Obama

[David_james]

You are being deceived. Obama is destroying your country

[Soldier4Christ]

Even though this person is from Greece you are still correct. obama is destroying their country, too. Some people will say anything though just to bring attention to their advertising links.

[Shammu]

        I think Obama Is really a great leader .,I think America will grow again.,

I'm sure to ruffle some non-Christian feathers, but it's undeniably true. Barack Obama is not a good Christian and does not have true Christian values therefore, I find it hard for a good Christian to argue that one can support him for President.

When Barack Obama found his religion, he found it in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama was a member of Wright's congregation for more than 20 years.

Trinity, however, is NOT a Christian church, despite its affiliation with the United Church of Christ.

At Trinity, Rev. Wright taught a "Black Values System" that decried white "middleclassness." If this sounds racist it should; Trinity is a church built upon Black Liberation Theology, not Christianity. Black Liberation Theology is not founded in the birth of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, but in the Afrocentric black nationalism espoused by Malcolm X.

More deeply, liberation theology is Marxism in the guise of faith.

Black Liberation theology is many things, a racial veil of Marxist liberation theology. That is a form of racism and racial victims masked as salvation, but it is decidedly not Christian.

It worships the concept of "blackness" over the teachings of Jesus Christ, and states that if God is not sufficiently "black" by their selective and murky definition of what makes someone spiritually black, then God must be killed.

No real Christian can accept such obvious heresy as threatening God.

Barack Obama's support for abortion is well documented, including his infamous pronouncement that if his daughters became pregnant, that he would prefer that the grandchildren he obviously has the resources to take care of be aborted, instead of having his daughters become "punished with a baby."

Even worse than his support for abortion is his shocking opposition to a bill requiring that hospitals provide medical care to infants born alive after failed late-term abortion attempts. This callousness is called by its proper name, infanticide, and certainly a position no Christian can support, flying into the face of all our Biblical teaching to protect the weak and defenseless.

I'm not sure if Obama's faith supports the denial of medical care to infants, but as Christians, our's most certainly does not.

As Christians, we aren't supposed to be perfect, which is something non-believers and holiday-only attendees don't want to acknowledge as it takes away their favored charge of hypocrisy when we frequently prove our absence of infallibility and divinity.

But now you know what Barack Obama is, and is not it would seem obvious that supporting a man who professes Christianity but who is demonstrably a cultist, a man who professes Christain values, but them works to suppress the medical care of infants in a move that only the Devil himself could love, is not someone a good Christian can support.

But there is simply no way a good Christian can support the heretical cult that so deeply ingrained itself in Obama's mind, nor his bizarre and brutal suppression of care for those among us who are weakest and most in need.

Matthew 25:37-43 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

[HisDaughter]

I'm sure to ruffle some non-Christian feathers, but it's undeniably true. Barack Obama is not a good Christian and does not have true Christian values therefore, I find it hard for a good Christian to argue that one can support him for President.

When Barack Obama found his religion, he found it in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama was a member of Wright's congregation for more than 20 years.

Trinity, however, is NOT a Christian church, despite its affiliation with the United Church of Christ.

At Trinity, Rev. Wright taught a "Black Values System" that decried white "middleclassness." If this sounds racist it should; Trinity is a church built upon Black Liberation Theology, not Christianity. Black Liberation Theology is not founded in the birth of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, but in the Afrocentric black nationalism espoused by Malcolm X.

More deeply, liberation theology is Marxism in the guise of faith.

Black Liberation theology is many things, a racial veil of Marxist liberation theology. That is a form of racism and racial victims masked as salvation, but it is decidedly not Christian.

It worships the concept of "blackness" over the teachings of Jesus Christ, and states that if God is not sufficiently "black" by their selective and murky definition of what makes someone spiritually black, then God must be killed.

No real Christian can accept such obvious heresy as threatening God.

Barack Obama's support for abortion is well documented, including his infamous pronouncement that if his daughters became pregnant, that he would prefer that the grandchildren he obviously has the resources to take care of be aborted, instead of having his daughters become "punished with a baby."

Even worse than his support for abortion is his shocking opposition to a bill requiring that hospitals provide medical care to infants born alive after failed late-term abortion attempts. This callousness is called by its proper name, infanticide, and certainly a position no Christian can support, flying into the face of all our Biblical teaching to protect the weak and defenseless.

I'm not sure if Obama's faith supports the denial of medical care to infants, but as Christians, our's most certainly does not.

As Christians, we aren't supposed to be perfect, which is something non-believers and holiday-only attendees don't want to acknowledge as it takes away their favored charge of hypocrisy when we frequently prove our absence of infallibility and divinity.

But now you know what Barack Obama is, and is not it would seem obvious that supporting a man who professes Christianity but who is demonstrably a cultist, a man who professes Christain values, but them works to suppress the medical care of infants in a move that only the Devil himself could love, is not someone a good Christian can support.

But there is simply no way a good Christian can support the heretical cult that so deeply ingrained itself in Obama's mind, nor his bizarre and brutal suppression of care for those among us who are weakest and most in need.

Matthew 25:37-43 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Here, Here DW!  Thank you!

[nChrist]

I'm sure to ruffle some non-Christian feathers, but it's undeniably true. Barack Obama is not a good Christian and does not have true Christian values therefore, I find it hard for a good Christian to argue that one can support him for President.

When Barack Obama found his religion, he found it in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama was a member of Wright's congregation for more than 20 years.

Trinity, however, is NOT a Christian church, despite its affiliation with the United Church of Christ.

At Trinity, Rev. Wright taught a "Black Values System" that decried white "middleclassness." If this sounds racist it should; Trinity is a church built upon Black Liberation Theology, not Christianity. Black Liberation Theology is not founded in the birth of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, but in the Afrocentric black nationalism espoused by Malcolm X.

More deeply, liberation theology is Marxism in the guise of faith.

Black Liberation theology is many things, a racial veil of Marxist liberation theology. That is a form of racism and racial victims masked as salvation, but it is decidedly not Christian.

It worships the concept of "blackness" over the teachings of Jesus Christ, and states that if God is not sufficiently "black" by their selective and murky definition of what makes someone spiritually black, then God must be killed.

No real Christian can accept such obvious heresy as threatening God.

Barack Obama's support for abortion is well documented, including his infamous pronouncement that if his daughters became pregnant, that he would prefer that the grandchildren he obviously has the resources to take care of be aborted, instead of having his daughters become "punished with a baby."

Even worse than his support for abortion is his shocking opposition to a bill requiring that hospitals provide medical care to infants born alive after failed late-term abortion attempts. This callousness is called by its proper name, infanticide, and certainly a position no Christian can support, flying into the face of all our Biblical teaching to protect the weak and defenseless.

I'm not sure if Obama's faith supports the denial of medical care to infants, but as Christians, our's most certainly does not.

As Christians, we aren't supposed to be perfect, which is something non-believers and holiday-only attendees don't want to acknowledge as it takes away their favored charge of hypocrisy when we frequently prove our absence of infallibility and divinity.

But now you know what Barack Obama is, and is not it would seem obvious that supporting a man who professes Christianity but who is demonstrably a cultist, a man who professes Christain values, but them works to suppress the medical care of infants in a move that only the Devil himself could love, is not someone a good Christian can support.

But there is simply no way a good Christian can support the heretical cult that so deeply ingrained itself in Obama's mind, nor his bizarre and brutal suppression of care for those among us who are weakest and most in need.

Matthew 25:37-43 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

ANOTHER AMEN!

[HisDaughter]

'Obama' Think-Tank: Israel Should Cede Jerusalem Sovereignty     

israelnationalnews.com/


A think tank which is arguably the most influential in Washington is proposing an “interim” neutral administration to govern Jerusalem instead of Israel.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), headquartered just three blocks from the White House in Washington, is regarded as one of the most influential think tanks in the city, if not the most influential. “CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the [Democratic party] platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign,” according to a Bloomberg.com report, which noted that some of the group's recommendations were adopted by Obama while he was still president-elect.

Four weeks ago, CAP held a panel discussion based on the premise that the Old City of Jerusalem is the main impediment in finding a solution to the Israel-Arab problem in the Holy Land. Michael Bell, a former Canadian Ambassador to Jordan, Egypt and Israel, presented a plan entitled the Jerusalem Old City Initiative. The plan does not call for the internationalization of Jerusalem -- but is not far off from that. It recommends that both Israel and a future state of Palestine appoint a third-party administrator that would run and police the city.

Bell explained that the plan calls for an administration or regime that would govern the Old City of Jerusalem for an interim period, without either Israel or the PA giving up their demands for sovereignty: “Frankly, I don’t think there’s going to be any agreement on sovereignty. I think that the two sides need not cede their demands for sovereignty; these claims can remain exactly as they are today. The sides would simply agree to delay the implementation or assertion of these claims until after an agreement is reached. Until then, a special administration would be set up, with the two sides agreeing to set this up, at least on an interim basis. And what this would do … would be to ensure dignity, human rights and equity for all living in the Old City, all visitors, and all pilgrims.”

Questions and Clarifications

The implication that these values are not currently provided and offered by Israel was not challenged. An audience member did ask afterwards why the status quo could not simply be retained, and Bell responded, “We thought of this option ourselves, but we thought it would be too intangible…”

He also said, “I don’t think you would find a majority on either side to the conflict that would agree to defer its claims to sovereignty” - though Israel is already sovereign there, and would seemingly not mind retaining the status quo.

Bell did not quantify the plan’s “interim period,” though he did imply that it could very well be “close to permanent.”

“The Chief Administrator would be appointed by both sides to administer the city according to the mandate they give him,” Bell said. “He would be accountable to them, but the mandate would have to be sufficiently forthcoming. They would have to agree that he would handle crises such as massacre, land-grab, or whatever, without their intervention.”

CAP Report Cites Western Wall as Holiest Site

The CAP report on the event states, “The Temple Mount’s Western Wall is the most sacred place of Jewish worship, and the al-Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), where Muslims believe that Mohammad ascended into the heavens, is the third holiest site in Islam.” However, law professor Marshall Breger -- co-author of “Jerusalem's Holy Places and the Peace Process” and consultant to the Jerusalem Old City Initiative – who spoke at the panel about the competing religious claims, said more than once that it was the Temple Mount itself, and not the Western Wall outside it, that is the holiest place in Jerusalem.

Bell: Whether Belief Systems are Historically Valid is Beside the Point

Both Breger and Bell dismissed the claims of those who challenge Islam’s connection to the site. Breger agreed, but implied that current Islamic claims that Judaism’s Holy Temple was never built there are totally unfounded, noting that the Waqf itself published literature some decades ago boasting that the Dome of the Rock is on the site of the Holy Temple. At that point, Bell said, “It’s very important to realize that it’s beside the point whether these belief systems are historically valid or not… It’s not up to me to tell you whether your narrative is valid or not…”

Breger: Take Politics Out

Breger similarly said that the argument that Jerusalem is not so holy to Islam is “a silly one.” He said, “It’s true that when Jerusalem was not under Islamic control, such as during the Crusader period, the British Mandate and under Israeli control, there was more discussion about Jerusalem in Muslim sources… but it’s silly to say that it’s not so holy to Islam, because you have to accept a religion’s definition of what is holy.” However, this appeared to contradict what he said just minutes before: “One of our problems is that we have to weed out the ‘politics of religion’ from the ‘doctrine of religion’…”

He did not note that Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran.

Breger did say that the current Muslim clerical view that non-Muslims should not enter the Temple Mount “was clearly not always the Muslim view,” since just a few decades ago the Waqf "charged admission to non-Muslim visitors."

Daniel Kurzer on Jerusalem

Daniel Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew and diplomat who has been credited with coining the concept “land for peace” and insisting long ago that Jerusalem be included in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, was the moderator. He said that discussing the option of imposing a settlement freeze on Jerusalem would make it easier to have serious negotiations.

Kurtzer further warned that a solution for Jerusalem had better be found before Israel builds its E-1 housing project near Maaleh Adumim and before the City of David (Silwan) Jewish settlement project proceeds much further.

[HisDaughter]

Obama hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality

onenewsnow.com/


President Barack Obama says that while he's dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls "worn arguments and old attitudes."

At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality. ""There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet," said the president. "That's why I've spoken about these issues -- not just in front of you -- but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members."

Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated.

He added that Congress should repeal what Obama referred to as "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act" -- and that his administration is working to pass a hate crimes bill and to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military.

The audience at the White House ceremony included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and other homosexual clergy. Obama introduced Robinson as a "special friend."

[nChrist]

Obama hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality

onenewsnow.com/


President Barack Obama says that while he's dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls "worn arguments and old attitudes."

At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality. ""There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet," said the president. "That's why I've spoken about these issues -- not just in front of you -- but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members."

Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated.

He added that Congress should repeal what Obama referred to as "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act" -- and that his administration is working to pass a hate crimes bill and to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military.

The audience at the White House ceremony included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and other homosexual clergy. Obama introduced Robinson as a "special friend."

INSTEAD, they need to publish MONTHLY STATISTICS for the escalating EPIDEMIC OF DEATH AND DEADLY DISEASES CAUSED DIRECTLY BY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR. GOD said this behavior was AGAINST HIS ESTABLISHED LAWS OF NATURE, and that's why this behavior was a FELONY in ALL STATES just a few short years ago. It was also known as a "CRIME AGAINST NATURE" because it is a violation of GOD'S Natural Design and HIS Purpose for HIS Creation. I realize that many people don't want to hear about GOD, HIS Laws of Nature, and the Holy Bible these days - BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GROWING EPIDEMIC OF DEATH AND DISEASE? IS OUR GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SELL DEATH AND DISEASE? DOES OUR GOVERNMENT WANT OUR CHILDREN AND OTHERS TO ENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR THAT CAUSES DEATH AND DISEASE? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? CAN YOU AT LEAST GUESS?

[Soldier4Christ]

Many of the things our government does advocates for an increase in death and disease, from abortion, homosexuality, the lack of medical care, restricted medical care, increasing taxes to the point that people will not be able to obtain the necessities of live, and actions that deplete our food sources. None of this is surprising because they are serving that which is eternal death.

[nChrist]

Many of the things our government does advocates for an increase in death and disease, from abortion, homosexuality, the lack of medical care, restricted medical care, increasing taxes to the point that people will not be able to obtain the necessities of live, and actions that deplete our food sources. None of this is surprising because they are serving that which is eternal death.

Brother, I think you just made an outstanding summary. Our current government does NOT want to serve GOD or the people, NOR do they wish to be accountable to GOD or the people. ALL of the answers to our greatest problems are WITH GOD AND WITH HIS WAYS! HIS WORD lays out the BEST and most COMPREHENSIVE instructions to mankind. HIS WAYS are also tested and proven. SO, wise men yield to GOD, follow HIS instructions, and pray for HIS guidance - just like our Founders did.

Brother, we are watching what happens when men turn away from GOD and HIS Ways. As a Christian, I especially give THANKS to GOD that HOPE is still in HIM, and HE will keep all of HIS Promises to us. GOD gives us a Joy and Peace that the world can't take away.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 5:1-21  Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;  2  through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.  3  And not only so, but we also rejoice in our tribulations: knowing that tribulation worketh stedfastness;  4  and stedfastness, approvedness; and approvedness, hope:  5  and hope putteth not to shame; because the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given unto us.  6  For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly.  7  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die.  8  But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.  10  For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;  11  and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.  12  Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: -  13  for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.  15  But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.  16  And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.  17  For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.  18  So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.  19  For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.  20  And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:  21  that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[HisDaughter]

How Obama's stimulus violates your constitutional rights
Lawsuit challenges government 'guidance' to doctors

Posted: July 09, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A nurse has filed a lawsuit against the medical records provisions of President Obama's stimulus bill alleging it not only gives government officials access to personal health records, it would open the door for bureaucrats to make health care decisions.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York by Beatrice Heghmann, a nurse from Durham, N.H. It targets the health sections of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that demand all health care records be put into an electronic format.

The recently filed claim cites the authorization of the "Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology."

The lawsuit explains the federal law specifies, "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that among other functions provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

Using the personal information, the lawsuit claims, "the National Coordinator will monitor treatments to make sure the plaintiff's doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."

The lawsuit said the federal plan's goal "is to reduce costs and 'guide' plaintiff's doctor's decisions."

The language is virtually identical to what former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., prescribed in his 2008 book "Critical, What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" after voters in his state refused to return him to Washington.

"According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners,'" the lawsuit said. "The National Coordinator will be able to enforce his decision as to what is appropriate treatment through sanctions against health care providers. Health care providers that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. 'Meaningful user' is not defined in the Stimulus Act. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose 'more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.'"

The result is that penalties that could be imposed against doctors that would "deter the plaintiff's health care providers from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols should (a medical) condition become atypical," the lawsuit said.

Further, the demand that all health records be kept electronically would put the plaintiff's personal information "a mouse-click away from being accessible to [strangers]."

That amounts to an unconstitutional release of her personal and private health information, the lawsuit says.

Named as defendants are Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama administration officials.

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, has been working on privacy issues related to health care records for years. She's seen some success in Minnesota, where health officials have been taking DNA from newborns and archiving it for eventual research use.

She said while the wording of the stimulus law is convoluted, it appears to set up a requirement for all medical records to be posted online so that government administrators in Washington could review a diagnosis as well as a prescription and apply pressure to the doctor if they felt the treatment was more expensive than they wanted.

Brase said the federal law calls for a single electronic medical record for every U.S. resident by 2014 and providing access to those records to "providers, health plans, the government, and other interested parties."

Worst of all, she said, it appears to eliminate a state's right to impose stricter privacy standards as provided by the current federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Brase said in a nextgov report that the bottom line is that privacy would be in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat instead of a physician.

Analysts said they believe there will be similar lawsuits over the privacy of medical records.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, and explained that the plaintiff, as a patient, "was required [on several occasions] and in the future will be required to reveal intimate aspects of her life to the health care provider during the course of consultation and treatment."

Since she never has been covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, her doctors were selected by her and paid either directly by her or in combination with private health insurance she maintained.

"Under the Hippocratic Oath, state law and federal law while the medical records are the property of the plaintiff’s health care providers, the information contained in the records remains property of the plaintiff and the health care providers are required by law to maintain that information in strict confidentiality."

But the new law, the lawsuit said, "attempts to render the privacy provided under federal law, state law, the Hippocratic Oath and HIPAA null and void."

[nChrist]

The bottom line is real simple:

Just about everything Obama wants to do IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! YES, there will be flood after flood of actions, some including CRIMINAL CHARGES. Floods of civil actions and rights violations would be AN UNDERSTATEMENT of what will most definitely happen! MOST CITIZENS ARE NOT GOING TO SUBMIT TO ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM!

[HisDaughter]

I'm only going to post part of this article because it's really long and the latter part of it is old news.  I think this story is fabulous and this soldier could be the real American Hero...

U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?'
Files federal court challenge over Obama's refusal to prove eligibility

Posted: July 11, 2009
12:05 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida with orders to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has filed a court demand to be classified as a "conscientious objector" because without proof of the commander-in-chief's eligibility for office, the entire army "becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, already has been scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m., according to California attorney Orly Taitz, who is handling the claim.

Cook told WND he's ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a "war criminal."

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order will be held Thursday.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

 He said he is scheduled to report for duty one day before his hearing, on July 15, and while other details are not public, he knows he is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he is prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

"What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," he said.

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, 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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general." 

cont....

[HisDaughter]

cont....


The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Others may cynically ridicule this plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal. Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he files and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks an injunction or temporary restraining order against the enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit of all officers in all branches of the U.S. military, he knows that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career. He knows that he risks all and he does so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good,:" according to the court filing.

"Plaintiff files this suit to clarify how he can both obey all lawful orders and avoid dereliction of his duties so as to escape court-martial under the UCMJ if he does NOT question the legality of the orders he has received. Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva Convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, 'owned' or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: 'is this order legal?'" the case pleading states.

"Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de fact Commander-in-Chief?" is the question that must be answered, the case contends.

"In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity?

"The issue or question raised by this suit is uniquely federal and properly (and in fact necessarily) subject to the exercise of federal power: the question whether the constitutional legitimacy of the chain of command under a constitutionally legitimate commander-in-chief pursuant to Article II, §§1-2 of the Constitution is essential to the maintenance of balance of powers and separation of powers under the constitution, and cannot be lightly dismissed in light of the plaintiff's evidence that the de facto president of the United States is not only constitutionally unqualified, but procured his election by fraudulent and illegitimate means which may constitute a pattern of racketeering utilizing the apparatus of corrupt organizations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq," it alleges.

Among the officer's arguments:


"The evidence contained in Exhibit B shows that Barack Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of president."


"Exhibit C, the expert affidavit of renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy cannot be verified as genuine and should be presumed fraudulent. "


"Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that 'late birth certificates' (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words 'potentially fabricated') can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.


"Barack Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate was never provided by the state of Hawaii, but only a statement that there is an original 'long birth certificate' document on file. The statement repeatedly provided by Hawaiian officials is quite simply incomplete, evasive, and without explanation of critical details: namely, whether it is a foreign birth certification or one obtained based on a statement of one relative only, or a late certification or amended one, obtained upon adoption by his stepfather."
"In other words, plaintiff asks this court to rule, declare, and adjudge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), that an officer of the Army of the United States (all officers)!) must have the right to question apparently illegitimate authority in the courts or else in the course of his employment as an officer directly within the army chain of command or in both capacities and by both manners.

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz has filed multiple legal actions around the country alleging Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office. One of her cases, filed against Obama as an individual for actions before he took office, is scheduled for a hearing in a California court Monday.

[nChrist]

YEAH!

THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT SOONER OR LATER!