Sam on Bob Harden Stress and CBT

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit Supporting LTC Lakin’s Case

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) provides affidavit supporting LTC Lakin

Press Release:

Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit Supporting LTC Lakin’s Case

Judge To Rule Thursday On Defense Request For Deposition Of Hawaiian Officials And For Written Discovery Of All Of President’s School And College Records

Hearing Set For Sept 2 At 1100 At Fort Meade, Maryland >> CLICK HERE FOR THE PRESS RELEASE AND AFFIDAVIT

HUMOR-This is really funny-from email-Suicide Bombers to go on strike, The Times of London, 08/17/2010

Tough economy all over !!!

Suicide Bombers to go on strike

The Times of London, 08/17/2010

A contribution by ZTaylor

Suicide Bombers to go on strike, The Times of London, 08/17/2010


Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on
Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the
afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an
agreement. The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the
number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death will be cut
by 25% this February, from 72 to only 60. The rationale for the cut was the
increase in recent years of the number of suicide bombings and a subsequent
shortage of virgins in the afterlife.

The suicide bomber's union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs
(BOOM) responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members
and immediately balloted for strike action. General Secretary Abdullah Amir
told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in
the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return, and to be treated like
this is like a kick in the teeth."

Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands, in which he currently
resides, Al Qaeda chief executive Osama bin Laden explained, "We sympathize
with our workers concerns, but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet
their demands. They are simply not accepting the realities of modern-day
Jihad in a competitive marketplace.

Thanks to Western depravity there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in
the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditure and
laying people off. I don't like cutting wages but I'd hate to have to tell
3,000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up."

Spokespersons for the Union in the north east of England, Ireland, Wales,
and the entire Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect
their operations, as "there are no virgins in their areas anyway."

Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been put down to
the emergence of Scottish singing star Susan Boyle - now that Muslims know
what an actual virgin looks like they are not so keen on going to paradise.

President's socialist takeover must be stopped - WASHINGTON TIMES Calls for OBAMA to be IMPEACHED!

President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment-142967590/

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Does This Document Make Me ELIGIBLE to be POTUS? (or get a passport to go on a Dream Cruise?)

Bunny and I are about to leave on an all expense paid CARNIVAL DREAM CRUISE , compliments of Shaklee Corporation.

The link below shows features the ship, the largest and newest in the Carnival fleet. Length: 1,004 feet

http://www.carnival.com/cms/fun/ships/carnival_dream/default.aspx?shipCode=DR Click this link above to see a virtual tour of our destination!



Here is my birth certificate. No, wait that isn’t true. To be accurate I need to say, “Here is a scanned copy of my alleged “CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD” that has not been vetted by qualified forensic document examiners.”

I do not have a passport. If I send a link to the “scanned copy of my alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners” to the State Department, do you think they will send me a passport? No, they will not!

I might protest, “But I put it on the Internet for all to see! I released my birth certificate to the public.” “No”, they would say “You released a scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners. We need the original document.”
I might protest by saying. “It hasn’t been altered (except for the little detail of obscuring the official number on the document); it has a doctor’s signature, the name of the hospital, my parent’s signature and everything!” “Nope,” they would say, and if I insisted they might notice the line at the bottom “WARNING: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DUPLICATE THIS COPY” or “ANY ALTERATION OR ERASURE VOIDS THIS CERTIFICATE.”
So, unless I am able to provide authentic documentation, I will not be able to go on my fabulous, all expense paid cruise.
Yet there are people who live among us, and even have the right to vote, who think that if I presented my scanned, altered "CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD" during an election in the same manner, it would be enough evidence to prove that I am eligible to become President of the United States.
And my altered, “scanned copy of an alleged birth certificate that has not been vetted by forensic document examiners” is far higher quality than has been offered by AKA Obama.
AKA Obama has spent lots of money to keep the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations, and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states.
No matter what you might think, there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Far, far less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document, and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, and any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, (CV here ) a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit HERE that states, in part: “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines’ summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.

Excerpted from:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

Can Obama supporters see the logic here? Oh, I forgot, Obama supporters don’t use logic; not “warm and fuzzy” enough for them.

“Restoring Honor” Rally ~ Hundreds of thousands of people - Watch the entire Rally here


Saturday, August 28, 2010

Despite Media, Public Sees Truth about Obama

Aristotle the Hun's comment on article below:

If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.

If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama

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 history.

Obama “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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Despite Media, Public Sees Truth about Obama
by Doug Patton

Jake Tapper of ABC News had, until recently, struck me as a fairly straight shooter. He's no Brit Hume, Major Garrett or Brett Baer, by any means, but during his tenure as host of ABC's "This Week" (the program started by the legendary David Brinkley and later turned into a partisan Democrat vehicle by former Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos), Tapper seemed to be aiming for something approaching the fairness of the late Tim Russert.

Not any more. Apparently again covering the White House, Tapper now seems to be drinking the Obama Kool-Aid along with the rest of his colleagues.

In a story concerning recent poll numbers indicating that as many as one-in-four Americans now believe that their President is a Muslim, Tapper went to great lengths to say that this was not true. Before Obama's comments in support of the controversial mosque being built at Ground Zero, Tapper intoned, "Eleven percent of Americans wrongly believed Obama was a Muslim. Now, 18 %believe that. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now!"

Obama is a man about whom virtually nothing was known prior to him bursting onto the national stage in 2004. He may well be everything he would like us to believe he is, but the evidence has not been forthcoming. Because he has glossed over everything from his birth certificate to his Indonesian Muslim education, from his college transcripts to his Law Review articles, from his radical associations to his discipleship under one of the most hateful, racist church leaders in the history of the country—the Rev. Jeremiah Wright—thanks to the fawning media who covered it all up, the American voter had little by which to judge the man.

In the last year and a half, we have seen the real Obama—and we don't like what we see. Look at his actions before the rest of the world. Does he ever proclaim American exceptionalism? No. Does he ever tell the dictators of the world that liberty is the byproduct of America? No.

Instead, he apologizes for us. He goes before our friends and our foes alike and tells them how arrogant America is. Our America, which has done more good for more people in more corners of the world than any other nation that has ever existed. Our America, as Colin Powell once observed, which has never asked for more land after liberating another country than was necessary to bury our dead.

Obama told our enemies in the Islamic world that America is not a Christian nation. In fact, he called it the largest Muslim nation in the world. He has said that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the most beautiful sounds on earth." He has snubbed Christian observances of Christmas and Easter while celebrating Ramadan with Muslims in our White House.

And now, when he praises the odious idea of building a shrine to Islam on the very ground where nearly three thousand innocent people were murdered—by radical Muslims in the name of Allah—we are supposed to believe that he is a Christian?

A man operates out of what he believes in his heart, and only God can truly know what that is. But it is becoming clear to the American people that what Barack Obama believes is not what they believe.

It has become obvious that he favors Marxism over capitalism, and that he favors Islam over Christianity.

He claims he never heard the venomous sermons of Jeremiah Wright. He says, "This is the man who led me to Jesus."

The Jesus I know, the One from Nazareth, told His followers that a time would come when "another Jesus" would be preached to them. It appears that an ever-growing number of Americans believe that Obama's "Jesus" is called "Mohammad."

Despite the lies of this President and the cover-up by the national media, the people of this country instinctively know the truth. America is not the problem. It is the solution. Christianity is not the problem. It is the solution.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Aka Presidency - America's Most Expensive Mistake

Little-known fact:

Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war



Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.


The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.


The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven provides this handy CBO chart showing the portion of the annual deficit attributable to the conflict:
But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq. For more from Hoven, go here.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

AKA Obama's Cloak of "Secrecy" Coming Unravelled

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Our undercover agents always have legitimate SS#. They are set aside for that purpose so no one will be exposed. I am 69 years old and my legitimate SS# wasn’t issued until 1987. You do the math. I am a member of AFIO.

The Naivete of the American Public and Barack Obama

Suddenly the American public is shocked. Perhaps there is no economic recovery. Perhaps the One really does favor Islam.

Democrats and Republicans shake their heads and wonder, how could our President pursue such divisive and unpopular policies? What is the rationale for his decisions? Is he incompetent? Is he naive?

Full Text Here: http://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/08/25/the-naivete-of-the-american-public-and-barack-obama/

Monday, August 23, 2010

Greatest Threat to America - WOW! -

Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal

Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion and Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

Author Anthony G. Martin is an Examiner from the National Edition. You can see Anthony G.'s articles at: "http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner

Friday, August 20, 2010

President Apostate? - Islamic Law says Obama is a Muslim




President Apostate?


By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Chevy Chase, Md.

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.”

The Airport Solution - It's such a simple solution to a problem!

The Airport Solution - It's such a simple solution to a problem!

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the airports.

Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but
will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.

It would be a win-win for everyone, and there would be none of
this crap about racial profiling, and this method would eliminate a
long and expensive trial. Justice would be quick and swift.
Case closed!

This is so simple that it's brilliant. I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion.
Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system,
"Attention standby passengers -- we now have a seat available on
flight number..." Works for me.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

AKA Obama - How Many Names Does This Guy Have?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=192917

See Aristotle The Hun's research on AKA Obama:
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”

How many different name is President Obama legally authorized to use?

Is his legal name Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama (without the designation "II" indicating Barack Obama Jr.), Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah?

All of these names appear in various documents produced since 2008 regarding Obama's life story and his passport records.

The White House has refused to release Obama's long-form birth certificate filed at his birth that lists the hospital where he was born and the name of the physician who attended the birth. Also, the White House has refused to disclose to the public his passport and travel records as maintained by the U.S. State Department.

The White House released this week a video displaying Obama's passport, but the name displayed does not match the name on the Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, prominently displayed on websites favorable to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

In a thread that drew over 1,000 comments to a Politico.com article yesterday by former President George W. Bush speechwriter Josh Gerstein, titled "Don't look, birthers: Obama's passport," was the following comment:

If you go back to the Birth Registration (not Birth Certificate) that was released by the Daily Kos, Obie's was Obama II (named after his father). If the "II" is part of his actual name (as per Hawaiian birth registration records), how is it that this is missing from the current passport? Something doesn't compute here. Can any of the leftist apologists explain what's going on here, and why their hero's actual name isn't shown?
(Story continues below)


Another contributor stated:

Anyone believes anything this guy or ANY prez says just because he says it is a foolish sheep. Question everything. Don't trust. VERIFY. Why is it so impossible to verify something as simple as his birthplace? When did he change his name back to Obama from Soetoro? How can he be adopted by an Indonesian citizen and not be Indonesian? Where the hell are the real journalists?
Remarkably, nearly two years into his presidency, Obama's legal name remains a mystery.

The American public still has no definitive documentation regarding many basic questions about Obama's past. That includes whether or not he was officially adopted by his Indonesian stepfather when he was in Indonesia as a child from 1967 through 1971, or whether he used a U.S. or an Indonesian passport when he traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. Obama made the trip after completing his second year at Occidental College in California. It is still unknown whether he applied for admission or student aid as a foreign student when attending Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

Variations

The Hawaii COLB produced by pro-Obama websites such as DailyKos.com, Politifact.com, FactCheck.com and FightTheSmears.com display his name as "Barack Hussein Obama II," although the presidential passport shown by the White House last Friday lists his name officially only as "Barack Hussein Obama," without adding the "II."

As WND has reported, the Associated Press released Obama's school registration form from St. Francis Assisi School in Jakarta show him listed officially as Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.

WND has also reported that in a passport amendment submitted Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, identified her son with an Indonesian surname, Barack Hussein Obama II Soebarkah. She asked the State Department to drop him from her U.S. passport, bolstering evidence Barack Obama Jr. became a citizen of Indonesia when he moved to the Southeast Asian nation with his stepmother and stepfather in the late 1960s.

Until Dunham's passport amendment surfaced in State Department documents released July 29, the name "Soebarkah" had never been referenced or documented in any discussion of Obama in the public record.

Natural born citizen

The constitutional question concerning Obama's birth records centers on Article 2, Section 1 and the determination whether or not he is a "natural born citizen," not simply a U.S. citizen.

The threshold for being a "natural born citizen" is sufficiently high that any number of factors may have compromised Obama's eligibility under the Constitution to be president, including whether he was officially adopted in Indonesia, ever held or traveled under the passport of a foreign nation and if he ever applied for student aid as a foreign student.

The White House's display of Obama's passport Friday did not include documentation submitted to the State Department to obtain the passport or any previous U.S. passports the president may have been issued since childhood.

More name mysteries

Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," offers no definitive answer regarding what name or names Obama is legally authorized to use.

In "Dreams," an additional variation of his name is introduced on page 41, "Barry Obama." On page 91, however, the author insists that "Barack" is his given name, suggesting "Barry" was used only as a nickname, despite the school registration papers from Indonesia listing him as "Barry Soetoro."

A word check of a .pdf file of "Dreams" revealed the name "Barry" appears 70 times in "Dreams," while "Barack" appears 218 times.

The name "Soetoro" does not appear in the autobiography at all, not even in the 14 mentions the author makes of his stepsister, who is always identified only as "Maya," never as "Maya Soetoro," or by her married name, Maya Soetoro-Ng.

Absent the transparent disclosure of Obama's complete birth file from the Hawaii Department of Health, of his passport and travel records by the State Department, and his school records from the three universities he attended – Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School – a definitive answer to how many names Obama is legally authorized to use may remain unobtainable.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Census Takers: A Government Against the People

The Census Takers: A Government Against the People
August 16, 2010 By John W. Whitehead

“The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it’s so rare.” — Senator Daniel P. Moynihan

In Virginia, a male Census Bureau worker, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, reportedly forced his way into a home after being informed by a 19-year-old boy that his mother was asleep and unavailable to answer his questions at that time. Having gained entry to the house, the Census Bureau worker then began to vigorously question the boy, who is half Chinese, about his ethnic heritage, remarking that the son looked Hispanic or Latino. The worker repeatedly asked whether any persons of Hispanic, Latino or Mexican descent lived in the house. Despite being informed that only two persons lived in the house, neither of whom were Hispanic or Latino, the Census Bureau worker continued to question the young man concerning the presence of any Hispanic or Latino persons in the house. This included inquiries as to the presence of any Latino, Hispanic or Mexican babies in the house over the age of one.

This incident is just the “tip of the iceberg.” Published and privately reported accounts of similar encounters between American citizens and government enumerators suggest that some Census workers are adopting an aggressive and harassing modus operandi in an attempt to obtain information that goes beyond the head count authorized by the Constitution. For example, a New Jersey resident recently sounded off on Twitter after a Census worker actually rifled through his mail to determine the number of individuals living at his home.

Unfortunately, with more than 600,000 temporary Census workers presently stalking the country, the potential for abuse and impersonation is high—and being acted on. For example, a census worker in Indiana was recently brought up on burglary and rape charges after breaking into a home he had earlier canvassed and attacking two women, one of whom is handicapped, while they slept. In Houston, one man was killed and his family members beaten after someone pretending to be a Census worker gained entry to his home.

In Atlanta, a Census worker was arrested on drug charges after a search of the worker’s vehicle turned up 151 unmarked pills, marijuana, and devices used in the sale and distribution of drugs. In Pittsburgh, a woman reported her wallet missing from her bag after a Census worker entered her home to obtain answers for the survey. The wallet later turned up in the census worker’s car. In Fairbanks, Alaska, the Census Bureau hired a man who had been convicted of burglary and second-degree theft. Having changed his name since his prior convictions, the man was able to get past the background check (the fingerprint results didn’t come in until after he was hired). After being hired, the man reportedly killed his mother.

You might be tempted to think this was a joke, but the punch line is no laughing matter—it’s the American people who are being played for fools. No wonder 80% of Americans don’t trust their government. How could you trust a government that would foist such incompetent and, in some cases, dangerous emissaries on an unsuspecting populace?

Clearly, not all Census Bureau workers are rapists, thieves and thugs. However, incidents such as these not only contribute to a heightened distrust of Census workers but also render the Census process and its results suspect and reinforce the impression that our government doesn’t care about our safety or our rights.

What conclusions should we draw from all of this?

First, given the wealth of resources at the government’s disposal, there is no excuse for the Census Bureau’s paltry and ineffective background checks. Although applicants are subjected to name-based criminal background checks, the Bureau doesn’t actually run a fingerprint check until after the person is hired. What this means is that individuals whose names aren’t in the FBI database but who have criminal records are being hired and sent out into the field. The Governmental Accountability Office estimates that about 35,000, or one fifth of the total number of hired Census Bureau workers were hired without a proper fingerprint check because the fingerprints supplied could not be processed. Additionally, 1,800 temporary workers had their fingerprint checks come back with a criminal record after they had already been hired. In light of this, I would advise anyone who has a Census worker come to their home to be extremely cautious when answering the door. Don’t answer any questions until you have been shown adequate identification and don’t let the person into your home. If a Census worker acts suspicious or becomes overly aggressive, call 911.

Second, anyone hired by the government and unleashed on the American people should be thoroughly trained, not only on their assigned task but on the Constitution—especially the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of privacy and prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. Unfortunately, while each Census enumerator applicant is required to pass an application test prior to being hired, not a single question on the sample test for applicants asks about civics, the Constitution, American history, or even the purpose of the 2010 Census.

Third, taxpayers are being saddled with a whopping $14.7 billion bill, which is supposed to pay for 10 years’ worth of Census-counting, 500 field offices and a peak staff of 1.4 million workers. But that’s not all. We’re also paying for a $133 million television, radio, print, outdoor and Internet advertising propaganda campaign that includes prime-time spots during the Super Bowl XLIV and the 2010 Winter Olympics, as well as a national road tour with 13 vehicles traveling to key events across the country, such as NASCAR races. And then there’s the cost of the in-person Census visits, estimated at $80-90 million for every 1% of households that don’t mail in their responses. As of April 27, 2010, 28% of households had not responded, which translates to a follow-up cost of roughly $2.5 billion.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to calculate the amount of money being siphoned off the hard-working taxpayer through graft and corruption. Yet the following web account is telling from an anonymous census worker who recounts how enumerators were encouraged to be less efficient in going door-to-door: “In an average suburban neighborhood where the houses are somewhat close to each other, it was no problem to do about 35 to 40 addresses per hour once you learned how to quickly enter data into the computer. The census said that I should be doing about 12 to 15 per hour. My direct bosses told me that I should NOT be doing 35 to 40, because it was making them and other people look bad. So instead of walking at a snail’s pace, I just did my 35 to 40/hour and doubled my time when I submitted my hours. Again, sorry for the tax dollar grab, but I was told not to be so darned efficient or else I’d be cut!”

If political commentators really want to know what’s fueling the anti-incumbency mood in the country right now, they have to look no further than the 2010 Census, the latest in the government’s long train of abuses and usurpations against the American people. This isn’t a government by the people, for the people and of the people—it’s a government that is poorly run, criminally wasteful and which doesn’t give a damn about the people. In other words, it’s a government against the people.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Officer's defense team demanding Obama docs

Officer's defense team demanding Obama docs

The key defense attorney for an Army officer being put on trial for refusing orders he views as suspect because of the possibility Barack Obama is not eligible to be commander-in-chief is demanding documentation from the president.
Read the latest now on WND.com.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Aristotle the Hun is back with big news from the Los Angeles Conference

Say “GOODBYE” to Lipitor (and other statin drugs) Natural Cholesterol Reduction Complex (click image for full view)

Shaklee Natural Cholesterol Reduction Complex has FDA approval to claim our product does reduce Cholesterol.

Please be sure to read about my personal experience with Lipitor and the research that launched my book "I Fired My Doctors and Saved My Life"

Monday, August 2, 2010

Aristotle The Hun will be away for a few days - Shaklee World Conference

America
Comin' Into Los Angeles lyrics

Coming in from London from over the pole
Flying in a big airliner
Chicken flying everywhere around the plane
Could we ever feel much finer

Coming into Los Angeles
Bringing in a couple of keys
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister Customs man, man

There's a guy with a ticket to Mexico
Could he ever look much stranger
Walking in the hall with his things and all
Smiling, said he was the Lone Ranger

Coming into Los Angeles,
Bringing in a couple of keys
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister Customs man, man

Hip woman walking on a moving floor
Tripping on the escalator
There's a man in the line, and she's blowing his mind
Thinking that he's already made her

Coming into Los Angeles,
Bringing in a couple of keys
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister Customs man, man

Coming into Los Angeles,
Bringing in a couple of keys
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister Customs man, man

Coming into Los Angeles,
Bringing in a couple of keys
Don't touch my bags if you please
Mister Customs man, man

Sunday, August 1, 2010

"A plague on both your houses!" Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92 - CLICK ON IMAGE FOR FULL VIEW


A Constitutional Crisis - AMERICA IN DISTRESS…WHO WILL ANSWER HER CALL?

A Constitutional Crisis
AMERICA IN DISTRESS…WHO WILL ANSWER HER CALL?
by drkate, ©2010


The U.S. Constitution was created by the states, which were set up as separate republics. The Founders feared an overbearing federal government.
(Aug. 1, 2010) — For the first time in its history, the United States government has knowingly allowed a constitutionally-ineligible individual to break into and occupy the White House. All the branches of government have been involved, along with the media: the legislative branch by failing to do its constitutional duty; the judicial branch by thwarting any attempt to have the facts heard; the Executive branch by using taxpayer funds and the color of authority to defend the usurpation.

THE REST OF THE STORY

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/01/a-constitutional-crisis/