Acts

Contempt of the judicial branch

Contempt of the legislative branch

Warrantless searches

Putting the USA under UN laws that directly go against the US Constitution and the guaranteed Rights from our government: Gun Rights Free Speech: Internet

Warrantless gathering of information on American citizens

TSA agents used against American citizens 24/7

Voter fraud

His use of ACORN as a campaign vehicle is a violation of the law. Entities such as ACORN are prohibited by the Federal Government from engaging in partisan political activity

Suspension of Constitutional Rights

Overreaching the executive branch powers

Using our military for UN war efforts

He broke a law that he himself pushed and helped pass as a Senator that provides protections for Inspectors-General who do their jobs by investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs. Yet when these government watchdogs get too close to the thuggery of Obama's friends, they get summarily fired for no good reason, such as Mr. Walpin.

Kept the Federal Reserve - Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.

Refusal of Constitution, Amendment 2, trying to redefine it. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

1. “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms”. Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.

2. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good”. George Washington, in a speech to Congress, January 7,1790

3. “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men”. Joseph Story, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840)

”In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis”. Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

1. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

2. ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson

3. “The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freemen”. Gov. R. Lucas, former Major General of the Ohio Militia, 1832

4. ”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

5. ”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”. Abe Lincoln

Refusal and arrests made for practicing 1st Amendment Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We have not had a free press in about 30 years.

Stopping Religious Freedom -

etc

(21) Contempt of the Judicial Branch and the Rule of Law, Contempt of Court (impeachable and prosecutable)

(Obama essentially said that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely – Obama vs Georgia) (As further noted in the motion for a Contempt of Court ruling, the letter from Obama's lawyer to the state official, "coupled with the defendant's willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law. The... actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers."

Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is "unprecedented," one of the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch... In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate... When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state." Obama's action, he said, "amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant's contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution."

Maladministration

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Misapplication

(22) Has given the United Nations (foreign entity) power over USA (impeachable, and as traitor prosecutable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder) and let the Federal Reserve continue

Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment - power over our Internet

Obama and Hillary Clinton are giving the UN power over our gun Rights (2nd Amendment), basically given power over our country to a foreign entity.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Using our military for UN war efforts

Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.

(23) Gave himself assassination powers. (impeachable, and for at least one kill, prosecutable as murder)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(24) Implemented the use of Torture (impeachable and prosecutable)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Charges against Obama, many also will apply to Bush, and a lot of those within both of their administrations.

(25) Ordered U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Alabama, USA (impeachable, as long as no one was injured or killed; prosecutable if anyone was injured or killed)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

TSA – used against American citizens 24/7 at airports for illegal warrantless searches; causes health problems

Misapplication

(26) Committed Perjury (impeachable and prosecutable)

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", "violation of an oath": violated the Oath of Office, Afghanistan military attack on, Fast and Furious, NDAA, TSA actions against American citizens, warrantless searches, illegal tracking, illegal and warrantless spying on all US Citizens

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is "unprecedented" (even Nixon did respect the Judicial) one of the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch... In this instance case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate... When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state." Obama's action, he said, "amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant's contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution."

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism." The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

particularly the “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” clause of the Oath which is perjury, maladministration particularly: “Delay”, “Incorrect action or failure to take any action “, “Failure to follow procedures or the law, Incorrect action or failure to take any action, Failure to provide information, Misleading or inaccurate statements, Broken promises.

Following is some words defined that will be used in my accusation.

"Impeachment" defined: “A calling to account; arraignment; especially, of a public officer for "Maladministration” “A calling in question as to purity of motives, rectitude of conduct, credibility, etc.; accusation; reproach; as, an impeachment of motives”. The version which appears in the Constitution states: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The one common denominator is that the official has somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

Maladministration: “A political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice”,” Situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their leadership; frequently used to describe corrupt behavior by any public official.

*(and I took cases from the courts)

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism." The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:

Delay

Incorrect action or failure to take any action

Failure to follow procedures or the law

Failure to provide information

Inadequate record-keeping

Failure to investigate

Failure to reply

Misleading or inaccurate statements

Inadequate liaison

Inadequate consultation

Broken promises

"Perjury" – “lying under oath about a material matter", "violation of an oath".

“Bound” – “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

Treason – “The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court”.

“misapplication”: “To administer or manage inefficiently or dishonestly “, “A wrong application”. “Wrong, often corrupt use: abuse, misappropriation, mishandling, misuse, perversion”

Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”, “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”. (America fully expected a president who followed the US Constitutional definition of how our government operates. Part of his “why he was better candidate” brought up many times while running was that he was a “Constitutional Professor”. )

Impeachment: Criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body. In the U.S. the president, vice president, and other federal officers, including judges, may be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. The House draws up articles of impeachment that itemize the charges and their factual bases. To implement the authorization (H.Res.803) the House also provided that "For the purpose of making such investigation the committee is authorized to require... by subpoena or otherwise... the attendance and testimony of any person... and... the production of such things; and... by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information, as it deems necessary to such investigation."

The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), experts pointed out that federal judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that a president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

The framers wrote the United States Constitution, which delineated a constitutional federal republic. It would consist of three separate but equal branches which were not only designed to perform separate and distinct duties, but to keep each other in check, preventing one from gaining arbitrary power. All of these branches were to be checked by the standard of law set forth in the Constitution, which each officer of the government must swear to uphold. If those officers should fail to keep their oath of office, then it is not only the right but also the duty of those who chose those officers to remove them. The success of this form of government depends heavily upon the vigilant and attentive execution of these duties.

"argued that a President could be removed “for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” and that these are “not limited to criminal offenses” but refer to acts that undermine the integrity of the government, whether technically criminal or not."

Impeachment - A formal accusation of wrongdoing. To impeach a public official is to accuse him of crimes or misdemeanors in the execution of his duties.

"1974 the House Judiciary Committee agreed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon: charged with the abuse of his power as President, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress. (Before these articles could be voted on by the full House the President resigned, after being informed that his impeachment and conviction were otherwise inevitable). (1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President Clinton on charges of lying ..."

Although an impeachment proceeding bears a close similarity to a criminal trial, there are substantial differences. First, the President is not necessarily charged with a criminal offense but with improper conduct in performing the duties of his office. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan proceeding, nor is it used simply to reflect a lack of confidence in the President's policies or leadership by other branches of government. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected attempts to make impeachment overtly political. The delegates rejected proposals to make the President removable on the application of a majority of state governors. They rejected impeachment by a mere majority vote of Congress. They also rejected grounds for impeachment that involved the President's political judgment or vague terms such as “maladministration.” They specified instead that the only grounds for impeachment were “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” These terms referred to the abuse of power, misapplication of public funds, corruption, criminal conduct, or violating the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution.

US Constitution, executive branch

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

A President may also be held responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. He may be charged with a cover-up if he knowingly conceals information regarding a violation of the law or if he fails to remove such officials from office when evidence of their offenses comes to his attention. He may also be charged with failing to see that the laws are faithfully executed, with failing to institute procedures so that officials will act lawfully, or with a conspiracy to see that the laws are violated. A President who testifies falsely in a judicial proceeding may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

Here is what I have so far where known laws, or Constitutional (political) law is known for each action.

I'm going to start from the bottom up since this does not give much room for each, I won't quote the US Constitution itself. My "findings" came out of everything from the Constitution itself, to every single impeachment we have had in the USA, to the Penal Code (since each state has their own I had to locate a "generic Penal Code: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm). When I bring up things suck as "lying", etc this has had impeachment (constitutional, political) action done on it in the past within the USA.

Oh, and as an afterthought of great importance to our country, the control of the mainstream news media is illegal. "We the People" own the "airwaves". The Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

So those currently in the FCC and within the three branches of OUR fed gov that are allowing this to go on need to be prosecuted, be it the owners, the agency, or those in our gov that allow and encourage this to happen; all of them as it is our right to have access to true information presented by agency behaving as if they are an true and free information dispenser as opposed to something like the Rush Limbaugh show which purports to be slanted. Unless they freely label themselves as "slanted" or only dispensing our "news", "reports" that are forging opinions etc by the people/agencies who control them.

Good evening everyone:

Well, its most unfortunate, that I didnt get to goto the Organization, in my home town. For protective reasons, I wont mention his las name, but Bob, who I met at a food bank, was my ride. I was due to be picked up either at 6PM or 6:30PM about 1-2 nights ago. When I met him today at the food bank, he explained what happened. Apparently, a local police officer, saw him arriveing and waiting for me. But instead of the officer flashing his lights, or just glancing at Bob, the cop sat there and staired at my ride.

Now, given the current situation in our government, and not necessarily a mere coincidence, that Bob also knows whats going on, he got nervous, and left.The cop of course, didnt persue, and left shortly after Bob did. So, whats up with that? Who knows? That explains why I didnt get to goto the meeting, about 2 nights ago. In any case, they only meet 1x per month. I politely explained to Bob, that time is of the essence, and unfortunately; time is not a luxury, that "WE THE PEOPLE" have. So, I will mail him a copy of the 'Rules Of Impeachment' with the copy of the 'Petition of Impeachment', since he attends the meetings every month. Meanwhile, thats the update, sadly to say. But with Obama the Imposter gathering more popularity, it makes you wonder. Why people are so stupid, to re-elect a non-American? So, if "WE THE PEOPLE" who truely are Americans, can pull together, then this has to be presented, to the 'Speaker of the House'. Doesnt matter if its Oathkeepers.org, this organization, or the others who supprt the same American fundamental beliefs. So, I am going to look up the US Mailing address to this organization, and have it mailed on my next payday, or soon as I get a stamp, so we can get this Impeachment Process moving. The later we wait, the harder it will be, to get our country back.

Greetings everyone!

So, isnt that a switch? Now Georgia State who claims to have reviewed the evidence and documents, are allowing the President to be on their Ballot. Personally, that political official most likely, tossed it aside, and didnt really review the evidence. Go figure. In anycase, I have been invited to an organization, simular to this one, though not as large. Its in my home town of WA State. I will be addressing the issues, and hoefully, getting the first signatures of representative members, of this organization. I will post an update, when finished attending, if not tonight, then by tomorrow. Once I have what signatures did support the 'Petition to Impeach the Trojan Horse', (clears throat) LOL, the imposter-President, I shall mail by US Mail, to this Organization, so that other signatures can be added. Then, it will be passed onto, Jews Rights to Bear Arms; UFFA or is it, UFAA; Alex Jones and the Infowars Organization, Oath Keepers Organization, and anyone else, that supports the US Constitution, NOT New World Order, which is EVIL. The deadline that all signatures and submission to the 'Speaker Of The House', is NO LATER than July, 2012 at the latest. If we cover as many organizations early, then the sooner the better. Remember, if he fails to do his job, then another Impeachment will be added, to rectify this, as well. Anyone who supports the New World Order, are traitors of this country, and are Americanised NAZI's. We are Proud American Patriots. If they wont defend the Constitution, as Obama lied and said he would, (though he is from KENYA, and not a US Citizen; OBVIOUSLY;) then, "WE THE PEOPLE" will, can, shall, and MUST.

God Bless America, I be in touch soon.

Sorry that it would not take the whole document at one time. so the way it lists here is last page is the first comment, etc.

Stay safe and detention free!

Please send this to the appropriate authorities in your area, put it up where ever you can post it so that others may do the same.

You can find this at oathkeepers.org

WHEREAS, the similarities to our current circumstances are both shocking and obvious, with Congress and the President presuming to: affect the military independent of and superior to the civil power; subjecting us to a jurisdiction – the “law of war” – foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws (with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land); depriving us of trial by jury; claiming a power to transport us beyond Seas for indefinite detention without trial, for rendition to foreign countries or entities, or to be tried for pretend offenses against the international “law of war;” taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government by claiming that the law of war trumps our Constitution and Bill of Rights; and declaring themselves vested with the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. By doing so, Congress and President Obama, just as with Parliament and King George before them, are abdicating government here by declaring us out of the Protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and waging War against us, under the international law of war, as if we were a foreign enemy people.

WHEREAS, “Any person having knowledge of any treasonable project is bound to disclose it to the President, or to a United States judge, or to a Governor of a State or a State judge, or he is guilty of misprision of treason, and may be fined one thousand dollars and imprisoned for seven years.” (Treatise on Law of the American Rebellion, page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.)

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,

For the above and forgoing reasons, I, (INSERT SHERIFF’S NAME), Sheriff of (INSERT COUNTY NAME) County, in the State of (INSERT STATE NAME) express my belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, and the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented, enforced, or otherwise supported in this county, and it is the express policy of the Sheriff that no officer, employee, or agent of the Sheriff’s Office may implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions including seizure, detention, or trial by the United States Armed Forces, and/or any other agents of the United States government, both foreign and domestic, of any person, including any United States citizen and/or lawful resident within this county, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and/or employment, and will subject them to discipline up to and including termination and potential arrest for assault, battery, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and other unconstitutional actions under the color of law.

FURTHER, in keeping with my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I hereby express my commitment to interpose this office and stand in defense all persons including citizens and lawful residents of the United States within this county, against any and all attempts by the United States Armed Forces or any other agents of the United States government to subject the people to military force, military seizure, military detention, military trial, or to subject them to extraordinary rendition to any foreign country or entity. Such actions were among the causes of the necessity for taking up arms in the American Revolution, as is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence,

FURTHER, I urge the Legislature to direct the Congressional delegation of this state to commence immediately efforts to repeal the unconstitutional sections of the NDAA, to-wit, sections 1021 and 1022, and any other section or provision which will have the same or substantially the same effect on the United States, its citizens, and lawful resident aliens.

FURTHER, I urge this state’s Legislature to direct the Congressional delegation to introduce, support, and secure the passage of legislation to clearly state that Congress not only does not authorize, but in fact prohibits, the use of military force, military detention, military trial, rendition, or any other power of the “law of war” against U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, within ten (10) days from the execution hereof, a certified copy of this resolution shall be mailed, via certified mail with a return receipt, to the governor, to each and every member of the Legislature of this state, and to each and every member of this state’s Congressional delegation by [whomever it's their responsibility to send such documents], and, in compliance with federal law regarding acts of “misprision of treason,” (page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.), to the governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice of this state to effect notification of a possible “conspiracy against the United States,” to wit: the attempt by Congress and the President to arbitrarily and indefinitely suspend the Bill of Rights by authorizing detention outside the requirement of an invasion or rebellion as required by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.,” and by subjecting the American people to the “law of war,” including military force, detention, and trial, and/or the institution of martial law, rather than under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the detention and trial requirements of U.S. Constitution, Article III, and of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, recognizing my oath-bound duty to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, as well as recognizing the duty of “We the People” to protect our unalienable natural rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as alliterated in the Declaration of Independence, I hereby adopt this resolution .

Signed, this ______ Day of _______________, 2012, by: ________________________

the duly-elected Sheriff of ________________________ County, State of __________________.

WHEREAS, it is deceptive for the NDAA to assert it does not affect existing law or authorities in that: 1) there was no agreement within Congress as to what is the existing law on the relevant subject, 2) the “authorities“ on the subject issue are unclear at best, 3) provisions within Subtitle D of the NDAA do result in a different law, the “law of war,” being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States…” outside the protections of civilian law pursuant to Article III and the Bill of Rights. 4) due to the fact there are general limiting provisions in the NDAA which are inconsistent with specific expanding provisions in the NDAA, a court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the general-limiting provisions to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities…except as otherwise provided in this section,” (See Section 1021(e)) (See Note 2.)

WHEREAS, the NDAA would subject United States citizens and lawful resident aliens to “transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity….”, which would violate the duty of allegiance owed to such persons by the United States of America as well as certain of their fundamental freedoms,

WHEREAS, the supporters of the NDAA have said the NDAA will have the effect, and we believe it will have the effect, of allowing the President to treat the United States of America as if it was a “battlefield,” placing it under the “law of war,” and its citizens as if they were foreign enemies on a foreign “battlefield” subjecting them to the “law of war” and martial law, exactly like the people of occupied Iraq and Afghanistan are treated,

WHEREAS, granting the President the authority he would have over a foreign “battlefield,” for use against the American people, is unconstitutional and a violation of the federal government’s duty of allegiance to protect U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens,

WHEREAS, as the NDAA contains deceptive language in that it misrepresents what it does and it uses vague and ambiguous terms, usurps the Constitution, and sets the stage for the acceleration of a long train of abuses of the American people and their fundamental rights,

WHEREAS, no law is enforceable save those which are consistent with the “unalienable rights” given to all men by God, as declared in the Declaration of Independence and acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution,

WHEREAS, the above noted injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states, are nearly identical to many of the long train of abuses and usurpations that compelled our forefathers to take up arms and to separate from Great Britain, as enumerated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, of July 4, 1776: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”

WHEREAS, the execution of parts of the NDAA may require members of the armed forces to violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, we believe the NDAA unconstitutionally infringes upon the fundamental rights of all persons, including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens of our Constitutional Republic, as noted above, and has other flaws, as noted below:

The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports to merely “Affirm” the authority granted the President under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as signed into law on September 18, 2001, when in fact it does expand the temporal scope and the entities to whom that act applies, which can be targeted under the AUMF.

(See Subtitle D—Counterterrorism, SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE),

2. The NDAA of 2012 is deceptive in that, while it purports to not expand or limit the authority given the President under the subject AUMF, or the scope of the subject AUMF, it does in fact expand both in the following ways:

a. it expands the entities that could be targeted beyond those noted in the AUMF, and for a different time period (See §1021 (b)(2) “A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” (Emphasis added),

b. it expands the powers of the President that can be applied to “covered persons”

by enumerating for the first time, the power of indefinite military detention under the “law of war” without trial, trial by military commission, and extraordinary rendition to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

(See §1021(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force), (See note 1)

3. The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports it does not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens et.al, when in fact:

a. Congress could not agree on what the existing “law or authorities” were,

b. the NDAA does expand the entities and actions to which the AUMF applies,

c. the provision of the NDAA will result in a different law being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,” i.e., the “law of war,” (See Section 1021(e))

d. there are general provisions in the NDAA which purport to limit its application that are inconsistent with specific provisions in the NDAA that expand the AUMF. A court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the subject-limiting provision to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities… [except as otherwise provide in this section].”

(See §1021(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.), (See Note 2.)

e. the intent and purpose of the NDAA, as expressed by Senator Lindsey Graham on the Senate floor, is to create the legal fiction that the United States of America is a “battlefield,” thus providing justification for the unconstitutional application of the “law of war” to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens who are not serving in the U.S. armed forces,”

4. The NDAA is deceptive in that Section 1021 expands the authority of the 2001 AUMF, while asserting it does not expand the authority granted under the 2001 AUMF. Congress is pretending that it granted all of these newly listed powers in the 2001 AUMF, when in fact the original authorization makes no mention of the power to use military detention, military trial, or extraordinary rendition. This legalistic, sophistic, “time travelling” deception allows Congress to greatly expand the written scope of its AUMF, including adding, for the first extraordinary rendition to foreign countries and unnamed foreign entities, to include against U.S. citizens and lawful residents, while telling the American people that nothing has changed. Such legalistic “time travel” is the height of deception.

WHEREAS, commissioned officers of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

[INSERT OATH TO STATE CONSTITUTION IF APPLICABLE]

WHEREAS, all Sheriffs within the State of __________________________ are bound by their oaths to defend the Constitution of the Unites States and the Constitution of our state, and in doing so, from any source, foreign or domestic,

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous [NDAA is 1844 pages] that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” -James Madison

WHEREAS, the punishment of being arbitrarily killed by a Hellfire Missile fired from a Predator drone, after the President “determines” – based on secret evidence and secret criteria – that a U.S. citizen or lawful resident alien is guilty of levying war against the United States or aiding its enemies, or is guilty of pretend violations of the “law of war,” is truly cruel and unusual (at least for now), and thus violates the 8th Amendment, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

-James Madison, Federalist 47

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 states,

“…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Requirements of Oaths of Office to Protect the Constitution and Citizens

WHEREAS, our oath of office creates an active duty, not a passive duty,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 states,

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 8 states:

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

WHEREAS, enlisted members of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

WHEREAS, by enacting the NDAA, and thus affirming the power of the President to use military force against any person – including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens – that “he determines” are part of the enemy or has aided the enemy in the “war on terror,” with the full knowledge that the current President has engaged in assassination of U.S. citizens, Congress has knowingly authorized the continuation of President Barack Obama’s program of extra-judicial killing of Americans who he has placed on his secret hit list, pursuant to secret evidence that he will not present to any court. Congress has thus given its assent to the President to hold the power of life and death over all persons within the United States, as if he were a Roman emperor, or as if he were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pol Pot, or Papa Doc.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 6th Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c)(2) of the NDAA directly violates the clear mandates of the 6th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be tried before a military commission “under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–4 84)), for supposed crimes against the “law of war,” rather than before a jury of their peers, and further violates the 6th Amendment by authorizing such trial outside of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, to include transporting them beyond seas for pretended offenses against the “law of war” (such as not bearing arms openly, not wearing a uniform or an insignia recognizable at a distance, or not serving under an established chain of command – all of which are absurd to apply to an American civilian in civilian life), and without the 6th Amendment guarantee of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 8th Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

WHEREAS, the NDAA, in direct violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, authorizes “cruel and unusual punishments” in the form of “indefinite detentions,” and the transfer of American citizens and lawful residents to “foreign nations,” and/or unnamed foreign “entities” for unspecified purposes, and for trial and punishment for pretend offenses against the “law of war,” which can result in the absurdity of Americans suffering the punishment of being executed because they do not wear an insignia recognizable at a distance in their daily lives as civilians, or because they carry a handgun concealed as millions of Americans legally do in daily life, or because they are not subject to an established chain of command, all of which are perfectly legal under the laws of the United States and are only “crimes” under the international “law of war” as applied to a foreign enemy, which has no jurisdiction over Americans who are not in the Armed Forces of the United States,

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the right of the people against unreasonable seizure by allowing them to be snatched up (kidnapped) by the United States military, on the say so of the military itself, and taken to a military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to some other location, to be held in “(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” or, under Section 1021(c) (4) to be turned over to the custody or control of “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity,” all of which are the epitome of an unreasonable seizure, as the American people are thereby treated exactly the same as any person captured on a foreign battlefield (such as Iraq or Afghanistan), where anyone who is suspected of being an unlawful belligerent in the war on terrorism, or of aiding belligerents, is simply picked up by the military and taken away to wherever the U.S. military sees fit, with no involvement whatsoever by the civilian courts. A government which does the above to its own people is consistent with the behavior of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” (emphasis added)

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the 5th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be held in military detention ”under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” including holding them to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime – violations of the laws of war – and authorizing the initiation of military trial for those offenses without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

WHEREAS, claiming authority under the laws of war and the AUMF, President Barack Obama has, on his direction alone, targeted U.S. citizens for killing by the U.S. military, and has in fact ordered the successful killing of several U.S. citizens, based on secret evidence, pursuant to a secret criteria for deciding such targeting, while refusing to present any evidence whatsoever, and while proclaiming the intent to target other U.S. citizens for such extra-judicial, extra-constitutional killing with no due process whatsoever before placing U.S. citizens on a secret assassination list, and depriving them of their lives without due process of law, directly in violation of the Fifth Amendment, all under the fiction that he can treat Americans like foreign enemy soldiers during war and simply kill them on sight. Again, such a claimed power to arbitrarily kill its own citizens, on the mere say-so of “the Leader” is the hallmark of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history. Under our Constitution, a citizen or lawful resident must be tried for treason and found guilty by a jury of his peers before being executed. Summary execution at the discretion of the President is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

detention without Grand Jury Indictment for such time as Congress has specified during an invasion or a rebellion,

WHEREAS, instead of Suspending Habeas Corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the “law of war,” of persons, including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, a power nowhere granted to government within the United States Constitution,

WHEREAS, U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 together clearly and plainly set forth what manner of trial must be used against a United States Citizen or lawful resident who is alleged to have waged war against the United States or to have aided the enemy in wartime, requiring a trial by a jury of their peers, in an Article III, civilian court, for the crime of Treason, with the extra evidentiary burden of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court,

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the NDAA directly violates Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution by authorizing military trial, before a military commission, of American citizens and lawful residents accused of levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which are the elements of the crime of treason as defined in Article III, Section 3, “levying war against [the United States] or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort…” thus denying United States citizens and lawful resident aliens their right to a trial by jury and also denying them the additional evidentiary protections of Article III, Section 3, such as the requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court before they can be found guilty, by a jury of their peers, of having levied war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which constitute the crime of treason,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

WHEREAS, instead of Suspending Habeas Corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the “law of war,” of persons, including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, a power nowhere granted to government within the United States Constitution,

WHEREAS, there has been no Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Congress, purporting to authorize detention without Grand Jury Indictment for such time as Congress has specified during an invasion or a rebellion,

WHEREAS, instead of Suspending Habeas Corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the laws of war, of United States citizens and lawful residents, a power nowhere granted to Congress within the United States Constitution,

WHEREAS, U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

detention without Grand Jury Indictment for such time as Congress has specified during an invasion or a rebellion,

RESOLUTION OF THE SHERIFF OF (INSERT COUNTY NAME) COUNTY, STATE OF (INSERT STATE NAME)

STANDING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHICH AUTHORIZE MILITARY DETENTION AND TRIAL OF U.S. CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.

WHEREAS, on Dec. 15, 2011, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the United States Senate passed the Conference Report to House of Representative bill H.R. 1540, the “NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA),”

WHEREAS, on Dec. 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Conference Report to House of Representative Bill H.R. 1540, the NDAA, into law,

WHEREAS, the NDAA contains provisions repugnant to, and destructive of, the constitutions and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and this state,

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state are infringed and/or usurped by provisions in the NDAA which authorize the application of: military force (including assassination), indefinite military detention without trial, military trial, and rendition to foreign countries and entities of any person, including American citizens and lawful resident aliens, at the discretion of the President or a subordinate within the Department of Defense, Fundamental Rights of All Citizens

“In matters of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”

-Thomas Jefferson

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states:

“W E THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Good evening!

Well, if the drones launch, its just a matter of time, before we get into a Civil War, that leads to World War. Drones violate the Privacy and are against the Constitutional Rights of the people. Speaking of which, I just got an email from the Governor of WA State, where I live. She appreciated the suggestion of the nullification, that Rhode Island, an Virginia adopted, as well. I have them printed as per instructions, from here, that someone posted a while back with step-by-step instructions. The Governor, listed a link, for me to contact Congress and send the final Nullification in, which consists of all 3 Presentation Steps. So, if no one is going to 2nd the motion, and no one wants to answer the question of; whether I give my email address, or get someone elses, to submit the Official Petition Of Impeachment, then I might was well get a mailing address from the 10th Ammendment Org. themselves. At least I will get a decent response, intead of being ignored. I'm a man of action; not words. So, if I have to do the hard work myself, so be it.

Good evening everyone: Thanks to the new evidence, I believe we have a solid petition for the; "Petition Of Impeachment." Is the Chairman of this Organization available, and ready to accept it, and edit as necessary? I am not worried about who gets credit as I only want, what everyone else wants. FREEDOM. And, I'm just glad, now that I paid my membership today, that I can do my part for the People, my country, and for our FREEDOMS, guarenteed us by the US Constitution. This is the 'Petition Of Impeachment' as per instructions I followed; of the "Rules Of Impeachment"; as it now stands. Feel free to edit as you feel necessary, as this is a team effort, and I hope some one can make it to Washington, D.C. to have this presented and addressed, before the Speaker Of The House.