Jan 11 2009
Military Vs. Obama and the “Nuremberg Factor”
Philip Berg has had several cases before the Supreme Court in regards to the
constitutionality of Barack H. Obama to be President of the The United states. However, the issue of “standing” has been an obstacle to him; historically, a citizen has never had the standing to challenge a “federal” electoral candidate. Also, according to the Constitution (20th Amendment), the Supreme Court can not interfere in the electoral process, that is, the popular vote, nor the Electoral College and the congressional ratification of those votes.
It is only in the short period after the congressional ratification (January 8th) through the inauguration (January 20th) that the Supreme Court can act. Therefore, Philip Berg is now presenting a case Hollister v. Soetoro/Obama that has an unusual, and compelling, dimension to it.
Hollister v. Obama presents the case of a military gentleman, retired USAF Col. Gregory Scott Hollister, who is “subject for recall to the military, i.e., Individual Ready Reserve, which means he is subject to presidential recall for the rest of his life,”according to Sonora News He is questioning whether he should take orders from Commander-in-Chief Obama.
Philip Berg has the divorce papers of Dunham-Soetoro that mention two children as part of the divorce. Therefore, as is believed, Obama’s name is really Barry Soetoro, otherwise, he would not have been mentioned as Dunham-Soetoro’s child.
Berg and his client, Hollister, state that it is still unclear whether Barack H.
Obama/Barry Soetoro/Barry Dunham fulfill the “natural born citizenship” requirement necessary to be commander-in-chief.
Now, most of you will remember the Nuremberg trials. Many of the Nazi soldiers and officers claimed they were just doing what their “commander” told the to do.” Therefore, they were absolved of any responsibility. Unfortunately, for them, that is not what the courts found: they should have broken rank and contested the orders, because what they were involved in was illegal and inhuman.
Now, we have a President-elect who is an unknown quantity; about the only thing we have heard is a speech that he delivered in 2002 against the War in Iraq; even that is undocumented hearsay. We do know that he was at Columbia and was a student of Zbigniew Bzrezhinski, who is infamous for his apocalyptic vision of world war between Russia and China.
We also know that Obama is the “godchild” of three infamous Arabian criminals: Rezko, Auchi and Alsamarrae. We know that since he was a “fatherless” child that psychologically he is vulnerable to manipulation by his handlers, namely, the Trilateral Commission and the Rockefeller Foundation (University of Chicago founded by Rockefeller).
Webster G. Tarplay says in his book, Barack H. Obama, the Unauthorized Biography, p 214, “The strategy of the Wall Street faction is to elect Obama now and to use the Rezko affair as a means of guaranteeing his future obedience, even though he would be president during a world economic and financial depression of unprecedented severity, and would also be able to mobilize something closely resembling a fascist movement in the streets and on the Internet in support of his power.”
Hollister v Obama is requesting injunctive relief, and has been distributed for conference to the Supreme Court on January 16, 2009. Basically, this Colonel is simply asking for clarification from the Supreme Court. It has been stated by many scholars, like Dr.Edward Vieira,PhD,J.D. that any orders, treaties or laws that are passed by Obama will be null and void, because he is not a “natural born citizen”, and hence is constitutionally ineligible to be President.
Dr. Vieira, who holds 4 degrees from Harvard goes on to say that” indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes,” if, in fact he is a “usurper.”
