6 hours ago
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
American Jews Turn Against AKA Obama
Jews Turn Against Obama
Apr 28, 2010
In a stunning turnaround, President Obama has lost roughly half of his support among Jewish voters. A poll by McLaughlin and Associates found that, while 78 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Obama, only 42 percent of Jewish voters would vote to re-elect him....
CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL STORY
From email: newsletter@greenwatchamerica.net
Michael Mann is the creator of the infamous "hockey stick graph," which purported to show a dramatic increase in global temperatures over the last 100 years but has been thoroughly debunked by a number of scientists. Before his fall from grace, he was one of the most important climate scientists in the world. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Professor Mann threatened to sue the creators of a YouTube video called "Hide the Decline" and demanded that the video (which can be seen here) be removed from YouTube. As Marc Morano of Climate Depot points out, "Michael Mann was a top U.N. scientist who is now in 2010 spending his time worrying about YouTube videos."
Maybe Morano is spending so much time on YouTube because he can't deal with the dramatic collapse of the Radical Green Agenda over the last few years. In Australia, once the forefront of the global warming battle, the prime minister shelved his proposed cap-and-trade legislation as he watched support for both the bill and him plummet.
Lawrence Solomon, author of the Deniers (now in paperback), has more:
"His once popular plans to cut back emissions by 5% by 2020, which were scheduled to begin next year, have been twice rejected by Australia’s Senate faced certain defeat in a third vote that was expected in several weeks.
"Once the darling of the environmental movement, Rudd is now widely seen as ineffectual. A poll commissioned by the Climate Institute and the Conservation Foundation found that just 36% of voters saw Rudd as the best person to handle climate issues, and that 40% found no difference between his Labour government and opposition conservatives."
Polling of this nature has shown up all across the world as the case for global warming broke down and more doubts cast upon the science and the politics. Actions like Mann's will only make it worse. It appears that he's trying to suppress dissent. The public has had enough of that.
Professor Mann threatened to sue the creators of a YouTube video called "Hide the Decline" and demanded that the video (which can be seen here) be removed from YouTube. As Marc Morano of Climate Depot points out, "Michael Mann was a top U.N. scientist who is now in 2010 spending his time worrying about YouTube videos."
Maybe Morano is spending so much time on YouTube because he can't deal with the dramatic collapse of the Radical Green Agenda over the last few years. In Australia, once the forefront of the global warming battle, the prime minister shelved his proposed cap-and-trade legislation as he watched support for both the bill and him plummet.
Lawrence Solomon, author of the Deniers (now in paperback), has more:
"His once popular plans to cut back emissions by 5% by 2020, which were scheduled to begin next year, have been twice rejected by Australia’s Senate faced certain defeat in a third vote that was expected in several weeks.
"Once the darling of the environmental movement, Rudd is now widely seen as ineffectual. A poll commissioned by the Climate Institute and the Conservation Foundation found that just 36% of voters saw Rudd as the best person to handle climate issues, and that 40% found no difference between his Labour government and opposition conservatives."
Polling of this nature has shown up all across the world as the case for global warming broke down and more doubts cast upon the science and the politics. Actions like Mann's will only make it worse. It appears that he's trying to suppress dissent. The public has had enough of that.
New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead
by Anthony G. Martin
A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.
The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network--a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.
Hagmann's investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.
For example, neither of Obama's parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. (editors note: several people have called my attention to this previous sentence. I think the author was calling attention to the fact that Obama's assumed mother, Stanly Ann Dunham, was too young to confer citizenship upon her son. Mr. Martin can be reached here: http://www.thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/) Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a 'natural born citizen' according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.
But Hagmann's investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama's status or citizenship:
the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”
In other words, the 'certification of live birth' as touted by Obama apologists and the mainstream media as 'proof' Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution actually proves nothing.
In addition, Hagmann disputes the notion that birth announcements in local Hawaiian newspapers provide proof:
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
However, the key information in Hagmann's report that casts doubts upon Obama's eligibility is the fact that the very organizations that published the short-form certificate of live birth and the 2 birth announcements in newspapers have direct connections with Barack Obama.
The DailyKos is the primary suspect and the first entity to publish 'proof' of a birth certificate. The DailyKos is an ultra-Leftwing hate-group that not only is 'in the tank' for Obama but smears and seeks to destroy those who oppose extremist, Leftwing initiatives in politics.
'Fight the Smears,' which also pointed to these 2 erroneous pieces of 'evidence,' is owned by 'Organizing for America,' which was originally named 'Obama for America.' This speaks for itself.
And finally, there is the much-hallowed 'Factcheck.org'--supposedly an independent, non-partisan clearinghouse that separates truth from fiction in the media and on the Internet. Hagmann's investigation reveals that Factcheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation.
Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and past President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Thus, the supposed 'neutrality' of Factcheck.org can safely be called into question.
The bottom line is that so far absolutely no positive proof has been provided that establishes that Barack Obama was born on American soil.
Why is this important? An individual who would spend millions of dollars hiding his background and pertinent documents from the public, and who would make false statements about about his history, cannot be trusted to tell the American people the truth about what his policy initiatives are intended to do regarding the 'fundamental change' of America.
A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.
The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network--a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.
Hagmann's investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.
For example, neither of Obama's parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. (editors note: several people have called my attention to this previous sentence. I think the author was calling attention to the fact that Obama's assumed mother, Stanly Ann Dunham, was too young to confer citizenship upon her son. Mr. Martin can be reached here: http://www.thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/) Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a 'natural born citizen' according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.
But Hagmann's investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama's status or citizenship:
the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”
In other words, the 'certification of live birth' as touted by Obama apologists and the mainstream media as 'proof' Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution actually proves nothing.
In addition, Hagmann disputes the notion that birth announcements in local Hawaiian newspapers provide proof:
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
However, the key information in Hagmann's report that casts doubts upon Obama's eligibility is the fact that the very organizations that published the short-form certificate of live birth and the 2 birth announcements in newspapers have direct connections with Barack Obama.
The DailyKos is the primary suspect and the first entity to publish 'proof' of a birth certificate. The DailyKos is an ultra-Leftwing hate-group that not only is 'in the tank' for Obama but smears and seeks to destroy those who oppose extremist, Leftwing initiatives in politics.
'Fight the Smears,' which also pointed to these 2 erroneous pieces of 'evidence,' is owned by 'Organizing for America,' which was originally named 'Obama for America.' This speaks for itself.
And finally, there is the much-hallowed 'Factcheck.org'--supposedly an independent, non-partisan clearinghouse that separates truth from fiction in the media and on the Internet. Hagmann's investigation reveals that Factcheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation.
Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and past President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Thus, the supposed 'neutrality' of Factcheck.org can safely be called into question.
The bottom line is that so far absolutely no positive proof has been provided that establishes that Barack Obama was born on American soil.
Why is this important? An individual who would spend millions of dollars hiding his background and pertinent documents from the public, and who would make false statements about about his history, cannot be trusted to tell the American people the truth about what his policy initiatives are intended to do regarding the 'fundamental change' of America.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point"
Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point''He has right to discovery. Producing birth certificate is very important'
By Chelsea Schilling
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely
A retired Army general and national-security-policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point" and should use his "right to discovery" to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born-citizenship status.
In an interview with Evil Conservative Radio, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I'm not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen]."
Vallely, CEO of Stand Up America U.S., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving 32 years.
He said he inspected his own long-form birth certificate, and it contains a doctor's name, date and location of birth.
"But he's never been able to produce that," he said of Obama. "His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don't know why he won't come out with that."
Full Story Here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=144481
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Obama inviting attack - Poll
Did We Elect a Beta Male As President?
Weakness Invites Aggression
Overwhelmingly, Americans see Obama inviting attack
1st scientific survey on WMD response shows most believe terror more likely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Some 200 million-plus Americans – almost two of three in a new poll – believe the United States is more likely to be targeted in an attack – either by a hostile military or a terrorist organization – because of the policies of President Barack Obama.
A majority also disagree with his newly announced policy against using nuclear weapons against those nations or groups that would attack the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
President Obama bowing to Japan's emperor
Citing the possibility of either a terrorist attack or a military assault on the U.S. shores, the poll, the first national assessment to address the issue, asked, "Do you think the current policies of the Obama administration are making it more or less likely that the U.S. will suffer such an attack?"
Forty-six percent responded much more likely and another 13.6 percent what somewhat more likely. Only about 28 percent said somewhat less likely or much less likely.
Even a combined 28 percent of Democrats conceded an attack was somewhat more or much more likely. Those categories included more than 92 percent of Republicans and more than 60 percent of Independents.
FULL STORY: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143673
Weakness Invites Aggression
Overwhelmingly, Americans see Obama inviting attack
1st scientific survey on WMD response shows most believe terror more likely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Some 200 million-plus Americans – almost two of three in a new poll – believe the United States is more likely to be targeted in an attack – either by a hostile military or a terrorist organization – because of the policies of President Barack Obama.
A majority also disagree with his newly announced policy against using nuclear weapons against those nations or groups that would attack the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
President Obama bowing to Japan's emperor
Citing the possibility of either a terrorist attack or a military assault on the U.S. shores, the poll, the first national assessment to address the issue, asked, "Do you think the current policies of the Obama administration are making it more or less likely that the U.S. will suffer such an attack?"
Forty-six percent responded much more likely and another 13.6 percent what somewhat more likely. Only about 28 percent said somewhat less likely or much less likely.
Even a combined 28 percent of Democrats conceded an attack was somewhat more or much more likely. Those categories included more than 92 percent of Republicans and more than 60 percent of Independents.
FULL STORY: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143673
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
States press for AKA Obama eligibility laws
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36162.html
Posey defends 'birther' bill
By: David Mark
April 21, 2010 03:36 PM EDT
The House sponsor of legislation that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate is praising a similar Arizona measure, which is drawing condemnation from one of George W. Bush’s former White House press secretaries. Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), sponsor of the House bill, which has attracted 11 co-sponsors, said an Arizona House-passed measure would help clarify murky guidelines about presidential eligibility. The measure, adopted 31-22 earlier this week as part of a separate bill, would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for re-election. It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. “Implementing these standards through legislation, which are listed in the Constitution, will help put to rest any future controversies surrounding presidential eligibility," Posey said in a Q&A for POLITICO’s Arena forum. Posey has suggested his birth certificate legislation is not aimed at Obama specifically. And, on Wednesday, he said the legislation would have also clarified whether Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, would have been eligible to serve had he been elected. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, considered U.S. territory at the time. “It’s not surprising that Arizona is the first state to pass this, given that the news media first raised issues about McCain’s eligibility,” Posey said. “Birther” questions about the Hawaiian-born president have been a source of persistent conspiracy theories since the start of the 2008 presidential campaign, with Democrats denouncing all such questions as efforts to undermine Obama’s legitimacy. The Arizona birth certificate legislation has drawn ridicule among Democrats there. It passed the state House within days of another measure that would require police to stop anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Coupled with the immigration measure, Democratic state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said the “birther” bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.” In Arena Wednesday, former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino criticized both proposals. “I understand that Arizonans are frustrated with the level of illegal immigration and, at the same time, I can’t imagine that we're going to allow police to stop people on the streets and demand their papers” Perino wrote. “Stronger enforcement is key, but this seems a bridge too far. And the birther decision is a bridge even farther and should be rescinded.”
Debate this story in the Arena.
Posey defends 'birther' bill
By: David Mark
April 21, 2010 03:36 PM EDT
The House sponsor of legislation that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate is praising a similar Arizona measure, which is drawing condemnation from one of George W. Bush’s former White House press secretaries. Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), sponsor of the House bill, which has attracted 11 co-sponsors, said an Arizona House-passed measure would help clarify murky guidelines about presidential eligibility. The measure, adopted 31-22 earlier this week as part of a separate bill, would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for re-election. It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. “Implementing these standards through legislation, which are listed in the Constitution, will help put to rest any future controversies surrounding presidential eligibility," Posey said in a Q&A for POLITICO’s Arena forum. Posey has suggested his birth certificate legislation is not aimed at Obama specifically. And, on Wednesday, he said the legislation would have also clarified whether Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, would have been eligible to serve had he been elected. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, considered U.S. territory at the time. “It’s not surprising that Arizona is the first state to pass this, given that the news media first raised issues about McCain’s eligibility,” Posey said. “Birther” questions about the Hawaiian-born president have been a source of persistent conspiracy theories since the start of the 2008 presidential campaign, with Democrats denouncing all such questions as efforts to undermine Obama’s legitimacy. The Arizona birth certificate legislation has drawn ridicule among Democrats there. It passed the state House within days of another measure that would require police to stop anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Coupled with the immigration measure, Democratic state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said the “birther” bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.” In Arena Wednesday, former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino criticized both proposals. “I understand that Arizonans are frustrated with the level of illegal immigration and, at the same time, I can’t imagine that we're going to allow police to stop people on the streets and demand their papers” Perino wrote. “Stronger enforcement is key, but this seems a bridge too far. And the birther decision is a bridge even farther and should be rescinded.”
Debate this story in the Arena.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Lakin to push discovery! - Approaching AKA Obama apocalypse: Will Obama docs surface?
How to obtain a copy of Obama's original long-form birth certificate, legallyDoes this give anyone any ideas?
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility.
Remember Patriots, the case against Barack Hussein Obama will be over in Discovery, therefore, let us commence with Our Discovery of the Truth regarding the suspect commonly known to us Citizens as Barack Hussein Obama of unknown Citizenship, Allegiance and Alliances.
Commander Fitzpatrick was hoping to be arrested so as to lead to ‘discovery’' All we need is for just ONE honest and patriotic judge, anywhere in these 50 United States, to order DISCOVERY!
below excerpt from : Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s Back
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts, both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Full Story Here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143213
Approaching apocalypse: Will Obama docs surface?
I'm not going to say what we are going to do other than we are going to do what you would want us to do," Jensen said.
He specifically avoided broadcasting any specific defense strategy for the case that is developing against Lakin – confirming that the officer was told in writing on Monday that he now has been "flagged" by the military and charges are expected to be filed soon.
But he expressed confidence that there will be an aggressive discovery phase in preparation for a defense of any charges that could be filed.
"Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case," he said.
"It would shocking to me that a defendant ... would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case]," he said.
Cover Ups Always Backfire - Obama is Ineligible for Office
Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office
By JB Williams
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.
This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…
This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…
Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.
Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…
The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.
The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.
Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…
Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.
Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.
Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.
No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?
How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?
And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?
The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident.
Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.
Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.
DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.
They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…
The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.
The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.
I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.
But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.
The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?
Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.
What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office
By JB Williams
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.
This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…
This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…
Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.
Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…
The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.
The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.
Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…
Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.
Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.
Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.
No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?
How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?
And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?
The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident.
Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.
Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.
DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.
They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…
The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.
The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.
I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.
But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.
The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?
Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.
What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221
Monday, April 19, 2010
The People and Their Government - Pew Research
By almost every measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government today. A new series of surveys provides a detailed picture of the public's opinions about government.
View an interactive graphic charting trust and other opinion and economic data back to 1958.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Conservatives are enemies of the government. Liberals are enemies of the nation because they are not enemies of the government."
Aristotle the Hun
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Obama Delusion Syndrome
Obama Delusion Syndrome
Kevin McCullough
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Few things are less tasteful than arrogance amongst the empowered. Few things are sillier than believing one's own praise. Few people are more misguided than those who teach false doctrine, and few pose more danger than those who willfully deceive in order to gain power.
On all four points President Obama stands head and shoulders above us all.
It seems, however, that he saves his ugliest bit of guile, disdain, and self-exultation for when he is forced to deal with "We The People." For as much as he would like to believe it to be the case, he is not higher than us, but rather our servant. And though he bristles at the notion that anyone should be allowed to instruct his behavior or review his job performance, in November of this year the voters of America will do both.
Full Article Here
Kevin McCullough
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Few things are less tasteful than arrogance amongst the empowered. Few things are sillier than believing one's own praise. Few people are more misguided than those who teach false doctrine, and few pose more danger than those who willfully deceive in order to gain power.
On all four points President Obama stands head and shoulders above us all.
It seems, however, that he saves his ugliest bit of guile, disdain, and self-exultation for when he is forced to deal with "We The People." For as much as he would like to believe it to be the case, he is not higher than us, but rather our servant. And though he bristles at the notion that anyone should be allowed to instruct his behavior or review his job performance, in November of this year the voters of America will do both.
Full Article Here
Military Notebook: Support for Obama weak in troop poll
THOMAS L. DAY - tday@macon.com Sign up for daily e-mail news alerts
Results released last week of a survey of military service members, conducted by Military Times, showed weak support for President Obama among the troops he commands.
Just 36 percent of the service members who were surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan, well below the general public’s approval of Obama’s performance in Afghanistan.
Nearly half of the active duty service members in the survey called themselves conservative, while only 8 percent called themselves liberal.
Only 12 percent of service members surveyed by the Military Times identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 41 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.
Of note is how many troops don’t identify themselves with either party. A similar survey conducted in 2004 showed that 60 percent of military service members identified themselves as Republicans, with 12 percent calling themselves Democrats.
Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/04/18/1097959/poll-of-troops-support-for-obama.html#ixzz0lUZQGeOb
THOMAS L. DAY - tday@macon.com Sign up for daily e-mail news alerts
Results released last week of a survey of military service members, conducted by Military Times, showed weak support for President Obama among the troops he commands.
Just 36 percent of the service members who were surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan, well below the general public’s approval of Obama’s performance in Afghanistan.
Nearly half of the active duty service members in the survey called themselves conservative, while only 8 percent called themselves liberal.
Only 12 percent of service members surveyed by the Military Times identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 41 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.
Of note is how many troops don’t identify themselves with either party. A similar survey conducted in 2004 showed that 60 percent of military service members identified themselves as Republicans, with 12 percent calling themselves Democrats.
Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/04/18/1097959/poll-of-troops-support-for-obama.html#ixzz0lUZQGeOb
Arlen Williams is a straight shooting thorough researcher and anything he writes is worth reading. Arlen is also the founder of Investigating Obama
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BarackObama.com admits his aim of Marxist financial market 'control'
By Arlen Williams
Come read an email from "Organizing for America," the Democratic National Committee, and Barack Obama. In it you will see a confession: their new financial regulatory initiative seeks to "control" the entire derivatives market.In other words, barackobama.com admits their aim is Marxist. Feel free to read the entire email, to find the key phrase. Or, below that, I show the phrase, with closing comments.
Subject: A presidential vetoSaturday, April 17, 2010 11:42 PMFrom: "Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com"To: "Arlen Williams"Arlen —President Obama means business.He's committed his administration to reining in Wall Street and creating the strongest consumer protections in history. And on Friday he made it clear that we can't allow another devastating financial crisis — so he'll veto any reform bill that doesn't bring the derivatives market under control.But the Senate could begin debate as soon as this week, and Republican leaders are teaming up with Wall Street lobbyists to defeat the bill — so the President needs your help to show that the American people stand with him on Wall Street reform:http://my.barackobama.com/StandForWallStreetReform
Thanks,MitchP.S. — Don't miss the President's message from Friday below.— Original Message —From: Barack ObamaSubject: Wall Street reformFriend —It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of our entire financial system that cost the nation more than 8 million jobs. To this day, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet.We've made strides — businesses are starting to hire, Americans are finding jobs, and neighbors who had given up looking are returning to the job market with new hope. But the flaws in our financial system that led to this crisis remain unresolved.Wall Street titans still recklessly speculate with borrowed money. Big banks and credit card companies stack the deck to earn millions while far too many middle-class families, who have done everything right, can barely pay their bills or save for a better future.We cannot delay action any longer. It is time to hold the big banks accountable to the people they serve, establish the strongest consumer protections in our nation's history — and ensure that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out big banks because they are "too big to fail."That is what Wall Street reform will achieve, why I am so committed to making it happen, and why I'm asking for your help today.Please stand with me to show your support for Wall Street reform.We know that without enforceable, commonsense rules to check abuse and protect families, markets are not truly free. Wall Street reform will foster a strong and vibrant financial sector so that businesses can get loans; families can afford mortgages; entrepreneurs can find the capital to start a new company, sell a new product, or offer a new service.Consumer financial protections are currently spread across seven different government agencies. Wall Street reform will create one single Consumer Financial Protection Agency — tasked with preventing predatory practices and making sure you get the clear information, not fine print, needed to avoid ballooning mortgage payments or credit card rate hikes.Reform will provide crucial new oversight, give shareholders a say on salaries and bonuses, and create new tools to break up failing financial firms so that taxpayers aren't forced into another unfair bailout. And reform will keep our economy secure by ensuring that no single firm can bring down the whole financial system.With so much at stake, it is not surprising that allies of the big banks and Wall Street lenders have already launched a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to fight these changes. Arm-twisting lobbyists are already storming Capitol Hill, seeking to undermine the strong bipartisan foundation of reform with loopholes and exemptions for the most egregious abusers of consumers.I won't accept anything short of the full protection that our citizens deserve and our economy needs. It's a fight worth having, and it is a fight we can win — if we stand up and speak out together.So I'm asking you to join me, starting today, by adding your name as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform:http://my.barackobama.com/StandForWallStreetReformThank you,President Barack Obama
Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Did you notice the confession? It comes before the deceptive, slipstream propaganda of Barack Obama's "PS." It is not just that he labels opposition, in true Marxofascist agitprop, as coming from "big banks and Wall Street lenders," in Obama's terms, out to protect "egregious abusers of consumers."No. It lays wide open for all to read, in the third sentence of this email. I will emphasize the words: "And on Friday he made it clear that we can't allow another devastating financial crisis — so he'll veto any reform bill that doesn't bring the derivatives market under control."To control a market under government is the essential nature of Communism. It could be regarded as even more extreme than Fascism. And now, you have seen it from the perpetrators, themselves.What is a clearer admission of Barack Obama's Marxism than this?The governmental control involved in this legislation is currently being explained by others. In this humble article, the admission by Obama's personnel is left to speak for itself. Someone who believes in American political philosophy does not speak of "bringing" a market "under control." The most severe word is "regulation," which is far different. Authentic American regulation seeks to allow the market to function freely by preventing it from being controlled, or grossly manipulated or dominated.Feel very free to show this to your neighbors, the media, and your members of Congress. — AW© Arlen Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BarackObama.com admits his aim of Marxist financial market 'control'
By Arlen Williams
Come read an email from "Organizing for America," the Democratic National Committee, and Barack Obama. In it you will see a confession: their new financial regulatory initiative seeks to "control" the entire derivatives market.In other words, barackobama.com admits their aim is Marxist. Feel free to read the entire email, to find the key phrase. Or, below that, I show the phrase, with closing comments.
Subject: A presidential vetoSaturday, April 17, 2010 11:42 PMFrom: "Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com"To: "Arlen Williams"Arlen —President Obama means business.He's committed his administration to reining in Wall Street and creating the strongest consumer protections in history. And on Friday he made it clear that we can't allow another devastating financial crisis — so he'll veto any reform bill that doesn't bring the derivatives market under control.But the Senate could begin debate as soon as this week, and Republican leaders are teaming up with Wall Street lobbyists to defeat the bill — so the President needs your help to show that the American people stand with him on Wall Street reform:http://my.barackobama.com/StandForWallStreetReform
Thanks,MitchP.S. — Don't miss the President's message from Friday below.— Original Message —From: Barack ObamaSubject: Wall Street reformFriend —It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of our entire financial system that cost the nation more than 8 million jobs. To this day, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet.We've made strides — businesses are starting to hire, Americans are finding jobs, and neighbors who had given up looking are returning to the job market with new hope. But the flaws in our financial system that led to this crisis remain unresolved.Wall Street titans still recklessly speculate with borrowed money. Big banks and credit card companies stack the deck to earn millions while far too many middle-class families, who have done everything right, can barely pay their bills or save for a better future.We cannot delay action any longer. It is time to hold the big banks accountable to the people they serve, establish the strongest consumer protections in our nation's history — and ensure that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out big banks because they are "too big to fail."That is what Wall Street reform will achieve, why I am so committed to making it happen, and why I'm asking for your help today.Please stand with me to show your support for Wall Street reform.We know that without enforceable, commonsense rules to check abuse and protect families, markets are not truly free. Wall Street reform will foster a strong and vibrant financial sector so that businesses can get loans; families can afford mortgages; entrepreneurs can find the capital to start a new company, sell a new product, or offer a new service.Consumer financial protections are currently spread across seven different government agencies. Wall Street reform will create one single Consumer Financial Protection Agency — tasked with preventing predatory practices and making sure you get the clear information, not fine print, needed to avoid ballooning mortgage payments or credit card rate hikes.Reform will provide crucial new oversight, give shareholders a say on salaries and bonuses, and create new tools to break up failing financial firms so that taxpayers aren't forced into another unfair bailout. And reform will keep our economy secure by ensuring that no single firm can bring down the whole financial system.With so much at stake, it is not surprising that allies of the big banks and Wall Street lenders have already launched a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to fight these changes. Arm-twisting lobbyists are already storming Capitol Hill, seeking to undermine the strong bipartisan foundation of reform with loopholes and exemptions for the most egregious abusers of consumers.I won't accept anything short of the full protection that our citizens deserve and our economy needs. It's a fight worth having, and it is a fight we can win — if we stand up and speak out together.So I'm asking you to join me, starting today, by adding your name as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform:http://my.barackobama.com/StandForWallStreetReformThank you,President Barack Obama
Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Did you notice the confession? It comes before the deceptive, slipstream propaganda of Barack Obama's "PS." It is not just that he labels opposition, in true Marxofascist agitprop, as coming from "big banks and Wall Street lenders," in Obama's terms, out to protect "egregious abusers of consumers."No. It lays wide open for all to read, in the third sentence of this email. I will emphasize the words: "And on Friday he made it clear that we can't allow another devastating financial crisis — so he'll veto any reform bill that doesn't bring the derivatives market under control."To control a market under government is the essential nature of Communism. It could be regarded as even more extreme than Fascism. And now, you have seen it from the perpetrators, themselves.What is a clearer admission of Barack Obama's Marxism than this?The governmental control involved in this legislation is currently being explained by others. In this humble article, the admission by Obama's personnel is left to speak for itself. Someone who believes in American political philosophy does not speak of "bringing" a market "under control." The most severe word is "regulation," which is far different. Authentic American regulation seeks to allow the market to function freely by preventing it from being controlled, or grossly manipulated or dominated.Feel very free to show this to your neighbors, the media, and your members of Congress. — AW© Arlen Williams
Thorium Reactors Outperform Uranium Reactors
Photo: Thomas Hannich
The thick hardbound volume was sitting on a shelf in a colleague’s office when Kirk Sorensen spotted it. A rookie NASA engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Sorensen was researching nuclear-powered propulsion, and the book’s title — Fluid Fuel Reactors — jumped out at him. He picked it up and thumbed through it. Hours later, he was still reading, enchanted by the ideas but struggling with the arcane writing. “I took it home that night, but I didn’t understand all the nuclear terminology,” Sorensen says. He pored over it in the coming months, ultimately deciding that he held in his hands the key to the world’s energy future.
Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.
At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker’s build and a marine’s crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.
Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.
Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.
And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.
The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.
Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.
Named for the Norse god of thunder, thorium is a lustrous silvery-white metal. It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm. On the periodic table of elements, it’s found in the bottom row, along with other dense, radioactive substances — including uranium and plutonium — known as actinides.
Actinides are dense because their nuclei contain large numbers of neutrons and protons. But it’s the strange behavior of those nuclei that has long made actinides the stuff of wonder. At intervals that can vary from every millisecond to every hundred thousand years, actinides spin off particles and decay into more stable elements. And if you pack together enough of certain actinide atoms, their nuclei will erupt in a powerful release of energy.
To understand the magic and terror of those two processes working in concert, think of a game of pool played in 3-D. The nucleus of the atom is a group of balls, or particles, racked at the center. Shoot the cue ball — a stray neutron — and the cluster breaks apart, or fissions. Now imagine the same game played with trillions of racked nuclei. Balls propelled by the first collision crash into nearby clusters, which fly apart, their stray neutrons colliding with yet more clusters. Voilè0: a nuclear chain reaction.
Actinides are the only materials that split apart this way, and if the collisions are uncontrolled, you unleash hell: a nuclear explosion. But if you can control the conditions in which these reactions happen — by both controlling the number of stray neutrons and regulating the temperature, as is done in the core of a nuclear reactor — you get useful energy. Racks of these nuclei crash together, creating a hot glowing pile of radioactive material. If you pump water past the material, the water turns to steam, which can spin a turbine to make electricity.
Uranium is currently the actinide of choice for the industry, used (sometimes with a little plutonium) in 100 percent of the world’s commercial reactors. But it’s a problematic fuel. In most reactors, sustaining a chain reaction requires extremely rare uranium-235, which must be purified, or enriched, from far more common U-238. The reactors also leave behind plutonium-239, itself radioactive (and useful to technologically sophisticated organizations bent on making bombs). And conventional uranium-fueled reactors require lots of engineering, including neutron-absorbing control rods to damp the reaction and gargantuan pressurized vessels to move water through the reactor core. If something goes kerflooey, the surrounding countryside gets blanketed with radioactivity (think Chernobyl). Even if things go well, toxic waste is left over.
When he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.
Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.
In 1965, Weinberg and his team built a working reactor, one that suspended the byproducts of thorium in a molten salt bath, and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.
That proved to be “the most pivotal year in energy history,” according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Samuel Speaks By Scribe Orrin
If a book started out like this would you continue to read?
**********************
Samuel Speaks
By Scribe Orrin
By Scribe Orrin
Preface
There are three main characters in this book. The first character is Samuel, who is fictional; or perhaps I should say intangible. The second, Sam, is an old friend and the most fascinating man I have ever known. The third person is me, Scribe Orrin, the storyteller.
Samuel is an intangible manifestation of the ancient Hebrew leader and Prophet, from back before Israel became a nation. I am not bold enough to declare that Samuel is fictional. Certainly he seems real to Sam, the modern day man whom I have known since the days when his mother called him Sammy.
Sam, after he survived a heart attack in his mid sixties, became aware that the Spirit of the Prophet Samuel had been revealing himself during Sam’s entire life. Since Sam has always been “brilliant and eccentric” his sanity was questioned by some, but when his life is more fully examined he proves to be as “sane” as anyone else. Something very unusual was happening with Sam, but it wasn’t mental illness.
You will learn more about me, Scribe Orrin, as we go along.
Introduction
My most vivid, early recollection of Sam occurred just before the beginning of second grade when we were both seven years old. We were gloriously discovering adventure, summer, and the wonder of living in the “now.” We were walking along a gravel road kicking rocks when Sammy just announced, “God is in those rocks. God is in you and me and the rocks and the sky and Mom and Dad. God is in everything. That is why everything is Holy.” I also remember thinking that kicking rocks that were Holy was a lot more gratifying than kicking ordinary rocks.
I knew Sammy had just shared a profound idea with me. I didn’t understand it. I still need to think about it from time to time. But, somehow I knew I needed to write it down. I showed Sammy what I had written, to make sure that my pre-second grade printing had the right words. He was pleased and went on to explain that he hadn’t planed to say those words. “Some times I hear ideas for the first time when they come out of my own mouth. Some times I don’t remember what I said. It is good that you wrote down ‘The Words’.”
That is how our roles were established, while we were still children. Eventually Sammy became Sam, and I went from being Sammy’s childhood friend to the depersonalized generic; ‘Scribe Orrin’, Sam and I both seemed to know that the thoughts which came to him were important.
I have spent 60 years of my life collecting ‘The Words’. Over the years I have sensed a growing conviction that “Samuel Speaks”needed to be published for the world to hear.
So, here is that collection of truths that have been entrusted to my charge. Woven in between ‘The Words’ is the personal story of Sam and Scribe Orrin.
Exerpt from the forthcoming book "Samuel Speaks".
Poll Summary - Rasmussen sample of likely voters
In America, 66% of voters nationwide believe the nation is overtaxed.
Most voters believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and tax hikes are bad.
Most voters believe the new health care law will lead to higher middle class taxes.
That's one reason most voters support repeal of that law.
Most voters believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and tax hikes are bad.
Most voters believe the new health care law will lead to higher middle class taxes.
That's one reason most voters support repeal of that law.
Doubts about AKA Obama spread - video
Illinois Mayor Expresses Doubts About Obama’s Citizenship
My "out on a limb" prediction from Friday, January 22, 2010:
IF this trend of AKA Obama's approval numbers falling continues, a prominent person (media or political) will endorse the investigation of AKA Obama's hidden personal history.
For a full report on this issue see:
The only conspiracy is the media and the obots who suppress the revelation of AKA Obama's history. Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
Poll Results
Factoring in only half of the 12% who did not say "yes or "no".. means that at least 65% of those voting in the NEW YORK Daily News poll said that the issue is NOT answered/Obama needs to show his birth certificate.
A mere 29% (and sinking) said he was born in Hawaii.
AND that is totally astounding in the NEW YORK market/region.
Do you feel the conspiracy theory of President Obama's birth has been settled, or remains unanswered?
Settled - Evidence clearly shows he was born in Hawaii.
28%
Unanswered - Obama needs to show the world his birth certificate.
59%
People either believe it or they don't, nothing will change their minds at this point.
12%
According to a Military Times survey, 6 out of 10 U.S. Soldiers are “pessimistic” or “uncertain” that Barack Obama is eligible to serve as Commander In Chief of America’s armed forces.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/
Another recent survey found that nearly one in three Americans said they believed that President Obama was not born in this country. The most vocal of those who question the President's eligibility under this clause have been derisively labeled “birthers” by many in the mainstream media. However, this group of critics actually encompasses several different theories. Some critics believe the president is a British subject, while others believe he was born in Kenya. The third group states they do not know, they merely want to see proof of the President’s US citizenship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/06/10000-challenge-to-maddow.html
$10,000 Challenge to Maddow
AKA Obama - $100,000 Offered For Proof Of Eligibility
Ok, Obots, prove your propaganda is true and get rich.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/02/aka-obama-100000-offered-for-proof-of.html
These offers are very safe. There is not Long Form Birth Certificate fo AKA Obama, thus no one can collect the prize money.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
I don’t doubt that Dr. Fukino is accurately reporting that the document she saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.“Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.
Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.
All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.
Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors not the least of these was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii.
Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth.
If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.”There is a small textural difference between COLBs issued to those who were born in hospitals with full documentation and those who were given Hawaiian birth status through an affidavit process:
And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBsAKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View
Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the "Vital Statistics of the United States.Here is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth used by all states including Hawaii., This is the information being hidden by Obama.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank-birth-certificate-form-aka-obama.htmlPlus read the article that is included with the blank copy.
Here is what a real Hawaiian Birth Certificate looks like:http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-faces-fellow-hawaiian-with-real.html
Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born"? http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-from-obama-file-one-of-best.html
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?
The only conspiracy is the media and the obots who suppress the revelation of AKA Obama's historyObama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, April 16, 2010
How the Media Lied about AKA Obama’s Birth Records
How the Media Lied about Obama’s Birth Records
Guest Column By Margaret Calhoun Hemenway April 16, 2010
Most people consider a birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a hospital and physician, or midwife, with a footprint or other unique identifiers. But the Obama campaign and today, the White House, refuses to allow Hawaii's Department of Health to release his original birth certificate.
Yet another military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, has publicly questioned whether the Commander-in-Chief is legal or not, and faces imminent court-martial for refusing to obey military orders until assured of the President's Constitutional eligibility.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, "mainstream" media confused the public over whether Obama ever released any real proof of his claim to being born in Hawaii. The confusion continues. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on February 20, 2009 that "The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online."
But Alter lied, since "the Obama campaign" never "actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online." Remarkably, no hospital in Hawaii yet lays definitive claim to be the birthplace of the sitting President.
On July 17, 2009 CNN's Kitty Pilgrim dissembled when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced "the original birth certificate" on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no statement by a doctor or midwife and no reference to any hospital. There is no probative evidence on this Certification that can be verified to see whether it is valid. There were no computer-generated COLBs in 1961, Obama's birth year.
Obama's original birth certificate (whether filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from this COLB on FactCheck.org. that Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Alter, and Olbermann waved around to try to quash the discussion. On the FactCheck.org website, the claim is made that "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." They only saw and touched the COLB. So FactCheck.org lied about this as well.
Why would Factcheck.org tell so obvious a lie and endanger the site's reputation? In August 21, 2008, when questions about the COLB began to reach critical mass and threatened to enter the public discourse, the mostly pro-Obama TV and newspaper/magazine media needed cover for their collective decision to ignore questions about whether Obama met qualifications for the Presidency set forth in Article II Section I of the Constitution. After Labor Day, swing voters would begin to pay attention to the campaign. With its lie about "how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate," FactCheck.org helped stifle the birth certificate debate.
Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by only one of Obama's parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or grandparents, would be enough to set up a birth record at the Department of Vital Statistics. This meager birth record would then automatically generate newspaper announcements, and also, a computer-generated COLB in 2008. When juxtaposed with statements by Obama's maternal grandmother, Kenya's Ambassador to the U.S, and now a Kenyan cabinet minister and Parliamentarian, that Obama was born in Kenya, calls for Obama to release his original birth certificate are wholly justified.
If Obama continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate, a reasonable person might assume he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital or at home with assistance of a doctor or midwife. This is especially true because if Obama was born in a foreign land, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it, given the prestige and benefits of American citizenship.
In 1961, if a 17-year-old American female gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not a U.S. citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the "natural born" citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. In 1961, the year of Obama's birth, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to her son.
If at birth, Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, he cannot be "natural-born." If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the Presidency.
LTC Lakin and other patriotic military officers should not face punishment or retribution for adhering to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and for seeking the truth about the President's Constitutional eligibility.
*Mrs. Hemenway is a friend of LTC Lakin. Her father-in-law filed one of the early eligibility lawsuits in federal court.
~~~~~~~
Read the whole story: Over 6,000 carefully vetted words!
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Guest Column By Margaret Calhoun Hemenway April 16, 2010
Most people consider a birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a hospital and physician, or midwife, with a footprint or other unique identifiers. But the Obama campaign and today, the White House, refuses to allow Hawaii's Department of Health to release his original birth certificate.
Yet another military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, has publicly questioned whether the Commander-in-Chief is legal or not, and faces imminent court-martial for refusing to obey military orders until assured of the President's Constitutional eligibility.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, "mainstream" media confused the public over whether Obama ever released any real proof of his claim to being born in Hawaii. The confusion continues. Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on February 20, 2009 that "The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online."
But Alter lied, since "the Obama campaign" never "actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online." Remarkably, no hospital in Hawaii yet lays definitive claim to be the birthplace of the sitting President.
On July 17, 2009 CNN's Kitty Pilgrim dissembled when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced "the original birth certificate" on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no statement by a doctor or midwife and no reference to any hospital. There is no probative evidence on this Certification that can be verified to see whether it is valid. There were no computer-generated COLBs in 1961, Obama's birth year.
Obama's original birth certificate (whether filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from this COLB on FactCheck.org. that Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Alter, and Olbermann waved around to try to quash the discussion. On the FactCheck.org website, the claim is made that "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." They only saw and touched the COLB. So FactCheck.org lied about this as well.
Why would Factcheck.org tell so obvious a lie and endanger the site's reputation? In August 21, 2008, when questions about the COLB began to reach critical mass and threatened to enter the public discourse, the mostly pro-Obama TV and newspaper/magazine media needed cover for their collective decision to ignore questions about whether Obama met qualifications for the Presidency set forth in Article II Section I of the Constitution. After Labor Day, swing voters would begin to pay attention to the campaign. With its lie about "how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate," FactCheck.org helped stifle the birth certificate debate.
Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by only one of Obama's parents (who could have been out of the country or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) or grandparents, would be enough to set up a birth record at the Department of Vital Statistics. This meager birth record would then automatically generate newspaper announcements, and also, a computer-generated COLB in 2008. When juxtaposed with statements by Obama's maternal grandmother, Kenya's Ambassador to the U.S, and now a Kenyan cabinet minister and Parliamentarian, that Obama was born in Kenya, calls for Obama to release his original birth certificate are wholly justified.
If Obama continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate, a reasonable person might assume he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital or at home with assistance of a doctor or midwife. This is especially true because if Obama was born in a foreign land, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it, given the prestige and benefits of American citizenship.
In 1961, if a 17-year-old American female gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not a U.S. citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the "natural born" citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. In 1961, the year of Obama's birth, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to her son.
If at birth, Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, he cannot be "natural-born." If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the Presidency.
LTC Lakin and other patriotic military officers should not face punishment or retribution for adhering to their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and for seeking the truth about the President's Constitutional eligibility.
*Mrs. Hemenway is a friend of LTC Lakin. Her father-in-law filed one of the early eligibility lawsuits in federal court.
~~~~~~~
Read the whole story: Over 6,000 carefully vetted words!
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Thursday, April 15, 2010
America's Top Universities not Ivy League but Military
Holy smokes! How in-the-Obama did the “elites” allow this to happen?
By William R. Mann Tuesday,
God is great!
It must have something to do with the kind of “C” & “D” students that are admitted to, and graduate from the Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, and Columbia and then go on to the White House or the Senate to bilk the public as ambulance-chasing politicians.
Ah, life is good at the top of the mountain!
I wonder if GEN David Petraeus has a job lined up for 2012 yet?
BEAT NAVY! HOOAH!
—WILLIAM R. MANN
West Point Ranked Top’s Again
Source: Hudson Valley Press On-line
CHUCK STEWART, JR.
August 15, 2009
WEST POINT – U.S. News & World Report announced their 2010 “ America’s Best Colleges” today and ranked West Point the “ Top Public Liberal Arts College .”
The U.S. Naval Academy was ranked #2.
West Point was also named the fourth-best “Undergraduate Engineering Program” ahead of both Navy (fifth) and the U.S. Air Force Academy (tied for sixth). Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Ind. , and Harvey Mudd College , Calif. , tied for the top spot.
In the Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs category, West Point was ranked #4 overall, slating our Civil Engineering Program #2, Mechanical #8 and Electrical tied-for #9.
The engineering rankings are based solely on a spring 2009 peer survey of deans and senior faculty that asked them to rate each program they are familiar with on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). West Point ’s average was 4.1.
Out of 266 liberal arts colleges that U.S. News categorized as awarding more than half of their degrees in the arts and sciences, West Point was listed as tied for #14-best Liberal Arts College overall, when combining both private and public colleges. Navy was #19. Williams College, Mass., was ranked #1.
Earlier this month, Forbes.com, “ America ’s Best Colleges,” ranked West Point as the “ Top College in the Country.”
By William R. Mann Tuesday,
God is great!
It must have something to do with the kind of “C” & “D” students that are admitted to, and graduate from the Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, and Columbia and then go on to the White House or the Senate to bilk the public as ambulance-chasing politicians.
Ah, life is good at the top of the mountain!
I wonder if GEN David Petraeus has a job lined up for 2012 yet?
BEAT NAVY! HOOAH!
—WILLIAM R. MANN
West Point Ranked Top’s Again
Source: Hudson Valley Press On-line
CHUCK STEWART, JR.
August 15, 2009
WEST POINT – U.S. News & World Report announced their 2010 “ America’s Best Colleges” today and ranked West Point the “ Top Public Liberal Arts College .”
The U.S. Naval Academy was ranked #2.
West Point was also named the fourth-best “Undergraduate Engineering Program” ahead of both Navy (fifth) and the U.S. Air Force Academy (tied for sixth). Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Ind. , and Harvey Mudd College , Calif. , tied for the top spot.
In the Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs category, West Point was ranked #4 overall, slating our Civil Engineering Program #2, Mechanical #8 and Electrical tied-for #9.
The engineering rankings are based solely on a spring 2009 peer survey of deans and senior faculty that asked them to rate each program they are familiar with on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). West Point ’s average was 4.1.
Out of 266 liberal arts colleges that U.S. News categorized as awarding more than half of their degrees in the arts and sciences, West Point was listed as tied for #14-best Liberal Arts College overall, when combining both private and public colleges. Navy was #19. Williams College, Mass., was ranked #1.
Earlier this month, Forbes.com, “ America ’s Best Colleges,” ranked West Point as the “ Top College in the Country.”
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Media Maligns Tea Party Movement - Study by Media Research Center
Study: Networks Snub, Malign Tea Party Movement
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010
By: Joseph Curl
The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots "tea party" surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Center.
"Rather than objectively document the rise and impact of this important grassroots movement, the 'news' networks instead chose to first ignore, and then deplore, the citizen army mobilizing against the unpopular policies of a liberal president and Congress," wrote MRC Research Director Rich Noyes.
Full Story: Media Maligns Tea Party, Study Finds
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010
By: Joseph Curl
The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots "tea party" surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Center.
"Rather than objectively document the rise and impact of this important grassroots movement, the 'news' networks instead chose to first ignore, and then deplore, the citizen army mobilizing against the unpopular policies of a liberal president and Congress," wrote MRC Research Director Rich Noyes.
Full Story: Media Maligns Tea Party, Study Finds
Sunday, April 11, 2010
AKA Obama Born in Kenya - Kenya National Assembly Says
Note the date! This is very recent. The whole world knows AKA Obama is being challenged as not being eligible. I can't imagine the members of the Kenya National Assembly are unaware of the controversy.
Page 31 Kenya National Assembly
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th
March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS
“They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared
ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.”
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=6212#comment-29252
Page 31 Kenya National Assembly
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th
March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS
“They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared
ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.”
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=6212#comment-29252
AKA Obama Fraud? Ask a lawyer.
From: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com
Fraud and False Statements.
18 U.S.C. § 1002 - Fraud and False Statements - Possession of false papers to defraud United States, provides severe criminal penalties for fraud and false statements using false papers in order to defraud the United States, to wit:
(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence . . . of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence . . .; or
(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate . . .; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, . . ., any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Also consider 18 U.S.C. § 1017 – Fraud and False Statements - Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed. This federal statute also provides for five years in prison for “whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate," or "whoever knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document.
However, the federal government takes identity fraud very seriously. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information, the punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be . . . a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card.
Obama prior to his election, initially caused one Certification of Live Birth to be published on Fightthesmears.org.
This document has been determined to be a forgery by at least two internationally respected computer forensic auditors. Whether or not it is a forgery, there are some obvious things about this COLB. First, it provides on the bottom that “Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate.” A quick review indicates that the Certificate No. has been blacked out. It is therefore altered, and therefore invalid. Nonetheless, this is the document that Chris Matthews heralded as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and this is the document that Bill O’Reilly claimed was in his possession (he incorrectly called it a birth certificate).
There are other glaring deficiencies with this document as well, including the failure to evidence a raised embossed seal from the State of Hawaii (a clear indication of a faked document), and the signature of an Hawaiian authority signing the seal. The document is not creased as a mailed document would be, and the “hard copy” was never produced – just an internet posting.
As we all know, if you get two different stories from a suspect, at least one of the stories is a lie. After the DNC and most of the news broadcasters had concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii based on this forgery, FactCheck.org released another internet image of a completely different document, claiming that this time, the Certification of Live Birth was genuine.
Magically, on this COLB, the black line over the Certificate Number is gone. This document is creased and it contains a state seal, although the seal and the whole document cannot be seen in the same photograph.
Two separate COLBs, and two separate images means at least one of them was a fraud, and between the two, document number one is a clear qualifier. Take a look at 18 U.S.C. § 1028 one more time. The penalty for violating this statute with the intent to secure anything from the United States can be punishable with up to fifteen years in prison.
Fraud and False Statements.
18 U.S.C. § 1002 - Fraud and False Statements - Possession of false papers to defraud United States, provides severe criminal penalties for fraud and false statements using false papers in order to defraud the United States, to wit:
(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence . . . of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence . . .; or
(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate . . .; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, . . ., any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Also consider 18 U.S.C. § 1017 – Fraud and False Statements - Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed. This federal statute also provides for five years in prison for “whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate," or "whoever knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document.
However, the federal government takes identity fraud very seriously. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information, the punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be . . . a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card.
Obama prior to his election, initially caused one Certification of Live Birth to be published on Fightthesmears.org.
This document has been determined to be a forgery by at least two internationally respected computer forensic auditors. Whether or not it is a forgery, there are some obvious things about this COLB. First, it provides on the bottom that “Any Alterations Invalidate This Certificate.” A quick review indicates that the Certificate No. has been blacked out. It is therefore altered, and therefore invalid. Nonetheless, this is the document that Chris Matthews heralded as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and this is the document that Bill O’Reilly claimed was in his possession (he incorrectly called it a birth certificate).
There are other glaring deficiencies with this document as well, including the failure to evidence a raised embossed seal from the State of Hawaii (a clear indication of a faked document), and the signature of an Hawaiian authority signing the seal. The document is not creased as a mailed document would be, and the “hard copy” was never produced – just an internet posting.
As we all know, if you get two different stories from a suspect, at least one of the stories is a lie. After the DNC and most of the news broadcasters had concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii based on this forgery, FactCheck.org released another internet image of a completely different document, claiming that this time, the Certification of Live Birth was genuine.
Magically, on this COLB, the black line over the Certificate Number is gone. This document is creased and it contains a state seal, although the seal and the whole document cannot be seen in the same photograph.
Two separate COLBs, and two separate images means at least one of them was a fraud, and between the two, document number one is a clear qualifier. Take a look at 18 U.S.C. § 1028 one more time. The penalty for violating this statute with the intent to secure anything from the United States can be punishable with up to fifteen years in prison.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
When did 'anti-government' become a bad thing?
"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine
When did 'anti-government' become a bad thing?
March 1, 1:00 PM · J.D. Tuccille - Civil Liberties Examiner
Henry David Thoreau may have been a "Tea Party
terrorist" -- if you believe New York Times columnist
Frank Rich.You'd think that, after a couple of centuries of major American figures describing government as, at most, something to be tolerated, political pundits would have made their peace with the idea that skepticism toward state power has a core place in American political life. If your toes tingle at the thought of more coercive programs, laws, politicians and bureaucrats, you're the (very) odd duck, not the folks with anti-government views. And yet, we still get the likes of Frank Rich throwing high-profile hissy fits because "the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback," as heralded by ... Andrew Joseph Stack III's Kamikaze-style airborne attack on the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas?
For those not in the know, Stack, like many people, had a bone to pick with the I.R.S. and with the federal government. But the manifesto he left behind also accused drug and insurance companies of "murdering tens of thousands of people a year," charged that poor people get to die for the mistakes of the wealthy, and quoted Karl Marx. Anti-government Stack was, but his ideology, such as it was, doesn't appear to have been coherently right-wing or left-wing so much as ticked-off and populist.
Rich does appear to be aware that Stack isn't a very logical stick with which to beat the Tea Party movement that has him and his government-cheerleading chums so knicker-twisted. At least, he concedes "it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a 'Tea Party terrorist.' But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner."
Nice how Rich works that gratuitious "Tea Party terrorist" bit in there, eh? But even as he smears his political opponents as guilty by distant and tortured association, he manages to overlook the fact that the anti-government sentiment he so regrets is neither a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party movement and the Right, nor an aberration coughed up every decade or two by by unenlightened neanderthals briefly emerging from the philosophical swamps.
Frank Rich is a well-educated man with an Internet connection paid for by a respected news organization that has a vast historical archive of its own, so it's impossible to believe that the New York Times scribbler is unaware that Thomas Paine wrote in one of the more popular political tracts of the revolutionary period that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." Nor can we believe he's unaware that James Madison hedged on Paine's sentiments only to the extent that he wrote, "It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune." And certainly he knows about Thomas Jefferson's warning that "[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
And Rich must surely be aware that he's skipping over a bit of context when he drops the overworked Joe Stack connection to shriek in shock that "[t]he Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington -- a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All." Surely, if only in high school, he read Henry David Thoreau's open hostility to the power of the state:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"...
The United States of America was founded on anti-government sentiment. The shapers of its institutions and many of its major thinkers have always clearly viewed the state as something like the equivalent of a portable kerosene heater in a Wisconsin winter -- you might need the damned thing, but be very careful.
True, the fact that the heart and soul of American political history is thoroughly skeptical of government power doesn't mean that Madison and Jefferson were right and that Rich is wrong. Maybe he and his buddies are correct and we should stop worrying and learn to love big, well-armed institutions that claim a monopoly on the use of force and slaughtered 262,000,000 people over the course of the 20th century alone. (It's for the children, don't you know?)
But history shows that anti-government sentiment is in the mainstream of American political life, and Rich and his buddies are the out-liers. No shrieking effort to paint skeptics of state power as kamikaze terrorists -- shoe-horning Joe Stack in with Thomas Paine and Henry David Thoreau -- can change that fact.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2010m3d1-When-did-antigovernment-become-a-bad-thing?cid=email-this-article
-- Thomas Paine
When did 'anti-government' become a bad thing?
March 1, 1:00 PM · J.D. Tuccille - Civil Liberties Examiner
Henry David Thoreau may have been a "Tea Party
terrorist" -- if you believe New York Times columnist
Frank Rich.You'd think that, after a couple of centuries of major American figures describing government as, at most, something to be tolerated, political pundits would have made their peace with the idea that skepticism toward state power has a core place in American political life. If your toes tingle at the thought of more coercive programs, laws, politicians and bureaucrats, you're the (very) odd duck, not the folks with anti-government views. And yet, we still get the likes of Frank Rich throwing high-profile hissy fits because "the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback," as heralded by ... Andrew Joseph Stack III's Kamikaze-style airborne attack on the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas?
For those not in the know, Stack, like many people, had a bone to pick with the I.R.S. and with the federal government. But the manifesto he left behind also accused drug and insurance companies of "murdering tens of thousands of people a year," charged that poor people get to die for the mistakes of the wealthy, and quoted Karl Marx. Anti-government Stack was, but his ideology, such as it was, doesn't appear to have been coherently right-wing or left-wing so much as ticked-off and populist.
Rich does appear to be aware that Stack isn't a very logical stick with which to beat the Tea Party movement that has him and his government-cheerleading chums so knicker-twisted. At least, he concedes "it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a 'Tea Party terrorist.' But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner."
Nice how Rich works that gratuitious "Tea Party terrorist" bit in there, eh? But even as he smears his political opponents as guilty by distant and tortured association, he manages to overlook the fact that the anti-government sentiment he so regrets is neither a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party movement and the Right, nor an aberration coughed up every decade or two by by unenlightened neanderthals briefly emerging from the philosophical swamps.
Frank Rich is a well-educated man with an Internet connection paid for by a respected news organization that has a vast historical archive of its own, so it's impossible to believe that the New York Times scribbler is unaware that Thomas Paine wrote in one of the more popular political tracts of the revolutionary period that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." Nor can we believe he's unaware that James Madison hedged on Paine's sentiments only to the extent that he wrote, "It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune." And certainly he knows about Thomas Jefferson's warning that "[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
And Rich must surely be aware that he's skipping over a bit of context when he drops the overworked Joe Stack connection to shriek in shock that "[t]he Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington -- a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All." Surely, if only in high school, he read Henry David Thoreau's open hostility to the power of the state:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"...
The United States of America was founded on anti-government sentiment. The shapers of its institutions and many of its major thinkers have always clearly viewed the state as something like the equivalent of a portable kerosene heater in a Wisconsin winter -- you might need the damned thing, but be very careful.
True, the fact that the heart and soul of American political history is thoroughly skeptical of government power doesn't mean that Madison and Jefferson were right and that Rich is wrong. Maybe he and his buddies are correct and we should stop worrying and learn to love big, well-armed institutions that claim a monopoly on the use of force and slaughtered 262,000,000 people over the course of the 20th century alone. (It's for the children, don't you know?)
But history shows that anti-government sentiment is in the mainstream of American political life, and Rich and his buddies are the out-liers. No shrieking effort to paint skeptics of state power as kamikaze terrorists -- shoe-horning Joe Stack in with Thomas Paine and Henry David Thoreau -- can change that fact.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2010m3d1-When-did-antigovernment-become-a-bad-thing?cid=email-this-article
Terry Lakin Letter to AKA Obama
Dr. Terry Lakin, the flight surgeon for 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, examines the partially amputated finger of an Afghan man who assists in collecting unexploded ordnance at Kandahar Airfield. Lakin was selected as the Army Medical Department's Flight Surgeon of the Year for 2004.Terry Lakin Letter to POTUS
March 30, 2010
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity--the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name that should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
March 30, 2010
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity--the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name that should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
Friday, April 9, 2010
NPR reports AKA Obama Born in Kenya
Those crazy "birthers" are citing National Public Radio.
Before Presidential aspirations took priority there were many media reports about "Kenyan born" Barack Obama. I haven't seen one request for retraction of these reports of foreign birth. In fact, AKA Obama might have taken some pride in being seen as "Kenyan born".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'
Description accompanies interview about 'son of Africa'
Really? NPR?
Archives for the tax-supported organization reveal that a 2008 report described then-Sen. Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born" and a "son of Africa."
Full Story: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293
Before Presidential aspirations took priority there were many media reports about "Kenyan born" Barack Obama. I haven't seen one request for retraction of these reports of foreign birth. In fact, AKA Obama might have taken some pride in being seen as "Kenyan born".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'
Description accompanies interview about 'son of Africa'
Really? NPR?
Archives for the tax-supported organization reveal that a 2008 report described then-Sen. Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born" and a "son of Africa."
Full Story: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
