Which Constitutional Authority is Obama; Congress Using to Exempt Themselves; Foreigners, Unions, Refugees,Illegals from Paying Up Front for ObamaCare?

Posted on by rose4justice
Take Back America!
Take Back America!

Rose Colombo – Rev. 4/11/2012, 3/30/2012 (C)

“The proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:  Congress shall make no law that applies to the senators and or representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States of America.”

Wake up, America!  How is it that the U.S. Congress and Executive Office and U.S. Judicial Officers would dare to hold themselves above the laws of the land, which they mandate for you and me, yet, they have the audacity to exempt themselves, even though they swore an oath to uphold all constitutional laws and follow all laws of the land?  It’s even more disturbing that most recently the 111th Congress stated they didn’t bother to read the national health care bill, which is an umbrella law known as ObamaCare, and is a  restructured set of laws replacing  freedom and liberty, in my opinion.  ObamaCare consists of 2,000 pages of excessive  mandates and excessive regulations, including excessive punishment, but it only targets American citizens , not foreigners, cronies, unions, congress, illegals, or refugees – 2,000 pages of regulations and punishments – the 111th Congress stated that they did not read, but approved!

In my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse,” I state, “The American people must not go down to their level, but must force the lawyers to come up to their level.”

After all, Article II of the United States Constitution requires that a U.S. President meets a specific requirement for a specific reason as written by our Foundsers.  A Natural Born U.S. Citizen is a  baby born on U.S. soil to two U.S. Natural Born Citizens, period!  There isn’t any compromising on the law. All laws must be changed through proposed new laws or proposed amendments in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and approved by the U.S. Congress. 

So, how is it that an inserted amendment written by Obama into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order is rendered the law of the land or even constitutional law, if it circumvents Article II without congressional approval?  Obama’s self-serving and self-protecting inserted amendment provides to himself  – the authority to conceal his identity from the government  – and from the public.  It would seem that it isn’t ethical or constitutional for a public servant to write self-serving and self-protecting laws or amendments which alter or circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval.  When did writing an amendment with the intent of circumventing a constitutional law and inserting the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order without congressional authority suddenly be rendered a law of the land?  This begs the question why is the U.S. government treating an “amendment” inserted into a pre-existing executive order which circumvents Article II being treated as an amendment to Article II of the U.S. Constitution without congressional approval?  Shouldn’t it be viewed as meaningless or not?

Isn’t it true the U.S. Congress  must approve all proposed amendments that would change, circumvent, or alter any constitutional law?  This makes it very  difficult to understand why the U.S. federal government is allowing  Obama to write an “amendment,” and insert the amendment into a pre-existing presidential Executive Order, so he can declare it as a constitutional law and conceal his personal identification records from the world, since all amendments to change constitutional laws must be presented to Congress and approved by Congress. To my knowledge,  Article II, as defined by the Law of Nations, remains the law of the land  and requires identification of a candidate’s birth certificate as proof of his or her U.S. Natural Born Citizenship in order to be eligible to be a U.S. President.

The reason our Forefathers were wise and established Article II as an intricate part of the U.S. Constitution requiring  that a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be the only person eligible to be a U.S. President is to prevent  foreign and anti-American usurpers  from stealing the birthright of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen and denying him or her their right to be a U.S. President.  It is the birthright of every U.S.  Natural Born Citizen passed down from their U.S. Natural Born Father that must be protected.  The Forefathers required that only a U.S. Natural Born Citizen be a U.S. President in order to ensure that the birthright passes down from generation to generation assuring the preservation of the U.S. Constitution, liberty and freedom, sovereignty, our Judeo Christian roots, traditions,  and for the preservation of  Western Civilization so  future generations can live free and carry on the Liberty Torch.   

For example, a usurper could bring millions of foreigners into the United States of America with the intent of dominating the United States of America.  He may intend to donate funds to public schools with the requirement that they insert foreign history into U.S. History books. His agenda might include donating funds to Christian churches and requiring they insert foreign religion into their Christian religions.  Perhaps, he intends for the migration of millions of foreigners to dominate the land and wipe out Western Civilization making the U.S. Natural Born Citizens the minority. 

A usurper with an iron fist may decide to reduce the population of future U.S. Natural Born Citizens through mandated abortions.  Perhaps, he’ll implement radiation of all citizens, but exempt those he favors; perhaps abuse the use of chemicals, indefinite detention, assassinations, assisted suicide, denying and rationing health care and medications, denying organic foods; promoting contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill; denying natural vitamins and herbs; or donate to public schools requiring that they indoctrinate U.S. kids into same-sex lifestyles under the guise of education.  All the potential agendas are programs that could be used for depopulation of a nation’s natural-born citizens and future natural-born citizens. 

A tyrannical usurper, legitimate or not, who wields power unjustly and arbitrarily to oppress the citizenry, is a despot.” 

Should it not be a major concern to the American people, when a U.S. President and U.S. Congress grant absolute power to an unvested president granting him the power to assassinate or indefinitely detain Americans based upon an accusation?  It appears to me that the American people should be  very concerned when they witness an unvested president and the U.S. Congress shredding the U.S. Constitution, especially  Article IV, and deny their citizens due process of law. Yet, Obama and Holder demand that all Middle East radicals be treated with kid gloves and that they be read Miranda Rights and be provided Due Process of Law.  How is that?

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, raised his hand on or about January, 2009, and repeated the presidential sworn oath leading Americans to believe that he is a U.S. natural-born citizen, prominent lawyer, and law professor prior to the elections.  The American people are continuously demeaned by the media, if they ask questions about Obama’s birth place.  In fact, the media is alleged to have misled Americans into believing that the Obama’s were prominent lawyers, but failed to report that they had been investigated by a branch of the Illinois Supreme Court and prohibited from practicing law, which is public record, and this may have changed the outcome of the elections.

Although, Philip J. Berg, esq., challenged Obama’s eligibility in the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the inauguration, Justice Roberts denied the lawsuit.  On the day of the inauguration about January 2009,  Obama repeated the presidential sworn oath with his hand on the Bible, but flubbed it up, and repeated the oath a second time with his hand off of the Bible, so it begs the question if it was intentional, after all, he mocked the Bible and Jesus during a speech.  Obama swore to uphold, defend, preserve and protect all U.S. Constitutional laws, as required by the law of the land including Article II and Article IV.  A violation of a U.S. Sworn Oath can be punishable according to federal law.

But, on or about January 2009, after Obama swore the presidential oath administered by Justice Robert including, Article II,  the question remains if he intended  to circumvent Article II prior to his sworn oath or during his sworn oath because without hesitation and upon taking office, he immediately inserted an amendment into a pre-existing   presidential Executive Order to conceal his personal identity and circumvent Article II without congressional or constitutional approval, so when did he decide to conceal?  Is it not mind-boggling how Obama was allowed to provide himself  the authority to conceal his identification records  from the entire United States government including law enforcement, federal judges, and the American people, who pay his $400,000 per year taxpayer wages, and as a result are told that they aren’t allowed to request that a certified copy of his U.S. Birth Certificate be presented  in a court of law even if filed by credible professionals?  So, again, I ask the question, under which constitutional authority is Obama applying that provides to him self the authority to circumvent Article II of the U.S. Constitution by inserting an “amendment” into a pre-existing Executive Order and by-pass Congress?  

Obama’s inserted amendment to conceal his identification records states that he can seek the advice of the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder.  But, how is concealing his identity from the government and the American people lawful, constitutional, or ethical?  After all,  Article II requires identification of  the public servant and proof  that he is a U.S. Natural Born Citizen. After all, his sworn oath doesn’t state that he can pick and choose which laws he will or will not follow or that of Congress.      

On the other hand, how is it that an amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order signed by President Bush, which circumvents Article II of the U.S. Constitution, be considered a constitutional law, because according to Representatives Lundgren and Ron Paul, they stated that Executive Orders were not intended to be laws and are not laws.  Thus, how is an  amendment inserted into a pre- existing presidential executive order written by Obama, which conceals his personal identification records and circumvents Article II, be treated by law enforcement and congress as a lawful law since he didn’t present his amendment to  alter Article II to the 111th Congress and  seek Congressional approval?       

So, should Americans dare ask if Obama’s intent was to conceal his identification papers prior to taking his sworn oath or at the time he swore to uphold the entire Constitution of the United States, or the day of writing the amendment, because Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton prior to the 2008 elections, secretly inserted an amendment into a military bill proposed by Rep. McCaskill,  to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II, which is public record.  The intent to remove the words U.S. Natural Born Citizen from Article II combined with Obama’s writing a secret “amendment” into a “pre-existing presidential Executive Order” which circumvents Article II’s requirement of proof of U.S. Citizenship, but is intended to conceal his identity from the government and from the American people immediately after swearing his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is troubling for the majority of American citizens.    

 Furthermore, so shouldn’t there be a question by Congress as to whether or not if secretly writing an amendment that circumvents Article II to avoid producing a U.S. Certified Birth Certificate immediately after swearing an oath to uphold Article II is an  ethics violation since a sworn oath is administered and believed to be repeated in “Good Faith” in front of God and witnesses.  After all, Obama and his wife, Michelle, presented themselves as prominent lawyers in good standing with the ABA, and in fact, presented Obama as a law professor.  The media also presented them as prominent lawyers, but they didn’t disclose that they had been prohibited from practicing law prior to the elections.  And, Sworn Oaths are administered based upon the belief that everything the candidates represented to the American people is honest and factual.   After the elections of 2008,  published records from the  Illinois Supreme Court appeared on-line disclosing that Obama and Michelle Obama had been investigated and prohibited from practicing law which is public record.  If the candidates and the media had published the truth then perhaps, Hillary or McCain could have won the elections. It’s also interesting that the  ABA and the Illinois Supreme Court judicial officers allegedly didn’t inform the DNC or the Congress of that information. 

As I stated, this begs the question of  why Obama found it necessary to write a secret amendment inserted into a pre-existing Executive Order with the intent to circumvent Article II, after he swore to uphold all constitutional law, including Article II, especially since he’s prohibited from practicing law. And more importantly, one must ask why Congress and law enforcement are considering an amendment inserted into a pre-existing executive order to conceal a president’s  U.S. Birth Certificate and other personal records required by Article II  be considered  an”amendment” that lawfully or constitutionally changed or altered Article II back in 2009?   

These questions are complicated not only by the fact that Obama is prohibited from practicing law, but the fact that he admits his father is a natural-born citizen of Kenya, a Muslim, African, and Subject of Britain, making Obama a Subject of Britain at birth.  And, according to the Law of Nations, a baby born on U.S. soil to one parent who is foreign-born isn’t eligible to be a U.S. President.  Surely, Harvard students are taught basic 101 constitutional law.  

How then are the federal lawmakers justifying that the U.S. Congress and the oval office are granting themselves the authority to exempt themselves from the laws which they are mandating for the U.S. Citizens.  ObamaCare is a restructured set of laws known as consisting 2,000 unread pages which were not read, but approved.  The 2,000 pages include hundreds of mandates, excessive regulations, fines, penalties, death panels and mandated abortions, as well as excessively cruel and unusual punishments including IRS agents knocking on citizen’s doors, but not on the doors of the Obama’s or the U.S. Congress. Congress exempted themselves from the laws of the land which they are also obligated to follow, but for some reason, think they have the authority to hold themselves above the laws of the land and exempt themselves from the same treatment they’re dishing out for the American people, but not for themselves or the millions of Muslims,  SEIU union members,  possibly millions of Palestinian refugees, and illegals.  So, if ObamaCare is such a great umbrella law with thousands of pages of mandates and regulations, punishments, and fines, as well as death panels, which deny all freedom and liberty,  then why did Congress exempt themselves from being forced to pay up, comply, and from punishment?

In fact, it appears that only U.S. Natural Born Citizens will be picking up the tab for millions of people who won’t have to pay up and have contributed nothing or very little to our nation, but if the Americans are forced up to pay up and don’t comply, they will be sent to jail for one year and ordered to pay a $25,000 penalty, and have an IRS agent sent to their home or business.

ObamaCare is the restructured set of laws which replace all freedom and liberty and punish U.S. Natural Born Citizens fulfilling his father’s dream, I suppose, who believed America was an oppressive nation.  Yet, all the people who are anti-American and apologize for America are the same people  refusing to live anywhere else, jetting about ,and living off  taxes of the hard working American citizens.  ObamaCare represents tyrannical laws imposed on citizens who live in Communist and Third World nations.

Therefore, I have three questions:  1)  How can the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, and  U.S. law enforcement follow an amendment written for self-serving and self-protecting reasons into a pre-existing executive order with the intent of circumventing Article II, with the intent of concealing an unvested president’s identification, be considered constitutional or  lawful, since the amendment which circumvents Article II wasn’t presented to Congress or approved by Congress?  2)  How can a public servant who admits his father is foreign-born and a Subject of Britain, which makes him a Subject of Britain upon his birth under the British Nationality Act of 1948, not be vetted properly by the congress  or federal courts, as it is their fiduciary duty to correct the records  for historical purposes and for the welfare and safety of the American people;  3) Under which constitutional authority is the U.S. President, the U.S. Congress applying that provides them the authority to exempt themselves  from the laws of the land they mandate for you and me  as well as provide themselves the authority to exempt millions of foreigners, refugees, illegals, and people Obama favors or those who support the Democratic Party from complying with ObamaCare?  (This article may be shared but not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Rose Colombo, a long time legal activist, award-winning former local newspaper columnist, whose Irwin Award Winning book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” available on amazon.com or Bn.com, empowers people with self-help information and true short stories of injustices.  She’s helped motivate victims of legal abuse become survivors since she founded the first self-help group in the nation for victims of injustices.  Visit www.fightbacklegalabuse.com  – Thanks for the read and please click the like star button below –

Did Panetta Say That He and Obama Seek OK of Intern’l Powers to Deploy Troops; Declare War; Forget the U.S. Congress?

Posted on by rose4justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice

by Rose Colombo – original pub.(C) 3/21/2012 -(you may listen to the archived interview with myself and Chuck Wilder dated 3/27/2012 at www.crntalkradio.com/chuckwilder

Did  Secretary of State, Leon Panetta, just inform the U.S. Congress, that the U.S. Congress hasn’t  any authority over the actions of Panetta, the military, or the U.S. President?  

In a stunning congressional hearing, which included General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and led by the Hon. Sessions, the testimony of General Dempsey and Panetta boggled the minds of the congressional members and that of the American people on or about  March 2012.  Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, stated that he and president Obama may or may not inform Congress of their actions when declaring war or deploying U.S. troops around the world because they intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission from international powers such as NATO, the U.N., or E.U. or an international assembly.  Panetta referred back to the attack on Libya when he and Obama did not inform Congress of their intent to attack Libya and assassinate Gaddafi, but the question remains, whose “legal basis” or “permission” did they seek to fire off 220 Tomahawks?

Consequently, Panetta’s statements beg the question if he referred to Libya as justification for his current stance so he could cite Libya as a case precedent for justification of their intent and desire of eliminating the sovereignty of the United States of America preserved as an inheritance by our Fathers, who were natural-born or native-born Americans, to be passed down to the natural-born or native-born children, which should be the desire of all public servants;  but on the contrary, it appears that such actions as stated by Panetta would grant absolute powers to Panetta and Obama as he referred in his testimony, not only to Obama, but stated “we” intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission of international powers and that they may or may not inform congress of their intent in the future.  Therefore, it begs the question if it is possible that Libya was attacked as a test case for future justification should they deploy our troops around the world or attack another nation without congressional and constitutional authority?

Obviously, the American people were not pleased when they heard the news that Panetta and Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed leader of a nation, Gaddafi, who didn’t attack or threaten America, without congressional authority and without being captured alive and provided due process of law.  For if one man is denied due process of law how then should any man be provided due process of law thereafter?  The news reported that Obama with Panetta’s blessings ordered 220 Tomahawk missiles fired off at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 per Tomahawk, and those costs were passed onto the over burdened U.S. taxpayers, who are struggling to survive.  So, shouldn’t Congress have considered that they should investigate the reckless spending of U.S. tax dollars and the risk to the country’s welfare and safety  since they control the purse strings as part of their fiduciary duty?  Also, the attacks on Libya,  in the name of freedom, and congressional approval cost the lives of an undocumented number of innocent civilians and Freedom Fighters, whose families are now seeking compensation from the U.S. government for their losses.

Did Panetta state that they may or may not inform Congress of their decisions to declare war or send U.S. troops around the world, but will base their decisions upon the “legal basis” of international powers and permission from NATO and the U.N. or E.U. and other international assemblies?  Isn’t that like lawyers playing games with words such as “legal basis” similar to Bill Clinton spinning the word “is” or the Obama administration spinning the word “war” with “mission” to avoid congressional authority?  Are they attempting to use Libya as a pattern to circumvent the will of the American people represented by the U.S. Congress and disrespect the American people who pick up the tab for their decisions?

Hon. Sessions informed General Dempsey and Panetta that the U.S. Military answers to the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President and the U. S. Constitution.  He informed them that the U.S. Congress is not dependent upon NATO or a U.N. Resolution to execute foreign policies consistent with the National Security of the United States

Rep.  Sessions asked Panetta if he was saying that Obama is taking the position that he would not act if it was in the best interest of the U.S., if the U.N. did not agree.  Panetta commented that when it comes to military action that he and Obama would like some “international legal  basis.”  He said, “We want to build a coalition – we want some sort of legal basis as we did in Libya.”

Rep. Sessions said, you worry about some “international basis” but you didn’t worry about the fundamental constitutional legal basis this Congress has over the War Powers Act.  He said that congress wasn’t asked whether or not Obama and Panetta were in direct violation of the War Powers Act.

Panetta answered that “we would come to Congress and inform you.”  He said, we’re going to seek international approval and we’ll inform you.  If we’re working with an international coalition or NATO, we will want to get appropriate “permission” to do that – all of these countries would want to do that – we will reserve the right.

Rep. Sessions asked if he was stating that NATO would give Panetta and Obama a legal basis. Panetta said that if he and Obama developed an international coalition – an ad-hoc coalition of nations of NATO – who would give them a “legal basis.”  Rep. Sessions inquired as to who they were asking for a legal basis.  Panetta said that if the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did in Libya- we would do that.  If NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that so we have options here.  We want to build an international support.

Rep. Sessions assured Panetta that he’s all for international support, but stated he was baffled that Panetta was stating that he and Obama needed an international assembly to provide a legal basis to deploy U.S. troops into combat.  Rep. Sessions informed Panetta that they provide “no legal authority and the only legal authority they should be seeking is from the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President, and the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Sessions said he was “breathless” by  Panetta’s statements.

Panetta said that when it comes to the National Defense of this country, [Obama] the President of the United States, has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and if it comes – and “we will” – if it comes to whether we are trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and work in Bosnia – operate as we did in Libya – Afghanistan – then we want to do it with NATO or the international community.

So, did Panetta state that he and Obama have absolute power over YOUR sons and daughters, who are in the military, to do with whatever they want and deploy them anywhere in the world without Congressional authority and globalize the U.S. military without the consent of the American people and authorization of the U.S. Congress?  Congress is paid wages by We The People to represent Americans, not relinquish our sovereignty and the laws established for 235 years rooted into the U.S. Constitution.  It is immoral, and should be illegal and unconstitutional to use America’s troops for deployment anywhere in the world without the authority of the U.S. Congress and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, to whom the military swears their allegiance, and in accordance with the will of the U.S. Citizens, who must pick up the tab for war, as well as sacrifice their loved ones and suffer the losses when they occur.

In other words, did Panetta state that he and Obama view congress as meaningless and the U.S. Constitution as meaningless and their allegiance is to NATO, the U.N., the E.U., and international powers, not the citizens of the United States of America who pay their wages?

The country is established by the founders who become the Fathers of that nation, such as the Forefathers, who establish the original set of Constitutional laws, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights rooted into the Ten Commandments and the Law of Nations, which shall be passed down to U.S. Natural Born and Native citizens from their fathers for the preservation of the country, not foreign-born inhabitants, born to one or both foreign-born parents, who are known as naturalized citizens and foreigners permitted to settle and live in the country peacefully alongside the U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the book, ‘The Law of Nations,” pub. by Emerald de Vatell, pub. 1758; which is rooted into our U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it states, “Right of the Citizens, when the nation submits to a foreign power,” (Chapter XVI, 175).   It states, “In the case of a real subjection power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it.  They ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere.  For my having to enter into a society does not oblige me to follow its face when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion.  I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as a member of a sovereign state and not in another.  I am bound to obey it while it remains a political society, but when it diverts itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between members and releases them from their obligation.”  In other words, the law of the land infers that U.S. Natural born and Native Citizens have the right to secede from the union and remove itself from the union legally and peacefully resisting a takeover by foreign powers or under the U.S. Constitution, remove those public servants from power who have surrendered their powers to foreign nations and pledged their allegiance to a foreign entity against the objections of the majority of U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the televised video of a congressional hearing of March 2012, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who answered questions of  Rep. Sessions, inferred that he and president Obama had the authority to deploy U.S. troops around the world without congressional authority and they would seek international permission of NATO, the U.N. or E.U., and may inform the U.S. Congress of their actions as they did in Libya.

Where then should the blame fall, on the executive office, or the congressional leaders, for failing in their fiduciary duty to properly vet a U.S, President under Article II; and secondly for not holding him accountable, when he fired off 220 Tomahawks at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 each, passed onto the American taxpayers?  How many freedom fighters in Libya depended on our help, but were met with Tomahawks, which created their disillusionment, when they witnessed civilian men, women, children killed as well as  Gaddafi’s grandkids, and his 16-year old son and friends.   How is this any different then the U.S. soldier who killed 17 Afghans while they slept and the White House calling out “murder” before an investigation took place?  At the very least, shouldn’t congress have suspended Obama and Panetta, while congress performed their fiduciary duty and investigated the actions taken in Libya on behalf of the military and  the American people as it is their fiduciary to uphold just and fair actions against American citizens or foreign nations.

Consequently, it isn’t just the fact that Obama and Panetta claimed attacking Libya was only a “mission,” but it’s also the fact that the U.S. Constitution requires that America must be under threat or attacked before attacking a foreign nation.   How is it that Libya didn’t threaten or attack America, yet the Obama administration fired off 220 Tomahawks at taxpayer’s expense, which cost the lives of innocent people, as they by-passed congress and the constitution?  For example, we should ask if the attack on Libya without oversight is any different from Obama funding Fast and Furious under the watch of Eric Holder,  without oversight, which cost the lives of U.S. agents, Mexican police, and thousands of innocent foreigners. It is immoral to think, oh well, the lives of the victims, whether legal or not, is worth the price.  If the government were to add up the number of people who died in Libya and Mexico at the hand of the U.S. government since 2008 versus 3,000 lives on 911 – what would that number be?

Furthermore, isn’t this exactly why oversight is established and written into the U.S. Constitution?  Isn’t the fact that abuse of power can’t be monitored if congress grants one man or  2 men the right to knight themselves with  absolute power as if they pledged their allegiance to the British Queen?  Obama called the attack on Libya,  a “mission.” and said he didn’t need congressional authority because there wouldn’t be boots on the ground and the mission would only take but a few days.  Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control of Libya and established Sharia Law, so why did we attack Libya and assassinate an unarmed foreign leader who didn’t threaten the U.S. if we couldn’t deliver freedom to the citizens of Libya? Shall we ponder if the  answer lies in the fact that if Gaddafi had been captured alive, it may have set off questions as to the constitutional and legal justification for the attack as required by constitutional law?

In conclusion,  if the congress continues to approve absolute power to Obama and Panetta, then they are failing, in their duty to country.  If congress allows this pattern of self-government, without congressional authority to continue, which could establish a consistent pattern,  it could be the “legal basis” that Panetta and Obama are seeking to exercise and claim that they have absolute authority to declare war and deploy U.S. troops anywhere in the world without congressional authority, based on the fact there wasn’t any opposition by congress or the citizens. This unconstitutional behavior could lead to spreading our military troops too thin and creating a financial burden upon the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, if  the presidential executive office continues to assassinate foreign leaders because they “think” specific foreign leaders are “evil” people, then who in America is next to be targeted as an enemy, based upon their opinion?  America has leaders, who foreign nations believe are evil, so what’s the difference should foreign leaders  conspire to attack America’s leaders if we’re behaving in the same manner?

How then does congress justify that the Obama administration and the 112th Congress is denying the American people their constitutional right to exercise Due Process of Law since they voted to deny Due Process of Law  rendering Americans helpless by shredding Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and approving the unconstitutional and tyrannical law known as NDAA?  By the way, what’s the difference between a law that allows public servants to place them on a “hit” list versus the mafia creating a hit list knowing innocent people will die without a trial?  Even a guilty person should be given a trial!  In fact, our laws are based upon just laws that allow even the guilty to defend themselves until now.  The NDAA law has caused the American people to fear their government and places mistrust of the federal government in their minds.  The NDAA law places grave doubt in the minds of the citizens knowing that the government is spying on Americans as  potential targets of their own government for indefinite detention and assassination based upon an accusation only.  By the way, how is that even legal in America?  It is the love of country of our natural-born and native-born fathers who preserve the laws and pass them onto their U.S. Natural Born children or Native born children for the preservation of our culture, lifestyle, and laws.  Shame on the U.S. Congress for not invoking their powers and agreeing to shred Article IV, Due Process of Law, that targets Americans who pay their wages!  Americans didn’t agree to pay their wages and provide them jobs and retirement in exchange to suspend or shred and replace constitutional law, but to uphold, defend, preserve, and protect the U.S. Constitution. ***(This Article May be Shared but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Click the like button and leave a comment, please.  You may share this blog with anyone and check out my website which includes my bio, awards, videos, photos, laws I’ve proposed, and my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” on Amazon or visit   Disclaimer:  Nothing said in this blog is meant to be legal, political, medical, or financial advice but a dissemination of information for educational purposes only. www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Thanks for the read…..

Did Congress Declare the ‘Homeland’ and ‘World’ to be a “Battlefield,” if so, when did Congress Declare War? Obama said, “America is Not, and Never Will Be at War with Islam!”

Posted on by rose4justice
Obama declared America to be a "battlefield," not a Christian nation of peace!
Obama declared America to be a “battlefield,” not a Christian nation of peace!

written by Rose Colombo – original (c) pub.  12/28/2011, rev. 12/13/2013

Abraham Lincoln stated, “Don’t interfere with anything in the [U.S.] Constitution.  It must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.

Recently on CNN, the Intel Chairs, including Senator Feinstein, stated that America is less safe today than we were before 2009 or after 911.  How is it that America is vulnerable to attack in 2013 when they had the opportunity to refuse to pay Iran $7B of US taxpayer money every year with knowledge that they are building possible nuclear weapons and that their former leader, Ahmadinejad and many other Muslim Brotherhood members or groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood stated that the Muslim Brotherhood would wipe Western Civilization – America and Israel – off the face of the map?

The most alarming statement ever made during my life time, which should have rocked the nation, came from the lips of Senator Diane Feinstein, who said congress and the non-vetted  President Obama implemented sections 1031 and 1032, which is included into the NDAA-S.1867 law as follows:  “Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of  American citizens without charge or trial.”  Although, some journalists say Americans are not included, my conversation with her staff member on Tuesday, March 28, 2011, said it is in effect currently unless and until it is voted upon and removed through legislation.

How then should Americans view their “homeland” and the “world,” perhaps as the new One World Order “battlefield” of “enemy combatants” subject to indefinite detention by the U.S. military, police, and federal government to be targeted anywhere around the world if “accused” of a crime, and thereafter, denied all “due process of law?”  Senator Lindsey Graham’s electrifying statement should have awakened the nation when he stated, “The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether a citizen or not.”  Although, Americans were assured that the NDAA law didn’t include Americans, Senator Feinstein’s disturbing words included into the NDAA-S.1867, known as sections 1031 and 1032, include American citizens as Senators Graham and John McCain stated on video. How is it that these senators and congress have granted themselves the authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution? 

Remember, Judge Napolitano stated, NDAA “shreds” the U.S. Constitution even though Obama and Congress swore to uphold, defend, and preserve the constitution as well as protect the American people from anti-American enemies, but instead, they have targeted American citizens as the possible “enemy combatants” if the federal government or U.S. military should “accuse” a citizen,  not charge a citizen.  Doesn’t this open the door for tyranny and abuse on U.S. soil by the federal government and U.S. military?  So, has the 111th and 112th Congress shredded the entire U.S. Constitution, because without “due process of law,” there is no justice!  There is only the possibility for tyranny and death or enslavement.  The political satire recently released on amazon.com, Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals, alerts mankind to the dangers of Obamacare and the Redistribution of  America’s wealth with fictional characters that parallel today’s Orwellian state of affairs.

 Hear ye!  Hear ye!  All patriots in America, but alas, this cannot be true, as this must be no more than a fictional story,  along the lines of  War of the Worlds, or perhaps, one of my favorite movies,Valkyrie, as such a statement could only cause one to believe that such a law passed by congressional members – elected temporary public servants paid with tax dollars, who voters and taxpayers  believed as having the highest level of  integrity and  loyalty to the United States of America.  America is a Republic and has been established as a Republic implemented by the Rule of Law, mandated by the U.S. Constitution, so let’s pray that the NDAA Law ends up to be no more than a mere figment of my imagination or one of my worst nightmares resulting in nothing more than a terrible lack of communication, right?   Unfortunately, it is real!   I have posted videos online with a special guest and Patriot, Anthony J. Hilder,, who warned Americans back in the late 1990s, that there were people, who intended to imprison more Americans,  especially Blacks, eventually use them for racial tension then as slaves in the prisons,  but then again – it appears that any American can be a potential target today, since the Patriot Act, NDAA Law, Kill List using drones or whatever, and the foreign invasion  of a majority of radical males, as well as the implementation of Obamacare that denies health care in most cases and mandates taxpayer funded abortions, death panels, mandated vaccines, micro-chips, and basically, death to Americans.  And there is the Executive Order signed by President Bush in 2005 and Obama under his reign that wipes out the Constitution, Sovereignty, USA, and allows for the indefinite detention of all Americans should a President call out Civil Unrest or a Pandemic and Martial Law on U.S. soil which is totally unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and outside of their job duties for which they are elected and taxpayer funded. It’s calle treason.

The  NDAA law includes sections 1031 and 1032 and brings back memories of  Obama standing at the “wall” in Germany and stating, “People of the World” instead of addressing the “Citizens of America”  and failed to address himself as the President of the United States of America.  Why would he do that?   It does appear that the words “world” and “globalists’ seem to be the hot words for congressional members, public servants, and the elite, who support the U.N. and Agenda 21, and consider America as “oppressive,” even though it is America who they depend upon for their world charities and excessive lifestyles.  Is is possible that the members of the U.N. are pushing secretly to “redistribute” America’s wealth to Third World nations so Americans can be equally poor by wiping out the Middle Class and creating a nation of the wealthy citizens and a nation of  poor citizens.   And, if not, then how is it that congress and Obama have declared the  “homeland” to be nothing more than a “battlefield” whose citizens can be targeted as “enemy combatants” based on an “accusation” only  and punished with “indefinite detention” and denied “due process of law.”  Or should we ask if the Obama regime are granting to themselves the authority to kidnap Americans on domestic or foreign soil without due process of law and without public scrutiny so that the persons kidnapped under the NDAA law would have no contact with the outside world?  The usurping of the 4th Amendment, due process of law, by writing a new law to unconstitutionally by-pass due process of law, eliminates the third branch of government, the judiciary, as well as the need for judges or lawyers as the federal government and the U.S. military would be the accuser, judge, and jury.  

The ACLU published a statement in an article which reads:  “Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the ‘indefinite detention’ legislation doesn’t apply to American citizens.  It does.”

Oh, no, it can’t can’t be possible for U.S. Congressional members to deny due process of law knowing it’s unconstitutional, right?   We, the free and proud Americans whisper, after all, our elected congressional members, those who speak amongst us when campaigning, who we call “honorable” based upon our belief of  their integrity, loyalty to their country and the American people, the Flag, the military, and most  importantly, the U.S. Constitution, once elected would never declare war against their “homeland” or against the “world” which is sheer madness, right?  Obviously, only a mad person would have such thoughts as the U.S. Constitution has been upheld, defended by those who shed their blood, and preserved the constitution with the utmost care by the most patriotic and loyal Americans who pledged their oaths and either laid down their lives or would lay down their lives for America’s freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the most “precious” and important document ever written, except for the Ten Commandments, for which our U.S. laws are rooted, and the word of God expressed in the Bible, as well as the definition of our laws defined in the book, the “Law of Nations.”

 Yes, it is true!  Sections 1031 and 1032, were included into NDAA as stated by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.) on national television.  The NDAA’s, sections 1031 and 1032, which Senator Levin stated in a letter – did not include Americans – but it did include Americans when congress passed this unconstitutional law.  It’s alleged to have been passed without the congressional members knowing the law included Americans, but pressured by the non-vetted President Obama to include Americans, a very disturbing thought, indeed.  Surely, the American people are burning up the wires demanding to know why Senator Feinstein, McCain, Levin, and Graham as well as the mostly democratic congressional representatives, as well as Obama, signed and approved sections 1031 and 1032 – and did not strike those unconstitutional sections –  from the law titled  NDAA-S.1867.  The NDAA law, shreds “due process of law” and renders Americans vulnerable to indefinite detainment, based only on the federal government or U.S. military’s “accusations.” 

Now is the time to demand to answers as to  how and why congress and Obama shredded “due process of law” as established for the protection of every citizen, legal or illegal, on U.S. soil as some people allege our government is under some sort of threat and are working allegedly under some sort of fear written by alternative writers.  So, hasn’t the president and the Congress violated their sworn oaths and fiduciary duty to uphold, defend, and preserve the U.S. Constitution?  How is it that Senator Graham and Senator McCain as ell as other representatives  declaring that the “world” and the “homeland” is a “battlefield” since Congress hasn’t declared war?  Thus, they would have to declare war against the country they swore to protect!  Why did Rep. Lindsey Graham state that “people can be held without trial whether a citizen or not?”  Also, how is it that Obama signed a law during election year that targets Americans being arrested without “charge” or “trial” based on an “accusation” – an ugly law titled, the  National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA-S.1867 with the inclusion of  Sections 1031 and 1032). This should be worrisome to Americans considering the majority of Americans want a new “vetted” president, as they are watching the race card being played out, knowing that such actions could cause civil unrest.

Thus, Americans must demand to know under which constitutional authority and fiduciary duty congress is applying that provides congress with the authority to circumvent 235 years of established U.S. Constitutional law that guarantees”due process of law.”  

As I state in my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” that “without “Due Process of Law, Article, IV, there is nothing!  There is nothing but tyranny!”  Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA law are not in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as required by law or the will of the majority of American people who are required components in the passage of laws. Laws passed must be just and fair and protect the American people, not target the American people and deny access to citizens seeking  justice. There is nothing just or fair about sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA-S.1867 law.  It should be quite disturbing to the American voters and taxpayers that congress and Obama would pass a law that provides the federal government the authority to by-pass the constitution and target American citizens as “enemy combatants,” on foreign or domestic soil, unless Congress has declared war on the “homeland” and the world” after labeling them as “battlefields” and all citizens as potential “enemy combatants.”  

Americans must write to congress and ask under which constitutional authority is congress applying that allows federal agents and the U.S. military to target American civilians as enemy combatants based on an accusation and strip American citizens of their constitutional rights, refuse to reveal the “charges.” or refuse access to a lawyer as well as a fair and just “trial,”  and deny American citizens  access to a civilian court guaranteed to  U.S. legal and Natural Born citizens, but allegedly denied under sections 1031 and 1032 of the  NDAA-S.1867 law, while providing due process of law to captured Middle East foreign radicals of 911 and other attempted plots against America.

Again, Senator Feinstein stated that sections 1031 and 1032 are included targeting Americans for indefinite detention saying,  “Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charge or trial.”  Her statement should have shocked the nation as it rang out loud and clear, yet, some people don’t believe what they heard.  So, under which constitutional authority as elected public servants, who are paid with tax dollars to protect the American people and the U.S. Constitution, is Congress applying that provides them the constitutional authority to order the U.S. military to arrest civilians when the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide that the military follow the President of the United States, but the Commander-in-Chief?  But citizens are required to follow constitutional laws rendered by the congress approved by the President of the U.S., not the military, which in my opinion, is an abuse of power.

Ironically, even the U.S. military, provides for “due process of law” when they capture a foreign enemy or accuse a  U.S. soldier of a crime.  Although, there are journalists stating that this law,  Sections 1031 and 1032, doesn’t  include American citizens, Sections 1031 and 1032 are intact. Senator Feinstein and Graham made their voices quite clear that Americans are included, even if they remove those sections in the future, they remain intact today.  In fact, the denial of constitutional rights in courtrooms across this nation isn’t new, but for decades have been diminished in the media as “isolated” cases.  Unfortunately, most Americans have been blinded by the lack of truth in the media. So, early this morning, I phoned Senator Feinstein’s staff member and I asked if Sections 1031 and 1032 had been struck down as I was informed by a reporter, and I was told “no,” and that the law, sections 1031 and 1032 included into  the NDAA law are still “in effect” as of this date. So, I said, “So, Americans can be targeted and arrested as “enemy combatants without “charge” or “trial” until or unless Sections 1031 and 1032 are removed.”  He said, “Yes, they are still in effect.” 

Again, an important statement in an article published by the ACLU reads, “Don’t be
confused by anyone claiming that the “Indefinite Detention” legislation doesn’t apply to American citizens – it does.” 

So, what if the federal government secretly decided to target a race or an ethnic group or a grassroots group as their enemy and ordered their arrests without “charge” or without a “trial?”  Could any government under such a law have people removed from their homes and destroy their organizations or businesses by accusing people of crimes and arresting them without “due process” so they can create their utopia of rich and poor?

Americans should write or call their congressional members and ask, “When did Congress Declare War against America and the world as Rep. Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain declared that the “homeland” and the “world” are a “battlefield?”  One should consider that in order to be an “enemy combatant” and live on a “battlefield,” one must be at war and at battle with the enemy, but I don’t see a war or a battle raging on U.S. soil or upon every nation throughout the world.  The danger of such a law is that the federal government determines who is an “enemy combatant” and who should be detained indefinitely without “charge” or “trial.” For example, the Obama administration called the Tea Party supporters “extremists” when they protested against Obamacare.  During WWII, the Nazis ripped people out of their homes and businesses – arrested people on the spot based upon an accusation of being “extremists.”  So,  sections 1031 and 1032, in my opinion, should be eliminated immediately.    

In an article published by the ACLU, it states that Rep. Lindsey Graham stated as follows: “section 1031, the statement of authority to detain, does not apply to American citizens….and designates the world as the ‘Battlefield’ including the homeland.”  How then does congress justify that Americans are not targets of their own government if America is declared a “battlefield” as Sections 1031 and 1032 includes Americans as potential targets of the government, who can be detained indefinitely, as “enemy combatants” and denied “due process of law?”  It would be wise to ask if Congress exempted themselves and their families from the NDAA Law and Sections 1031 and 1032 which they have dished out for the American people.  After all, they shoved the unread  Obamacare down the throats of Americans, who objected, while taking bribes for votes and making backroom deals, but didn’t feel it was good enough for Congress, so they exempted themselves holding themselves above the laws of the land they mandated.  They wrote loopholes into the laws making “Insider Trading”  legal for congressional members, but illegal for American citizens, who they send to jail and exempted themselves from punishment so they could commit the same crime and call it legal. 

On the other hand,  how can those in law enforcement remain silent about public servants writing loopholes into the laws so they can commit a crime and call it legal for law makers?  It does appear that much of the enforcement is only directed at the people, while those in public office exempt themselves and hold themselves above the laws they mandate \and  dish out for the American people.  

 On the other hand, if America is a “battlefield” then  one must ponder who is America battling on a daily basis?  It was Obama, who stated to the world, “America is not, and never will be at war with Islam!”  Bush and Obama, and McCain stated that Islam is a peaceful nation, therefore, why is America and the world declared “battlefields” if congress hasn’t declared who the U.S. federal government is  battling or at war with if not Islam who attacked Americans on 911 and murdered Americans and continue to threaten Americans?  In fact, there are radicals from Mexico and from the Middle East,  who gained citizenship and swore to pledge allegiance to the U.S and the U.S. flag stand on U.S. soil and state that they will eliminate Western Civilization, democracy, and dominate America which is prohibited by U.S. Constitutional law, but Americans have been arrested for praying on public sidewalks including heterosexuals who are dancing or kissing in public. since 2009.

Ironically, congress and Obama never Declared War on Libya, but attacked Libya by firing off 220 Tomahawks as well as ordered the assassination of Gaddafi which resulted in killing his grandkids, yet they refused to call the NATO attack a “war.”  Instead, Obama referred to the attack on Libya as a NATO “mission” and promised no boots on the ground.  Obama justified his decision by stating that “America is not at war with Libya and that the law passed during the Vietnam war does not apply because the U.S. engagement does not rise to the level of “hostilities” contemplated by law. I guess politicians can spin the laws in any direction that suits them, but not so for the American citizens.  The NATO mission against  Libya resulted in the killing of freedom fighters, civilians, and Gaddafi’s grandkids as well as the  assassination of Gaddafi.  The news reported that Gaddafi’s teenage son and his friends were also killed while having dinner at a restaurant. Remember, Gaddafi, didn’t threaten or attack the U.S. prior to the U.S. attacking Libya, and even if considered an enemy, under U.S. constitutional law, he should have been captured and tried.  It’s “due process of law” that sets America apart from the tyrannical leaders of Communist and Third World national.  In fact, Senator Richard Lugar (Ind) stated on the congressional floor, “We are not declaring war at this point [against Libya].” 

Consequently, the American people didn’t pay much attention to the seriousness of the federal government ordering the assassination of al-awalki, an converto to radical Islam, who was an American citizen, and could have been captured by the federal government, arrested and tried in a court of law, since the Obama administration believed him to be an “enemy combatant.”  But, he was denied “due process of law” and to the best of my knowledge, never charged with a crimes before he was taken out under Obama’s regime. Think about  that – an American citizen was assassinated without “due process of law,” so can NDAA-S.1867 including sections 1031 and 1032 justify assassinations of any and all Americans labeled as “enemy combatants” since Al-Awaki was an assassinated American labeled as an “enemy combatant?”  Just how far does the 112th Congress intend to circumvent due process of law and render Americans  live on U.S. soil today without constitutional protections should the government accuse a citizen of being an enemy combatant?  One must ponder if a Tea Party member, or an Oathkeeper, or a Christian, Catholic, heterosexual, a Patriot, pro-Constitutional American, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-God, pro-right-to-life, and pro-Free Enterprise be targeted?

For example, Jose Padilla, an American citizen was arrested and indefinitely detained for 3 years and then allegedly without “charge” or “trial” sent to a Super Max prison for 17 years allegedly after being labeled as an “enemy combatant.” 

Richard Fine, Attorney, was allegedly indefinitely detained for about 2 years for exposing judicial corruption until he was finally released after he was  denied “due process of law” on U.S. soil as he pleaded for help on video seen on You Tube.

David Koresh, an American citizen, could have been arrested in town where the news reported he frequented and he could have been served with a subpoena or arrested, but instead American women, children, and men were burned alive by our federal government under the Clinton and Janet Reno administration, except for the people who escaped.  What crimes did the women and children and unborn babies commit, but  even if they were accused of a crime, it can be very dangerous for citizens or even deadly when “due process of law” is denied on U.S. soil and a government becomes similar to a “mob rule.”

Randy Weaver, an American citizen, was at home and allegedly he wasn’t served with a subpoena or arrested, but the federal government surrounded his property and killed his wife holding a baby on the front porch and his little boy and his dog running through the forests which hit national news while Clinton and Janet Reno were in office, who allegedly viewed them, as enemies of the government. The respected Constitutional Lawyer, Gerry Spence, stepped up to the plate in his defense.

Therefore, Americans must ask, “What happened to the Udall Bill that was proposed and would shred Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA law?”

Ironically, on March 13, 2009, Obama announced that it would no longer refer to prisoners at GITMO as “enemy combatants” but also asserted that the [U.S.] president has the authority to detain terrorist suspects there without criminal charges….and his administration began deciding which detainees are eligible for trial in a military tribunal or civilian court. Surely, if the government were to target the Tea party or other grassroots political groups, many Americans could be arrested indefinitely to fill the secret prisons beds if sections 1031 and 1032 aren’t removed from the NDAA law. For example, McCain said people could be accused if they have missing fingers or if they store more than 7 or 8 days of food in their homes.  Well, that would target most Americans as “enemy combatants,” right?  In fact, there was a HLS Directive that stated that in an emergency, people who were targeted as “extremists” could be detained allegedly without due process of law.

How is it that when Obama took office, he verbally accused President Bush of allowing foreign enemy combatants dunked by a “water boarding ” policy after 911.  Should we not as – which is worse?  Water Boarding or Shredding the U.S. Constitution and  denying “due process of law that indefinitely detains any citizen – innocent or guilty – on U.S. soil? – or an implementing a “hit” list of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world based on an accusation only?

On March 21, 2011, Rep. Kucinich stated that Obama “crossed the line” calling the attack on Libya an indisputable “impeachment offense.”  And, Senator Richard Lugar (Ind) who is the top representative on Foreign Relations Committee also said, “We are not declaring war at this point, we’ve already fired off 110 missiles, tomahawks, at Libya and had some aircraft support…but my point this week publicly has been that if we were going to war with Libya we ought to have a Declaration of War by the Congress.”  Well, there was no Declaration of War by Congress.

Ironically, in 2007, Obama stated, “The President does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”  So, again, I ask the question, “When did Congress declare war on Libya?  And, which nation is the “homeland” battling?  We should ask under which  authority is congress applying that provides congressional members the authority to target American citizens as “enemy combatants” and deny “due process of law” under sections 1031 and 1032?  ***(This article may be shared but not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Rose Colombo, an Irwin Award winning writer,poet, and author whose been published around the world as a 5 Star Review.  Colombo’s first shocking self-help book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” published late 2010 on amazon reveals the truth about the illusion of justice and how easily anyone can be targeted by the government and their lives destroyed.  The second book, a fictional political Orwellian satire, “Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals” exposes the U.N.’ redistribution of health and wealth and begs the question if the dinosaurs were depopulated or made extinct.

Rose Colombo has been featured in “The Journal of Commerce and Science” worldwide magazine; The Veterans Reporter; The Daily Law Journal published for lawyers and judges; Orange County Register, Boston Globe, Denver Post, L.A. Times, Seal Beach Journal, and more….interviewed on major and local radio and TV and produced and hosted her own created cable TV and am-FM and online radio shows with prominent guests.  She is currently on Facebook and Twitter@Rose4Justice, and social media.

Colombo’s website:    www.colombochronicles.com

Blogs:  www.rose4justice.com

 

 

“Insider Trading” and Double Standards! Is Wall Street in Bed with the White House? Why is it illegal for Martha, but Legal for Pelosi?

Posted on by rose4justice
Irwin Award Winner self-help: Fight Back Legal Abuse
Irwin Award Winner self-help: Fight Back Legal Abuse

written by Rose Colombo, original l(c) pub. 11/16/2011

Occupy Wall Street made a statement whether people agree or not, at least they protested the long arm reaching from the White House into Wall Street and Wall Street reaching into the White House.  In fact,  the majority of citizens don’t believe they have the power to change the winds that have been shifting in an ugly direction as the federal government is trampling on the constitution and the “limited power” that is established by constitutional law.  Americans need to unite against the double standards that have been secretly implemented by past and current congressional members who are filling their bank accounts on the taxpayer’s time and dime!

How many Americans have looked up the definition of “Insider Trading?”  Are you aware that insider trading is illegal and that the Department of Justice went after “Martha” who made a pittance on her investment in comparison to former Speaker Pelosi, so how is that?

Insider Trading is:  “The use of material, non-public information in trading the shares of a company by a corporate insider or other person who owes a “fiduciary duty” to the company.”  How is it that the U.S. Congress no longer believes that they have a “fiduciary duty” to the American people as well as to the corporations who are seeking the approval or denial of bills before the U.S. Congress?

Furthermore, “This is the classic definition.  The Supreme Court has also approved a broader definition known as the “misappropriation theory;” the deceitful acquisition and misuse of information that property belongs to persons to whom one owes a duty.”

Obviously, members of congress are provided confidential information which could enhance their financial wealth outside of their job description if they choose to abuse their power on taxpayer’s time and work on personal “insider trading” on the job.  Americans don’t pay public servants to work on their personal Wall Street portfolios, but pay them to protect the public from unethical laws.  Federal employees are paid by the taxpayers to review corporate laws for approval or denial and determine if it is in the best interest of the American people, not in the best interest of congress as they withhold or deny or approve corporate laws presented to them for a vote based on insider trade secrets.  How is it not considered a Conflict of Interest or misappropriation as well as deceitful and unethical for congressional members to work on personal “insider trade” secrets for  personal financial gain while working as  federal employees working on the clock and paid with taxpayer dollars?  If congressional members feel it is ethical to use confidential information seeking insider trade secrets on the job than they should clock out!

On its face, it would appear that the Judicial Ethics Committee would be reviewing the Conflict of Interest, as well as the “misappropriation theory” and “deceitful acquisition or “misuse” of information which was intended for the purposes of ensuring the people were protected from big corporations on Wall Street.  So, this would explain why the American people are concerned about the U.S. Congress and Executive Office climbing in bed with Wall Street as the people line the streets protesting the double standards.

Last week, the senate voted to deny the American people the right to exercise freedom of speech on the internet by passing a bill titled “Net Neutrality.”  It is my suggestion that the American people and media wake up, because “Net Neutrality” circumvents the First Amendment and could devastate careers and corporations who promote themselves on the internet. This is a very dangerous attack against Freedom of Speech by the Obama administration.  Such a law could target people who protest against corruption between the White House and Wall Street.

Fortunately, CBS exposed a third big scandal related to the Obama administration and Congress. The U.S. Congress, past and current, passed laws stating that “insider trading” is illegal, but with deceit and non-disclosure, Congress created a double standard for congressional members making “insider trading” for congressional members legal.  Congress has written laws that circumvent the laws established for the American people by writing self-serving laws which exempt themselves from complying with the established laws mandated for all citizens and self-protecting laws which prohibit them from being prosecuted for “insider trading.”  In other words, what they implemented as “illegal” insider trading for all other citizens is “legal” for congress.

How is it legal and ethical for congressional members to re-write laws which circumvent the laws of the land, while simultaneously abusing their positions of power to write laws that allow them to violate the law with immunity, while on the job and racking up wages paid by the U.S. taxpayers?  The American people were led to believe that they voted for congressional representatives who would review corporate documents and determine what is in the best interest of the American people, not in the best interest of congressional members on taxpayer’s dime!

Under which congressional authority and fiduciary duty or job description is it that allows congress to circumvent the constitution by writing self-serving laws that protect them from complying with laws and from punishment, so they can fill their bank accounts, by creating double standards which favor congress?

So, how does congress justify their “insider trading” on the job for their personal financial gain when they are paid to protect the people from criminals who are arrested for insider trading?”  For example, a bank clerk wouldn’t be allowed to study the customer’s portfolios and discuss insider trade secrets on the job without being fired, yet there are congressional members using their time on the job paid by taxpayers for personal financial gain.

Which constitutional law or fiduciary job description did Rep. Pelosi apply that justifies her using confidential information which is the property of the government as personal information which in my opinion is unethical with the intent of using the “insider trading” secrets for her personal financial gain?  How is it okay for any employee to use information that belongs to the government or to a corporation for personal use?  In the private sector, employees would be fired.

Is it ethical for congress and the executive office to write self-serving, self-regulatory, and self-protecting laws for self-gain that provides them exemptions from compliance and exemption from punishment after mandating that all other citizens must comply with the laws which they mandate or else be punished such as  “insider trading” and “Obama care?”

Which constitutional amendment or the federal job description provides congress the authority to write approve, and enforce “insider trading” as illegal for the American people, but “legal for congressional members?

Consequently, I have determined that some congressional members believe that they have the authority to abuse their positions of power, even if it involves ethics violations and conflicts of interest to provide themselves immunity when they use “insider trading” secrets for financial gain by deeming “insider trading” as “illegal” for the citizens, but “legal” for congressional members who commit the same white-collar crime without fear of being  punished.

In conclusion, as long as the American people remain passive and accept that lawmakers can become law breakers by re-writing laws, manipulating the law, changing laws that are self-protecting from compliance and prosecution, the American people will be faced with double standards, unconstitutional laws, and a constitution that their leaders believe the words of Obama when he stated in 2001 and 2008 that the constitution is no more than a charter of negative laws [liberties] that is “meaningless.”    **( This article may be shared, but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Rose Colombo, is the producer and host of  former cable TV and talk radio show, “Issues of the Day.”  She’s been seen and or heard on radio and TV and red in major and local newspapers.  Read Reviews and Complimentary Pages of her 2 books, Irwin Award Winner, self-help book, Fight Back Legal Abuse,” and her latest political satire depicting fictional characters with an Orwellian story paralleling today’s corrupted political agendas, “Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals,” at www.amazon.com

Follow Rose on Twitter: Rose4Justce or visit her webiste at www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Grievance: DOJ Tracking Law Abiding Americans, but Not Cartel Members using U.S. Recovery Fund: “Hit” Lists: Missing Guns?!!

Posted on by rose4justice
Fast & Furious: Gun Sales to cartels!
Fast & Furious: Gun Sales to cartels!

written by Rose Colombo, original (c) pub.  10/19/2011

We The People exercise our constitutional right to file this Grievance and demand that the U.S. Senate follow through and appoint a Special Prosecutor in the egregious matter of Fast and Furious: a Gunrunning program launched on or about March 2009.  Thousands of murders by assassination along the borders were carried out with U.S. guns sold to ruthless criminal cartel members  between 2009 – 2011.  The victims were a majority of innocent Mexican citizens who called out to the U.S. for help, but also included law enforcement victims who were murdered by their own agency’s sale of U.S. guns sold to cartel members which is unconscionable.

Furthermore, how is it that media alleges that the executive office has enacted an assassination “hit”  list, not only against America’s enemies, but allegedly against unarmed foreigners and American citizens who President Obama (or Panetta?) decide should be included on a “hit” list without due process of law at the hand of our own government?  It is not only a sin but immoral and unethical to use taxpayer dollars to assassinate unarmed people and American citizens.  If that’s the case, why did we go to war against Saddam or attempt to assassinate Gaddafi who are said to be tyrants who assassinate their own citizens without due process of law?  A U.S. “hit” list is the same as telling Americans that they are going to pay for their possible “assassination” with their own tax dollars!

Furthermore, there is the push by this administration to disarm Americans. President Obama stated on Meet the Press in 2008:  “It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm Americans to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren.”

The news reports every day that Iran and other Middle East nations as well as Korea and Russia are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. In fact, China has been building up its armies and weapons for decades. So, if Americans were disarmed as the Obama and Clinton administration propose then the American people would be left defenseless against criminals or an invasion by their enemies.  It appears that the most prominent names pushing hard to disarm Americans are President Obama, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Senator Feinstein, Senator Shumer, and New York Mayor, Bloomberg, and now Homeland Security proposes laws to spy and track innocent Americans at Wal-Mart and gun stores, who purchase guns and ammunition, but didn’t RFID tag the U.S. guns sold to ruthless cartel members.  There are hundreds of missing guns!

Consequently, President Obama allegedly switched $10 million of U.S. Stimulus Money from the Recovery Fund for his program, “Fast and Furious and Gun-running.” In “Good Faith,” the  American people believed President Obama, when he promised to use the stimulus money to “create jobs.”  Instead, America’s tax dollars were turned into blood money.  The fact that missing guns are in the hands of criminals sold to them by our federal government renders every man, woman, and child on both sides of the borders potential victims.

How is it that the Obama czars,  the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,  and the Homeland  Security administration has funding and procedures in place to track legal citizens on U.S. soil, who purchase guns, but they didn’t bother to monitor and track, videotape, photograph, audio tape, and follow basic surveillance procedures when they sold U.S. guns using straw buyers to traffic guns into Mexico that were sold to cartel members on foreign soil?

We The People commend Representatives Darrel Issa and Charles Grassley.  We The People believe this is one of the biggest scandals to hit our nation.  More people have been assassinated in two years, 2009-2011 than in some wars or ethnic cleansing ordered by tyrannical leaders.

Below is a list of events involving public servants in the media who have been actively engaged in gun control legislation; the Second Amendment; the gun trafficking into  Mexico while tracking Americans buying legal guns after the lone assassin murdered and injured innocent people and Rep. Gifford in Arizona; but the federal government failed to track ruthless cartel members for two years.

The following list below is a compilation of events reported in the news relating to gun control by U.S. federal government representatives commencing in 1992:

1.  1992:  Senator Hillary Clinton supported a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

2.  2000:  Senator Hillary Clinton favors “sensible gun control legislation, but limiting gun control lawsuits.  She made gun licensing and registration a part of her 2000 senate campaign.  She also made strict gun control laws at the federal level part of her 2008 presidential campaign.

3.  March 24, 2003: SB 1195 – Obama votes to ban many rifles and shotguns in the U.S.

4.  March 25, 2004:  SB 2165 – Obama voted to prosecute people who use a gun for self-defense in their homes (which is law in Great Britain rendering the victims helpless against a criminal)

5.  July 29, 2005:  S 397 – Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting and fishing

6.  September 2005:  Obama opposes the right of citizens to carry hand guns – Chicago Tribune

7.  2006:  Mayor Bloomberg helps organize a coalition of mayors to perform background checks on customers who buy guns and clerks who sell guns; videotaping the sales; and keeping a record each time the BATF and Explosive links a gun buy at other guns and the purchase flagged. [Ironically, the BATF is required by HLS to link into legal sales of law-abiding Americans, but the Obama administration didn’t tell Americans they were paying to have the  BATF sell U.S. guns purchased on U.S. soil for gun trafficking without any tracking of illegal guns or the cartel criminals]

8.  2008:  New York Times:  “Mayor and Wal-Mart Back Gun Sales Plan” – “A coalition of mayors….led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York…said it had reached a 10 point agreement with Wal-Mart, the country’s largest seller of guns to track the sales of firearms more closely which include criminal background check of even store clerks.” [ironically, Obama and Bloomberg and Hillary want to spy on law abiding citizens and investigate U.S. citizens who purchase guns and ammunitin as well as other consumer items on U.S. soil, but they don’t care that President Obama conceals all his background records].

9. October 20, 2008:  Meet the Press – Obama said, “It’s my intention if elected to DISARM Americans to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren.”

10.  March 13, 2009:  Gun Ban List:  HR 1022 – Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama support U.N. Treaty to ban guns in the United States and by-pass the Second Amendment.

11.  L.A. Times 3/27/2009:  “U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton ending, a 2 day visit to Mexico centered heavily on the drug war toured a state of the art police center and condemned drug violence meeting with university students….This situation is intolerable for honest law-abiding citizens of Mexico, my country, or of anywhere of ‘conscience live,’ she said.”

Also, “Clinton acknowledged that the U.S. bears some blame for the crisis because of its insatiable appetite for illicit drugs and its role as a supplier of weapons that are SMUGGLED into Mexico to the cartels by ‘hit’ men.”

“President Felipe Calderon’s government applauded on Obama’s administration plan….that will place more U.S. agents and other personnel along the border.”

12.   March 2009:  Letter from senators Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein…..” According to the ATF more than 90% of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the U.S. of A.  Feinstein added that it is unacceptable to have 90% of the guns that are picked up in Mexico to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things coming from theU.S. and I think we must put a stop to that….[the actual number of guns according to Fact Check and Fox was 17%].  They pushed for a massive new gun control and assault weapons ban.

13.  March 24, 2009: YouTube: “Obama Orders Launch of Fast & Furious”: Deputy A.G. Ogden announcing on national television that President Obama launched Fast and Furious and approved $10 million from the Stimulus Recovery Fund for the program naming Holder and Ogden to head it up.

14.  May 12, 2009, You Tube: “Did Obama Make You Laugh”- Obama said Hillary Clinton just returned from Mexico [regarding guns and drugs] and these days they’ve gotten very close and she kissed him.

15.  August 14, 2009:  CNN, Anderson Cooper, You Tube, Part 1:  “Mexico Says Guns Coming From U.S.”

16.  August 14, 2009, CNN Anderson Cooper, You Tube, Part 2:  Mexico Says Guns Coming From U.S.” – and Mexican officials state the guns coming into Mexico from the U.S. are the key problem to the assassinations.

17.  June 28, 2010:  The Washington Times reads “Dozens of U.S. Citizens may be targets of Assassination by Obama.”

18.  July 20, 2010:  The Examiner by Howard Portney read:  “Obama Assassination List: The Troubling Reality” – “In an interview last Thursday with Washington Times, John Brennan, the president’s most senior advisor on counterterrorism and Homeland Security reveals that the Obama administration maintains a list of American citizens who have been targeted for assassination.”

Although, these are considered bad men and enemies or war criminals, since when does America assassinate unarmed people and dispose of their bodies; unarmed Americans who aren’t charged with a crime and visited the Pentagon as their guest;  or attempted assassinations against foreign leaders who never threatened to attack America?

19.  May 21, 2010: The Daily Paul – “Hillary Clinton Supports the Small Arms Treaty with the Second Amendment in Jeopardy” – Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton support U.N. Treaty and may attempt to by-pass congress and ban guns in U.S.

20.  June 18, 2010, NewsMax: “Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law” – and, “Hillary Clinton stated, ‘President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy.’  Clinton said in an interview.  “And, the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

21.  August 24, 2010, ImpeachObamaCampaign.com – “Obama hauls Arizona before the U.N. Human Rights Council.  The president’s first-ever report on U.S. Human Rights to the U.N. Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material….to bash Arizona’s immigration law and possibly transfer jurisdiction over from Arizona to the U.N.

22.  August 24, 2010, ImpeachObamaCampaign.com – On Obama’s command, Attorney General, Eric Holder, has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading and which merely uphold federal law….and threatens to give sanctuary cities a pass and threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Arpaio for racial profiling.

23.  August 2010:  Rep. Gifford Supports Gun Rights:  She opposed the Washington D.C. “Gun Ban” by signing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.

24.  August 2010:  Rep. Gifford and Secure Borders:  Gifford supports secure borders in support of Governor Brewer’s efforts and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s efforts.  She supported the passage of the bill to fund more Border Patrol agents and install surveillance technology at the borders as well as bringing in the National Guard.

25.  September 2, 2010:  Gateway Pundit – “Radical Obama Justice Department Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio” – “The Wall Street Journal” reported – “The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County accusing him and his agency of stonewalling a probe into policing practice that some call discriminatory against Hispanics.  [Ironically, the senate has alleged that Holder is stonewalling in providing the senators with documentation that they had subpoenaed in the case of Fast and Furious]

26.  January 8, 2011:  Assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, who was shot in the head, by Jared Lee Laughner, a lone assassin, near Tucson, in a Safeway parking lot as she was speaking to her constituents.  Fortunately, she survived and is making a wonderful recovery according to the news.

27.  Laughner was reported to have murdered 19 people and killed six of those in attendance with one injury.  He was arrested by authorities, but like Timothy McVeigh, America’s heard very little about them.

28.  January 8, 2011:  LiteNews.com –  U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Chief Judge, John Roll, a strong Catholic man who attended Catholic schools and was pro-life.  Judge Roll was appointed by pro-life President George Bush.  He attended Mass before attending Gifford’s event and he was assassinated by Laughner.  Roll opposed taxpayer-funded abortions which was scheduled to be heard and voted upon one week after his death, but the news reported the voting had been  postponed after the assassination. Senator Obama supported mandated abortions worlwide and supports the bill he proposed and implemented into law in Dec. 2007 and signed into law as an Executive Order in January 2009 without transparency.  The mandated abortion law requiring U.S. taxpayers to pick up the world’s tab for mandated abortions through Obamacare was opposed by pro-life supporters such as Judge Roll.  Obama approved multimillions in tax dollars for abortions to Planned Parenthood which could have created many jobs for Americans rather than killing off future unborn U.S. Natural Born citizens by abortion.

29. February 23, 2011 Letter:  Senator Schumer and N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg call for stricter gun control laws saying, “President Obama could accomplish some better information sharing among federal agencies by Executive Order and that he was working with them on it.”

30.   February 2011 Letter posted on-line:  Senator Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer blame U.S. for sending military style weapons into Mexico.  “Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations continue to gain unfettered access to military style firearms coming from the U.S.”

31.  June 2011 Letter from Senator Feinstein:  “Congress should renew the assault weapons ban which would help to prevent traffickers from obtaining the most deadly weapons now arming Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations.  This administration routinely ignores subpoenas.  The killings reached their highest levels in 2010 increasing by almost 60% to 15,273 deaths from 9,616 the previous year.”  [2009].

32.  May 23, 2011:  CNN seen on You Tube video:  Rep. Issa questions A.G. Holder at senate hearings who testified under oath that he just recently learned of Fast and Furious in the last few weeks.  [see video of 3/24/2009 with deputy A.G. Ogden)

33.  2009-2011 – Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Senator Feinstein support the U.N. Small Arms Treaty which would disarm Americans and trample on the Second Amendment.

On or about March 20, 2011, Obama attacked Libya with an alleged assassination attempt against Gaddafi, but instead killed innocent freedom fighters and Gaddafi’s grandkids, as Gaddafi, didn’t threaten America.  On or about May 2, 2011, Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed war criminal named Osama bin laden and disposed of the body.  On or about September 30, 2011, Obama ordered the assassination of an American who wasn’t charged with a crime named Al-Awaki.  Did all three assassinations by-pass congressional and constitutional law? So, how is it that there are so many assassinations such as these and the assassination of a federal judge and an attempted assassination on the life of a congressional member as well as the assassination of thousands of innocent Mexicans and some Americans murdered with America’s guns sold without tracking on foreign soil to cartel criminals paid for with U.S. tax dollars while the constitution and congressional authority appear to be “meaningless?”  These tragedies have cast a dark shadow over the federal government causing the American people to doubt the integrity of their own government as well as live in fear.

In conclusion, We The People, submit this Grievance demanding that the U.S. Congress investigate the events involving gun control and Fast and Furious Gunrunning, going back to 1992 – to-date,  as well as the authority which a president or congress is applying providing them the authority to gather a “hit” list to murder by assassination without congressional and constitutional authority, especially against unarmed persons and American citizens.  The fact that the federal government sold hundreds of guns to cartel members which are missing renders every man, woman, and child, on both sides of the borders potential victims in the present time or future.  **(This article may be shared, but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party).

The above research was gathered for educational purposes and submitted to the best of my ability and knowledge as reported for public review.  Read Reviews and complimentary page of Rose’s 2 books, “Fight Back Legal Abuse,” and her latest political satire with delightful fictional characters paralleling today’s unconstitutional laws with an Orwellian flavor that leads to a thought-provoking ending, “Obamacare, Dinosaurs, Red Necks and Radicals” at www.amazon.com