Saturday, May 30, 2009
Funny Obama Pictures
If you have any to add please send me an email or leave a link in the comment section.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sonia Sotomayer Jewish Ties
May. 28, 2009
Ron Kampeas / jta , THE JERUSALEM POST
Ron Kampeas / jta , THE JERUSALEM POST
Jewish groups don't endorse US Supreme Court nominees, at least in writing.
The tears and choked sobs when Sonia Sotomayor accepted President Obama's nomination on Tuesday told another story.
Packed into the room along with Sotomayor's family, friends and colleagues were representatives of Jewish groups that have consulted with the White House about prospective replacements for David Souter.
The story of her life - the daughter of a Puerto Rican single mother from the Bronx, NY, whose ambitions knew no bounds - resounded with a community that has made the story of immigrant triumph over struggle a template of Jewish American success.
"It was impossible not to moved by her personal story," said Mark Pelavin, the associate director of the Reform movement's Religious Action Center. "To see her mother sitting there and think about what this says about her and her country - the combination of someone who grew up in a housing project, who has been on the bench for a long time, but who has been a prosecutor as well, that combination is very powerful."
"It was thrilling," said Sammie Moshenberg, the Washington director of the National Council of Jewish Women.
It doesn't hurt that Sotomayor, 54, is a poster child for strong Jewish-Hispanic relations. In 1986, when she was in private legal practice, she joined one of the first young leadership tours of Israel sponsored by Project Interchange, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.
Sotomayor so enjoyed the country - its immigrant culture, its popular music influenced heavily by Jewish immigrants from Argentina and Brazil - that she made a return visit in 1996 when she was a federal judge, and recently joined a Project Interchange US-Israel forum on immigration. In the process, she formed a lifelong friendship with Project Interchange founder Debbie Berger and her husband, Paul, who attended her swearing-in as a Manhattan appeals court judge in 1998.
"She enjoyed Israel not just from an intellectual perspective, she liked the music and the people," Paul Berger told JTA.
Richard Foltin, the legislative director for the AJC, said her background naturally played a role in how the Jewish community would welcome her.
"We must recognize the significance of the third woman and first Hispanic on the court," he said. "And there's no question of her impressive qualifications."
Sotomayor would come to the Supreme Court with one of the longest bench careers in its history, having handed down or joined 3,000 decisions in 18 years as a federal and appeals court judge. That's a lot to read through and accounted for a degree of hesitancy from Jewish groups that were enthused about her life story but just getting to know her judicial record.
"I've got a bunch of opinions in my briefcase and it's time to start reading," Pelavin said.
The National Council of Jewish Women -- one of the few Jewish groups that expresses an opinion on judicial candidates -- has yet to announce where it stands. Whatever the case, said Nancy Ratzan, the NCJW's president, the organization would dedicate itself to ensuring that Sotomayor receives a fair hearing.
"Our 90,000 followers will be focused on making sure it's a fair and prompt process that focuses on her record," she said.
NCJW and the Religious Action Center will canvass members for appropriate questions for Sotomayor during the confirmation process; the questions will be relayed to the US Senate Judicary Committee.
Leaders of the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement calling for a process that is conducted "professionally, and with civility and respect," and praised the pick while stopping short of an official endorsement.
"We applaud President Obama for having selected this noted jurist to be the Court's first Hispanic and third woman Justice," the ADL leaders stated. "If confirmed, she will undoubtedly bring an important new perspective to the work of the Court."
Even the Orthodox Union, which tends to stake our more conservative ground than other Jewish organizations on church-state issues, spoke positively about Sotomayor, citing several religious freedom-related cases.
In a 1993 case, she upheld the constitutional right of a rabbi in White Plains, NY, to display a menorah in a city park. In two other cases, in 1994 and 2003, Sotomayor upheld prisoners' religious rights even though the practices in question did not conform with mainstream beliefs. And in 2006, she ruled that allowing federal age discrimination statutes to apply to a 70-year-old minister dismissed by the Methodist church would constitute unwarranted government interference in church affairs.
Those decisions, OU said, were "very encouranging."
Marc Stern, the legal counsel for the American Jewish Congress, predicted that Sotomayor's long bench experience ultimately will be a plus. More time on the bench shaping reasoned opinions made her less of a target than other nominees - like Lani Gunier, Robert Bork and Samuel Alito - whose years pushing intellectual boundaries in the halls of academe handed fodder to opponents seeking controversial statements.
Additionally, the 2nd Circuit of Appeals - based in Manhattan and covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont - deals with cases emerging from courts and legislatures that already trend liberal. That means it is less likely to address issues such as abortion and discrimination that often exercise Jewish groups.
"There's no track record that anyone can point to," Stern said, referring to such hot-button issues. "There's not likely going to be a whole lot there as a smoking gun."
Sonia Sotomayer Is Anti Gun
Not that this should surprise anyone.......
Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.
Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.
As a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor makes the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to Sotomayor, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” In another case, Sotomayor ruled that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that “Judge Sotomayor’s position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama’s claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service,” reports CBS News.
“Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute.
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to “a declaration of war against America’s gun owners.”
Sonia Sotomayor would be a perfect Supreme Court justice for the Obama administration. Obama the supposed constitutional scholar is a notorious gun-grabber, although the corporate media refuses to underscore this fact. He endorsed the unconstitutional Illinois gun ban. In classic doublethink fashion, he has declared support for the Second Amendment in principle but backed local gun bans. Obama wants to ban “all forms” of semi-autos. But it is not simply semi-automatics — he would even ban most common rimfire target pistols, including those used in Olympic competition. For more on Obama’s gun-grabbing philosophy, see Barak Obama’s Gun Control Positions.
Many Americans understand Obama wants to outlaw guns and in response they are purchasing guns and ammo in record numbers. “Gun sales are on the rise across the U.S. and many dealers are having trouble keeping guns and ammunition in stock. Sales of guns moved sharply upward last November, the same month voters chose a new president,” reports VOA News.
A growing number of states understand the federal government is gearing up to not only outlaw firearms and trash the Second Amendment, but possibly confiscate them as well.
For instance, Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has promised to sign a bill today making it legal to possess a firearm during martial law. “Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,” reports the Associated Press.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Lindsey Graham is a Dumbass
This son of a bitch needs to be HUNG. He and the majority of dumbass Republican Neo Con's in the video are why I left the Republican Party and joined the Constitution Party. If you wont take up arms at least switch parties, these assholes have betrayed us for years and we just keep voting them in because they aren't quite as liberal as the deomcrats. This is a flawed strategy that has ruined our country.
Lindsey Graham faced hecklers at the South Carolina Republican Convention Saturday. The State reported:
Graham told the crowd there was nothing wrong with any conservative, and he wanted to build an open party that could win in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, as well as South Carolina.
“You’re a hypocrite!” one man yelled.
“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham shot back. “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.”
“Ron Paul is not the leader of this party,” Graham said, prompting a few jeers. Some people yelled, “Yes, he is!”
“I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham finished, drawing most of the crowd to its feet.
This video is from YouTube, broadcast May 16, 2009.
Update: Brian, the guy who had the balls to tell Lindsey Graham he was a hypocrite to his face has given me the link to his video. You can watch it below. I hope others will follow Brian and stand up to these Neo Con's who have sold us out. Don't let them continue spewing BS call them out for what they are!
Monday, May 18, 2009
How To Secede
"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
~ Mahatma Gandhi
I often get mail from readers inquiring on what to do to advance the cause of secession in their respective locales. So I’d like to discuss a few ideas on how it has worked in the past and how it may work in the future. I would first dispose of the canard that it is traitorous or unpatriotic to consider this. Do you suppose our rulers in DC abide by the rule of law, see the Constitution (I prefer the DI) as a bedrock document and seek to respect the real diversity in America (not the silly race, class & gender motif)? That diversity is the vast gulf in tolerance for levels of government as opposed to governance. Government is the command and control apparatus to manipulate people through coercion and violence. The distinction is that governance can occur in a minarchist or stateless realm because it runs the gamut from forms of external control to the personal controls of one’s own nature and relationship in society. Positive self-governance is the ability not only to do right by yourself but use your self-interest to serve others e.g., a business or voluntary work in a community and do them no harm. You have to ask whether your own philosophical ideas emanate from law or party; from conviction or the desire to get ahead at other people’s expense. You have to pry out the deeper recesses of who you are to divine what your motivations are in your community. If you conclude that in order for you to get ahead in life, you must use the vicious power of government to achieve this, secession may not fit you. The new regime in town will see that your needs are answered…for a while. Until they run out of money or create a state so suffocating that 1984 looks like a resort lifestyle.
The first task is to educate yourself on the ideas that would inspire such radical measures as secession. From whence does your conviction come? In a previous essay, I recommended a number of books on the subject. I would also add Thomas Naylor’s thin tome, Secession, as a great primer on the whole notion. There are a rather small number of books that deal directly with the secession issue. Yet, if we look at the vast number of books published since 1750 which deal with the precursors and history of both the First (1775–83) and Second (1860–65) American Revolutions the books start to increase tremendously which tangentially or directly deal with the notion.
Simply the words Declaration of Independence seem rather descriptive now, don’t they? To wit:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
We were not asking for a Declaration of Dependence wishing to increase the size and weight of the British yoke, we were putting a petition to the world that we would no longer be shackled like draft animals to a system of government that had become overbearing, tyrannical and cruel in the violence it visited on men who wished to be at the helm of their own destinies.
The Constitution was then penned and approved but it left plenty to be desired in a Founding document. Those who actively engage in Constitution worship may want to turn away from the remainder of this paragraph. The Constitutional Convention was a political coup held in secret behind closed doors. The delegates were sent to amend the Articles of Confederation, not abolish them. The resulting document so terrified the Anti-Federalists that they immediately pressed for the Bill of Rights to put the brakes on what they perceived to be a pernicious concentration of power in the central government. Patrick Henry at the time referred to the Federalists as Consolidationists who wished to turn the states into mere administrative departments of the central government. Alexander Hamilton had managed to consign liberty and freedom to the dustbin of history as soon as the ink was drying on the new documents. So a careful consideration of secession should not be restricted to the primary and secondary source documents for the Constitution but all the literature and actions which took place prior to and after its adoption.
I have mentioned before that a mastery of the logic and rhetoric of the Anti-Federalists is powerful medicine in the coming conflicts. They speak eloquently to the decentralist and devolutionist impulses. I especially enjoy the acid-tongued Brutus.
So how does the American central government feel about secession? They like it as long as it is happening to other nations. The US State Department is now the champion of a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine and the American government was not shy about the applause it offered the fifteen states that calved from the moribund USSR a generation ago or calls to free Tibet from Chinese occupation but the American state is not at all thrilled at the prospect of its own partition and break-up in the near future. Yet the US State Department has not shied from its positions on other states’ right to secede:
"The Secretary and other members of the Administration have expressed concern to Chinese officials that the anti-secession law may be counterproductive"…
Imagine if the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1989–91 and these united States insisted that all fifteen of the states that fell away from and seceded from the USSR had to stay or else. Yet the American government insists that Kosovo secede from Yugoslavia proper protected under NATO’s skirts but South Ossetia better not secede from the American-Israeli satellite of Russian Georgia.
Thomas Franck, one of the five international law experts asked by the Canadian government to consider certain issues regarding a hypothesized secession of Quebec, wrote that:
"It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede. While international law does not foreclose on the possibility of secession, it does provide a framework within which certain secessions are favored or disfavored, depending on the facts. The key is to assess whether or not Kosovo meets the criteria for the legal privilege of secession."
A privilege granted by whom? So it appears our rulers are quite conflicted when it comes to the recognition of secession on the world stage. We need to leverage this schizophrenia.
Remember the golden rule when it comes to successful resistance, rebellion and secession: grievances are exploited whether real or perceived. Every state in the increasingly reluctant Union has their own respective beefs with the central government ranging from taxation to the environment to energy policy. In your state or region, the key to successful monkey-wrenching of the system is to start small and witness to friends, family and neighbors of the injustices and inequities you feel the denizens of Mordor are doing to you and yours where you live. For the Austrians among you, witty explanations of the evils of central planning and the ills of government interference in the economy through taxation and regulation will yield great benefits for the right audience. It is your job to awaken folks from their collectivist fever-dreams.
Taxes too high? US Forest Circus wolf reintroduction programs reducing your elk populations? Local timber industry destroyed due to the EPA? Agricultural subsidies destroying farm yields and family farms through perverse pricing schemes? Helium reserves for WWI dirigibles? Insolvency of the Socialist Security System? The list for agitation and substantive reasons to divorce the DC Mob are too numerous to list and I leave it to your imagination. The point is that the nurturing of grievances is an important step in shaping and influencing the way people think in your community. Essentially, no one knows more about your neighborhood and environs than you and the potentates in DC are in this case the ultimate know-nothings. Leverage this cognitive dissonance to your advantage.
Think about the Gandhian-style non-compliance which occurred at Jarbridge, NV in 2000 when a Federal agency tried to ply their mischief. It apparently got to where Federal employees were denied victuals and lodging in local towns. Good old-fashioned shaming and shunning.
By the way, writing letters to your Feral (sic) Congress-critters to beg for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights (among others) to be recognized is a waste of time. They will not yield the benefits they reap as rulers in their nests in DC. Something happens when they are there for more than a year and you will never get the smell out. They will ignore you or worse. Ignore them.
If you see fit to organize local Committees of Correspondence and Safety as our First American Revolutionary forebears did, modern communication techniques and sousveillance will make it very interesting indeed.
Local action is required for local results. I share with Lew Rockwell an increasing skepticism of any political action having a meritorious result in the causes of freedom and liberty but you must take your own counsel.
Isn’t secession the ultimate vote in a supposed democracy?
"They can jail us. They can shoot us. They can even conscript us. They can use us as cannon fodder in the sod. But – But we have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of their British Empire – and that weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to bow to any order but our own, any institution but our own.
Our friends in the Royal Irish Constabulary would like to shut me up. Oh yes, jail me again, shoot me, who knows? And I'd like you to send them a message. If they shut me up, who'll take my place?"
~ Michael Collins
http://lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert23.html
~ Mahatma Gandhi
I often get mail from readers inquiring on what to do to advance the cause of secession in their respective locales. So I’d like to discuss a few ideas on how it has worked in the past and how it may work in the future. I would first dispose of the canard that it is traitorous or unpatriotic to consider this. Do you suppose our rulers in DC abide by the rule of law, see the Constitution (I prefer the DI) as a bedrock document and seek to respect the real diversity in America (not the silly race, class & gender motif)? That diversity is the vast gulf in tolerance for levels of government as opposed to governance. Government is the command and control apparatus to manipulate people through coercion and violence. The distinction is that governance can occur in a minarchist or stateless realm because it runs the gamut from forms of external control to the personal controls of one’s own nature and relationship in society. Positive self-governance is the ability not only to do right by yourself but use your self-interest to serve others e.g., a business or voluntary work in a community and do them no harm. You have to ask whether your own philosophical ideas emanate from law or party; from conviction or the desire to get ahead at other people’s expense. You have to pry out the deeper recesses of who you are to divine what your motivations are in your community. If you conclude that in order for you to get ahead in life, you must use the vicious power of government to achieve this, secession may not fit you. The new regime in town will see that your needs are answered…for a while. Until they run out of money or create a state so suffocating that 1984 looks like a resort lifestyle.
The first task is to educate yourself on the ideas that would inspire such radical measures as secession. From whence does your conviction come? In a previous essay, I recommended a number of books on the subject. I would also add Thomas Naylor’s thin tome, Secession, as a great primer on the whole notion. There are a rather small number of books that deal directly with the secession issue. Yet, if we look at the vast number of books published since 1750 which deal with the precursors and history of both the First (1775–83) and Second (1860–65) American Revolutions the books start to increase tremendously which tangentially or directly deal with the notion.
Simply the words Declaration of Independence seem rather descriptive now, don’t they? To wit:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
We were not asking for a Declaration of Dependence wishing to increase the size and weight of the British yoke, we were putting a petition to the world that we would no longer be shackled like draft animals to a system of government that had become overbearing, tyrannical and cruel in the violence it visited on men who wished to be at the helm of their own destinies.
The Constitution was then penned and approved but it left plenty to be desired in a Founding document. Those who actively engage in Constitution worship may want to turn away from the remainder of this paragraph. The Constitutional Convention was a political coup held in secret behind closed doors. The delegates were sent to amend the Articles of Confederation, not abolish them. The resulting document so terrified the Anti-Federalists that they immediately pressed for the Bill of Rights to put the brakes on what they perceived to be a pernicious concentration of power in the central government. Patrick Henry at the time referred to the Federalists as Consolidationists who wished to turn the states into mere administrative departments of the central government. Alexander Hamilton had managed to consign liberty and freedom to the dustbin of history as soon as the ink was drying on the new documents. So a careful consideration of secession should not be restricted to the primary and secondary source documents for the Constitution but all the literature and actions which took place prior to and after its adoption.
I have mentioned before that a mastery of the logic and rhetoric of the Anti-Federalists is powerful medicine in the coming conflicts. They speak eloquently to the decentralist and devolutionist impulses. I especially enjoy the acid-tongued Brutus.
So how does the American central government feel about secession? They like it as long as it is happening to other nations. The US State Department is now the champion of a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine and the American government was not shy about the applause it offered the fifteen states that calved from the moribund USSR a generation ago or calls to free Tibet from Chinese occupation but the American state is not at all thrilled at the prospect of its own partition and break-up in the near future. Yet the US State Department has not shied from its positions on other states’ right to secede:
"The Secretary and other members of the Administration have expressed concern to Chinese officials that the anti-secession law may be counterproductive"…
Imagine if the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1989–91 and these united States insisted that all fifteen of the states that fell away from and seceded from the USSR had to stay or else. Yet the American government insists that Kosovo secede from Yugoslavia proper protected under NATO’s skirts but South Ossetia better not secede from the American-Israeli satellite of Russian Georgia.
Thomas Franck, one of the five international law experts asked by the Canadian government to consider certain issues regarding a hypothesized secession of Quebec, wrote that:
"It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede. While international law does not foreclose on the possibility of secession, it does provide a framework within which certain secessions are favored or disfavored, depending on the facts. The key is to assess whether or not Kosovo meets the criteria for the legal privilege of secession."
A privilege granted by whom? So it appears our rulers are quite conflicted when it comes to the recognition of secession on the world stage. We need to leverage this schizophrenia.
Remember the golden rule when it comes to successful resistance, rebellion and secession: grievances are exploited whether real or perceived. Every state in the increasingly reluctant Union has their own respective beefs with the central government ranging from taxation to the environment to energy policy. In your state or region, the key to successful monkey-wrenching of the system is to start small and witness to friends, family and neighbors of the injustices and inequities you feel the denizens of Mordor are doing to you and yours where you live. For the Austrians among you, witty explanations of the evils of central planning and the ills of government interference in the economy through taxation and regulation will yield great benefits for the right audience. It is your job to awaken folks from their collectivist fever-dreams.
Taxes too high? US Forest Circus wolf reintroduction programs reducing your elk populations? Local timber industry destroyed due to the EPA? Agricultural subsidies destroying farm yields and family farms through perverse pricing schemes? Helium reserves for WWI dirigibles? Insolvency of the Socialist Security System? The list for agitation and substantive reasons to divorce the DC Mob are too numerous to list and I leave it to your imagination. The point is that the nurturing of grievances is an important step in shaping and influencing the way people think in your community. Essentially, no one knows more about your neighborhood and environs than you and the potentates in DC are in this case the ultimate know-nothings. Leverage this cognitive dissonance to your advantage.
Think about the Gandhian-style non-compliance which occurred at Jarbridge, NV in 2000 when a Federal agency tried to ply their mischief. It apparently got to where Federal employees were denied victuals and lodging in local towns. Good old-fashioned shaming and shunning.
By the way, writing letters to your Feral (sic) Congress-critters to beg for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights (among others) to be recognized is a waste of time. They will not yield the benefits they reap as rulers in their nests in DC. Something happens when they are there for more than a year and you will never get the smell out. They will ignore you or worse. Ignore them.
If you see fit to organize local Committees of Correspondence and Safety as our First American Revolutionary forebears did, modern communication techniques and sousveillance will make it very interesting indeed.
Local action is required for local results. I share with Lew Rockwell an increasing skepticism of any political action having a meritorious result in the causes of freedom and liberty but you must take your own counsel.
Isn’t secession the ultimate vote in a supposed democracy?
"They can jail us. They can shoot us. They can even conscript us. They can use us as cannon fodder in the sod. But – But we have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of their British Empire – and that weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to bow to any order but our own, any institution but our own.
Our friends in the Royal Irish Constabulary would like to shut me up. Oh yes, jail me again, shoot me, who knows? And I'd like you to send them a message. If they shut me up, who'll take my place?"
~ Michael Collins
http://lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert23.html
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Lawsuits Piling Up For Obama Birth Certificate
Major Update 6/28/09 Click Here
18 LAWSUITS DEMANDING PROOF
OF OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP
By: Gordon Bishop
A growing number of lawsuits claim Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as President, according to a report published by the Associated Press (AP) May 12.
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group -- Americans for Freedom of Information -- has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College.
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
"This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking," according to the AP report.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualifactions to serve as President.
When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled, but refused comment on the issue, AP reported.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report, stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the President and undermine the administration's efforts to move the United States in a new direction. (The direction is a Marxist State! --Redistribution of Income)
Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibililty Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the United Kingdom.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the highest court in the l and agreed May 12 to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey.
This gutsy Jersey guy comes from a State that supported, endorsed and campaigned for Obama last year. New Jersey is a deep blue Democrat State, and the State with the highest taxes in the nation.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with 11 law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Obama ultimately raised $866 million dollars in his bid for the Presidency, the highest ever spent by a presidential candidate.
As an investigative columnist, I would like to know where that kind of money came from. The United States? The Mid-East? The Far East? Africa? Europe?
Obama refuses to release the names of his campaign donors.His opponent in the presidential race, U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican, released his list of donors.
Obama outspent McCain 8 to 1 in money raised for Obama's campaign.
What most voters and taxpayers don't know, or even care about, is that Obama launched his presidential campaign in Chicago, the most corrupt city in America.
From this corrupt, polluted swamp emerged Barack Hussein Obama, who has two names and two citizenships.
During his campaign, Obama declared that he was "A Citizen of the World" -- not "A Citizen of America."
Now he sits in the Oval Office of the White House, spending trillions of borrowed money to re-make America into a fully, Far Left Socialist State.
And he's using your tax dollars to bankrupt what was once the greatest country in the world, known for its Freedoms, Liberties, and Opportunities.
No more, folks! We're on the way to bankruptcy, and, ultimately, poverty for the common maljority -- some 290 million people.
Already, there are some 10 million people in the USA looking for jobs they can't find.
Add to this a long and punishing recession that is sliding into a real Depression like the "Great Depression" of the 1930s.
A historic note: Liberal Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not end the Depression" with his stimulus "New Deal" package. A crazed dictator named Adolph Hitler brought an end to the Depression by triggering World War II.
And "That's the rest of the story" you'll never read in the Far Left liberal media, which is fully responsible for the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
PS/You also might want to go to Politico.com and read all four parts of Michelle Obama's thesis from Princeton University, before she went to Harvard Law School, where she met her husband. Yes, we have two lawyers in the White House -- just like Bill and Hillary Cllinton.
So much for America's corrupt political system!
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
18 LAWSUITS DEMANDING PROOF
OF OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP
By: Gordon Bishop
A growing number of lawsuits claim Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as President, according to a report published by the Associated Press (AP) May 12.
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group -- Americans for Freedom of Information -- has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College.
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.
To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
"This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking," according to the AP report.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualifactions to serve as President.
When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled, but refused comment on the issue, AP reported.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report, stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the President and undermine the administration's efforts to move the United States in a new direction. (The direction is a Marxist State! --Redistribution of Income)
Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibililty Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the United Kingdom.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the highest court in the l and agreed May 12 to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey.
This gutsy Jersey guy comes from a State that supported, endorsed and campaigned for Obama last year. New Jersey is a deep blue Democrat State, and the State with the highest taxes in the nation.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with 11 law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Obama ultimately raised $866 million dollars in his bid for the Presidency, the highest ever spent by a presidential candidate.
As an investigative columnist, I would like to know where that kind of money came from. The United States? The Mid-East? The Far East? Africa? Europe?
Obama refuses to release the names of his campaign donors.His opponent in the presidential race, U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican, released his list of donors.
Obama outspent McCain 8 to 1 in money raised for Obama's campaign.
What most voters and taxpayers don't know, or even care about, is that Obama launched his presidential campaign in Chicago, the most corrupt city in America.
From this corrupt, polluted swamp emerged Barack Hussein Obama, who has two names and two citizenships.
During his campaign, Obama declared that he was "A Citizen of the World" -- not "A Citizen of America."
Now he sits in the Oval Office of the White House, spending trillions of borrowed money to re-make America into a fully, Far Left Socialist State.
And he's using your tax dollars to bankrupt what was once the greatest country in the world, known for its Freedoms, Liberties, and Opportunities.
No more, folks! We're on the way to bankruptcy, and, ultimately, poverty for the common maljority -- some 290 million people.
Already, there are some 10 million people in the USA looking for jobs they can't find.
Add to this a long and punishing recession that is sliding into a real Depression like the "Great Depression" of the 1930s.
A historic note: Liberal Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not end the Depression" with his stimulus "New Deal" package. A crazed dictator named Adolph Hitler brought an end to the Depression by triggering World War II.
And "That's the rest of the story" you'll never read in the Far Left liberal media, which is fully responsible for the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
PS/You also might want to go to Politico.com and read all four parts of Michelle Obama's thesis from Princeton University, before she went to Harvard Law School, where she met her husband. Yes, we have two lawyers in the White House -- just like Bill and Hillary Cllinton.
So much for America's corrupt political system!
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Monday, May 11, 2009
Former Top Rated NRA Senator Will Introduce Gun Ban
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.
Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.
McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.
As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”
Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.
The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.
Soon after his shoo-in confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder revived the assault weapons ban debate. Responding to a reporter’s question on weapons’ regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder did not provide details on when legislation would be presented to Congress.
Democrats are reluctant to make additional attacks against the Second Amendment. In 1994, the issue was instrumental in handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate dealt a body blow to the gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.
Democrats fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”
Democrats, however, are biding their time. Veteran gun-grabber Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban at this time. “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it,” she said, that is to say when the opportunistic introduction of such legislation is politically expedient and will not damage her party.
Government propaganda and exploitation of recent high profile “gun violence” stories by the corporate media have not turned the public against the Second Amendment. “Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two,” reports the Houston Chronicle.
An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)