Monday, October 31, 2011

Liberalism Destroys Families and Nations

The stated agenda of the left includes destroying the American family and undermining the values of our culture. After the 2008 election I realized that my own children had been led away to disaster by the “Pied Piper” of socialism and political correctness.  The below letter is a response from a friend who had his own family torn apart by modern “liberalism”.  He also offers a source for a way to way to break the spell of the Pied Piper.

Thanks – my own daughter’s mind was poisoned by the Psychology Department at San Francisco State University where she majored in psychology with a minor in human sexuality. She once told me of a psychology professor who taught that pedophilia is normal and acceptable.

She and her husband, both raised as Catholics, have no religious affiliation.

My daughter tells me that she will have nothing to do with any religion that opposes homosexuality.

On another subject, yesterday I attended a screening of a film titled “Agenda: Grinding Down America produced by Curtis Bowers, a former member of the Idaho state legislature. The film is based on a series of interviews with and quotations from notable conservative thinkers who describe what is happening to America, and includes some frightening documentary film of Communist and Nazi Party history of the 20th century.

Mr. Bowers traveled to San Diego at his own expense to present this film, hosted by the North San Diego County Conservatives.

Individuals interviewed or quoted include Stanton Evans, James Simpson (author of an excellent lengthy article on the Cloward-Piven strategy), Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, Trevor Loudon, and others.

At one point Jim Simpson is shown stating that America is in mortal danger from a very dangerous enemy within its own borders which is determined to overthrow the United States Constitution and to impose a Communist tyranny on the American people. That enemy is the leftist movement in America, which now includes the entire Democratic Party.

The film leaves no doubt that the Democratic Party in the United States is now virtually indistinguishable from the Communist Party USA (CPUSA); that all leftists, Socialists, and Progressives are all linked together; and that Barack Obama is indisputably at the top of the hierarchy of Communism in the United States, with proven linkages to every significant leftist/Communist group which has operated in the U.S. in the last eighty years, including the most violent and radical of these groups.

The film includes a recapitulation of the original 1958 agenda of the CPUSA and shows how it has accomplished every item on the agenda – taking over the educational system, controlling the media, destroying the family, removing religion from American society, encouraging sexual promiscuity and abortion, gaining widespread acceptance in American society of homosexuality and other deviant behavior, trivializing the Constitution, diminishing the role of the Founders, undermining capitalism, and so on.

Even back in the 60’s we were being duped.

We were taught:

That Lord Keynes was the oracle of economics;

That the Sixteenth Amendment authorized the income tax in direct violation of Article I of the United States Constitution*;

That the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in spite of overwhelming evidence that this purported ratification never occurred and that its purported ratification was fraudulently carried out;

That federal law requires filing of income tax returns and payment of an individual income tax despite the fact that no such law exists and despite the fact that the income tax, by the admission of the IRS itself, is enforced as an unapportioned direct tax in violation of an explicit prohibition against such taxes in Article I of the United States Constitution;

That the income tax enforced by the IRS and the courts is valid despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment [Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 (1916)], ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any additional authority to impose taxes which did not exist prior to the amendment, and that the tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment is an indirect tax on corporations with very limited application to U.S. citizens in accordance with Article I of the U.S. Constitution;

That the Seventeenth Amendment is a valid constitutional amendment despite overwhelming evidence of fraudulent ratification, as the result of which an essential constitutional protection carefully considered by the Founders to protect the power of the states was abruptly removed from the Constitution;

That the Federal Reserve System is a government-owned central bank operating in conformity with the provisions and restrictions of the United States Constitution;

That Alfred Kinsey’s work was a work of science;

That Wilson and FDR were great presidents;

That the Democratic Party truly believes it has the answers to make America a better society;

That the NAACP seeks an integrated society in which whites and blacks are “brothers”;

That the ACLU seeks justice;

That Planned Parenthood is concerned about the welfare of young women;

That General George S. Patton died in an automobile accident after pushing for the immediate annihilation of the Soviet Union at the end of WWII;

That President Truman’s decision to fire General Claire Chennault, commander of the Fourteenth Air Force in China (formerly the “Flying Tigers”), was justified when the General objected vigorously to secret high level talks which had taken place in China before the end of the World War II between Communist Chou En-Lai and high-level representatives of the U.S. government (General Chennault was uninvited and conspicuously absent from the Japanese surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay in August 1945);

That President Truman’s decision to block Chiang Kai Shek’s defeat of Mao Tse-tung in 1947 was in the best interests of the United States;

That President Truman’s decision to fire General MacArthur in 1950 was in the best interests of the United States when the General, recognizing the evil of the Chinese Communists, insisted on pursuing Chinese forces across the Yalu River into China in order to defeat Communism in Asia;

That Harry Truman was a great president.

How many millions have died in the economic deprivation, unnecessary wars, or starvation, disease, and mass executions that resulted from these Communist-inspired deceptions?

Now it continues. We are lied to, duped, deceived, fleeced, tricked, cheated, and subjected to treasonous acts by every administration controlled by the Democratic Party.

And the Republican Party will do nothing while our country is being destroyed.

I am so depressed by what is happening to my country that I cannot rest.

Your information regarding the homosexuality of Lord Keynes fits right into the whole pattern of deception and concealment of the truth which has taken place at the hands of the traitors among our citizens over the last century, the most outrageous example of which is their fraudulent installation of an ineligible foreign alien in the White House.

When will this nightmare end?

*Anyone who doubts the truth of these statements regarding the fraudulent status of the Sixteenth Amendment may listen to this recent interview of Attorney Jeffrey Dickstein by Joe Banister, former IRS CID Special Agent.

Mr. Dickstein represented Bill Benson, the individual who provided the proof of the non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. In the course of his investigation, Benson visited the National Archives as well as the state capital of every state existing at the time of the purported ratification to obtain copies of original documentation. He was prosecuted by the government for “promoting an abusive tax shelter” when he attempted to spread the word of his shocking discovery.

Hear Jeffrey describe how judges have repeatedly denied defendants in tax cases the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process by ruling that the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is a “conclusive presumption”, precluding introduction of evidence in defense of Benson’s claim of fraudulent ratification:

An archive of Joe Banister’s interviews can be found at:

David F. LaRocque
CDR USNR (ret)
Captain TWA (ret)
Carlsbad, CA

Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years.

Gary Hubbell: The Redneck tree hugger

Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website,

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Global Warming — RIP? - Victor Davis Hanson

Global Warming — RIP?
The issue seems deader than a doornail.

Not long ago, candidate Obama promised to cool the planet and lower the rising seas. Indeed, he campaigned on passing “cap-and-trade” legislation, a radical, costly effort to reduce America’s traditional carbon energy use.
The theory was that new taxes and greater regulations would make Americans pay more for fossil-fuel energy — a good thing if it reduced our burning of coal, oil, and gas. Obama was not shy in admitting that under his green plans, electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” His energy secretary, Steven Chu, at one point even said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” — that is, about $8–10 per gallon. Fairly or not, the warming movement appeared to be a tiny elite attempting to impose costs on a poorer and supposedly less informed middle class.

But despite a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 2009–2010, President Obama never passed into law any global-warming legislation. Now the issue is deader than a doornail — despite the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to enact new regulations that would never pass Congress.
So what happened to the global-warming craze?
Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. “Climategate” — the unauthorized 2009 release of private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom — revealed that many of the world’s top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar-bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.
Unfortunately, during the last three years “green” has also become synonymous with Solyndra-style crony capitalism. Commonsense ideas like more windmills, solar panels, retro-fitted houses, and electric cars have all been in the news lately. But the common themes were depressingly similar: few jobs created and little competitively priced energy produced, but plenty of political donors who landed hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans from the government.
Of course, it didn’t help that the world’s most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.
But even without the corruption and hypocrisy, sincere advocates of the theory of man-made global warming themselves overreached. At news that the planet had not heated up at all during the last ten years, “global warming” gave way to “climate change” — as if to warn the public that unseasonable cold or wet weather was just as man-caused as were the old specters of drought and scorching temperatures.
Then, when “climate change” was still not enough to frighten the public into action, yet a third term followed: “climate chaos.” Suddenly some “green experts” claimed that even more terrifying disasters — from periodic hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and earthquakes — could for the first time be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. At that point, serially changing the name of the problem suggested to many that there might not be such a problem after all.
Current hard times also explain the demise of global-warming advocacy. With high unemployment and near-nonexistent economic growth, Americans do not want to shut down generating plants or pay new surcharges on their power bills. Most people worry first about having any car that runs — not whether it’s a more expensive green hybrid model.
Over the last half-century, Americans have agreed that smoky plants and polluting industries needed to be cleaned up. But when the green movement began to classify clean-burning heat as a pollutant, it began to lose the cash-strapped public.
While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery — especially horizontal drilling and fracking — have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution — at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands, and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home.
We simply don’t know positively whether recent human activity has caused the planet to warm up to dangerous levels. But we do know that those who insist it has are sometimes disingenuous, often profit-minded, and nearly always impractical.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Tea Party vs OWS - Hypocrites Won't Share the Food

They want the targeted Wall Street firms to "share the wealth" but they won't share a few scraps of food.

Now see them! This is the promise of the Obama administration. This is Obama's Promised Land, a fundamentally transformed America.

I have waited my time and analyzed the phenomena. Although, my initial reaction was that they may be a typical anarchist mob that the leftist rhetoric usually invokes, I must admit I understood their initial anger at the bailouts, a common theme with all Americans. And the fact that a whirlwind of social media was at its start and it could be said that there were many idealists that first came out could also be seen as encouraging. Despite the fact that this started in the heart of political idiocy and collectivism, New York City, home of the Progressive Pragmatic leaders of the Democratic Party and the most emotionally immature portion of the Democratic rank and file, it is quite clear that the OWS are the very image of socialism's spoon-fed anti-American rhetoric, ala' the Wisconsin Idea. The organizers are of various types of those who espouse a Centralized Collective Authority the rank and file, the angry, immature, un sophisticated children of the socialist dream.

The tyrant Obama (the crony capitalist leader) the international socialist leaders in congress like Nancy Pelosi and the lame stream press has endeavored to portray this rabble as akin to the Tea Party. The only truth in this comparison is a dislike of the bailouts and that, as the Tea Party is representative of America's Spiritual Evolution (The American Revolutionary Process the concept of bottom up mobility, individuality and reliance on God) that the Occupy Wall Street protestors are indicative of the ideas of the French Political Revolution (top down political control with no faith in the individual and a desire to control or be controlled.)

The OWS protests have now gone on long enough to do a comparison with the Tea Party as to its aspirations, goals, allies, tactics, ideology and world view.

The Similarities
• Tea Party: Dislikes Wall Street Bailouts
• OWS: Dislikes Wall Street Bailouts
• Tea Party: Dislikes crony capitalism
• OWS: Dislikes crony capitalism
• Tea Party: Unhappy with the state of our nation.
• OWS: Unhappy with the state of our nation.

The Differences
• Tea Party: Inspiration drawn from the American Revolution
• OWS: Inspiration drawn from the French Revolution
• Tea Party: Aspiration Traditional American values like the Founders and Framers are in favor of entrepreneurial ism, believe in individuality and smaller government.

• OWS : Aspirations vary there are groups like CAIR and union organizers like SEIU present as well as various communist, national socialist and socialist organizations who represent an assorted group of Centralized Collective Authoritarians. A large majority who want more and larger government or look to government to solve their personal as well as social problems. They all have a fundamental disconnect in the logic of their thinking because they are against crony capitalism but fail to connect the dots that crony capitalism requires a large government in which to plant the seeds of corruption and eventually use to exploit. Overall, they all seem to want some sort of large government socialistic system.
• Tea Party: Recognizes that unions and government together with international businesses are crony capitalism.
• OWS: Only dislike certain international businesses and cartels hold others blameless like unions and big government.
• Tea Party: Dislikes all bailouts of any kind, distrusts government involvement in business.
• OWS: Favors government involvement or bailouts of favored entities.
• Tea Party: Hated by the main stream media and most government employees and the entire Democratic Party. Disliked by many Republican Party officials, also.
• OWS: Loved by the main street media and most government employees, brings fondness to the hearts of the Democratic Party feared by the Republican Party.

• The Tea Party: Wants less taxes, less government regulations and interference, upset with government.
• OWS: Wants more taxes, more government regulations and interference, upset with government.
• Tea Party: Clean, respectful of authority wants to work within the system.
• OWS: Dirty, disrespectful of authority wants to destroy the system.
• Tea Party: Sober

• OWS: Intoxicated often on drugs.
• Tea Party: Often accused of racism by main stream media which defies' logic in that the Tea Party believes in individualism and that prejudice by definition is judging by the group.
• OWS: Excused by main stream media for blatant anti Semitism. Judges people by group, including financial status.
• Tea Party: Has a good opinion of Israel.
• OWS: Calls Israelites Zionists, hates Israel prefers, Muslim extremists.

• Tea Party: Believes in self restraint.
• OWS: Do not believe in self restraint.

• Tea Party: Self polices events, do not allow people with hateful signs.
• OWS: Anything goes.
• Tea Party: Works with police at events.
• OWS: Fights Police.

• Tea Party: Asks only that individuals at events hear their point of view. Shares any food at events with everyone.
• OWS: Demands wealth redistribution from banks, refuses to share their food with poor.

• Tea Party: Knows that the policies of the Democratic Party in general and the Obama administration in particular are the reason that our country is in the state that it is in.
• OWS: Think Obama didn't go far enough.

• Tea Party: Loves America
• OWS: Hates America
• Tea Party: In Almost three years time less then ten arrests (all were from anti-Tea Party pro union infiltrators)
• OWS: In one month's time nearly 1,800 arrests.
• Tea Party: Only one act of violence in three years which was perpetrated on an entrepreneur by SEIU thugs.
• OWS: Acts of violence assaults on police officers, rapes, all manners of crimes each with hundreds of incidents.
• Tea Party: Leaves site of events immaculately clean.
• OWS: Leaves a cesspool where they camp site.
• Tea Party: Wants America to be succeed.
• OWS: Wants America to fall.

I think that its safe to say that there are no similarities between these groups. In a short time, the Tea Party moved into the constructive business of participation in the election process. The Occupy Wall Street Protesters are the last gasps of the Socialists whose policies have failed here in America. In the end OWS are nothing more then spoiled crybabies.

Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Lawsuits seeking to stop Democrats from certifying candidate's qualified

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon.
Or in this case, the court docket.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.
Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.
"This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.'"

That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
"This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States."
It continues, "Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama's constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama's natural-born status.
"Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent."
Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, told WND that one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Arizona to focus on the question of defining the term "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution.
"We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit," he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.
Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.
"The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee secretary of state. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama's Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number," he said.
Other lawsuits also are planned, he said.
Irion said that an injunction obtained through the legal actions would deprive Obama of Democrat Party certification.
"Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election," his organization said in an announcement about the cases.
"Neither lawsuit discusses Obama's place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF's lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined 'natural-born citizen' as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen's birth. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant," the group said.
"LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government.
"The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages," the group said.
LLF also reported it learned that presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.
While WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation that Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state's election ballot in 2012, there also are other developments, too.
WND also has reported on an investigation that revealed a major online court opinion resource,, allegedly edited references to the Minor v. Happersett court decision from dozens on documents it posted online.
The issue developed when a Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were altered at
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn't eligible because he wasn't born in Hawaii as he's said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen," disqualified dual citizens.
The White House in April released an image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama's claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery.

Read more: Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

How A Candidate Should Handle Birther Questions

How A Candidate Should Handle Birther Questions

By Jack Cashill
This past week, Texas Governor Rick Perry was hit with the "birther" question by Parade Magazine.  Here is how it went:
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.
That's not a definitive, "Yes, I believe he"--
Well, I don't have a definitive answer, because he's never seen my birth certificate.
But you've seen his.
I don't know. Have I?
This, of course, created a microburst of concern, fake and real, over Perry's campaign smarts.  "You associate yourself with a nutty view like that, and you damage yourself," said Bush strategist Karl Rove.  When pressed, Perry predictably waffled: "It's fun to, you know, lighten up a little bit."  He added, "I was just having some fun with Donald Trump."
For Perry, like other Republicans tagged with this line of questioning, it has been all lose-lose.  An open-minded response to the eligibility question alienates the establishment, and backpedaling alienates the rank and file.  To spare future candidates the anxiety, I have structured an imaginary back-and-forth between Herman Cain and Anderson Cooper (in bold).
If I could sum up the strategy in three words, it would be this: take the offensive.  Cooper's questions, by the way, are based in part on actual interviews he has done in the past.
To say there is significant evidence that the president was not born in America is just false (a real Cooper question).
As they say on Jeopardy, Anderson, could you put that in the form of a question, please?
Mr. Cain, do you really believe Barack Obama was not born in America?
Let me concentrate on what I know, Anderson, not on what I believe or don't believe.  The story that the president told in his book, Dreams from My Father -- the story that he repeated at both conventions and repeats to this day about the first few years of his life -- is false.  Anderson, do you know how it is false?
No, enlighten me.
As recently as Father's Day, the president was telling America that his father left the family when he was two years old.  He has been repeating this for years even though it is not true.
Not true how (smirking)?
There was no Obama family.  His parents never lived together.  Obama Senior's INS documents make that clear.  Do you know where Obama spent the first year of his life, Anderson?
No, tell me.
No, Anderson, I'm asking you.  You tell me.  You're the newsman.  With all due respect, I have seen you belittle others for their beliefs about Obama's origins.
Hawaii, of course.
No, Anderson, Seattle.  How is it that you don't know that?
How do I know that you do?
Don't take my word for it.  Check the apolitical Washington State and Seattle history links.  They will show you where Obama and his mom lived on Capitol Hill, what courses she took at the University of Washington, who Obama's babysitter was and what she had to say.  In fact, the mom, Ann Dunham, did not return to Hawaii until Obama Senior had left for Harvard.  It is likely that Obama Senior never even saw Obama as a baby.  The mom was in Seattle within weeks of his birth.  In fact, the first documented sighting of the baby was in Seattle.
Why is this important?
Well, Anderson, the president built his candidacy on the multicultural ideal that his family represented, but there was no family.  There was no "improbable love," no "vision for America's future."  Again with all due respect, if the president was willing to deceive us on this, and you and your media colleagues were willing to let the deception go unchecked, how can we take you seriously when you scold so-called "birthers" for challenging Obama's eligibility?
So do you believe Obama is a citizen or not?
No one ever said he wasn't a citizen.  The question the "birthers" raise is whether he is a "natural born citizen" as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  Do you know what this means?
I am sure you will tell me.
Thank you, I will.  To be "natural born" is a higher bar than "citizen" or even a native citizen.  It is too complicated to go into here, especially since you are not up to speed on this issue, but it has to do with the citizenship of the parents.
So do you believe that Obama is eligible to be president?
Again, Anderson, it is not what I believe or don't believe.  It is what I know.  And I know that, incredibly enough, there is no formal process right now to determine anyone's eligibility to run for president.  Congress doesn't check.  The parties don't check.  The Electoral College doesn't check.  And as to the media -- heck, Anderson, you can't even tell me where Obama spent the first year of his life.  So how is anyone supposed to believe you as to where Obama was born or whether his birth certificate is real, let alone whether Obama is a natural born citizen?  You simply don't know enough -- with all due respect, of course.
Thank you, Mr. Cain, and good luck, I suppose.  Coming up next: Lindsay Lohan's father arrested again in Tampa.  Viewers, don't go away.  You won't want to miss this.

Page Printed from:

Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?

By Mondo Frazier
There are so many things the public does not know about the man who sits in the White House.  Who is Barack Obama?  In my search to find out the answers I embarked on a journey that has lasted three years and counting -- and nearly made my head explode.
As usual, when Obama is the subject, Americans can't count on the progressives in the Corporate Mainstream Media (CMM) for much help.  So, what's one to do?  The foreign press proved helpful.  Therefore, gleaned from the foreign press: a few stories which didn't rate any coverage from the U.S. CMM.
In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama went on a mission to Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).  The  newly-minted U.S. senator was invited to be part of a Russian fact-finding tour that inspected a nuclear weapons site in Perm, Siberia.  The base Lugar and Obama visited was where mobile launch missiles were being destroyed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR), which also went by the name of the Nunn-Lugar program.
What happened next -- after the inspections were over -- was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never reported in the USA by the CMM.  The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama's and Lugar's passports and search their plane.  Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy.
But wait -- there's more!
According to an Italian source, the Russians did not accuse Obama of being an American spy; they accused him of being a spy for the British!  The report went on to say that the incident ended up involving the White House, the U.S. State Department, and military officials, along with their counterparts in Moscow.
Strangely enough, an official report from Lugar's office about the trip never mentioned the incident.  Neither did Barack Obama in 2008 when he was desperate to exhibit some foreign policy chops.
One other oddity: in the fall of 2008, Obama admitted on his site that he had held dual citizenship with both the United States and Great Britain (the site explained that this was due to Barack Obama, Sr. being a foreign national) until 1982.  Did the Russians know something about Obama's citizenship in 2005 that ordinary Americans don't know in 2011?
Another story no one has seen fit to ask about: Obama's Most Excellent Pakistani Adventure.
In the summer of 1981, 20-year-old Barack Obama embarked on a two-week trip to Pakistan.  At least what little reporting that has been done claimed the length of the trip was two weeks.  The only proof that the trip didn't turn into a longer stay is that we (supposedly) have records which show that Barack Obama enrolled at Columbia University later that same summer.  Of course, the public hasn't seen those records, but that's what we've been told.  Anyone in doubt will be directed to Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
Obama clearly gave the impression in DFMF that he was this penniless, somewhat confused young man, in search of an identity.  Obama makes sure readers don't miss the point by writing that he was forced to wear "thrift store clothing" during this time.  Yet he somehow managed to find the cash to finance a two-week trip to Pakistan.
Which he never wrote about.  Which in itself is odd: here's a guy who wrote two autobiographies that explored events real, imagined, and totally fictional that supposedly forged the modern-day Barack Obama from humble beginnings.  That's according to the Obama NarrativeTM -- which gets most of its facts from Dreams from My Father.
Not only did a poor, nearly destitute Obama manage to afford the trip to Pakistan, but once there he somehow financed two weeks in the Lahore Hilton International.  In addition, Obama was introduced to the future prime minister and president of Pakistan -- and went bird-hunting with him.  Which the prime minister mentioned in the Pakistani press in 2008.  There's so much more, including one question the CMM never asked Obama: who arranged all of this?  For a 20-year-old nobody.
Another curious piece to the queer Obama puzzle is the connection -- which hasn't been made in the CMM (attention, Fox News!) -- between illegal foreign contributions to the Obama campaign and subsequent billions in Stimulus money to foreign companies and banks.  During and after the 2008 election, accusations of illegal foreign contributions -- which flowed into the Obama campaign when credit card safeguards were disabled on the campaign's website -- were documented in the conservative press and elsewhere.
Who were these mysterious donors, and in what countries did they live?  Unfortunately, due to the chicanery of Team Obama, we may never know.  Fast-forward to 2009.  Obama's multi-billion-dollar Stimulus is rushed through Congress, and billions of dollars in Stimulus money are doled out to foreign companies and banks.  Finland, China, Brazil, and India are just a few of the beneficiaries of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. Might these have been payoffs for those shady, unknown donations?
Bill Clinton was the first president to benefit from a foreign spoils system, but Barack Obama has made Clinton look like an amateur. 
One more coincidence in shady fundraising.  The lady involved with Obama's fundraising in the Caribbean?  None other than Vera Baker, who packed up and hurried left the country after the National Enquirer started exploring a possible tryst between her and Obama in a Washington hotel.
Barack Obama can only hope that ObamaCare covers "extreme stress" -- because whoever on his staff is responsible for keeping track of all of the weird stuff in the president's life is definitely a candidate for burnout. 
One final item involves that most elusive of documents: Obama's long-lost long-form birth certificate.
A Chicago-area activist, Sherman Skolnick, writing for a radio show/website (now defunct) by the name of Cloak and Dagger uncorked this headline on his readers.  It referred to another story he'd written in 2005 -- three years before anyone in the media coined the term "birther" to tamp down curiosity about our 44th president's past.  (All-caps headline in the original story.)
Just another day in the life of anyone attempting to pierce the shroud of mystery that surrounds our 44th president.  The final result is the publication of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama.
Mondo Frazier is the editor/founder of the website DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts and the author of The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama, published by Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster.

Why Republicans Will Never Address Obama’s Crimes 1946

Why Republicans Will Never Address Obama’s Crimes

1946Share 0diggsdigg


by Lawrence Sellin, ©2011
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on an anti-slavery platform and came to dominate the northern region of the country by 1858
(Oct. 22, 2011) — I have received information from multiple sources that Congressional Republicans are fully aware that Barack Hussein Obama is a Constitutionally illegal President and has committed felonies both before and after occupying the Oval Office.
Specifically, Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, has never been eligible for the office of President. In addition, Obama has forged his birth documents and Selective Service registration and uses a Social Security number not issued to him.
The Republican establishment has decided that challenging Obama on those issues will be ineffective and will cause complete havoc in the country.
It is clear to me that Obama and the mainstream media have been thoroughly successful using Saul Alinsky’s Rules 5 and 9 of “Rules for Radicals”:
Rule 5 – “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Rule 9 – “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Republicans are fully intimidated by the Obama campaign and its supporters in the mainstream media with the certainty of being labeled and dismissed as “racists,” “birthers” and right-wing “conspiracy theorists” if they confront Obama regarding his violation of the Constitution and his felonies.
Republicans have also been intimidated by the threat of civil unrest instigated by the Obama campaign and executed by union thugs, left-wing radicals and Black Nationalist extremists.
In both cases, the Republicans have succumbed to political blackmail.
What goes unmentioned in the Republicans’ explanation is that, because of their complicity in the cover-up of Obama’s ineligibility and crimes, they are also vulnerable to political criticism and criminal prosecution.
The Republican strategy, therefore, is to challenge Obama on policy, educate the public and defeat him in the 2012 election.
Good luck with that approach, with the already anointed RINO candidate Mitt Romney and with a party platform of warmed-over platitudes and promises with post-election expiration dates.
In my opinion, regardless of who wins the Presidency in 2012, Obama’s ineligibility and his crimes will never be addressed. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have too much to lose.
Exposure of the Obama fraud and criminal activity would reveal the depth of corruption in the two-party system.
The extent of the deception perpetrated by Obama supporters is mindboggling.
For example, attorney Leo Donofrio has evidence conclusively establishing that, during the run-up to the 2008 election, 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions referencing Minor v. Happersett (1875), the case which proves that Obama is an illegal President, were sabotaged, then republished at, the main resource on the web for all things related to United States Supreme Court holdings.
According to that report, CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008.”
Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, the Democrats and Republicans have become the tools of an invisible government, which owes no allegiance and acknowledges no responsibility to the American people.
We have been politically disenfranchised. We have the right to vote, but we have lost control of the government.
James Jackson, representative from Georgia to the First U.S. Congress stated:
“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.”
Congressional Democrats and Republicans have stridden far beyond that point and now feel free to ignore our petitions and treat our beliefs with disdain.
Political expediency has clouded their judgment and obscured their view of the danger our country faces.
There are anti-democratic and anti-American forces working aggressively inside the country to bring down our republic. These forces are promoting the interests of nations hostile to the United States, of global financiers and radical Islam.
The work of these forces is facilitated by corrupt or cowardly politicians, radical leftists and by useful idiots oblivious to the fact that they are aiding and abetting American enemies, who will ultimately eradicate our freedom and way of life.
Barack Obama represents the nexus of those treacherous forces.
Nevertheless, Republican leaders are asking the American people to tolerate violations of the Constitution and ignore extensive criminality at the highest levels of government so their party can win the 2012 election.
If the Constitution and the rule of law mean so little to either the Democrats or the Republicans, then what’s the point?
A Republican victory in 2012 may mean the revocation of Obama’s most onerous policies, but will they ever address his ineligibility and crimes?
Having become complicit, I think not.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives hate mail at

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Does this give anyone any ideas?

My purpose in posting this is to encourage others to contact their local sheriff or join me in contacting sheriffs nationwide.  A crime was committed in every county where AKA Obama's name appeared on a ballot.

Does this give anyone any ideas?

How to obtain a copy of Obama's original long-form birth certificate, legally

How to obtain a copy of Obama's original long-form birth certificate, legally.
Full text of Hawaiian Legislation here:

Quick and to the point; according to Hawaiian law sb1326 any Law Enforcement Officer in the United States can access the vital statistics of the Hawaiian Government. Below is an excerpt from the Hawaiian law that regulates the release of records to law enforcement officers. Many people are very frustrated about Obama’s many secrets. As far as I know no one has attempted to obtain the birth records as part of an ongoing criminal investigation of election fraud. I think this should at least be attempted.

From: Rev. Samuel Sewell

10202 Vanderbilt Drive

Naples, FL 34108
TO: Sheriff
Subject: Crimes Against Citizens in Your Jurisdiction and MISPRISION OF FELONY
I am Samuel Sewell a citizen of the United States of America, 70 years of age, and of sound mind. I must address a matter of grave concern to me, and to our nation.
There is enough evidence available to the public for any Grand Jury to indict our fraudulent president for the crimes of Social Security Number fraud, birth certificate forgery, draft registration fraud, and identity theft in addition to election fraud in every jurisdiction in America. As it is now, and has been for some time widely known in America, as well as in many foreign countries that putative President Obama has submitted a form of his Certificate of Live Birth that has been proven by numerous well qualified official sources to be fraudulent and forged. It is a matter of concern that I write to you in the hopes that you will take action to investigate or initiate proceedings leading to prosecution of putative President Barack Hussein Obama, A.K.A. Barry Soetoro for the commission of this outrageous fraud perpetrated against the people of America, and the Constitution of the Republic of the United States.
The very fabric of our great nation has become a laughing stock at best, and many know of the validity of criminal charges that can and must be brought. By his own admission, in published book form, as well as upon releasing the forgery and claiming it as his real birth certificate, he has shown himself to be unquestionably ineligible to hold the office he now subverts by virtue of the US Supreme Court Precedence established with Minor vs Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.
Therefore, Obama –– according to US Supreme Court precedent –– is not eligible to be President, and his attempt to overcome that requirement, being other than natural born, constitutes criminal charges, and he should be indicted, and a trial should be held that may lead to removal from office. Obama cannot be leagally impeached.
As a fraud was facilitated by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the Notary Public certifying the candidacy nomination forms, and others in the Democratic National Committee charged with the duty to provide affirmation of his eligibility, they too must be investigated and brought to face charges of Fraud and Misprision of Felonies and other misdemeanors as outlined in U.S.C. 18 Ch 1, § 4.
In the interest of preservation of our great nation, I would strongly encourage your immediate action in moving forward to end this fraud. I have listed links to on-line sources for reference below to facilitate your ease of access. Thank you for standing up for law and order.
With all due respect,
Reverend Samuel Sewell
President, InterFaith Ministries.
U.S.C 18 Ch1, § 4 Misprision of Felony and other Misdemeanors
Misprision of felony is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

This letter hereby absolves me of my obligation to report crimes to authorities.

Rev. Sewell is a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.

He is an International Commentator and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, a frequent commentator on religious and political issues. His articles are published by "Intellectual Conservative", "American Thinker" and various periodicals.

His award winning research on Family issues is published in several languages.

Member of Sigma Delta Chi Honor Society