Larry Sinclair’s Journey –
Yesterday, Larry Sinclair, the man who alleged sexual encounters with Obama in 1999 (among other things) wrote a lengthy article about the Parisi lawsuit against him. As Larry states early on in the article and for many of the people reporting on Larry’s journey, myself included, it has always been about THE TRUTH. I happen to believe Larry Sinclair’s account of the events in 1999 but it is about the truth. Hopefully, other of Obama’s former partners and/or those with knowledge (members of Man’s Country) will come forward and support Larry’s allegations.
Written By: Larry – Dec• 13•10
It has now been more than six months since Dan Parisi of whitehouse.com fame brought a civil suit claiming portions of my book, Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?are “defamatory.” Parisi by and through Richard Oparil of Patton Boggs, LLP in Washington, D.C. has since May 28, 2010 filed repeated false statements and perjured declarations in the US District Court for the District of Columbia accusing me of “defamation” among other things against Daniel (Dan) Parisi, Whitehouse.com, Whitehouse Networks, and Whitehouse Communications. During this time many people have asked me “why does it matter what Parisi says, he can’t get blood out of a turnip,” and “Who cares about Parisi suing, your book is out there and people will know the truth.” Let me answer those questions here and now.
First, I am not defending against Parisi’s claims over any concern about having to pay him any monetary damages. Defending against these claims are and have always been about the TRUTH….Continue Reading at Larry’s Site
Lt. Col. Lakin’s Journey –
This morning Lt. Col. Lakin is being put on trial for demanding an answer to the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve as Commander In Chief. WND daily is reporting that Lt. Col. Lakin’s attorney is hoping to keep the brave soldier out of prison.
I have many hopes for Lt. Col. Lakin. I hope that his attorney will do the very best he can to preserve every appellate issue possible.
I hope he will propose something like the following as a jury instruction to the judge based on the UCMJ:
Obedience to orders – It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful….II –109
I would suggest that it is a defense to refusing to follow orders if a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known that there was a reasonable suspicion that the orders are unlawful.
I think this would set up one more ground for appeal and support the appellate issue that the Judge erred in refusing to allow any discovery or explanation related to Obama’s probably lack of eligibility.
I strongly hope that the empanelled jury will reread their Oath, do the brave thing and refuse to convict Lt. Col. Lakin. If they do the extraordinary and give Lt. Col. Lakin a jury pardon, they will send a shock wave through the ranks of the military that the Joint Chiefs cannot ignore.
This morning reacting to the death of Richard Holbrooke, Admiral Mullen made the following tweet:
Deborah and I are saddened by the death of Richard Holbrooke. We lost a dear friend. America lost a true patriot. http://bit.ly/hT9q2N
I replied to his post as follows in hope that he will finally man up and do his duty:
@thejointstaff Another true patriot is being put on trial today by you and the military for living up to his oath! Lt. Col. Lakin
Attorney believes Army officer can avoid prison, support family
Posted: December 13, 2010
8:59 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Defense attorney Neal Puckett acknowledges chances of acquittal for Army Lt. Col. Terry Lakin are remote, so he’s shifting to a new battleground: limiting the punishment.
Lakin’s court martial begins today at Ft. Meade, Maryland, and Puckett will be trying to persuade the jury to view Lakin as a man of principle, not as a disobedient soldier.
In an interview selected as Video of the Day http://www.westernjournalism.com/video-of-the-day-lt-col-lakin%E2%80%99s-lawyer-on-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility/ by the Western Center for Journalism, Puckett said his goal during the court martial will be to “minimize the punishment” the Army will mete out to Lakin for disobeying orders.
“What we’re aiming for, for Lt. Col. Lakin, is … to convince the jury on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week to let him go home and spend the holidays with his family and not send him to jail. And I think that’s a possible outcome,” said Puckett. …Continue Reading
Just in case you were cut off from the world yesterday:
From the WSJ:
A victory for liberty and the Constitution in Virginia.
Only a few months ago, the White House and its allies on the legal left dismissed the constitutional challenges to ObamaCare as frivolous, futile and politically motived. So much for that. Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled that the health law breaches the Constitution’s limits on government power.
In a careful 42-page ruling, Judge Henry Hudson declared that ObamaCare’s core enforcement mechanism known as the individual mandate—the regulation that requires everyone to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty—exceeds Congress’s authority to regulate the lives of Americans.
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,” Judge Hudson writes. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
So the issue is joined, and no doubt with historic consequences for American liberty. For most of the last century, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as so elastic as to allow any regulation desired by a Congressional majority. Only with the William Rehnquist Court did the Justices begin to rediscover that the Commerce Clause has some limits, as in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases.
The courts up through the Supremes will now decide if government can order individuals to buy a private product or be penalized for not doing so. If government can punish citizens for in essence doing nothing, then what is left of the core Constitutional principle of limited and enumerated government powers? ….Continue Reading
In support of Lt. Col. Lakin’s courage in seeking the ‘Truth’ (and as a former In-Flight Tech in the Navy), I urge all who have served or have friends/family in the military to ask the following question of those currently serving.
Brothers and Sisters in the Military, when are you going to demand Obama establish that he is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as Commander In Chief?
The military is the only government organization that I continue to have respect for and it pains me criticize those serving. And I understand the consequences of challenging Obama’s eligibility directly, but the continuing attacks against our Constitution by the left cannot be allowed to pass without objection in some form or another. Acquiescence is not the only option.
Consider this please. What if every serviceman or woman went to his or her Chaplin, stated their concerns and provided the basic evidence (direct and circumstantial, links, former statements by NPR etc. indicating a Kenyan birth, etc., etc.) that would cause most reasonable persons to have legitimate questions about Obama’s lack of eligibility to serve and issue lawful orders? What if requests were made to each Chaplin instructing them to pass these concerns up the Chain of Command? Would there come a point, a number of requests that would cause the leadership to demand proof of eligibility?
Maybe military leadership could utilize the following provision?
§ 935. Art. 135. Courts of inquiry
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.
If the Oath to protect the Constitution is not important today, why don’t we just change the oath of allegiance to reflect our current level of commitment?
I, _______, do solemnly swear to protect ME and I will try to defend the Constitution as long as it doesn’t adversely impact the aforementioned ‘ME’.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Official Disclosure – Just to be clear, my graphics depict almost all members of the BOPAC Administration as being full of crap. They do not actually look like turds – one needs special ‘full of crap’ glasses to be able to see the core of those who continually feed America BS. I treat everyone equally – when Glenn Beck goes off on those who reasonably question Obama’s eligibility, he gets a half-full of crap depiction.