Sunday, June 30, 2013

ruling elite against the citizens.

There is no longer a contest between Republicans and Democrats.  Now it is the ruling elite against the citizens.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Who is the servant and who is the master - Get it straight!



IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of aBoston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to aU.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

By Dan Crosby
NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.
The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.
This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.
These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr. The table below shows there were a total of 13 children of U.S. citizens who entered the U.S. from Africa’s Kenyan region. It also shows there were 11 from the United Kingdom in the same time in comparison, to demonstrate the consistency of this class of arrivals, regardless of the country of embarkation.
These children were classified by the INS upon arrival based on a passport which already named them when they departed from the U.S. prior, or they received requisite documentation, pre-approved by the U.S. before embarkation, which identified them specifically as children of U.S. citizens who were up to 18 years old.
However, a child who enters the U.S. who was not named on a passport prior to the use of that passport to depart the U.S. must undergo another form of identification process upon returning. A child who did not exist when the parent departed the U.S., in the absence of a passport, must be classified as one of three definitions, a non-resident alien, a derived citizen by parentage or marriage, or a child with acquired citizenship by birth or legal adoption by a U.S. citizen. The following table shows the quantity of children who were granted acquired citizenship from Africa.
Also supporting this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s, but which was said by State Department officials to have been conveniently discarded as a part of an administrative order to make more file storage space in the 1980s.
We know Dunham used a passport at that time on at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by anFOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.
Successive yearly reports add COC recipients to their roster for previous years as applicants receive those certificates for the year they were born. Table 48 appears to show the data of the acquisition of citizenship by birth, not the year the COC is delivered. Review of later annual reports shows that each year’s COC by birth quantities increase as applicants born in those years receive the COC, regardless of the year of reception. However, in almost all cases, the COC is delivered for the child within a year of the birth date. COC delivery is often delayed while the circumstances of the birth abroad are confirmed for older births who might apply for retroactive COC. However, when a newborn child enters the U.S. bearing a foreign birth registration from an official medical facility or institution identifying the citizen parent, a COC is expedited based on the registration form, the parent(s) testimony and inspection of the child by the INS. In those cases, a COC may be delivered in days, not months or years.
According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.
A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:
- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody).
There is yet other historical documented evidence supporting the plausibility that Ann Dunham possessed a birth registration for Obama Jr. from Kenya. In 2009, divorce decree documents for Dunham and Obama Sr. revealed that a conspicuously missing page from the section of the court proceedings declaring the custody of Obama Jr. is the same page which corresponds to other divorce records where a birth certificate would be required by a judge in order to determine original parentage at birth for a custody ruling based on HRS 571.
As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. It was documented that Obama Sr’s father, living in Kenya at the time, denounced the marriage leaving the couple with a reconciliatory reason to travel there.
Following the completion of her classes at the University of Hawaii in winter 1961, the only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence was months after the alleged marriage, in late August 1961. A transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961 was discovered in 2009.
The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Derived Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.
The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of the same number of students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and Kenyan politician, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.
Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.
It should noted that the AASF sent more than 800 students to the United States via the Airlift Project from East Africa in the early 1960s. Some of the student are not accounted by the 1961-1962 Immigration report as having departed from Kenya in the third airlift transport in fall of 1961. However, several of these students attended the University of Chicago where it has been widely speculated they had expenses paid for by six separate U.S. families including the family of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of domestic terrorist and long-time Obama affiliate, Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on the Annenberg Education Project Fund board for almost 10 years.
Recent testimony from a retired postal worker who delivered mail to the Ayers’ Glen Ellyn, Chicago residence collaborates with AASF report accounts and indicates the Ayers may have a longer history of supporting foreign exchange students than initially suspected. Barack Obama II, was likely one of these foreign students supported by the Ayers in the late 1980s which would explain his engagement to serve with Ayers on the Annenberg Fund board, perhaps as appreciation for the Ayers’ help.
A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.
Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.
Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.
According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the "Gay Gene" by Dave Miller, Ph.D. Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

What % of the population is homosexual? While no one has carried out a door-to-door census, we do have a fairly accurate estimate. Interestingly, these statistics came to light in an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003, in the Lawrence vs. Texas case (commonly known as the Texas sodomy case). On page 16 of this legal brief, footnote 42 revealed that 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994).
The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America). The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986) of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.”

The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

The total population of the U.S. is 285,230,516.
The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.
The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.
Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!

Rest of the story:

intelligent national health care system not possible

Kevin Williamson makes some excellent points in his National Review article (May 20, 2013 issue) titled: “iPencil: Nobody knows how to make a pencil, or a health care system“:
Complex though it is, the iPhone is also a remarkably egalitarian device: The president of the United States uses one, as does the young Bengali immigrant who sold me my coffee this morning. But you can bet that her children do not attend schools as good as those that instruct the Obama daughters. The reason for that is politics: not liberal politics, not conservative politics, not bad politics, but politics per se.
The problem of politics is the problem of knowledge. The superiority of market processes to political processes is not in origin moral but technical. The useful knowledge in any modern society is distributed rather than centralized — and, as modern scholars of complexity studies confirm, there is no way to centralize it. Ludwig von Mises applied that insight specifically to the defects of planned economies — the famous “socialist calculation problem” — but it applies in varying degrees to all organizations and all bureaucracies, whether political, educational, religious, or corporate. Markets work for the same reason that the Internet works: They are not organizations, but disorganizations. More precisely, they are composed of countless (literally countless, blinking into and out of existence like subatomic particles) pockets of organization, their internal structures and relationships to one another in a constant state of flux.
We do not have the U.S. Steel Corporation, a tightly integrated and hierarchical operation overseen by a CEO with an omniscient command of his operation. We have lots of U.S. steel corporations, and a worldwide steel industry, and many worldwide industries making products that are substitutes for steel, from aluminum to carbon fiber to nanotubes. But we do have the U.S. Postal Service,the Social Security Administration, and the government-school monopoly in your home town. These agencies underperform consistently when compared with such benchmarks of innovation as the software industry or the biotech industry. They fail because they attempt to substitute a single brain, or a relatively small panel of brains organized into a bureaucracy, for the collective cognitive firepower of millions or billions of people. Put simply, they attempt to manage systems that are too complex for them to understand. Complexity is humbling, but politics is immune to humility.
Which is something to keep in mind the next time somebody promises to “solve” our health-care challenges or unemployment. Washington is packed to the gills with people who believe that they have the ability to design an intelligent national health-care system, but there is not one who does — no Democrat, no Republican, no independent. The information burden is just too vast.Washington is not only full of people who do not know what they are talking about, it is full of people who do not know that they do not know what they are talking about. That is no model for social change. Your pencil and your phone are.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

How could we expect the hand of God to continue to protect our nation?

We admire adults in Hollywood who are still playing “let’s pretend” and claim it is an art form.

We admire “professional athletes” who are still playing games that should have ended in their college days.

We are obsessed with fulfilling our lowest desires.  Sex, drugs, alcohol, and material possessions are at the top of our “things to do list”.

We kill our children while they are still in the womb.    

We sanction men being married to other men.  

We sanction women being married to women.  

We are beset by foreign peoples, foreign ideas, foreign economies, foreign customs, foreign gods, and our leader is a foreigner.  

Godlessness is growing from sea to shining sea.  

Our nation is in grave danger and our unrighteousness precludes God’s intervention in our destruction.  How could we expect the hand of God to continue to protect our nation? 

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

Friday, June 21, 2013

All Government has an Immoral Premise

All Government has an Immoral Premise

The essential premise of government is “do as we say or we will kill you”.

No matter how you look at it and no matter how petty your attempt may be to not do as they say, the result is the same. They will kill you.

Refuse to do as they say by not putting money in the parking meter.
Refuse to pay the parking ticket.
Refuse to go to jail or attempt to escape and they will kill you.

Would a person kill you over a parking ticket?  Not if they were sane.  But a government will kill you over a parking ticket, or not paying taxes, or jay walking or, etc.  We need more “person” influence and less government influence or we will surely perish.

“The Beast” That Was, and Is Not, and Yet Is
(Revelation 17:8)

Now, there is a riddle for you!  How could something have existed, but not really exist at all, and yet still exist.  I think a hint to solve the riddle lies in ersatz entities that are created as human concepts, and have no tangible existence what so ever. 

I remember a speech I heard by the flamboyant trial attorney, Gerry Spence.  He said, “I had a very successful career working for corporations and the government.  I won every case that went to trial.  Then I became aware that I was working for virtual, non-human entities that had no actual existence.  My clients were artificial, abstract ‘creatures’ whose only claim on reality was a concept or a contract defined by the laws of man.  I also noticed that when I won a case for a corporation or the government that real live human beings, with blood pumping through their veins and breath moving in and out of their lungs, were victimized by the ‘non-breathers.’  That is when I vowed never to have another non-breathing client for the rest of my career.  If you can’t fog up a cold mirror with your breath, I will not be your attorney.”

I think Gerry Spence solved the above riddle.  If it doesn’t breathe, it is “The Beast.”  If “The Beast” serves human needs it should be domesticated, cared for, and kept on a tight rein.  If “The Beast” intimidates human beings and expects the humans to serve “IT”, the time has come to bring out the cattle prods, and force ““The Beast”” back into submission. 

Metaphorically, American citizens are struggling with “The Beast” that has forgotten who is serving whom. I wonder if the right to bear arms includes cattle prods.  

Our elected leaders are expected to accept the responsibility of controlling “The Beast.”  Why do you think the Constitution has all those phrases, “The government shall not …”?

If, instead, our elected leaders begin serving “The Beast,” it becomes the responsibility of each individual citizen to ensure that “The Beast” is properly subordinated to ‘We the People.’  Many of our elected leaders are “Children of The Beast.”  Many of our citizens have become “Children of The Beast.”  They worship the glory and the power of “The Beast.” They accept gifts from “The Beast,” and they become dependent upon “The Beast.”  Evil compounded upon evil is the result of the nature of “The Beast” and the support of “The Children of The Beast.”

Why Liberals Kill

"Liberal institutions straightaway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Our June 22 discussion will be led by William Hutchins, MD

Sam's 4th Saturday Stag – June 22 - 2 PM
Examining the Dynamics Behind the Destruction of Civilizations

Why Liberals Kill

"Liberal institutions straightaway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." This quotation's author, Friedrich Nietzsche, was no traditionalist himself; in fact, he was a harsh critic of Christianity who coined the phrase "God is dead." Yet he knew that your republic would be dead the day liberals assumed enough power within it.
This understanding is necessary to properly evaluate the current Obama administration scandals involving NSA surveillance and IRS abuses. Critics' main focus has been debating what power the government should have, and this is a legitimate and important discussion. But even more significant is who wields that power. After all, you can exhaustively regulate the police, but it will be largely for naught if those with the great power of a gun and badge are fundamentally corrupt.
The recently departed Buzzfeed columnist Michael Hastings touched on liberals' will to tyranny in a piece titled "Why Democrats Love to Spy on Americans." Addressing the surveillance scandal he wrote:
The very topic of Democratic two-facedness on civil liberties is one of the most important issues that [Guardian columnist Glenn] Greenwald has covered. Many of those Dems - including the sitting President Barack Obama, Senator Carl Levin, and Sec. State John Kerry - have now become the stewards and enhancers of programs that appear to dwarf any of the spying scandals that broke during the Bush years, the very same scandals they used as wedge issues to win elections in the Congressional elections [sic] 2006 and the presidential primary of 2007-2008.
Precisely. When G.W. Bush played fly-on-the-wall, he was a lawless fascist. But when liberal Democrats play 1984-Brave New World, well, as Senator Harry Reid said earlier this month, "Everyone should just calm down."
But liberals are actually being quite consistent - historically. Infamous leftist Maximilien Robespierre is best known for authoring the French Revolution's spasm of violence and using the guillotine to murder thousands. What's less well known is that prior to assuming power Robespierre was a staunch death-penalty opponent.
And the list continues. The communist Khmer Rouge promised Cambodians peace, equality and prosperity, but then proceeded to kill off a third of them between 1975 and '79. The Soviet Bolsheviks adopted the slogan "bread, peace and land," but then purposely starved to death nine million people during the "Great Famine." Mao Zedong pledged to give the Chinese a better life but only delivered a quicker death, exterminating 60+ million of his countrymen. Fidel Castro promised his nation free elections in 1959, but then became the world's longest-serving non-royal leader, reigning as Cuba's dictator for 52 years.
In our time, too, this leftist shape-shifting is evident. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) preaches an animal-liberation line and even condemns meat consumption, but kills 89 percent of its shelter animals. Barack Obama promised to have history's most transparent administration, yet it has been the most opaque, giving us scandals characterized by abuse of law and power and the trampling of Americans' rights. And this brings us to a question: Does power really corrupt liberals more absolutely than anyone else?
I remember an incident in which a very liberal colleague at a former workplace was caught in a misdeed. His response was to cavalierly brush it off, saying with a chuckle, "Situational values." Another incident at that business involved a student of mine to whom I was quite close. Alluding one day to the difference between me and his liberal parents, he said out of the blue (I'm paraphrasing), "You're the only one who's consistent, who says the same things all the time." Is this a surprise? Liberals have given us the credos "If it feels good, do it" and "Whatever works for you [addendum: 'at the moment']."
This brings us to a truth about the modern left. Generally speaking, like all relativistic people, liberals don't have principles.
They have feelings.
And feelings change with the wind.
Of course, some have learned the hard way - mostly through debating liberals, only to find they're virtually immune to reason - that the left isn't intellect-oriented but emotion-oriented. But the question is, why do liberals deify their own feelings?
The short answer is that they have little else to deify.
But a more in-depth understanding requires some philosophical exploration.
Let's face reality: it can be hard for us human beings to be consistent. Principle can sometimes bump up against our worldly desires, and this is when being "situational" can be seductive. But there are things that can influence a person's likelihood to stand on principle. One is having a world view stating that consistency actually is better than inconsistency.
I've long pointed out that the most basic difference between the people we today call liberals and traditionalists isn't the apparent ideological divide. It is that the latter tend to believe in Moral Truth whereas liberals are almost universally moral relativists.
This is nothing less than an issue of operating in two completely different universes of reality. When you believe in Truth, morality is something objectively real to you, like matter itself. And most significantly, you view it as what it is: unchanging. This means that your yardstick for morality is the same whether convenient or inconvenient, whether you're out of power - or in power. It is unbending and non-negotiable. Oh, this doesn't mean absolutists can't betray their principles; man is weak and we all falter. But in the aggregate, it serves as a "controlling power upon will and appetite," to quote Edmund Burke, and thus mitigates man's do-what-thou-wilt default.
But what happens when a person doesn't believe in Truth? What then will be his yardstick for behavior? Well, if what we call right and wrong isn't determined by anything above man, then man himself is its author. But will it ultimately be a function of his intellect? Consider that the intellect's job is to use reason, a quality that the relativistic left ostensibly values. What is reason, however? It's not an answer, but a method by which answers may be found. But there can be no answers to moral questions if there's no Truth; hence, there then is no reason for reason.
This is why following relativism out leads us to a striking conclusion: Since we can't say that anything is objectively right or wrong, better or worse, the only yardstick we have left for behavior is feelings. Truth is a tale, faith is fancy, but emotion is certainly real. We can feel it - deeply. And, oh, how seductive is that siren of anger, envy or any passion? Just think how readily emotion inspires action.
So, ultimately, relativism boils "morality" down to taste. This is why that guide "If it feels good, do it" really does make more sense in the modern liberal universe than anything else. But whose feelings should hold sway? Well, we may to an extent defer to those of the collective, but, ultimately, you're just another mortal, same as I. Why should I subordinate my feelings to yours, especially since mine are the only ones truly real to me? This is, mind you, what contributes to the deification of the self. Liberals' feelings do for them what God does for people of faith. They tell them how to behave.
And this is why liberals will often do anything for victory. When the Truth lies at the center of your world view, it will, in its immutable and infallible way, define what's right. But nature abhors a vacuum; thus, when a person's core is bereft of Truth, an emotion-derived agenda takes its place. It then defines what's "right." And that will be whatever advances that agenda at the moment, be it vote fraud, targeting opponents with the IRS or, when power is sufficiently solidified, perhapskilling 25 million "capitalists." And the lesson, dear voters, is that it really does matter what master your leaders serve.  
This morality-of-the-moment madness is why, in all fairness, liberals aren't always quite as hypocritical as they seem (just almost). For hypocrisy is saying one thing while intending to do another. Robespierre might have been very sincere when inveighing against capital punishment while out of power, and also very sincere when using it liberally while in power. It's just that the decrees of his personal god, you see, had changed.
And now we have a change agent, in every sense of the term, in the White House.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

It takes a big man to admit he is wrong.

Video: Obama's Eligibility Attorney Bob Bauer Behind Illegal IRS Targeting

 Video: Obama's Eligibility Attorney Bob Bauer Behind Illegal IRS Targeting

Blockbuster Video: Obama's Eligibility Attorney Bob Bauer Behind Illegal IRS Targeting - VIDEO HERE:

Video via Audit The IRS Rally held on 6/19/2013 )

FLASHBACK: Obama's Main Eligibility Attorney & White House Chief Counsel Bob Bauer Resigns - DETAILS HERE.

FLASHBACK: FEC Report: Obama Campaign Paid Law Firm $5 Million To Keep His Records Sealed? - DETAILS HERE.

WATCH: Raw Video Archive: Sheriff Arpaio Obama ID Fraud Presentation Live From Missouri - VIDEO HERE.

Muslim problems

Video Expose: Obama’s Lifetime of Photoshopped Pictures

Video Expose: Obama’s Lifetime of Photoshopped Pictures

We all know that Obama’s “Internet Birth Certificate” is fake and that all his past from school, politics etc is zipped up. Yet just one questions looms large: Just how far down does this fraud go? Watch the below video-what do you think?

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Bring Back Birtherism? - It never went away.

Bring Back Birtherism? GOP Rep. Says Congress Should Revisit Questions About Obama’s ‘Validity’

Appearing on TruNews talk radio this week, Rep.Jeff Duncan (R-SC) agreed with host Rick Wiles that Congress ought to revisit questions about the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate in light of the recent scandals involving the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.
After Wiles and Rep. Duncan discussed their desire to pursue and deport illegal immigrants, rather than extend the possibility of citizenship to them, the host asked if the House has any intention to also “pursue Barack Obama’s phony identification papers.”
At first, Duncan shied away from directly addressing the so-called “birther” concerns, simply adding that Americans had a chance to vote Obama out in November and, in his belief, regrettably didn’t do so. Wiles then asked: “If we know they are lying about all these other things, why not go back and say ‘Well, maybe the first scandal was a lie too?’”
“There you go,” Duncan agreed. “I’m all with you. So let’s go back and revisit some of these things because Americans have questions about not only the IRS scandal but also about the president’s validity.”
Throughout Obama’s presidency, various conspiracy theories have arisen about his birth certificates, including the belief that the long-form certificate publicly released in 2011 was a forgery using image-editing software. Though these so-called “birther” beliefs have been out of the news in recent months, they still seem to hold weight with some of the president’s political opponents.

Monday, June 17, 2013

American Presidents in Uniform

The False Excuse of National Security

The False Excuse of National Security

By Jonathon Moseley
Fighting terrorism? Don't be a chump. Excuses usually trade on something very important and genuine. But what is truly important can be abused, precisely because it should impress us. Government tries to fool us with phony excuses to do whatever officials and bureaucrats want to do.
The NSA, et al., failed to detect the Tsarnaev brothers -- even after being tipped off by Russia -- before the Boston Marathon bombing. FBI agents actually investigated the Tsarnaev family in detail. Russia's tip would justify continuing, specific search warrants and phone taps. Yet the NSA and FBI never saw the bumbling brothers coming. They were not exactly James Bonds. Yet they weren't detected.
Advance warning of the attacks in Benghazi? Fast and Furious? We could go on and on. So is the Obama Administration really trying all that hard to fight terrorism?
In the law, there is a precise test for exposing a "pretext." If actual behavior clashes with the claimed reason for an action by government or an employer, the conflict may convince us that the claimed purpose is fake -- a "pretext" or phony excuse.
The NSA can't find its own contractor employee. Booz Allen contractor Edward Snowden absconded with national secrets to Hong Kong. The NSA did not detect Snowden talking -- across international borders -- about national secrets with journalists in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Remember that Hong Kong is now China. It reverted to Chinese sovereignty after the expiration of England's 99-year lease expired a few years ago.
So is this incompetence? Or is this evidence of a "pretext" -- a phony excuse? Does the Obama Administration actually want to fight terrorism all that much? Or are they primarily interested in gathering vast amounts of information about American citizens? Do their actions tell us where their attention is focused?
The proof, they say, is in the notorious pudding. The government is being highly successful in invading the privacy of Americans and increasing control and surveillance. The government is not doing so well fighting terrorism. The actual behavior of the government points to development of a 'Big Brother" surveillance state and exposes national security as a phony excuse.
Known for saying things she shouldn't, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) let slip in an interview that Obama's legacy would carry on after 2016: "I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life." She added, "That's going to be very, very powerful." Waters explained: "And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before." "He's been very smart," Waters said of Obama. "I mean it's very powerful what he's leaving in place."
The government refuses to admit who it is we are fighting a war with. As a phony pretext, the government wants to snoop on the entire population of the country. But the Obama Administration refuses to zero in on who it is who is actually trying to kill us.
This brings to mind the children's joke about the man searching under a street lamp at night. The man lost his keys a mile down the road. But the light is better here under the street light. So he is looking here instead of where he actually lost his keys.
Spying on innocent American civilians is much easier than trying to track terrorists and real threats to the country. So the government snoops on innocent citizens rather than doing the hard work of chasing dangerous criminals, enemies, and terrorists. Why focus on a real threat when you can spy on everyone indiscriminately? (That is this author's objection to police focusing excessively on crimes like prostitution: Hey. Why go after criminals who might shoot back if you can pick on non-violent offenders and grab headlines? )
The Bush Administration was publicly crucified -- even by many conservatives -- for monitoring international phone calls of specific, named individuals suspected of terrorism. The Obama Administration is snooping on everyone indiscriminately -- entirely within the domestic United States. Larry Klayman has filed two class action lawsuits. Klayman notes the extraordinary circumstance in which nearly the entire U.S. population may be part of the 'class' in the class action.
Last week, Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi gathered a group of politicians for a meeting. Egypt's leaders were recorded talking about Egypt's war with its "enemy" the United States, like Israel.
Not realizing that an open microphone was recording their meeting, Magdi Ahmad Hussein, chairman of the Islamic Labor Party described the U.S. as an enemy [emphasis added]: "I'm very fond of battles. With the enemies, of course -- with America and Israel, but this battle must be waged with maximum judiciousness and calm." After being informed of the hot microphone, Hussein continued: "Okay... Fine... The principles behind what I'm saying are not really secret... Our war is with America and Israel, not with Ethiopia. Therefore, engaging in a war... This is my opinion..."
So why are we giving billions, and F-16s, to our enemies? In May, Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry sent yet another $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt, now controlled by the Islamic Jihadi Muslim Brotherhood, by waiving Egypt's failure to meet standards in the law. To get aid, Egypt must show progress toward democracy and civil rights. Kerry waived the requirement. (These payments seem like "tribute" paid to a dominant Muslim Caliphate to buy temporary peace.)
So what do we see? The government claims that an Orwellian 'Big Brother' surveillance society is necessary for the purpose of defending against threats. Yet the government isn't actually fighting those threats. That tells us that it's an excuse, a pretext.
Of course, national defense is important. But that's why using it as a fake excuse is so offensive. This author "believes" in (no, has personally experienced) God. Yet con artists who talk about God to gain people's confidence are all the more deeply offensive because the real God is actually important. A fake pretext is dangerous, wrong, and offensive in direct proportion to how important the genuine article is.

For sure, defending the country is the highest priority of the Federal government. Too many leftists and "liberal-tarians" (not to be confused with the honorable tradition of genuine libertarians) complain about our military because they really don't believe in defending the country.

But we have to be aware that demagogues play upon our feelings concerning what matters most to us. That is all the more reason that when government lies about something so important, it cheapens, corrupts, and perverts what is truly valuable. We need to be on our guard.

Page Printed from:

Democrats - The Party of Treason!

United States Congress And United States Supreme Court = STOP BIG BROTHER! - to sign petition -

United States Congress And United States Supreme Court

I (We) Demand that the Government STOP Mining Personal Data On Private Citizens Immediately.

Public Trust in Our Institutions - Gallup Results 2013

No surprise.  Congress is somewhere below used car lots.  The media is enough for any honest person who is a journalist to change professions.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Bo Snerdley Goes Birther On Obama Gangsta Government; Legitimate Birth Certificate

Audio: Bo Snerdley Goes Birther On Obama Gangsta Government; Legitimate Birth Certificate

Audio: Bo Snerdley Goes Birther On Obama Gangsta Government; Legitimate Birth Certificate On File - AUDIO BELOW:

Audio via Rush Limbaugh. Hat tip Mara Zebest. )

WATCH: Raw Video Archive: Sheriff Arpaio Obama ID Fraud Presentation Live From Missouri - VIDEO HERE.

They are snooping on us, not Al Qaeda.

Editors Note: If you think government snoops are monitoring citizens to detect foreign terrorists you are just plain naive.  Government leaders have made it clear that they see the radical danger in this country coming from Christians, veterans, Tea Party people, Patriots, people who display the flag. etc.  The government snoops are gathering information about those who want Obama and his policies deported.  They are snooping on us, not Al Qaeda. 

Watch the Good Guys and Leave the Terrorists Alone

By Jeannie DeAngelis
Barack Obama alleges that snooping is in the nation's best interest because it is a powerful tool needed to keep Americans safe from dangerous terrorists. Yet, taking political correctness to a whole new level of lunacy, mosques, where terrorist types like to mingle with likeminded people, are currently off-limits to spying, snooping, and undercover stakeouts.
That's right -- cell phones are being tapped, keystrokes on computers are being logged and email intercepted and read; but mosques, which are home base for homegrown terrorists, are strictly off-limits to counterterrorism efforts.
Apparently this is how it works: Let's say law enforcement is looking for a serial murderer who's known to take a cooking class or two before butchering his victims. So to prevent non-murdering chefs from being offended, the thing to do would be to avoid looking in culinary schools for the killer. Right?
Then, while the Killer Chef hides in a cookery sharpening his meat cleavers, the FBI should spend most of its time surveilling florists, shoe stores, and yoga classes. To avoid insulting Jeffrey Dahmer types, the protocol must be to never ever search for suspicious-looking characters in places where lust killers with cannibalistic tendencies are likely to hang out.
And why, pray tell, if we can't look for Muslim terrorists in Muslim mosques, is the Obama administration demanding gun owners register firearms? Why are gun shows and gun shops being scrutinized by undercover goons? In other words, if we apply the Muslim terrorist/mosque logic, if the Second Amendment is such a dire threat to the safety of America, gun shops should be the last place Obama looks for gun owners.
Since 2011, in order to investigate or go undercover to find terrorists in mosques, which is supposed to be what the prying program is all about, according toInvestor's Business Daily FBI agents need "high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee." The SORC is a DOJ-appointed body made up of a chairman, members, and staff, all of whose identities are top secret.
If by chance one should suspect a sleeper cell is in a neighborhood nearby, fret not; just dial up the Sensitive Operations Review Committee. If no one answers, leave a message, because the SORC may be on a Sensitive Operations mission in Mexico supplying high-powered rifles to drug cartels and will no doubt promptly return the call as soon as they return.
In all seriousness, the Sensitive Operations Review panel was set up in response to Islamist groups who were offended that mosques were the targets of FBI stings looking for Muslim extremists. Apparently the ACLU and CAIR sued the FBI for surreptitiously staking out jihadists in Los Angeles mosques. Both organizations defined looking for Islamist extremists where Islamic extremists assemble as a violation of Muslim civil rights.
Prior to current don't-hurt-Muslim-feelings insanity being instituted, reports claim that there were dozens of fruitful sting operations conducted where potential terrorism was thwarted and American lives saved.
Can't have that! Therefore, with Obama in charge, if the procedures were working, the thing to do is to stop diligently monitoring any potential breeding grounds for homegrown jihadists.
That's why the Boston Bombers, who supposedly were inspired by Doku Umarov, a Chechen terrorist known as Russia's bin Laden, successfully blew up a pressure cooker filled with ball bearings, nails, and BBs at an iconic marathon, killing three and maiming 264.
The duo could have been stopped. Tragically, they weren't because while Tamerlan Tsarnaev was exhibiting "rage filled rants" and mocking Martin Luther King Jr. during worship service at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, reconnaissance efforts were focused on more pressing threats such as the whereabouts of tea party members, pro-lifers, ex-military men, Christians, and political conservatives.
It wasn't until after the Boston Marathon bombing that Tsarnaev's Cambridge, Massachusetts mosque was identified, and even then, to avoid "jumping to conclusions," counterterrorism officials hesitated to suggest that the Imam could help identify the Tsarnaev brothers from the images captured on video from the day of the bombing.
Because hey, even though it's been alleged that violent jihad is being preached inside some American mosques, acknowledging that fact and monitoring where jihadists worship would cut in on the precious time needed to track, crack down on, and harass American citizens who terrorize the country by bitterly clinging to the First and Second Amendment.
Jeannie hosts a blog at

Page Printed from: