“Insider Threat Program”: How the White House is keeping federal workers quiet (YIKES!)

Hot Air ^ | June 21,2013

[SvenMagnussen]

“Is Sven a whistleblower ?”

I’m a patriot. It’s unconstitutional to be a naturalized U.S. Citizen and occupy the Office of the President of the United States.

Obama’s NUMIDENT file with SSA will prove Obama filed for a SSN as a permanent resident alien living in America from 1971 to 1983. Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization with DHS will prove he naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983.

To expose these documents, allegations must be made in a Federal lawsuit Obama naturalized in 1983 and was a foreign national living in America with Indonesian nationality from 1971 to 1983. If Obama bothers to formally deny the allegations, the documents are subpoenaed.

If the custodian of these records deny they exist or testify in a deposition they cannot be found, then the plaintiff informs the defense and the Court a rebuttal witness will be called at trial. As Obots and ConcernedFreepers loudly demand the rebuttal witness be named and his/her evidenced posted on the internet, the plaintiff informs them the rebuttal witness will truthfully testify at trail and attest to Obama’s ineligibility.

Imagine a video of Obama stating the loyalty oath at a naturalization ceremony in 1983 a few minutes after he swears under oath he did not naturalize in 1983. Imagine a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization entered into evidence right after Janet Napolitano testifies Obama’s naturalization papers cannot be found.

[cynwoody]

Here you go. At the bottom of Page 10.

Army Echoes

Interesting.

Did You Know? Retired Soldiers and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
WASHINGTON — Have you ever heard a retired Soldier say, “They can’t touch me now; I’ve retired.”? Fortunately, for the sake of military justice, this is not true when it comes to retired Soldiers who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while they were on active duty or in a retired status.

Under Article 2 of the UCMJ, the Army maintains court-martial jurisdiction over retired personnel. Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, states “Retired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ . . . and may be tried by court-martial for violations of the UCMJ that occurred while they were on active duty or while in a retired status.” Department of the Army policy, however, does limit these trials to cases where extraordinary circumstances are present. The Army normally declines to prosecute retired Soldiers unless their crimes have clear ties to the military, or are clearly service discrediting. If necessary to facilitate courts-martial action, retired Soldiers may be ordered to active duty.

The regulation adds that “Retired Reserve Component Soldiers are subject to recall to active duty for the investigation of UCMJ offenses they are alleged to have committed while in a Title 10 duty status, for trial by court-martial, or for proceedings under UCMJ, Article 15.” Forfeitures imposed under the UCMJ, Article 15 may even be applied against a Soldier’s retired pay.

Who ordered them to bring the issue up?