Archive for the month “May, 2012”

A Summary Of Recent Developments In ForgeryGate

May 31, 2012 By Alan P. Halbert

The latest action by the state of Hawaii in the continuing saga of Barack Obama and his constant evolutionary metamorphosis leaves him a truly transformational figure, as the rest of us mere mortals are simply born, whereas he evolves.  When we last left off this sordid tale, we had postulated that Obama had a “certificate of live birth” by affidavit and that no official of the state of Hawaii had made any definitive statements about what his birth records contained from the Operation Sideshow series of articles.

That all changed thanks to Ken Bennett, the Secretary of State for the state of Arizona, when he requested that Hawaii submit verification to his office so that Obama would be placed on the ballot in Arizona.  This had come about by a request from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party as these citizens had requested he verify his citizenship and birth in the state of Hawaii.  He made his request per Hawaii Statute §338-18, which allows government officials to request verification and complete records of vital events in their official capacity of their office and incumbent duties.  Approximately two months ago, Mr. Bennett made this request; Hawaii has dragged their feet on the matter and at first made some noise about him not having any standing and their concern over possible identity theft.

Hawaii does not have the reasoning capacity to understand that Obama is a public figure with a recognizable face and visage, not to mention that he has already placed his so-called certified “certificate of live birth” into the public domain.  So, if anyone were to attempt such a crime, it would be self defeating. The objection of the state of Hawaii is frivolous and meritless and was simply ludicrous to stall for time; why is anyone’s guess.

The Hawaii Department of Health in fact produced a document on May 22nd that verifies certain features of the forgeries that Obama has foisted onto the nation and posted on the White House website.  First was his COLB and then his LFBC; the first document was immediately declared a forgery by numerous sources. The most notable was by Dr. Ron Polarik PhD., and for the LFBC by Maricopa County Sheriff’s office.  This most recent document bears the Seal of Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar; suffice it to say that we now have a definitive statement. However; the veracity is much the same as we concluded previously; it is questionable.

We are now at a point to discuss Hawaii and their latest foray into the constant evolution that is Obama.  How is it that he has the ability to get an entire state government to assist him in his constant artifice about his lineage and birthplace?  Let us now turn our attention to the actual document itself, the “Verification of Birth” sent to Ken Bennett on May 22, 2012.

Please open the above link in another tab or window, as we will be referring to this document as we discuss this newest development for Obama.  It starts with a reference to Mr. Bennett as the recipient, then the document is pursuant to Hawaii Statute §338-14.3. Lets take a moment and explore this statute:

§338-14.3  Verification in lieu of a certified copy.

(a)  Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(b)  A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

 (c)  Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

(d)  The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.

(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]

(Note: the word lieu shown in bold type and underlined is my emphasis and not part of the statute)

We need to first look at the language of the statute and in particular the name of the Statute itself, “Verification in lieu of a certified copy.” This is of particular interest to our hypothesis since this document is not the “best” evidence as shown by the name of the statute itself.  The definition of “in lieu” means “instead of”, or is a substitution in this case of inferior quality as the actual “certificate of live birth” as the full document is what we need to compare to what resides on  We cannot further our objective with this inferior document.

Section (a) & (b) are of particular interest as well; (a) states “that the applicant provides” and in (b) “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.” 

We can safely assume that a “vital event” did occur as Obama is alive and fulfilling his desire to “fundamentally transform” our nation as he vowed he would; I digress.

In both of these section(s), it is predicated upon the information provided by the “applicant”; in this case, we must assume it would be his Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as the LFBC is believed to be based upon her statements and actions of a birth event transpiring. Therefore, until we have the “best evidence”, the actual certificate from Hawaii tendered directly to Mr. Bennett or another trusted source, we simply do not know if the one “claimed” by affirmation of others to Obama and resides on the White House website are actually one, and the same.

(Note: affirmation is underlined as no one has claimed or stated that the “certificate of live birth” that resides on is the actual certified copies received by Judith Corley on April 25, 2011 from Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health and given to Bob Bauer White House Counsel on the 26th)

Hawaii and Obama have not proven themselves trustworthy sources for these so-called facts.  This is a crucial point and worth noting for the examination of these events to ascertain truth from fiction by these affiants.

It should be noted that Hawaii chose to send the “verification” versus an actual “certified” document, as if the Secretary of State of Arizona is not a character to be trusted with such a confidential matter.  This is ludicrous, as Obama has supposedly released his “true and certified” copy into the public domain, so this is disingenuous hyperbole and obfuscation by the state of Hawaii that they chose this deplorably inferior method of verification.

The next anomaly in the verification document is that it claims a “vital statistic” has occurred and references his name, birthplace, certificate number, time of birth, hospital, age and birthplace of his father, age and birthplace of his mother, date of signature by parent, and date of signature by attendant and local registrar.  However, what is completely missing and MIA is Obama’s date of birth!  Certainly, a “verification of birth” would include a date of birth since the time could have been any point in history then or now; however, his apparent age today at least gives some clue as to his actual age and approximate birth date.  This point alone makes me doubt the veracity of this document as a “legal” verification of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.  It is missing a “vital” piece of information for a valid birth certificate verification, a birth date.   Furthermore, it has been tendered as an official document by an agency of the state of Hawaii!

Then we have the added statement on the verification that is dubious and specious since it leads one to assume “facts that are not in evidence” with the following statement below line 12:

“Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached to your request matches the original record in our files.”

This statement is superficial since it leads one to assume that the “verification” and the so-called “certificate of live birth” that resides in the public domain are equal.  We simply do not know this as Hawaii chose to send a “verification” document versus the best evidence possible (the “certificate” itself.)  Furthermore, any copy of the “certificate of live birth” that Mr. Bennett could have sent would have been retrieved on what is assumed to be on and has been declared a fraudulent document and forgery by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies; we can only hope they are not the same.  Since this means a fraudulent document resides in the records of the office of Vital Statistics vault in a bound volume, Hawaii officials know that it is forgery or has some other legal defect they wish to remain hidden.

Mr. Bennett was also informed of the investigation and much of the evidence that has not been made public on May 15, 2012 in Phoenix by Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Maricopa County.  This information was discussed in an article by Jerome Corsi of WND prior to Mr. Zullo’s trip to Hawaii to investigate Obama’s birth documents and claims of his Hawaiian birth. Therefore, he should have been at least skeptical of the inferior document he was presented by Hawaii; however, he just tucked his tail between his legs, headed for the nearest exit, and declared Obama eligible to be placed on the ballot; so much for the character of Mr. Bennett.

Finally, we are presented with the official seal of Dr. Alvin Onaka with what appears to be the initials “gic” or “gk” to the right of the stamp.  This suggests that Dr. Onaka did not affix this seal himself and that another person created this document.  Furthermore, we are then led to believe it was made on his behalf; we do not have any evidence that this is so. To the contrary, we are absent any public statements from him on this matter.  This is far from settled, as the letter to Bennett was not tendered until the day after Mike Zullo met with officials of the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu.  Had he not met with them, would we still be waiting?

In another startling event, Mike Zullo’s request to view the actual record of president Obama was refused, and Dr. Onaka refused to meet with him while he was in their offices in Honolulu.  It seems incredulous that he would decline such a request if the records, methods, and information in Hawaii’s vault were not falsified since they would have nothing to hide and should welcome any scrutiny.  To quote Obama ,“the only people who do not want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”; truer words were never spoken. They are even prophetic, especially when we attempt to investigate the facts and circumstances of his birth and birthplace.

For that matter, why are we even going through all this if Obama was “born” in Hawaii and has the supposed bona-fide documents to prove it; why all the subterfuge and false flag operations to conceal the truth?  When all he has to do is simply allow Hawaii to open their vault to forensic examiners and put this matter to rest, to do otherwise is simply baffling!  We must demand that this matter be investigated by our Congressmen and Senators and that we let this matter play out in the courts as “probable cause” exists for a criminal indictment against Obama, officials in Hawaii, and others yet to be exposed and named.

To allow such a travesty to continue indefinitely is despicable and speaks to how far we have fallen as a constitutional Republic founded on the principle of self-rule and the rule of law.  Our legislators’ silence is cowardly by allowing Obama to be above the rule of law, which no man, president or otherwise is accorded under our Constitution. I thought we are all supposedly equal at the bar of justice; apparently some are  more than others.

I came across this article on American Thinker by Steve McCann, who came to our shores as a war orphan after WWII; his article should be required reading for every school child in our nation.  It is presented here for your consideration of the recently passed Memorial Day.  Please take a moment to read and remember our fallen heroes on why we choose to fight for liberty and freedom: The Distinctive Trait of America.”

Photo credit: aaron_anderer (Creative Commons)


Back from the grave: Demand for U.S. wealth giveaway

‘Like a vampire, the Law of the Sea Treaty is never quite dead’

Published: 2 days ago






by Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

A treaty proposal that was buried several times has been resurrected in the U.S. Senate, where alarmed critics are warning its ratification, quite simply, would mean the transfer of the authority and wealth that has made the United States the world’s leader to Third World countries.

Or even to non-countries, as Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and John Cornyn, R-Texas, contend in a commentary published by Fox News.

The senators point out that the Law of the Sea Treaty — which was flatly rejected by the Senate as long ago as Ronald Reagan’s presidency and then failed under Presidents Bush and Clinton — would extract global tax payments from the United States and transfer the revenue and the U.S. technology that generated it to Third World nations.

“Under the treaty, the transfer of these funds does not end with nation states,” they write. “These royalty revenues would even be extended to ‘peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status.’ That means groups like the Palestinian Authority and potentially other groups with terrorist ties.

“U.S. companies would be forced to give away the very types of innovation that historically have made our nation a world leader while fueling our economic engine,” they write. “Under the best of U.S. economic circumstances, the Senate should say no to such an egregious breach of the trust Americans have placed in us. Our current economic struggles are all the more reason to say no to a treaty that is all cost and no benefit.”

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea would demand that massive new taxes be paid to the International Seabed Authority in Jamaica, which then would give the mostly American money away.

“Ceding authority to the ISA would mean that the sovereignty currently held by the U.S. over the natural resources located on large parts of the continental shelf would be lost. That loss would mean lost revenue for the U.S. government in the form of lost royalties that the U.S. government collects from the production of those resources,” the senators write.

Estimates are that the resources have a value in the range of “trillions.”

Top officials such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey have argued on behalf of the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They say that losing the assets and launching a massive new tax campaign will help national security and economic development, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

This week, a key Democratic senator said he won’t push for a vote on the radical plan before the presidential election. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he doesn’t want the issue to be on the front burner during the election campaign.

The Journal reported that Obama administration officials already have strategized that the vote could be held during the lame-duck period after the election, just as when the vast new taxes and regulations of Obamacare were adopted.

Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation said in a Boston Herald column that it appears opposition to the treaty is on the rise.

The Journal reported the hearing held this week by Kerry documented continuing opposition, such as from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who argues it would allow the U.N. to tax the U.S.

There also was strong opposition from Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho: “If we give up one scintilla of sovereignty the country has fought for … I can’t vote for it.”

The Financial Times gushed with enthusiasm for the plan, however.

“Far from taking Americans a step closer to world government, it would signal America’s willingness to stand by its own principles,” the paper said.

The Heritage Foundation’s Groves argued against the “deeply flawed treaty.”

“What if … the U.S. Treasury was raided for billions of dollars, which were then redistributed to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica? That’s what will surely happen if the Senate gives its advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a deeply flawed treaty,” Groves said.

“Like a vampire, the Law of the Sea Treaty is never quite dead. It rises from the grave every few years for Senate hearings,” he continued. “Of course, the vampire must feed and its sustenance is American dollars, sucked out of the U.S. Treasury by a provision of LOST known as Article 92.

“LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to ‘developing states’ (such as Somalia, Burma … you get the picture) … The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabawe – all members of LOST,” Groves explained.

Groves said it was interesting that Kerry allowed only supporters to testify.

“After all, it is in the interests of those who favor U.S. membership in LOST that the treat not be exposed to direct sunlight,” Groves said.


Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret

May 21, 2012   AFP

• Obama, Clinton work in secret to surrender U.S. sovereignty

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”

Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

By Victor Thorn

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.

“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.

“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”

AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”

The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.

He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?

By Victor Thorn

Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”

Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.

A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”

The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”


Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of over 30 books.


The Threat The UN Poses To America Greater Than You Think

May 29, 2012 By Michael J. Nellett

Why are SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVES of both political parties so hell-bent on surrendering our sovereignty as a nation to the United Nations? It is being reported that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are trying to give the United Nations the power to regulate the purchase and sale of arms and ammunition into and out of America. It has also been reported that Obama wants to turn our control of about a third of the world’s ocean area that we now patrol over to the United Nations. (The UN has done a bang up job of putting an end to piracy on the high seas, don’t you agree?) The Obama administration and some PROGRESSIVE judges would like to be able to bring in International Law to help determine American law cases……why?

What wisdom pours forth from the United Nations that we here in America, the freest thinkers in the world, need to tap into to solve our problems as well as those of the world? Somehow and somewhere, the United Nations has become this bastion of enlightenment to the PROGRESSIVE community, when in fact, the organization has taken major steps backwards. The United States pays the largest portion of the UN’s financing and operational costs.

The United States allowed the UN to be located on our sovereign territory (New York), even though diplomats continually flaunt our laws and snob their noses at us while in session. America has always been a major contributor to UN actions, serving along side the UN’s forces but maintaining our separate command and control as per LAW. No one has the authority to subordinate United States military forces under any other command unless specifically permitted by Congress. To my knowledge. it hasn’t happened…yet.

15 years ago, an American army medic named Michael New was dishonorably discharged because he refused to replace his American uniform flag with the emblem of the United Nations. Then-President Bill Clinton issued an executive order that ordered American forces to place themselves under UN command….New refused. There is new evidence that Clinton knew that his executive order was illegal. Michael New and his attorneys are currently appealing his discharge to the military. New, apparently isn’t the first military person to refuse to wear the UN logo. He is also not the first to either be dishonorably discharged or give up their commission for such a refusal.

What kind of insanity grips these PROGRESSIVES that they are so eager to give our sovereignty and power away to a less than dubious organization? If these people don’t want to keep America strong, then why do they run for political office? Every politician that runs for federal office takes an oath to our Constitution, not the UN charter! The United Nations has become nothing more than a sounding board for despots, dictators, and mad men. The United Nations’ impotence has been glaringly revealed in their inability to stop the slaughter in Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

The final truth is that we didn’t vote for any of those people in the United Nations; we DID, however, vote for the people in Washington D.C. to look out for America’s interest. If Obama and his minions are unwilling to abide by the will of the American people, then it is time for them to go. This is our country, and we the people will decide how it’s run, NOT the UN.

The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom

Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model.


On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered inAustraliato agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net’s inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a “multi-stakeholder” governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net’s phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.


Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however,Russia,China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubaiis chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering.”

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, includingIndiaandBrazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying “no” to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, theU.S.has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

War or Thaw?

By David Lawrence

Leon Panetta  and Barack Obama have decided to kiss the battleship butts of the radical environmentalists and spend millions on alternative biofuels and unproven green technology.

Imagine…the Obama crew wants to defend our nation against environmental threats rather than against the Russians, Chinese, or Iranians.  Forget the pirates in the Sudan, forget Iranian nukes — let’s rake algae instead of coal.  We don’t need armies; we need to stop climate change.  We don’t want to get burned when we go to the beach in our bathing suits.  Who cares if there are jihadists hiding in the dunes ready to blow themselves up?  When all our citizens are killed, give us some of that good, clean alternate energy.

The Department of Defense is super-afraid of climate warming and other hypothetical environmental threats to our national security.  It’s ironic that Defense Secretary Panetta, who should be worried about saving the country from bombs, missiles, armies, and nukes, has been bullied by a sophomoric, Al-Gorean philosophy and a collegiate president into worrying about global warming and fossil emissions.

Obama and Panetta have got to be kidding.  Their priorities are upside-down like a cake.  They are more worried about the temperature in March than they are about getting blown to smithereens by a well-militarized enemy.  Rather than spend money on weapons, they want to commit two billion dollars to energy-efficiency and green technology.  Green?  It makes me see red.

I’m angry at the threat to our people because of the DoD’s misallocation of funds.  I remember when Reagan beat the Soviet Union by bankrupting them so that they could not compete with us militarily.  Are Obama and Panetta Soviet enemies, or is Obama back in college, smoking grass and dreaming about peace and Buddhist mantras while our enemies are arming themselves to the teeth?  Are we going to fight their nukes with air filters?

The question is, war or thaw?  Is our government more interested in polar caps melting or in preparing our armed forces to protectAmericafrom the increasing weaponization of our foes?

What matters more — life or a sunburn?  Where are our priorities?  It’s like when Obama promised to do something about the economy and instead presented “Affordable Health Care.”  He was elected to improve the economy and instead increased our debt by meddling in medicine and inventing a watchdog bureaucracy.

Biofuels are more expensive than oil, and the money we have to tank there will weaken our weapons supply…not to mention leave amputees hobbling around hospitals without the government being able to afford new limbs for veterans.

If the Obama administration ever gets its act straight, it will worry about clear and present dangers rather than silly nightmares.  Obama cares more about a few degrees’ change in temperature in a hundred years than he cares aboutIrangoing nuclear tomorrow.

Panetta wants to launch a “Great Green Fleet” and use an expensive blend of traditional and biofuels.  He doesn’t care about the dangers of enemy armies; missiles at the borders of defenseless European countries that can’t afford shields; or Iranian, Korean, and rogue nukes.

The only Green movement the Obama crew failed to back was the one they should have supported — the Green Revolution inIran.

Great Panetta would rather say “yes” to Obama than say “yes” to defending the country.  How many millions might die in so that Panetta and Obama can keep their jobs?  It’s time Panetta stopped worrying about polar bears and ice caps and concentrated on the efficiency of the armed forces (rather than its effect on climate).

Panetta is no climatologist.  He was hired to protect the country, not to air-condition it.

Obama has listened to too many of Al Gore’s speeches.  It’s time he took Gore’s bust out of his closet and smashed it.

If the military keeps marching to the left, our armed forces will end up in the junkyard with the Soviet Union.  Putin will be enjoying his third term.  Obama will be enjoying a break from his second term while golfing in Spainwith his wife for eight hundred thousand dollars.  Obama, the man of the people, and his puppet Panetta have whispered sweet rhetorical nothings in our ears while tossing us down to economic decline and the dangers of other countries’ militaries.

Read more:

Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of dangerous activists in the country.


List of ’30 new activists’ includes Farah, DeAnna, Mitchell, Geller

Four writers and commentators from WND – founder and CEO Joseph Farah, marketing coordinator Kevin DeAnna, columnist Molotov Mitchell and columnist Pamela Geller – are on the  Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of the 30 most dangerous activists in the country.

“It’s hard to argue with facts,” said Farah. “But since facts are precious few in the SPLC’s hit pieces on me and others, that makes it a lot easier.”


Farah pointed out that in the SPLC’s biography of him, WND Books is credited with publishing the hottest-selling Christian book of 2012, “The Harbinger,” by Jonathan Cahn. While WND has promoted the book and sells it in the WND Superstore, it is not the publisher.

“I wish we published it,” said Farah, “Sometimes, in trying to build up the bogeyman, SPLC strays from reality – in fact, always.”

The report by the SPLC’s “Intelligence Report Staff” warns about the “American radical right” and its “30 new activists.”

“What was once a world largely dominated by a few relatively well-organized groups has become a scene populated by large numbers of smaller, weaker groups, with only a handful led by the kind of charismatic chieftains that characterized the 1990s,” the report says.

The report says the “explosive growth” of the “radical right” has been driven “by anger of the diminishing white majority … and the … still-ailing economy.” An “anti-Muslim movement” has grown enormously, it says.

There also are “anti-gay groups” and “so-called ‘Patriot’ groups – which, unlike most hate groups, see the federal government as their primary enemy.”

The SPLC’s attacks are nothing new to WND.

A year ago, its “hate groups” report warned of the growth of groups such as the Constitution Party, Oath Keepers and WND.

In the Spring 2011 issue of its Intelligence Report, titled “The Year in Hate & Extremism,” the SPLC identified 824 “patriot” organizations it says “define themselves as opposed to the ‘New World Order,’ engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.”

“Hate groups topped 1,000 for the first time since the Southern Poverty Law Center began counting such groups in the 1980s,” wrote the SPLC’s Mark Potok in the issue’s lead article. “But by far the most dramatic growth came in the antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement – conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy – which gained more than 300 new groups, a jump of over 60 percent.”

The SPLC describes itself as a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to “fighting hate and bigotry” but has a clearly left-leaning political bent – criticizing in its spring issue alone the tea parties, “anti-gay” groups such as the Family Research Council, anti-abortion activists, radio host Glenn Beck, elected Republican officials and “patriot” groups.

Farah cited Reason writer Jesse Walker’s comment that the SLPC “would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds.”

Farah said SPLC leader Morris Dees’ stock-in-trade is raising hundreds of millions of dollars through fanning the flames of phantom threats posed almost exclusively by those who love America and its Constitution.

“He also files lots of lawsuits, sometimes even on behalf of real victims of racism, and pockets most of the money raised through heart-wrenching direct-mail pitches,” Farah said.

Farah said the most famous example was a judgment Dees won for a black woman whose son was killed by the Ku Klux Klan. While Dees and company raised $9 million sending out solicitation letters featuring a gruesome picture of the victim, the mother received a total of only $51,875 in the settlement. Dees pays himself more than $280,000 a year from the “charity.”

Ken Silverstein at Harper’s published a letter from Stephen Bright, an Atlanta-based civil rights lawyer, about Bright’s rejection of an invitation to speak at a college event.

The letter was addressed to Ken Randall, dean of the University of Alabama school of law. Bright noted he had been invited to be at the presentation of the “Morris Dees Justice Award” but would not come.

“Morris Dees is a con man and fraud, as I and others, such as U.S. Circuit Judge Cecil Poole, have observed and as has been documented by John Egerton, Harper’s, the Montgomery Advertiser in its ‘Charity of Riches’ series and others,” Bright wrote. “The positive contributions Dees has made to justice – most undertaken based upon calculations as to their publicity and fund raising potential – are far overshadowed by what Harper’s described as his ‘flagrantly misleading’ solicitations for money. He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two ‘poverty palace’ buildings in Montgomery.”

Farah also warned recently that readers can expect, any day now, to see a major hit piece on WND in the SPLC’s Intelligence Report.

He said he was told by Leah Nelson, “an SPLC intelligence project fellow, that the fear-mongering scam is preparing a ‘profile’ of WND in the next issue.”

“I already know the SPLC’s conclusions about me and WND,” he said, citing the following SPLC writings that already have appeared:

  • “Conspiracy theory buffs need an endless supply of fuel to keep chugging along. And no one out there seems to provide more of that than Joseph Farah, the archconservative and slightly mad publisher/editor of WorldNetDaily (WND). From obsessively attempting to debunk the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate to stoking anti-Muslim fear that Shariah law is about to topple the Constitution, Farah is the supermarket tabloid publisher of the radical right. Farah doesn’t limit his propagandizing to his apparently popular website. In recent years, the self-described Christian has branched out, publishing books and producing movies, even while regularly speaking at Tea Party events. Farah boasts that his WND book operation has produced a higher percentage of New York Times best-sellers ‘than any other publishing company in the U.S.’ – a claim that some may dispute. The latest WND book, ‘The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America’s Future,’ suggests parallels between ancient Israel and what’s occurring today in the United States – and an imminent judgment by God. Farah’s name recognition jumped significantly when he was at the head of the ‘birther’ pack, attacking the legality of the Obama presidency based on the theory that he wasn’t a legal U.S. citizen at birth. ‘My dream is that Barack Obama … won’t be able to go to any city, any town, any hamlet in America without seeing signs that ask, Where is the birth certificate?’ Farah said in 2010 at a National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn., where he shared the stage with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Despite all his clamorous pot banging, it was not Farah but multimillionaire developer Donald Trump who ultimately became such a pain that President Obama released his ‘long-form’ birth certificate last year. That didn’t satisfy Farah, who, along with his attack-dog writer Jerome Corsi, continues to insist Obama is no citizen. Farah later traveled even further down the citizenship road, questioning the birth of Sen. Marco Rubio in early 2012, when the Florida Republican was mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate. ‘Rubio is not eligible,’ Farah told Fox News host Sean Hannity. Farah is so hard-line in certain views that he’s perfectly willing to turn on fellow ideologues of the far right. In 2010, when right-wing raver Ann Coulter agreed to speak at a gay GOP group’s event, he attacked her. In return, Coulter called Farah a ‘publicity whore’ and ‘fake Christian’ – what may be some of the few truly accurate phrases to ever come out.”

  • “Joseph Farah is the founder of the right-wing website WorldNetDaily (WND), which stokes fear with articles on topics like ‘Stocking Up on Guns and Ammo’ and advertisements for survivalist-style solar and food products. WND, which boasts nearly 5 million monthly visitors and spices up its ‘news’ reporting with ‘WorldNetDaily Exclusive’ articles like this March’s ‘Girl Scouts Hiding Secret Sex Agenda?’, claims to be ‘fiercely independent.’ It certainly is unique. Farah, who could not be reached for comment, has served as the opening act at Tea Party events headlined by Sarah Palin this year. He is a leading fomenter of the baseless claim that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Africa, and so is not qualified to be president. Farah has repeatedly demanded that Obama release a full-form birth certificate. ‘It’ll plague Obama throughout his presidency,’ he said. ‘It’ll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration.’ Farah is a veteran practitioner of conspiracy ‘journalism,’ having repeatedly hawked the tale of the supposed cover-up of the death of Clinton aide Vince Foster – thought to be a murder, not a suicide, by anti-Clinton conspiracy-mongers like Farah and his ilk. Like many publications of the far right, Farah’s website, which he started with his wife in 1997, also carries countless product ads with scary headlines like ‘Will You Survive the Coming Dark Age?’ (‘Don’t leave your family’s safety in the hands of the government.’) Remarkably, Farah sprang from a California newspaper background. He was executive editor at the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald Examiner in the 1980s. In the early 1990s, he edited the dying Sacramento Union, where staffers have said he ordered them to favor conservative views in news coverage and even book reviews and give short shrift to liberals. While at the Union, he gave a page-one column to a local radio host named Rush Limbaugh.

WND also reported just weeks ago that the SPLC’s pronouncements are losing their impact.

Weld County, Colo., Sheriff John Cooke said the SPLC just lists groups its officials disagree with politically as “hate groups.”

“We don’t pay any attention to it at all. If you’re not left wing, you’re a hate group according to them,” he said.

It also was not long ago when a team of Christian activists, black pastors and Orthodox Jews called on the SPLC to actually carry out its stated mission of speaking out against the hate that exists in society.

“The SPLC has moved from monitoring actual hate groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis to slandering mainstream Christian organizations with that very same ‘hate group’ label,” said Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, who attended a news conference held outside the headquarters of the SPLC in Alabama.

“By extension, the SPLC is smearing billions of Christians and Jews worldwide as ‘haters,’ simply because they embrace the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic,” Barber said.

The event was assembled by Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, one of the organizations following biblical standards regarding sexuality that have been tagged by SPLC as “hate” groups.

Others participating in the event were Patrick Wooden of Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, N.C.; DL Foster of Gay Christian Movement Watch of Atlanta; Tim Johnson of Fredrick Douglass Foundation of Washington; Rachel Conner of Abiding Truth Ministries; Pastor Glen Sawyer of New Mt. Zion Church of God in Christ in Elizabeth City, N.C.; Pastor Wil Nichols of Victorious Praise Fellowship in Durham, N.C., Pastor Jon Robinson of Kingdom C.O.M.E. Ministries of Clairton, Pa.; and Pastor Kenneth Jefferson of Greater Harvest COGIC.

Also joining the effort, even though they were not in attendance, were Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America; Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute, Arthur Goldberg, author of “Light in the Closet”; Linda Harvey of Mission America; and Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance.

The new listing identified Farah as an “archconservative.”

“Farah is the supermarket tabloid publisher of the radical right.”

DeAnna is identified as the marketing coordinator for WND, but more importantly, founder of Youth for Western Civilization.

“His first item, a fawning interview with white nationalist Pat Buchanan, … appeared in February.”

Molotov Mitchell, a WND columnist, was described as wanting to “advancing the [Christian] kingdom on earth.”

Geller writes at WND as well as Atlas Shrugs.

Michael Brown wrote at Townhall that he never expected to be listed alongside “the leader of the New Black Panthers (Malik Zulu Shabbaz), a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (David Duke), a Jew-bashing white Supremacist (Don Black), and a Neo-Nazi (Morris Gullet).”

“In keeping with their pattern of not always getting the facts right, the SPLC lists my year of birth as 1967, which would make me really precocious … since it would mean that I was bar-mitzvahed at the age of one in 1968 … that I graduated high school at the age of 6 in 1973, was married at the age of 9 in 1976, and became a father at the age of 10 in 1977.”

The rest of the SPLC list has a mix of high-profile people such as pastor and prolific author Chuck Baldwin and Tenth Amendment Center Chief Michael Boldin along with leaders who identify with groups such as the Klan and the agenda of white supremacy.

They include: Virginia Abernethy, Baldwin, David Barton, Don Black, Boldin, Michael L. Brown, Tom DeWeese, David Duke, Lou Engle, Bryan Fischer, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, Morris Gulett, Michael Hill, Alex E. Jones, Cliff Kincaid, Randal Lee Krager, Alex Linder, Kevin MacDonald, Elmer Stewart Rhodes, Kyle Rogers, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Samuel Jared Taylor, James Timothy Turner, Michael Brian Vanderboegh, Pastor John Weaver and David Yerushalmi.

Sheriff Joe’s posse: ‘Hawaii duped Arizona’

Letter on Obama eligibility ‘doesn’t verify anything of significance’

Published: 1 day ago

by Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

“Hawaii duped Arizona” in its response to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s request to verify Barack Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election, charges the lead investigator of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

“We have developed incontrovertible proof that the verification provided by the Hawaii Department of Health to Arizona’s secretary of state on May 22 really doesn’t verify anything of significance,” said Mike Zullo, who is in Hawaii to follow up on his team’s initial findings concerning Obama’s birth record.

As WND reported, after more than eight weeks of pressing Hawaii’s Department of Health, Bennett said Tuesday that he finally received information that proves Obama’s American birth and satisfies Arizona’s requirements for placing the president on the ballot.

Zullo – who met with Hawaii Department of Health officials in Honolulu the day before the letter to Bennett was issued – said that after he returns to Phoenix to brief Arpaio, the sheriff will schedule a press conference “at the earliest possible date in June.”

Zullo explained his team will need time to prepare the extensive new information developed since Arpaio’s March 1 press conference. The sheriff announced at that time that his posse had found probable cause that the Obama birth record released by the White House one year ago and Obama’s Selective Service registration form are forgeries.

Zullo declined to detail the new information but pointed to what he considered “obvious defects” in the May 22 letter the Hawaii Department of Health sent to Bennett:

  • Tuesday’s letter, he said, fails to identify or list President Obama’s date of birth, even though the letter’s apparent purpose was for the Hawaii Department of Health to verify Obama was born in Hawaii.
  • To the right of the registrar’s stamp on the letter appear the initials “gk,” suggesting that Hawaii Department of Health Registrar Alvin Onaka did not apply the registrar’s stamp himself.

“I suspect these defects are not accidental,” Zullo said. “My suspicion is that top officials in the Hawaii DOH and the Hawaii Attorney General’s office created a defective document that could be disclaimed rather than take the time to produce a thoroughly proofread and officially certified legally binding state document.”

Zullo told WND that Onaka refused to meet with him and his investigators when they appeared this week at the downtown Honolulu headquarters of the Hawaii Department of Health.

“Either Onaka refused to initial his registrar’s stamp or the Hawaii DOH is not sufficiently competent to produce a legally valid document,” Zullo concluded. “But either way, the cover-up appears alive and well in Hawaii.”

Zullo insisted defects in the Hawaii letter were not limited to what might be explained as clerical errors or Hawaii DOH operating policies.

“The Hawaii DOH letter is nothing more than a highly lawyered, cleverly crafted document that we can now prove does not verify what it appears to verify,” he said. “At Sheriff Arpaio’s next press conference we will be able to prove that the Hawaii DOH has actually refused to verify either that Obama was born in Hawaii or that the long-form birth-certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is an authentic document.”

As WND reported, Arpaio launched his investigation last September after 250 Maricopa County residents belonging to the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party presented him with a petition claiming their voting rights would be compromised if Obama used a forged birth certificate to win a place on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot.

Political pressure

Zullo affirmed to WND that he believes Hawaii has outsmarted Bennett.

“To begin with, it was no surprise to me that Bennett buckled to political pressure,” Zullo said.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett

“I knew when I met with Mr. Bennett last week in Phoenix, before we left for Hawaii, that he was desperately trying to get out of the political corner he had painted himself into.”

Zullo told WND that in an approximately hour-long meeting May 15 in Bennett’s Phoenix government office, the secretary of state said he fully expected there would be no problem getting the Hawaii government to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.

“Bennett obviously believed Obama was telling the truth,” Zullo said. “He was shocked when Hawaii didn’t immediately issue the verification. As it dragged on into weeks, Bennett became desperate to do whatever Hawaii asked to get what amounts to even this meaningless letter.”

Zullo explained to WND that immediately following his meeting with Bennett, he returned to MCSO headquarters and briefed Arpaio.

“I told the sheriff that I suspected Bennett would reach over backwards in a desperate attempt to get some form of document from the Hawaii Health Department in written form, so he could managed to come out of the political problem he had created for himself,” Zullo said.

“In my meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, I disclosed my belief that Secretary of State Bennett would confer with Hawaii’s attorney general to draft a second, probably watered-down letter of request from Hawaii,” he continued.

Zullo said it was “no shock to me or Sheriff Arpaio when the verification was released, and we believe the timing is suspect in that the release of the verification came one day after MCSO met with Hawaii Department of Health officials in Honolulu.”

In his meeting with Zullo, Bennett admitted that he never would have made the promise in writing to members of the Surprise Tea Party if he thought there might be a problem getting the verification.

“My impression was that Bennett wanted to appear sympathetic to the tea party group to win their political favor, but that he guessed wrong, calculating that Hawaii was telling the truth about Obama’s birth and had nothing to hide,” Zullo said. “Bennett was dumbfounded when Hawaii hesitated.”

Zullo told WND that his purpose in requesting the meeting with Bennett was to share with the Arizona secretary of state recent developments in the MCSO law enforcement investigation into Obama’s birth.

“I was shocked to find out Bennett knew virtually nothing about our investigation – only what he read in the newspapers,” Zullo said.

He added that Bennett did not appear interested in understanding the serious information the investigation had developed.

“When I tried to bring him up to speed, it became apparent the 20 minutes remaining in the meeting was not going to be enough time to explain even the key points of the investigation,” Zullo said.

“I felt Bennett was totally ignorant of what I was talking about, and he really didn’t care.”

Zullo said he left Bennett’s office fully convinced the secretary of state would capitulate to pressure by Arizona and national Republican Party officials, including Sen. John McCain.

Bennett has declared his desire to run for Arizona governor. He is currently the co-chairman of Gov. Mitt Romney’s Arizona presidential campaign.

This in IMHO is another act of BOVINE Scatology by the OLD Republican members not wanting to cause problems. BS!

U.N. Law Of The Sea Treaty Must Be Stopped









John Kerry, chairman of the Senate committee considering the Law of the Sea treaty, holds up an ad in support. AP View Enlarged Image

Geopolitics: The administration begins the push for ratification of a 1982 treaty that would end America’s sovereignty on the high seas, limit our freedoms on land and speed up the global redistribution of wealth and power.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Sen. John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday that the freedom of the sea once guaranteed by the British Royal Navy and then the U.S. Navy should be in the hands of United Nations bureaucrats in Montego Bay,Jamaica, enforcers of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) he said we must ratify.

It used to be that a carrier battle group led by 90,000 tons of American diplomacy was sufficient to ensure that no nation could threaten our freedom of navigation and that of other countries.

But the nation whose motto was “we win, they lose” under President Reagan is replacing it with President Obama’s “mother, may we?”

“If we are not a party to this treaty and can’t deal with it at the table, then we have to deal with it at sea with our naval power, and once that happens, we clearly increase the risk for confrontation,” Panetta told members of the committee.

Once upon a time, other nations were afraid of us; now we’re afraid of them.

LOST would codify the “global test” Kerry uses to assess the validity of U.S.activities. For example, Communist China, a LOST signatory, contends the treaty bans the Proliferation Security Initiative under which we can stop and search ships on the high seas suspected of transporting WMDs on behalf of or for use by terrorists.

What would we do if China’s claim to undisputed sovereignty over the 1 million square miles of the South China Sea were honored by this new international body to which we would be subservient? Would the U.S. Navy quietly keep off their grass?

LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority with the power to regulate 70% of the earth’s surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy.

It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop resources in and under the world’s oceans.

The treaty was originally finalized in the 1980s but rejected by Reagan over concerns it would cede U.S. sovereignty to the ISA and could force the United States to hand over sensitive technology to Soviet-allied states.

Obama’s Land of the LOST


MAY 25, 2012 12:00 A.M.

The Law of the Treaty is a huge attack on American sovereignty.

By Michelle Malkin             Science czar John Holdren

What’s green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama’s new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that “no national interest of theUnited Statescould justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to theThird World.” According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the treaty’s “central, and abiding, defect” was “its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states — and most especially theUnited States.”

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations, and restrict business on the high seas. They’ve tinkered with the document obsessively since the late Sixties, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here’s the bottom line: Crucial national-security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, includingCuba,China, andRussia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from — you guessed it! — the United StatesForbes columnist Larry Bell reports that “as much as 7 percent ofU.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast” would be meted out to “poorer, landlocked countries.” This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in theUnited States.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House, through executive order, seized unprecedented control from states and localities over “conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts, and theGreat Lakes.” Obama created a 27-member “National Ocean Council” by administrative fiat; the council is specifically tasked with implementing ocean-management plans “in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.”

The panel is chaired by radical-green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization, and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green-jobs czar and avowed Communist Van Jones).

Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco — head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control — and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration’s drilling-moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST’s socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: “He who rules the sea,” she exulted, “rules the land.” LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. © 2012 Creators.Com.

Obama’s Impeachable Offenses (UPDATED)

by Michael Connelly, J.D., TPB Reader

April 10, 2012

Author’s Note:  Tuesday, April 10, 2012. In the 12 weeks that has passed since the original publication of this op-ed, ask yourself if President Obama‘s actions have led him more, or less, in the direction of an impeachment and imprisonment. This op-ed (now with more than 5 million views) has been updated with the most current facts for the case of Obama’s Impeachable Offenses. Stay tuned right here at for future updates!

I have repeatedly been asked by a number of different people if I think that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has committed any offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States. The answer is without a doubt, yes because he has repeatedly breached his oath of office. The oath of office of the President of theUnited States is simple and concise. It reads:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United Statesis well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional. Based from my years as a constitutional attorney, listed below are what I believe are impeachable offenses, and the list continues to grow.

1.  President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. He has also made illegal recess appointments of other members of his cabinet that required Senate approval. He simply declared that the U.S. Senate was in recess despite the fact that no such declaration had been made by the Senate. The President has no Constitutional authority to do this.

2.  The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of theUnited States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional. He has continued to use his powers and executive branch of government to implement this legislation despite the fact that a federal judge had declared the entire law unconstitutional, and ordered that it not be implemented. In addition, Obama has directed members of his administration to violate the right to freedom of religion protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. 

Religious institutions such as churches and schools have been ordered to provide contraceptives and abortion inducing morning after pills to employees as part of the health care bill requirements. The fact that this is a direct violation of their religious teaching is of no concern to Obama. 

3.  Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of theUnited States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution. The actions of the EPA include regulations that will force many coal burning power plants to close.

4.  Through the Department of the Interior (DOI) Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of theUnited States and in parts of theGulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any state within theUnited States. These actions by the DOI have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman inNew Orleans,Louisiana declaring that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. In fact, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) has been held in contempt by the same judge. The administration has claimed to be complying, but has tied up the drilling permits in so much red tape that the effect is the same. 

5.  Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries likeBrazil andMexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to theUnited States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations includingVenezuela,Brazil,Saudi Arabia, and evenLibya that do not serve the interest ofAmerica or the American people.

Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline fromCanadato theUnited Statesthat would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries likeVenezuelaandSaudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in theUnited States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.

6.  President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of theUnited States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states likeArizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of theUnited States which has sole authority over immigration matters.

7.  The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such asMexico,Bolivia, andColumbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states ofArizona,Georgia, andAlabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.

8.  President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.

There were two bill pending in Congress to effectively give Obama the kill switch he wants over the Internet. When these two proposals, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were withdrawn amid public outcry Obama announced he will sign an international treaty that purports to give him the same authority. He has signaled his intention to do this as an “Executive Act” and not bring the treaty to the Senate for ratification as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. I believe he intends to take the same action in regard to the United Nations Small arms treaty and the UN Law of the Sea treaty that are both unlikely to get Senate approval. 

9.  One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of theUnited States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of theUnited States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits.

His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of theUnited States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.

10.  It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels inMexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from theUnited States to the Mexican drug dealers. 

This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.

11.  The President of theUnited States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of theUnited States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of theUnited States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War inLibya, the President committed members of theUnited States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League.

Now, the President has carried it one step further. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Senators that the President has authority to take our country to war without the Congressional approval required by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval.

However, these actions may be the least of the worries facing the American people. The White House insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties. This was amazingly passed overwhelmingly by Congress. It appears to be another situation where few members read the bill before voting on it. 

This was almost immediately followed by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It is similar to orders signed by past Presidents, but this one includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.

12.  Last but not the least of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of theUnited States that allows the President to do this.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

I contend that among those high crimes and misdemeanors is the intentional violation of the oath of office administered to the President and all other federal officials. In fact, federal law at 5 U.S.C. 7311 specifically provides that violation of the oath of office includes advocating the overthrowing of our constitutional form of government. This is specifically declared a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 1918 and is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment.

In the 12 areas I mentioned in the paragraphs above I firmly believe that Obama, Eric Holder, and numerous other members of his administration have gone beyond just advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. They are actually engaged in making it happen, and as a result should be impeached and convicted. There are also the emerging issues of corruption such as the Solyndra scandal caused by Obama using stimulus money to pay off campaign contributors.  

Will there be an impeachment and conviction in the current Congress? Probably not, since it takes a two thirds vote in the House of Representatives to impeach, and a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict. With Harry Reid and the progressives still in control of the Senate, and many of them guilty of some of the same impeachable offenses, they will resist it.

However, we are the American people and we still have a right to control our government, and the people elected to represent us. Therefore, I am personally calling on the conservative members the House of Representatives to bring this action based on the grounds I have enumerated so that the American people can understand what is really at stake here. Then “we the people,” can make our voices heard.

SIGN THIS PETITION! To the House and Senate of the United States of America: Arrest Barack Hussein Obama for TREASON now!

— Michael Connelly, retired constitutional lawyer

Check out Michael Connelly’s new radio talk show that airs every Wednesday at 4:00 PM Eastern on America’s Web Radio. Be sure to visit his non-profit organization Constitutional Law Alliance (CLA) where he has written a booklet on the U.S. Constitution that every patriotic American should own and distribute to friends and relatives.

Michael Connelly teaches constitutional law through Education to Go, an online company that provides courses to numerous universities. He is a retired attorney, the author of four books, publisher of a website, and U.S. Army veteran.

SPEAK UP! Do you have something to say? Share your opinion on Tea Party Brief’s Reader Opinion page! Read our simple instructions on how to submit an op-ed for review by clicking here.

Judicial Watch Obtains DOD and CIA Records Detailing Meetings with bin Laden Raid Filmmakers

May 22, 2012 |

DOD Officials Disclosed to Filmmakers Identity of SEAL Team Six Operator and Commander; Ask Film Director to Withhold Operator’s Name, ‘because he shouldn’t be talking out of school.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Kathryn Bigelow, Academy Award-winning director of The Hurt Locker, and screenwriter Mark Boal.  According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.

The records, obtained pursuant to court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012, include 153 pages of records from the DOD and 113 pages of records from the CIA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:12-cv-00049)).  The documents were delivered to Judicial Watch late last Friday (May 18). The following are the highlights from the records, which include internal Defense Department email correspondence as well as a transcript from a key July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, Bigelow and Boal:

  • A transcript of a July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, including Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, Bigelow and Boal indicates that Boal met directly with White House officials on at least two occasions regarding the film: “I took your guidance and spoke to the WH and had a good meeting with Brennan and McDonough and I plan to follow up with them; and they were forward leaning and interested in sharing their point of view; command and control; so that was great, thank you,” Boal said according to the transcript. Vickers asks if the meeting was a follow-up, to which Boal responds, “Yes correct; this was a follow-up.”  The documents seemingly reference John O. Brennan, Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama and Denis McDonough, who serves as President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor.
  • The July 14, 2011, meeting transcript also reveals that the DOD provided the filmmakers with the identity of a “planner, SEAL Team 6 Operator and Commander.”  (The name is blacked out in the document.)  In proposing the arrangement, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers said: “The only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant because . . . he shouldn’t be talking out of school.” Vickers went on to say during the meeting at the Pentagon: “This at least, this gives him one step removed and he knows what he can and can’t say, but this way at least he can be as open as he can with you and it ought to meet your needs.” Boal later responds, “You delivered.”
  • A July 13, 2011, internal CIA email indicates that Bigelow and Boal were granted access to “the Vault,” which is described the CIA building where some of the tactical planning for the bin Laden raid took place:  “I was given your name as the POC in [redacted] who could determine the feasibility of having a potential walk-through of…the Vault in the [redacted] building that was used for some of the tactical planning in the Bin Laden Raid [sic]. In consultation with the Office of Public Affairs and as part of the larger chronicling of the Bin Laden raid, OPA will be hosting some visitors sanctioned by ODCIA this Friday afternoon.”  (The name of the sender is blacked out.)  “Of course this is doable,” an official responds.
  • DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson told colleagues in a June 13, 2011, email to limit media access and that he would follow up with the White House: “I think this looks very good as a way forward, and agree particularly that we need to be careful here so we don’t open the media floodgates on this. I’m going to check with WH to update them on status, and will report back.” A day later, he wrote Department of Defense communications staffers, saying: “Ok to set up the second session with Vickers. I am getting additional guidance from WH.”
  • Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers told Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson and two other DOD communications staffers in a June 13, 2011, email that “[DOD] would like to shape the story to prevent any gross inaccuracies, but do not want to make it look like the commanders think it’s okay to talk to the media.” The email went on to say: “For the intelligence case, they are basically using the WH-approved talking points we used the night of the operation.” The talking points called the raid “a ‘Gutsy Decision’ by the POTUS,” adding that “WH involvement was critical.”
  • A June 9, 2011, email from Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, to Vickers and other DOD staff summarizes a meeting with Boal and notes the release date for the film: “Release date set for 4th Qtr 2012…”
  • A July 13, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, indicates that Sarah Zukowski, an associate for The Glover Park Group, arranged the July 14, 2011 visit by Bigelow and Boal to the DOD and the CIA. The Glover Park Group is described by Politico as a Democratic-leaning advocacy firm.”
  • A June 27, 2011, email to an official at the Office of the Secretary of Defense suggests that the request from Bigelow and Boal to meet with Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers came via the White House press office. A June 22, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations notes, “The White House does want to engage with Mark but it probably won’t be for a few more weeks. We should provide them a read-out of the session you do with Vickers.”  The name of the White House official who forwarded the request is blacked out.

Judicial Watch launched its investigation of Bigelow’s meetings with the Obama administration following press reports suggesting that the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director as source material for Bigelow’s film.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign: “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”

In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of the bin Laden post-mortem photos and video. The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.

“These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”

To view the entire production click here.

The White House put the Seal Team at risk so Obama could get a bump in his re-election They should be brought up on Treason Charges now!

Hey Obama What happened COST IS GOING UP not DOWN.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012 12:24

New Study Shows Healthcare Costs Rose in 2010

Written by 

A new study published by the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) could proffer a formidable challenge to the Obama administration’s regulated approach to tapering healthcare costs, as the analysis found that healthcare spending is growing moderately, up 3.3 percent in 2010 but still three times the pace of general price inflation.

The HHCI examined four of the country’s largest health insurers — Humana, Aetna, United Healthcare, and Kaiser Permanente — which provided a catalog of records that address healthcare spending among Americans under age 65. The study reviewed three billion claims for individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in a one-year period.

Surprisingly, the spending hike was not attributed to an increase in unnecessary procedures and treatments; instead, the increased costs were spurred by the medical services themselves — including professional procedures, prescription drugs, and inpatient and outpatient facilities — becoming more expensive. “People weren’t getting more care, but people [were] paying more for it,” asserted HCCI Chairman Martin Gaynor.

The HHCI is a new independent organization dedicated to “creating the nation’s most comprehensive source of information on health care costs and utilization, and promoting research on the drivers of escalating health care costs and utilization in the U.S.” The group’s new project reportedly compiles one of the most comprehensive sets of data ever amassed on healthcare spending by individuals with private insurance.

“It’s the first time that this data has ever been assembled like this,” asserts Mr. Gaynor, adding that HHCI researchers “have been working like crazy to make this happen.” Among the study’s key findings are:

Cost Sharing. Out-of-pocket per capita spending increased 7.1 percent in 2010 to $689. Cost sharing rates between payers and beneficiaries remained relatively stable, with beneficiaries contributing 16.2 percent of average per capita spending.

Inpatient-Outpatient Facility Trends. The average facility price paid for a hospital stay was $14,662 in 2010, a 5.1 percent increase over 2009. The price for an emergency room visit climbed to $1,327 in 2010, an 11 percent hike. The average out-of-pocket price of a hospital stay rose 10.7 percent from $632 in 2009 to $700 in 2010.

Prescription Drugs. Prescription drug prices grew on 3 percent overall from an average of $80 per prescription in 2009 to $82 in 2010. However, brand name drug prices increased 13 percent from 2009 to 2010, while generic drug prices decreased by 6.3 percent.

Professional Services. The overall price of professional procedures that include doctor visits, lab tests, and diagnostic imaging, increased 2.6 percent. Payments for office visits — to both primary care and specialist providers — grew by more than 5 percent.

Utilization Trends. Overall use of health care services declined in 2010. Usage dropped by more than 5 percent for medical inpatient admissions, emergency room visits, primary care provider office visits, and radiology procedures. On average, each insured person filled more than nine prescriptions in 2010. The number of brand name prescriptions dropped by nearly 4 percent, while the number of generic prescriptions increased by 2.5 percent.

“The story really does seem to be prices,” Gaynor affirmed. The data indicates that individuals with employer-sponsored insurance “are paying more and getting less,” suggests Chapin White, a researcher at the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change. Hospitals and other health professionals “just seem to be able to raise prices faster than general inflation,” he added.

The new research will likely boost experts’ knowledge and understanding of what ignites certain fluctuations in medical costs, since much of the current data is extracted from Medicare — which discloses its claims data but does not provide much information on how younger people use medical care or about costs associated with the private market. Future reports by the research institute will examine cost and utilization trends in more specialized areas, such as cancer, diabetes, mental health, and substance abuse.

Of course, the introduction of such data draws a range of conclusions, as healthcare critics offer their own “solutions” to the tumultuous spike in medical spending. Based on the study’s conclusions, rising healthcare spending in 2010 was not prompted by Americans using more medicine, but the increased costs that hospitals and other medical providers were charging for their services.

So what’s driving up costs? While there’s no one stimulant, the development of a third-party-payer system has nearly eliminated the market forces that consumerism drives. Government regulations and skewed tax incentives — not to mention, the entitlement ideology that says health insurance is a basic human right — has generated an artificial insurance market dominated by employer-sponsored coverage. 

Such a market has left consumers in the dark about how much money medical providers are charging for their services, because their insurer automatically covers the bill. Consequently, doctors and hospitals have extraordinary pricing power, and are now boosting prices to unprecedented levels.

The government’s increasing role in the healthcare system has also driven up prices, as government spending in medical care continues to skyrocket. Dustin Chambers, writing for The American Enterprise Institute’s online magazine, noted that the U.S. healthcare system is in grave danger because policymakers have consistently avoided market-oriented solutions and instead enacted policies based on public finance and intrusive regulations:

Historically, each crisis has brought its own government solution, which in time has given rise to new problems necessitating still more government intervention. This all began in 1944, when employers began offering health insurance and other benefits to attract prospective employees because government wage and price controls prevented the payment of higher cash wages. Thus government regulation had the unintended consequence of giving rise to the current system of employer-provided health benefits. In the mid-1960s, President Johnson’s “Great Society” gave us Medicare and Medicaid, which insured millions of senior citizens and in the process drove up the cost of medical care due in part to the third-party payment problems discussed above. In response to high prescription drug costs, President George W. Bush gave us an oddly designed Medicare prescription drug coverage benefit (Medicare Part D). Apart from being excessively complicated, the plan is a great example of the misuse of insurance — Medicare Part D should cover catastrophic drug expenses, not mundane drugs such as Viagra.

In sum, as new perceived crises occur, the snap reaction is to promote more government involvement, when in fact, less government is the only effective solution.

Plan afoot for U.N. to rule Internet

Exclusive: Andrea Shea King covers startling international push, other tech news


Published: 14 hours ago

by Andrea Shea KingEmail | Archive

Andrea Shea King is a talk-radio host who also writes at The Radio Patriot website and is known as Central Florida’s “First Lady of Space Coast Conservatism.”

They’re kidding, right?

India wants to set up a system whereby the United Nations would rule the Internet.

The Internet is governed by “a voluntary, multi-stakeholder group called ICANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.” This group, headquartered in California, ensures that the Internet is free and mostly decentralized. ICANN has a Government Advisory Council (GAC), and invites governments across the world, including India, to participate.

But that is not good enough for India, which wants to set up a different system wherein the United Nations would rule the Internet.

The details of this effort are alarming. Be sure to click the link link, read the piece, and let your congressional reps know what you think.

In neighboring Pakistan, the Ministry of Information Technology blocked access to Twitter for what it says was “blasphemous material posted by users” on the social networking site. Another official said “the ban would be lifted after ongoing discussions between the Pakistan government and Twitter about the allegedly blasphemous material are resolved,” according to a Reuters report. The ban was subsequently lifted after several hours.

Facebook IPO: Hope and optimism?

Well, for all the hype and hyperventilation, Facebook’s initial public offering ended where it began – at $38 a share. But it still made founder Mark Zuckerberg a wealthy man, with holdings of 503.6 million shares – the equivalent of about 31 percent of the company – worth $19.1 billion at the initial public offering price.

A day later he and his longtime girlfriend married. Zuckerberg posted the announcement on his Facebook timeline Saturday evening, adding a life event reading “Married Priscilla Chan.”

But the real story is, what comes next?

Facebook is under the gun to perform for Wall Street or face the same fate as Yahoo! and AOL. How creative must Facebook become to successfully expand its monetization and grow the company into a profitable investment for its shareholders? Can FB do that without alienating its billions of users? How many different revenue streams can Zuckerberg and company develop through diverse advertising arrangements and technology? Can Facebook capitalize on the exploding numbers of iPhone and Android users now accessing Facebook? How will Zuckerberg boost his bottom line? Can he? The pressure is on.

Pleased to meet you

Introducing Facebook’s 10 new billionaires. Will all that new Palo Alto wealth generate millions in tax revenues for California?

Can anything ever replace Facebook? Will there be a next generation after Facebook?

And finally, file this one in the “What business is it of theirs?” category.

U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., said last week they intend to submit legislation they’ve dubbed the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” – Act. Why? Because these politicians want to punish Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin for relinquishing his U.S. citizenship in what they say is a “scheme” to “help him duck up to $76 million in taxes.”

Their plan would bar individuals like Saverin, who resides in Singapore, from ever reentering the United States again. We wrote about Saverin in last week’s Surfin’ Safari.

So what does the Facebook co-founder see for Facebook’s future?

Tell me why this isn’t creepy

Let’s say you’re seated at a bar, sipping a cold one, minding your own business. Next thing you know, you find out your image is being live streamed to the world via a camera tucked away, out of site.

Is that an invasion of privacy? Evidently the makers of SceneTap don’t think so. SceneTap is a biometric “barhopping” app that’s hit the bar scene in San Francisco and is one of several private companies using the military’s biometrics, or facial recognition, to database your face.

According to Activist Post, “One of the latest military-grade systems can now scan 36 million faces per second, or every face in the U.S. within 10 seconds. It is a technology that has trickled down from use in war zones like Afghanistan to catalog potential terrorists, to U.S. border control applications for combating illegal immigration, to FBI crime detection, to post-riot analysis and right on down to establishing personal ID for a wide range of private companies. … We are already in a situation where facial recognition is beginning to permeate our daily lives as a form of government surveillance.”

The technology is being rolled out in 25 San Francisco bars. Here’s a list of them. According to the article, nightlife visitors in the City by the Bay have already been live-streamed from their local haunts against their knowledge. Here’s a list of nearly 50 bars participating in a similar app called BarSpace.

Twitter tracking your moves on Web

Did you know that Twitter leaves cookies on your computer that track where you go on the Internet? According to Lifehacker, as long as there’s a “tweet this” or “follow me” button on the site, Twitter harvests information on where you are. Read how and what you can do to stop it from happening.

Another new feature out there by Twitter will offer suggestions on who you might be interested in following.

Join the party on Twitter where the lft is getting clobbered by conservatives, at least according to this writer at Powerlineblog.

“Faster than good news can get its pants on”

With Twitter, nothing is a secret anymore. Case in point: Within moments of a U.S. drone’s missiles clandestinely slamming into a convoy of vehicles in a remote part of Yemen and killing three alleged militants, the strike was posted on Twitter, alerting the world.


“The most powerful organization on earth”

Hacktivist group Anonymous claims, “Right now we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government. It’s a matter of when we leak the contents of those databases, not if. You know how we got access? We didn’t hack them. The access was given to us by the people who run the systems.”

Are they terrorists? Read this and then decide.



CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected

As Obama Preaches Patience, Mattis Prepares for War With Iran

by Eli Lake May 21, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Exclusive: CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected, reports Eli Lake.

As Western diplomats meet this week in Baghdad to try to coax Iran’s leaders to disclose its full nuclear program, Gen. James Mattis will be keeping an eye on the Persian military.

Mattis wanted to send a third aircraft-carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, The Daily Beast has exclusively learned, in what would have been a massive show of force at a time when Iranian military commanders were publicly threatening to sink American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The four-star Marine Corps general and CentCom commander believed the display could have deterred Iran from further escalating tensions, according to U.S. military officials familiar with his thinking.

WTH is Obama doing he has no experience in warfare and doesn’t listen to his Fleet Commanders!

But the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China, and Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available to be deployed to the Gulf.

The carrier-group rebuff in January was one of several for the commander responsible for East Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Working for the Obama administration, Mattis has often found himself the odd man out—particularly when it comes to Iran.

Military sources close to the general tell The Beast that Mattis was worried that the president’s decision, announced in November, to fully withdraw from Iraq would leave the U.S. military without access to the country’s bases and with few options to project power in the region. The military had been negotiating with the Iraqi government for continued access to bases there for some intelligence, training, and counterterrorism missions until Obama announced his decision to the press in November.

“General Mattis is a key player in administration debates and a vital implementer of the administration’s policies,” said Denis McDonough, a deputy national-security adviser and one of President Obama’s most trusted advisers on foreign affairs.

Those who have worked with Mattis say his views when it comes to Iran are more in line with those of America’s allies in the Persian Gulf and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than with his own government’s. At a recent charity event for Spirit of America, Mattis, known by admirers as the “warrior monk” and by detractors as “Mad Dog Mattis,” said his three top concerns in the Middle East were “Iran, Iran, and Iran.”

Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, wanted to send a third aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, but the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China. Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available. (Matt Dunham / AP Photo)

The official U.S. national-intelligence estimate on Iran concludes that the country suspended its nuclear-weapons work in 2003, but sources close to the general say he believes that Iran has restarted its weapons work and has urged his analysts to disregard the official estimate.

While Mattis has largely voiced his dissent about recent U.S. Iran assessments in private, on occasion his displeasure has spilled into the public record. In March, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Mattis, “After all the sanctions that have been imposed on the Iranian regime, do you believe the regime has been at all dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear-weapons capability?” Mattis responded: “No, sir, I have not seen that.”

The general also serves as a critical liaison with America’s Arab allies in the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which share Israel’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program. Since 2007 the United States has approved an unprecedented level of arms sales to those countries.

“General Mattis is reflecting two pretty traditional concerns,” said Thomas Donnelly, the codirector of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “One is that of a regional commander who has to every day deal with our allies and partners in the region that do not fear Israel, but do fear Iran.”

“There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

At times, Mattis has even served as an important interlocutor with the Israelis—even though Israel is the one Middle Eastern country that does not fall within his area of responsibility. According to U.S. and Israeli officials, Mattis has had regular contact with Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, the military attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. These meetings are not on the public schedule and are often over dinner, according to these sources.

Mattis’s unsuccessful push for a third carrier group was a significant request. There are only 11, and that number will go down to 10 this year when the USS Enterprise is decommissioned after 50 years. And Obama’s new military strategy unveiled in January calls for a beefed-up military presence in the Pacific Ocean to counter China.

The general did get an afloat forward staging base, or AFSB, a floating dock that can host smaller aircraft or launch the rigid-hull inflatable speedboats favored by special forces—though in February Adm. John Harvey, commander of fleet forces, denied press reports that the AFSB would be used as a SEAL mothership.

“It appears that General Mattis is at the point where he knows his power projected from land will decrease over time with the close of two land-centered wars,” said Peter Daly, the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute. Daly retired from the Navy in August with the rank of vice admiral. His last job was as deputy commander of U.S. fleet forces, the Navy’s broker in the global-force-management process that the U.S. military uses to determine where to place its numerous assets.

“Unlike the past, where we’ve had permission to go into these other countries and operate, that is less likely in the future. It is appealing to operate from the sea, where you do not need permission.”

Mattis was commanding his area of responsibility in an “outstanding manner and with great skill,” said George Little, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Little added: “The secretary trusts his judgment implicitly on some of the most pressing security and military challenges of our time, including the war in Afghanistan. General Mattis is seasoned, studied, and the consummate warrior. He is also among the best of advisers, candid and honest, and always in keeping with—and in full support of—our national interests. He’s one of America’s finest military leaders.”

A senior U.S. defense official acknowledged that Mattis has differences with the White House on Iran. “He’s doing exactly what we need any combatant commander to do: telling us what he thinks he needs, giving us his perspective on the problems he faces,” this official said. “That’s what you want. That’s what you expect. And he does it all privately, with all the more credibility. There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

Mattis declined to comment for this article.


“Winds of Revolution”

Paul E. Vallely  Sunday, May 13, 2012

Yes, America, you are watching the suicide of a great country Mr. Obama and his Progressive Socialists supporters/followers, union and radical thugs, and ardent admirers. They are self-destructing from corruption and ineptitude but are not giving up on fundamentally changing America. We must understand that they have an “Agenda” and are following that “Agenda”. I am finally sensing that Americans are starting to wake up and the winds of a new revolution are swirling to save the country.

What does a country and its citizens do as their nation continues to decline in power, financial stability, its culture and the security of its people. At this time, we do not have the leadership to right our ship in time to save the Republic from severe damage it appears. Mr. Obama, the great reader/orator continues to show his socialist agenda of spending the American peoples’ money first and misleading our country down a path of continual destruction instead of curtailing the cancerous cause of over-spending, rabid regulations, and class warfare. Instead of working to uphold his oath, he chose to set up a straw man in the person of the House of Representatives, specifically, the Republicans and the Tea-Party Caucus. His message is, and has always been, do as I like, or we will crucify you with labels and crass abasement.

Mr. Obama chose to use campaign speeches across the country to kick off his 2012 campaign for re-election in the vein of never letting a serious crisis go to waste. Now he promotes his great “heroism” in taking out Osama Bin Laden from the bowels of the White House. He and others must be replaced by the American People and we need the people to stand up and demand a change.

The economy is severely fragile and the feasting at the government trough is at all-time highs. The main stream media sees the obvious political advantage Obama seeks but appear to be clueless on the realities of the moment.  Obama and company choose to make a mockery of our system again and again. He even said he would take his message across the land for the next six months. All the while, Obama places blame on Congress, the private sector and others for his dereliction of duty and lack of leadership seeking re-election and not working to fix America.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and the perverted radical Islamists here and abroad are playing out their moves on the Chessboard very judiciously understand the domino effect of radical Islam, the caliphate, and Jihad.  The United States finds itself languishing in the ‘Sea of Ambiguity’ because of a lack of vision, wisdom, common sense, and courage of our elected and appointed leaders, or has a clear agenda to do harm. We have a President in the White House, A National Security Council, and State Department under Hillary Clinton, and the Defense Department that seem to be as “clueless” as ever in forward strategic thinking.

We cannot permit the current leaders in the White House, the Halls of Congress and many judicial courts to continue in their efforts to lead us down this road of Progressive Socialism and chaos. In our opinion, President Obama, his appointees and czars must be replaced.

This is the current battle that we Constitutionalists face and we must be aggressive in our efforts. We must adhere to our Constitution. Obama will continue to bypass Congress and the people in his progressive agenda because that is who he is and that is what he believes he has the power to do. Congress, you must stand tall for the American people and enjoin the Supreme Court to halt Executive branch violations of the law and our Constitution.

Incompetence, treason, corruption, and Dishonesty of officials now come into play as these relate to our National Security and Economy, and are the rationale for demanding resignations and a change of government. Lincoln issued this warning in his inaugural address:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

We are a representative republic; not a democracy, where “rising up” means other than revolution by use of arms; the people must “rise up” now. (Stand Up as we say now) Rise from the grass roots across this great country as we think of the greater good of this and future generations. We are limited in the peaceful transfer of power…resignation, elections, and impeachment, but these high bars must be overcome.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution, which granted the federal government enough authority to cultivate, promote, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The balance of authority and individual liberty was understood. Power was confined to that which was enumerated in the Constitution with a certain and meaningful intent for check and balances. Sadly, all these lines have been crossed, broached, eroded away, or just plain ignored.

All branches of the federal government have increasingly acted against the best interests of the states and the people. It is now reaching farther and farther beyond the scope and authority granted by the U.S. Constitution. Today, the federal government functions with utter disdain for states’ and individual rights. With no venue available in which to demand redress of grievances in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government at present, we have determined that the people of each state, via their elected state officials, must take broad but specific state measures to force the federal government to live within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, for the sake of the sovereign states and the citizens thereof.

In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the federal government is denied the power to establish laws within the state which are repugnant and obtrusive to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, state law and the citizens of the state. The Federal Government is restrained and confined in authority by the eighteen (18) items as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. We must make it a local and State imperative and movement….of the People…by the People… and For the People.

The Obama White House and identifiable Members of Congress are now on a treasonous death march and are bankrupting the country beyond expectations. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. “We, the People” cannot necessarily wait for the next round of elections. It is now that many of these public servants (and you know who they are) must put the people and country interests above self-interest by resigning immediately. A civil uprising is still not out of the question as “pain” grips the country more each day. We are in a battle for the survival of the United States. This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers, and friends. Grass roots efforts have begun; it is now time to put this effort into over drive. America, stand tall together and we will weather the storm but we must act now!

“We, the People” have had enough.

Students not free to excerise 1st Admenment they conflict with Teachers beliefs BS!

N.C. Teacher Tells Student He Could Be Arrested for Talking Badly About Obama


Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.

Nice of the teacher. IMHO she is an idiot!

Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:

“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.”

The teacher did not act professional in the discussion!

So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s  “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:

“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”

The teacher started to get angry and said:

“Not to my knowledge.”

Pure Bovine Scatology on the teachers part!

A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.

“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

The teacher is correct here there is no comparison Romney is fa better suited for the job than Obama!

As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.”

Again, The teacher is correct here there is no comparison Romney is fa better suited for the job than Obama!

Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:

“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Where did the students get disrespectful of  Obama?

Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.

“I’ll say what I want.”

The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

“Not about him, you won’t!”

Nice now you telling what they can and can not say??

The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

To which the teacher responded:

“Because he was sh-tty.”

The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.

Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.

The entire confrontation was recorded by a student and posted on YouTube. Listen below; slight content warning for language.

Sack the Senate

– Michael Oberndorf, RPA  Friday, May 18, 2012 

Last week, the Senate gave We, the People, a clear and unmistakable illustration of why we need to sack all the Democrats, and a bunch of the RINOs, too. They voted down not one, not two, but five budget bills, four of which would actually have done America some good. This comes as we move into the fourth year that the Senate has failed to do its duty by passing a budget, leaving the country economically adrift.
House Republicans, while not all the small-government conservatives We, the People, would like them to be, have still managed to pass a number of sound budget proposals that would have gone a long way toward solving our current debt and spending disasters. All of them have been summarily rejected by Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Democrat and RINO lock-steppers in the Senate. They seem determined to bring our economy crashing down so they can say, like Obama-Soetoro did recently, “See! We told you capitalism doesn’t work!” But it gets worse.The mind boggles that they’ve gotten away with this. Can you imagine a private company, especially a large one that is in deep financial trouble, whose management refuses to produce a budget, much less a budget aimed at solving the problems that threaten to put them out of business? Can you imagine stockholders of such a company pretending that this is just hunky-dory, no problema, gonna be just fine?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or LOST, “Law of the Sea), which cedes control of all the world’s oceans and their contents, including our territorial waters, to the U.N.; As it becomes clearer that the 2012 elections are going to be a landslide victory for the Tea Parties, We, the People and America, and a major defeat for Big Government socialism, the Senate, like Obama The Kenyan, are going into full Damage Creation mode. I have mentioned before that there are several incredibly dangerous, sovereignty-destroying U.N. treaties hidden in the wings, just waiting for the traitors in the Senate to ratify. That great patriot and Swift Boat Hero from his four whole months in Vietnam, John Kerry (R-MA), has vowed to get them onto the Senate floor for votes as soon, he hopes, as this summer. They include:

  • The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, aka, Small Arms Treaty, that would virtually outlaw privately owned firearms or ammunition of any sort;
  • The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which takes away parental rights to raise their children as they choose, and gives them to the U.N.;
  • The International Criminal Court, which allows foreigners to have Americans arrested and tried in kangaroo “international” courts, using foreign law;
  • The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which destroys, among many other things, marriage;
  • And a host of outrageous environmental treaties that would doom most of the world’s people to Third-World level poverty in a world-wide police state.

Clearly, who is President is not the most important thing we need to deal with next November. Constitutionally, the Executive branch is quite limited in its power. It’s Congress that makes the laws, writes the budgets, and ratifies the treaties that the Executive negotiates. Even if the president vetoes their budgets and legislation, Congress can override the vetoes with a simple two-thirds majority vote. And since they control the purse strings, they can deny funding for presidential schemes that would hurt the country. We, the People, have the power to take back our Congress, and thus, our government and our country, by seeing to it, as we just did in the Indiana, Nebraska and Pennsylvania primaries, and probably will do in Texas and Utah, to name just a few, that real conservatives win the elections.

We will also need a strong, conservative Senate since it seems more and more likely that Barack Barry Obama-Soetoro is going to turn out to be a closet Muslim, born in Kenya, then made a citizen of Indonesia, and therefore, nowhere even close to being legally qualified to hold the office of President. It is also likely that the Ruling Commissariat of the Democrat Party was very aware of this and knowingly participated in the cover-up. The new Senate and House will have a big job dealing with the mess left by many of their members going to jail over this, and straightening out the chaos left by illegally passed laws. i.e., everything the Fraud-in-the-White House signed, all the illegal appointments he made, all the illegal regulations and executive orders he had implemented, and let’s not forget all the members of the military who have died while he was “Commander-in-Chief.”

Forward, indeed.

Is Lizzy “Sitting-Bull” Warren a Progressive Wacko Wench Working the System?

Elizabeth Warren: Senate Candidate, Marxist Author & Shameless Race Grifter

BY: – Kelly OConnell  Monday, May 14, 2012 
Yet another politician created a lie to help them along like this whole administration has done!

Elizabeth Warren’s reign of fraudulent incompetence would be more startling if she wasn’t just a robotic Marxist, simply treading the well-worn path used by millions of other leftist charlatans. But, given the high stakes of her current MA US Senate bid, her addiction to underhanded maneuvering must be exposed. Her Harvard law professorship affords status to continue the progressive dream of demanding crippled Marxist ideals for public policy.Warren bellows for doomed-to-fail socialist policies which have only ever created human disaster. And, as always, this is done in the deified name of the People, despite Marxist ideology always uniformly harming the most destitute.

As the inexplicably blonde-haired, blue-eyed “Native American” Warren cannot produce any hard evidence of her racial status, we must ask: Is she a pathological grifter? (Online Etymology Dictionary defines grifteras a: “confidence trickster.”) Indeed, her entire history is littered with questionable elements.Warren’s greatest hits include a desultory publishing history—partner of admitted Marxists, producing flabby scholarship so anemic other academics described it as unbecoming of even an undergrad. Now, after rejection as Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Czar, she is caught up in another scandal. The sanctimonious, hectoring, holier-than-thou Marxist Warren used a bogus racial heritage to grease the skids into an Ivy League professorship.

Ethical dwarf Warren is subject of today’s essay as her larcenous race-grifting so stunningly contradicts the mindless Marxist moralizing she regularly spouts as often as Old Faithful. Overall, it’s an absolute imperative to halt implacable leftists demanding an America coup. We cannot save the West if we do not challenge individual Marxists whose dream is to cripple Capitalism while extinguishing the God-given rights of free born men and women across this great land.

 I. Who is Elizabeth Warren?

An Oklahoma native, Elizabeth Warren was a sometimes student and mother before divorcing and applying to Rutgers Law. She went on to several law school teaching positions. She was eventually hired by Harvard where her second husband was a law professor. A childhood incident of supposedly losing the family car after her father’s health crisis led to a fixation on how health care affects bankruptcies.

At Harvard she authored and co-authored a number of articles, including some on bankruptcy.Warren helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for Barack Obama, but was blocked from heading it over concern regarding her progressive views. After this setback, she decided to run for US Senate against Scott Brown for the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy.

II. Professor Sitting Bull’s University Marxism

A. Academic Publishing: Substandard Scholarship

Warren distinguished herself by publishing on Bankruptcy. Yet, other academics who perused her work describe the finished product as appallingly substandard. Wrote one source:

A Northwestern University peer review of her 2005 paper ripped it apart, arguing “the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured ‚ Älî they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method.”

ABC News suggested she was exercising a hidden agenda to promote a government-run health system. Sure enough, President Obama in 2009 seized on her findings to argue for socialized medicine: “The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds.”

In fact, as ABC pointed out, the claim cannot be supported by empirical evidence. Asked where he got the flawed data, the White House cited the 2005 study by “Professor Warren.”

An extensive expose of Warren’s shoddy methodology of her desultory compositions was penned by Megan McArdle, senior editor for The Atlantic, in an article titledElizabeth Warren and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad, Utterly Misleading Bankruptcy Study:

Elizabeth Warren has another study out showing that medical expenses contribute to more than half of all bankruptcies—indeed, this time, it’s 70%, up from the 50% she found in 2001.

Now, it is possible that this is true. The fact that it seems to disagree with every other study I’ve ever read that is not authored by Elizabeth Warren, and also, the self-reports of the people in her study (only 1/3rd attribute their bankruptcy to a health problem) could just be a fluke. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.

Yet upon closer examination, it turns out it’s not just wrong, but actively, aggressively wrong.Warren and her co-authors have obscured important and obvious facts that call the integrity of the work into serious question.

There is, of course, a large amount of terrible advocacy masquerading of social science out there, and too many journals and journalists abet it. But this is particularly troubling because Elizabeth Warren is now in charge of overseeing the TARP program for Congress. What other inconvenient facts is she shielding us from?

The clear point of McArdle’s article is Warren sacrifices academic integrity to service her progressive gods, schlepping for Marxist beliefs. Another writer states, “The studies suffer from what economists and statisticians call “selection bias,” meaning the sample is not random.” This bias becomes even clearer when it turns out that several of Warren’s writing partners are themselves Marxists. Despite being blocked from stewarding CFPB,Warren is still a crucial “academic” source for Obama’s drastic health measures.

McArdle discusses Warren’s poor research in another article titled, Considering Elizabeth Warren, the Scholar, stating,

Does this persistent tendency to choose odd metrics that inflate the case for some left wing cause matter? If Warren worked at a think tank, you’d say, “Ah, well, that’s the genre.” On the other hand, you’d also tend to regard her stuff with a rather beady eye. It’s unlikely to have been splashed across the headline of every newspaper in the United States. Her work gets so much attention because it comes from a Harvard professor. And this isn’t Harvard caliber material—not even Harvard undergraduate.

III. Elizabeth “Running Mouth” Warren: 1/32nd Cherokee, 31/32nd Marxist

A truly amusing aspect of leftism is how loudly liberals condemn others for failing to adhere to ethical standards to which they themselves appear deathly allergic. Elizabeth Warren built a career claiming the system is defrauding health care patients, many whom she claimed end up in bankruptcy. Yet Warren herself defrauds the entire Native American community—one of America’s most challenged sub-segments—by falsely commandeering their identity to further her own career. In other words, for Progressives and Pragmatists like Warren, morality is defined by situational ethics.

Warren claims Native American status, yet has no hard evidence to support her claims—except anecdotal tales of her grandfather’s cheekbones. Not only does the Cherokee Nation not list Warrenon its rolls, but her claim of 1/32nd bloodline does not even satisfy their standards. In fact, her supposed Native forebear is listed as “white”according to

The census records for 1860 list the allegedly Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, as “white.” Also,Warren’s family isn’t listed in the Cherokee registry.

More hilariously,Warren claims she checked the box as a Native American to “meet others like me.” This fails the sniff test for several reasons. First, what was she seeking—other Aryan-looking “American Indians” bearing minuscule blood relation to each other? Second, who would have stopped Warren from attending any Native shindig had she simply wanted to appear?

Is it not absolutely absurd to claim the WASPish, blonde-haired, blue-eyedWarren chose Native status for any reason other than self-advancement? Did she gain in her career from claiming to be Native American? Obviously she was insecure enough to feel she could not make it to the Ivy League without falsifying her status. But consider whether Warren would have admitted having a drop of Black blood before the Civil War; or whether she would have claimed a Jewish grandparent to the authorities in Berlinin 1938.

Ponder Warren’s nonsensical claims reported by ABC News:

That same day, when speaking to a local reporter, the Oklahoma City native recounted a story of how her Aunt Bee used to envy her grandfather’s “high cheekbones” – described as a physical characteristic of many Native Americans.

“I still have a picture on my mantle at home, and it’s a picture of my mother’s dad, a picture of my grandfather, and my Aunt Bee has walked by that picture at least a 1000 times, remarked that her father, my Pappa, had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do, because that’s how she saw it, and your mother got those same great cheekbones, and I didn’t. And she thought this was the bad deal she had gotten in life”Warren said.

But the story reveals further rich details. First, a person willing to pass themselves off as a Native American on a 1/32nd claim would also be willing to simply fabricate the claim of family Native pride, no? Writes Michael Patrick Leahy on Warren’s Native bona fides:

Elizabeth Warren, the current Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in Massachusetts, has for 25 years asserted that she has Native American ancestry but has never produced one bit of credible evidence to support that assertion. Shockingly, several of the law schools that have employed her have accepted her assertion without requiring her to provide evidence to support the claim.

Warren, in fact, simply did not have the record to become a law professor at a good school until she began to fake her Native American roots, according to IBD:

This begs the question: If Warren’s scholarship is so deeply lacking academic vigor, how did she land a full professorship at Harvard?

Her curriculum vitae shows she bounced from college to college, working as a lecturer or researcher, for a full decade after graduating from Rutgers Law, ranked 82nd by (She got her bachelor’s degree from the University of Houston, one of the least competitive colleges in the country).

She was offered a full professorship after she started listing herself as a minority. Harvard hired her in the mid-1990s, when the school was under fire for not having enough minority professors.

Ironically, while no hard evidence tying Warrento Native Americans was found, despite mainstream media claims to the contrary, she has been tied to an Indian killer. In fact,states the Boston Globe:

Paul Reed,Utah genealogist & American Genealogical Society fellow, found primary documentation showing Warren’s great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford served in a Tennessee militia unit that rounded up Cherokees before they were force-marched to Oklahomain the infamous “Trail of Tears.”


Elizabeth Warren’s case proves, once again, that followers of Karl Marx give themselves the right to tell as many lies as are needed to promote the “higher truth” of Marxism. So Warrendoes her only-the-conclusion-matters “scholarship” meant to support Barack’s health care mandate. And in return, Warren’s quid pro quo was she gets made head of her own, brand new “consumer watchdog” agency meant to consume the consumers with its vile socialistic standards. All this to help take down America in the name of revolutionary progress of the people.

In the same way, Obama’s record is also filled with half-truths and lies, from both him and his fanatical backers. And for this reason, and the dangers such unprincipled leaders and would-be senators and their made-up scholarship pose, we must remove all far-far leftists from public office, starting with Barack Obama.


Better Off

Better Off

By Charlie Daniels

May 18, 2012

When you look at a presidential candidate, you are faced with the sobering fact that, if elected, he will be the most powerful person on earth for the next four years and have power over not only weapons of mass destruction, but also the economy, foreign policy, social and civil rights issues – and the quality of your life.

New candidates have to run on a limited record of public service, their character, their personality and their believability.

If the person is an incumbent, that person should stand on past achievements and the accomplishments, or lack thereof, in the last four years.

Being a good president requires much more than being a nice and charismatic guy, a good public speaker and looking good for the television cameras.

A president is supposed to be a leader, a pacesetter, a father figure, a pursuer of justice, and a champion of the American way of life, defending it around the world verbally and militarily, if necessary.

A good president is a good administrator who realizes that he can’t possibly be everywhere at the same time, that he needs capable assistants to take care of the details and strong competent men and women who have the experience and ability to run departments of government, leaving him free to tackle the big problems and oversee the work the people under him are doing.

The president is the face of America to the rest of the world. Every word that comes out of his mouth is diced, dissected and analyzed by foreign leaders around the world and has to be carefully chosen so as not to show weakness or vulnerability.

A president can’t be a crybaby or petulant or petty and should, above all, take responsibility for his actions, good or bad. Harry Truman said it best, “The buck stops here,”

When we examine whether or not to elect an incumbent, we should not just ask ourselves: Am I better off than I was four years ago?  We should also ask: Is the country better off than it was four years ago?

Let’s look at Barack Obama’s four years in office.

One of the first things Obama did was to tour the world, apologizing for America’s greatness and bowed to a Muslim king who is one of the worst human rights violators on earth.

The prestige of this nation has fallen ever since.

Do you feel better about America’s place in the world than you did four years ago?

He surrounds himself with incompetence and inexperience. Eric Holder alone is enough of a testament to Obama’s weakness when it comes to appointing capable personnel.

Holder’s tenure has been an unmitigated and unparalleled disaster. In the hands of Holder, justice is not blind and certainly not colorblind.

His refusal to turn over pertinent documents pertaining to the Fast and Furious debacle, in my opinion, means that he’s got something to hide. There is no way possible that a gun running operation that crosses international borders could possibly have happened without the approval of the head of the department, if not approval at an even higher level.

Holder is not Attorney General material. The man seems to think the Constitution is a list of suggestions. He is dangerous.

Do you feel better about the Justice Department than you did four years ago?

Tim Geithner’s understanding of the street level economics is either non-existent or well hidden. He looks and acts like a lost child.

Do you feel better about the treasury department than you did four years ago?

Have you flown lately? If you have, you probably got a taste of Janet Napolitano’s style of Homeland Security. It seems that the TSA just goes from one blunder to another and there’s simply no telling how many terrorists have crossed our border with Mexico unimpeded.

Do you feel safer now than you did four years ago?

Obama has had more Czars that the entire history of the Russian Monarchy and, in most cases, we don’t even know what they do.

Obama has shown his contempt for the Constitution on several occasions. He has also shown his contempt for the will of the people with his sneaky midnight legislation and further corrupting of the already corrupt houses of Congress to get his socialist agenda passed over the will, and behind the back, of We The People.

Do you feel that your government represents your interests better than it did four years ago?

Obama’s whispered conversation with Russian President Medvedev, when he thought the mics were off, bespeaks what a second Obama term would be. And, his message for Vladimir that “after my election I’ll have more flexibility” is a harbinger of some dealings with the Russians he wants to hide from the American voting public.

His secretly recorded “guns and religion” statement seems to pretty much sum up how he feels and talks about Middle America when he thinks it can’t hear him.

Do you trust the president more than you did four years ago?

A net two million jobs have disappeared under Obama, the national debt has grown to sixteen trillion dollars and is getting bigger every day,

Do you feel better about the economy than you did four years ago?

Obama has been the most socially divisive president in my lifetime. He fans the flames of racial and class envy any time he thinks it will benefit him politically.

Do you feel better about race relations than you did four years ago?

Obama talks about all the jobs he saved by bailing out General Motors, but many of those jobs are overseas and don’t benefit the American economy or tax base at all.

His chosen head of the White House’s “Jobs Council”, Jeffrey Immelt – the head man at General Electric – moved the manufacturing of GE light bulbs to China.

Do you feel better about keeping your job than you did four years ago?

And how about Tom Vilsack’s Agriculture Department wanting to tell farm families the age at which their children can operate machinery. Mr. Vilsack is evidently out of his depths and knows very little about the family farm.

Do you feel better about raising your family without government interference than you did four years ago?

Kathleen Sibelius should be called the secretary of health, welfare and abortion because she has at least as much interest in terminating the unborn as she does in health and welfare.

Is the country better off than it was four years ago?

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Stated very well always have liked Charlie Daniels and his music now to find out very well versed in the world of common sense!


Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: