Remove this ad


Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    

0 Points


Jul 17 11 8:22 AM

Tags : :

Contagion (2011) Official Exclusive 1080p HD Trailer


Contagion" follows the rapid progress of a lethal airborne virus that kills within days. As the fast-moving epidemic grows, the worldwide medical community races to find a cure and control the panic that spreads faster than the virus itself. At the same time, ordinary people struggle to survive in a society coming apart.


 The people who study the NWO, Illuminati, Bilderberg group, Committee of 120, Club of Rome, Trilateral Commission, CFR, etc.. know WHAT'S UP. If y'all don't know what TIME IT IS, then you're completely clueless. The Elite Globalists who control the whole world, are showing us what they want to do to us through these movies, media, music, entertainment, news, etc.. This Contagion movie is just another glimpse of what they plan to do to us

Getting us ready for the next , man made virus release?
They just love putting into the mind before they do it..

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jul 17 11 9:20 AM

CNN's 'gotcha' hatchet-job on terrorism fighter

Confronts security adviser at conference, suggests his work a 'scam'

The "gotcha" reporting of the Anderson Cooper program on CNN may have backfired, as a ministry organization in the United States now is going public with a long list of accusations that the AC360 employees lied about their "investigations" and actually used propaganda from a terror-linked organization for their story.
The recent programs concerned the work of Walid Shoebat and his foundation and related groups.
Reporter Andrew Griffin traveled to Rapid City, S.D., where Shoebat was speaking to a conference to confront him. He publicly accused a Shoebat associate of running a "scam."
"I gotta ask you because I do a lot of this type of reporting on charities, organizations that collect money… Everything is not very transparent. Are you running a scam?" Griffin asked.
See what radicals hope the future holds, in "Islam & The End Times (DVD) Bundle"
Shoebat's associate, Keith Davies, refused to answer, instead suggesting Griffin look at the required government filings for the organization.
Griffin also tried to grill Shoebat on exactly where his funding that is allocated to help Christians in the Middle East goes.
hoebat refused to answer. "If you disclose who you're helping, it ends up biting them," he warned.
The resulting program was aired this week, and has been posted online.
There were three segments, a short introduction posted on YouTube, a first segment also posted on YouTube and then a second segment that was available on the CNN site.
The YouTube videos indicated sparse viewership, with only a few hundred counts on each video to the point of this report.
The gist of the CNN report was to suggest that all was not as it should be in a legitimate ministry, with accusations that Shoebat was improperly accepting federal funding for his lectures – as a former terrorist – on terrorism, and other misbehavior.
Cooper and Griffin discussed how something "doesn't seem to add up" and how they were unable to confirm parts of Shoebat's biography by contacting officials in the Middle East.
As a result, Shoebat's organization confronted the network with: "If CNN is serious about the integrity of its news gathering some questions need to be asked concerning the agenda regarding this story as well as verifying for yourself as leaders of CNN News, the integrity of these journalists. If they lie about us then how can they be trusted with other important stories."
WND contacted CNN twice by e-mail, requesting a comment, and got only an automated response: "Thank you for the e-mail you sent to Anderson Cooper 360°. This auto reply is your notification that we have received your e-mail. While we are unable to personally reply to every e-mail, your comments are important to us, and we do read each and every one. Comments become part of the viewer response report that is prepared and made available each day to our producers and senior management. "
On the YouTube page for one of the videos, there were comments both in support of CNN and in support of Shoebat.
"CAIR (counsel for American islamification and repression) & and their friends at hamas would like to thank CNN for all their hard word on this story," wrote one forum participant.
Wrote another, "Hats off to AC… honest journalism."
But at the Walid Shoebat Foundation website there was a point-by-point rebuttal to the claims broadcast by CNN.
According to that document:

  • "In Mr. Griffin's article he wrote: 'Neither Shoebat nor his business partner provided any proof of Shoebat's involvement in terrorism, despite repeated requests.'"

But the foundation said, "There were no repeated requests. What is damaging to CNN's credibility is that we have all the e-mail exchanges to prove that every request was answered and The Shoebat Foundation did respond to all of CNN's e-mails and was even offered several documents including credible witnesses to validate Mr. Shoebat's account:

"We will be willing to provide copies of documents that will answer your questions and witnesses on the condition that you guarantee they are protected and no names or photos or the contents of such documents will be made public. We will have you review these in person."
The foundation said CNN never complied.

  • "CNN claimed that they investigated Mr. Shoebat and had asked several agencies about Shoebat's past."
  • The foundation said, "On Anderson Cooper 360, Griffin never released any interviews with any official agency; no interviews with any police official, government officials or any recorded calls or any memos or any e-mail correspondence (which we did) that validate any investigation took place with anyone."

    We have also learned [through] unimpeachable sources that CAIR operatives secretly worked with CNN in carrying out this political assassination of Mr. Shoebat.

    Additionally, if CNN released the entire interview between Mr. Griffin and Mr. Shoebat it will destroy the whole claim and prove that CAIR's input was evident. During the interview on tape Griffin claimed that he investigated Mr. Shoebat and found out that records show he was paid $13,000 and that he never had called Bank Leumi Branch in Bethlehem which today doesn't even exist.

    In the interview Griffin simply was repeating an article written by CAIR, which falsely claimed that the Shoebat Foundation was paid $13,000. Anderson Cooper should review the entire interview, which is damaging to CNN. What Griffin did was simply rely on an article written by CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) based on an old article in which 3 x-terrorists were paid $13,000 in an event at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Griffin then changed his story to include the correct amount.

    Griffin later found out that there was no Bank Leumi branch in Bethlehem to call since that branch was closed in which Griffin changed both stories with Cooper and lied intentionally. Griffin also stated that he checked with the Israeli police in Bethlehem when fact is, there is no Israeli police station in Bethlehem and the Palestinian Authorities would have no such records. Griffin later changed the story to say that he called Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv. Fact is, Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv has no such records either. Anyone can call Bank Leumi’s headquarters in Tel Aviv and check. We called ourselves and there are no records in Bank Leumi that tracks terrorist operations during 1976-1977.

  • "Griffin claimed that he searched the Israeli prison records and there was nothing under the name Shoebat."
  • But the foundation said, "Shoebat's imprisonment can easily be verified with a click of a button since Mr. Griffin was not the only one investigating Mr. Shoebat's prison story. Journalist Eileen Fleming who attempted to debunk Mr. Shoebat's account on an story had interviewed Shoebat's family who confirmed that Mr. Shoebat was indeed in prison.
    The report states: "In 1976, his sister Mona was coming home from school with her friends and were stopped and beaten up by Israeli soldiers, they nearly broke Mona's back. This made Walid very angry and shortly thereafter he attended his first demonstration against the occupation. In 1977 Walid was caught distributing Palestinian flags and was arrested and held for about two weeks in Mascubia Prison, until his mother went to the embassy and got him released."

    Further, the foundation said if CNN had reviewed the records that were offered, it would have discovered when Shoebat was arrested he held a U.S. passport, which has a different last name than the one he uses now.

    Also, the foundation said Shoebat was not in jail for his bombing operation but for planning civil unrest in which he was released without charge since the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem intervened in the case.

  • "CNN claimed that Walid’s cousin confirms that Walid was never a terrorist."
    But the foundation said the relative, Daood Hassaan Shoebat, is not a credible witness since several of his other relatives, in fact, are terrorists and that "can be verified without a shadow of doubt.
  • "Griffin claimed that there was never a 'firebomb' thrown on Bank Leumi and neither was there anything of that sort in Bethlehem Manger Square [during 1976-1977]."
  • But the foundation said Shoebat never made any claim that he threw a Molotov cocktail on a bank, which completely debunks Mr. Griffin's entire investigation. Why would anyone remember such a minor event? Instead, Shoebat had a real time bomb assembled by the notorious terrorist Mahmoud Al-Mughrabi whose account can be completely verified through United Nations reports and news agencies.

    "The most damaging to Mr. Griffin's story is that there was a bombing at the Bank Leumi in Bethlehem's Manger Square – as described in Mr. Shoebat's books. What was not published in Walid's books was a later research that was also documented by the United Nations. Between December 24 and 27, there were two explosions in that area: "Bethlehem (in Manger Square near the Church of the Nativity)" and "Explosive charge went off outside the local Courthouse 27 December 1977 JP. 2 Jan. 1978 Yediot Aharonot, 2 January 1978."

  • "Americans are wasting tax dollars in hiring Mr. Shoebat or ex-terrorists to explain terrorism."
  • The foundation said ex-terrorists know the mindset of attackers the best. The foundation describes how Shoebat was recruited into the PLO by cellmate Mahmoud Al-Mughrabi, who led a bomb plot targeting Bank Leumi branches. Shoebat later fled to the U.S. and was mentored under Jamal Said, who is said to be an associate of Abdullah Assam, the godfather of al-Qaida.
    "Walid's violent acts included street violence and hand-to-hand confrontations with Israeli forces. On one occasion Walid nearly lynched an Israeli soldier, which also can be confirmed by accessing Israeli news archives on March 18th as well as March 30th 1976. The news broadcaster was Karam Zarour (Oded Zarrai) who broadcast the news item on 8 p.m. news on the Arabic station on Israeli TV. CNN never accessed the archives," the group reported.
    Davies told the network at one point, "We have been telling the truth so far and provided you with an initial report and will not continue this unless you agree to our request to protect individuals lives and admit your mistakes."

    Quote    Reply   

    #2 [url]

    Jul 17 11 9:22 AM

    Hey Mr. President! What about cutting Obamacare?

    Former congressman: Repeal 'would be step in right direction'

    A Heritage Foundation fellow and former member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., says President Obama is sidestepping what could be a large part of the resolution of the nation's problem with its debt ceiling: Obamacare.
    "Repealing Obamacare would certainly help even though they tried to disguise the fact that it was a major contributor to deficit, what is it, $183 billion in advance appropriations still coming in?" Istook said.
    "It's money being spent hand-over-fist. That would be a step in the right direction," Istook said.
    His comments came just after Obama's latest news conference at which he stated – repeatedly – his requirements for Congress to raise the nation's debt ceiling so he can borrow and spend more money.
    Shock the Washington establishment by participating in the "No More Red Ink" campaign and shut down all new plans for bailouts, "stimulus" spending and even the funding for Obamacare.
    He said he remains hopeful he and congressional leaders still can reach a deal on the debt ceiling.


    WND Exclusive

    Hey Mr. President! What about cutting Obamacare?

    Former congressman: Repeal 'would be step in right direction'

    Posted: July 16, 2011
    10:45 pm Eastern

    By Michael Carl
    © 2011 WND

    WASHINGTON – A Heritage Foundation fellow and former member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., says President Obama is sidestepping what could be a large part of the resolution of the nation's problem with its debt ceiling: Obamacare.
    "Repealing Obamacare would certainly help even though they tried to disguise the fact that it was a major contributor to deficit, what is it, $183 billion in advance appropriations still coming in?" Istook said.
    "It's money being spent hand-over-fist. That would be a step in the right direction," Istook said.
    His comments came just after Obama's latest news conference at which he stated – repeatedly – his requirements for Congress to raise the nation's debt ceiling so he can borrow and spend more money.
    Shock the Washington establishment by participating in the "No More Red Ink" campaign and shut down all new plans for bailouts, "stimulus" spending and even the funding for Obamacare.
    He said he remains hopeful he and congressional leaders still can reach a deal on the debt ceiling.
    (Story continues below)

    Speaking with reporters, Obama said that the time for a deal is urgent and that official Washington needs to have a "long term view of the big picture."
    Obama also took a few shots at the members of Congress he says are tied to their electoral base and separated from the mainstream voters.
    "The question is, at what given moment are we going to set all of this [partisan rhetoric] aside and get something done?" Obama asked. "So the question is, at what point are the folks over there going to start listening to the people that put them in office?"
    He lectured members of Congress and said a balanced budget amendment is not needed, something to which Istook took exception.
    "The American people for decades have been calling upon Congress to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and President Obama is certainly out of step in his opposition to that," Istook said.
    American Enterprise Institute economic analyst Allan Meltzer said Obamacare repeal is certainly a starting point.
    "Repealing Obamacare would relieve some of the burden. It won't solve all of the problems, but it will help," Meltzer said.
    Heritage Foundation economic policy analyst J. D. Foster said Obama talks a lot about bipartisanship, but he wants to define the term.
    "His interpretation of setting aside partisanship is that the other side should stop arguing and agree with him," Foster said.
    That issue, however, isn't the problem, he said.
    "The issue is not partisanship. It's not politics. The issue is restoring fiscal discipline to the federal government by cutting spending before we are buried in debt," Foster said.
    Istook believes the American people recognize the real source of the problem.
    "The American people realize … the problem is that it [government] spends too much," Istook said. He said Washington needs to stop looking at government projections and pay attention to what the financial rating houses are saying. He says the focus should be on long-term solutions.
    With the debt ceiling now at $14 trillion plus, the current year's deficit adding at least a trillion dollars to that, there is reason for concern over Obamacare, with costs estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be as high as $1.2 trillion in its initial 10-year period. The program also is backloaded, so the costs skyrocket each year as more and more of the programs would kick in.
    Another report from Congress said the program also would cost 80,000 jobs.
    "If you look at what the financial rating houses are saying, Standard and Poor's and Moody's, they are not only looking at whether or not something is done for the short term problem with the debt ceiling," Istook explained.
    "They're looking to whether there is any permanent reform with the level of unsustainable spending that Washington has," Istook explained further.
    "They have said that we are facing a downgrade of our borrowing if we don't take major steps that solve the problems," Istook added.
    Listen to Istook:

    He also was critical of the president's call for a blanket increase in the debt ceiling because the consequences he sees will go with the increase.
    "For the president to say, 'Give me an increase in the debt ceiling,' but he's not going to go along with fundamental reform, we're risking a downgrade in our rating and the economic consequences of that," Istook said. "They seem to be overlooking that part of the warning from the rating agencies."
    Istook said the president bears much of the responsibility because of a lack of executive leadership.
    "The president has not directed any of the federal agencies to cut back on unnecessary expenses, to delay contracts that could be delayed or, purchases or travel that could be delayed," Istook said.
    "He hasn't taken any of those steps," Istook added. "When you know you're driving to a cliff you ought to be putting on the brakes rather than keeping your foot down, 'Pedal to the metal on the accelerator'."
    "The absence of any presidential directive to slow down spending to avert the problem tells me where the president's true feelings lie," Istook said. "It's with big government and for making false claims about the level of spending cuts that they've supposedly agreed to."
    An expert quoted in a commentary by WND Managing Editor David Kupelian said the nation will have enough money to service its debt and pay some other bills even without an increase in the debt ceiling.
    Obama had issued a not-so-veiled threat to America's seniors, suggesting that he would not be certain Social Security checks due to be sent Aug. 3 still would be sent if the debt ceiling increase he wants isn't granted by Aug. 2.
    He said. "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
    However, investment adviser Kurt Brouwer wrote in Marketwatch that that simply isn't reality.
    Krouwer explained that the U.S. Treasury needs to pay about $15 billion to $20 billion in any given month in interest on debt. But the government takes in about $200 billion a month.
    Joseph Farah, CEO of WND and the organizer of the grass-roots "No More Red Ink" campaign, which is lobbying to simply cut off the government's credit card, said the House Republicans have it within their control to simply stop the borrowing and force the federal government to reduce spending.
    "The only reason to raise the debt limit is to continue business as usual in Washington," said Farah. "There is no necessity to do it. The prudent and responsible move would be to run the government with the trillions in revenues it takes in. No individual, no business and no state or local government can just keep borrowing to justify uncontrolled spending. It's time the federal government starts operating like the rest of us do."
    In recent weeks, a number of high-profile commentators also have come out in favor of simply calling a halt to the borrowing – estimated at some $5 trillion since Obama took office.
    Radio host Michael Savage blasted House Republicans for even considering allowing the Obama administration to pile up more debt.
    "Where did all the 'fiscal conservatives' go?" Savage asked in a recent email to WND. "Of course we should not extend the debt limit! What kind of insanity is this?
    "If a family is broke and dependent on loans," Savage continued, "what bank would extend a new credit line until the family 1) sold assets; 2) worked out a repayment plan for existing loans? We will become a bigger 'banana republic,' like Argentina 20 years ago, if we increase our national debt."
    Rush Limbaugh also has hammered the idea of a debt-ceiling hike.

    Quote    Reply   

    #3 [url]

    Jul 17 11 9:28 AM

    Leaders, media 'hiding what they know' about Obama eligibility

    Investigator says, 'I can't wait to see Nancy Pelosi in an orange jumpsuit'

    The private investigator who has confirmed that Barack Obama is using a Social Security number issued to a Connecticut address, when he allegedly was in high school in Hawaii at the time it was assigned, says the leaders in American government as well as the mainstream media are aiding and abetting in concealing the truth from the American public.
    "They are hiding what they know to be the truth, that he's not eligible to be president," Susan Daniels said today. "I can't wait to see Nancy Pelosi in an orange jumpsuit."
    Her comments came in an interview with WND CEO Joseph Farah, who was sitting in for the vacationing G. Gordon Liddy today on his show that is live-streamed at WND and Radio America.
    Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," by Jerome Corsi.
    WND has reported on the issue of Obama's Social Security number. In fact, a lawsuit is pending now in Washington over a Freedom of Information Act dispute regarding the original, which remains sealed in the state of Hawaii.
    The first three digits of a Social Security number indicate the state of the applicant's mailing address. Obama's number begins with 042, which falls within Connecticut's range of 040 through 049.
    The national news media have been virtually silent on this potentially criminal fact.
    Indeed, when Fox News finally attempted to explain it, the news network broadcast false information and then scrubbed the report from its website.
    When WND asked the White House about the issue, then–Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question.
    The Freedom of Information case by Orly Taitz' is against Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, and explains that because of the numerous questions surrounding Obama's eligibility, his birth certificate and his other records, the information should be released.

    n her interview today, Daniels said she was drawn into the controvery over Obama's background, antecedents and eligibility because she was concerned by Obama's massive spending programs when he took over.
    She reported a client asked her to do some research on Obama, so she started doing some work using databases to which she has access as a licensed private investigator.
    "Up pops this Connecticut Social Security number for him," she said.

    Joe Farah & Susan Daniels: Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number - 7/15/11

    Joe Farah & Susan Daniels: Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number - 7/15/11 - - -

    She said the policy is that such numbers are allocated based on addresses. Also, she has been able to identify the time frame that that number was issued to the last two weeks of March in 1977.
    That was when Obama reportedly was in the 10th grade in Hawaii, his mother was in Indonesia and his father in Africa.
    "They cannot explain it away," Daniels said. "There has to be a card he filled out with the Social Security Administration for him to have that number."
    She said she knows the time frame because those individuals holding numbers ending in 24 and 29 already have died, and so have become public, and those were issued during that time period. Obama's ends in 25, so would have to have come between them.
    "He's using a phony Social Security number to hide something from his past, which probably was tied to the original Social Security number he had," she reported.
    But she noted using an incorrect number is a felony.
    She said she's contacted a number of leaders in Congress and the Department of Justice, without success.

    She is confident that he is using this particular number because, "I can give you addresses for 25 years at various law firms, his home, when he was in Massachusetts at Harvard, as a senator in Washington, showing that Social Security number at those addresses."
    In the lawsuit over the number, a subpoena has been served on officials in the Hawaii Department of Health and the state's attorney general demanding access to the original "1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama." 
    The attorney behind the case, Taitz, told WND she is asking a court to compel compliance.
    The California attorney contends the state's "privacy" regulations should be ignored, as Obama already has released what the White House purported to be a copy of the document to the public.
    She has developed a case in Washington, D.C., seeking the original application for Obama's Social Security number, a document that could provide significant information about the president's early life that relates to his eligibility.
    U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth recently rejected a defense concern over procedure in the dispute. Taitz said that moved the case into the discovery phase, in which she can issue subpoenas to those holding documentation she is seeking.
    In a statement on her website, she explained, "The case at hand revolves around a … FOIA request for the original SS-5 application for CT SSN 042-68-xxxx, that Mr. Barack Obama is fraudulently using. According to his Selective Service certificate Mr. Obama is using this Social Security number … however Social Security administration states, that this number was never issued … Typically, individuals, who do not have valid birth certificates resort to using invalid Social Security numbers, therefore the birth certificate is at issue."
    She noted that Obama released an image the White House said was a copy of his Hawaiian certificate, but many experts have assessed it as a fake.
    "Plaintiff filed multiple requests for access to the original birth certificate, which is supposed to be on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii. Plaintiff received a response from the registrar of the Department of Health in Hawaii, Mr. Alvin Onaka, stating that he and Ms. Loretta Fuddy, director of health, will not provide access to the original, due to considerations of privacy. Plaintiff filed an appeal, stating, that there cannot be a consideration of privacy, as Mr. Obama already released the document in question, and it is available to the public at large on the web site There is no genuine issue of privacy, as all the information in the document in question is public, but there is an issue of forgery, as multiple expert testimonies show the document to be forged," Taitz wrote.
    An affidavit filed by Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, "it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence."
    Daniels previously told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security Number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.
    "I doubt this is President Obama's originally issued Social Security number," she told WND. "Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii."
    The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration.
    In April, some 11 months after WND began publicizing Obama's Connecticut-based SSN, Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel briefly addressed the issue while reading his viewer mail on the air.
    But the news anchor falsely asserted the president's father lived in Connecticut.
    In his viewer email segment April 13, O'Reilly was asked: "What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security Number? He never lived there."
    "His father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly claimed, adding that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."
    However, there is no evidence Barack Obama Sr. ever lived in Connecticut. He left Hawaii in 1962 to study at Harvard in Massachusetts and then returned to his home country of Kenya.
    When WND publicized O'Reilly's error, the information vanished from the Fox News Channel's website and
    O'Reilly's full explanation of the "truth" of Obama "myths" is here:

    O'Reilly Lying About Obama's Social Security Number Fraud - 4/13/11

    The website, responding to complaints by Fox podcast customers that O'Reilly's Social Security claim, broadcast on Fox, had gone missing from the audio archive, trumpeted the headline: "Busted: Fox News scrubbed Bill O'Reilly's 4/13 mailbag segment on Obama's Social Security Number reserved for Connecticut applicants." The site added, "Not only did Fox News scrub the podcast, they also left out the viewer email about Obama's Social Security number at O'Reilly's website. I report, you decide!"


    Quote    Reply   

    #4 [url]

    Jul 17 11 9:31 AM

    McClintock: Obama passed eligibility requirements

    Congressman says voters, Congress, courts all vet candidates


    A California Republican congressman says voters, Congress and the courts all have cleared Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

    The comments come from U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, whose e-mail to a constituent with a question about the eligibility issue was forwarded to WND.

    He said, "The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years."

    Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

    McClintock continued, "Currently, a candidate's eligibility under these requirements is vetted by a number of sources, both inside the government and out. First, candidates go through an intensive political vetting process in both the primary and general election – their histories are carefully examined by their political opponents who have a vested interest in uncovering the facts. At the end of the campaigns, the voting public weighs in. Then, when all the votes have been cast and counted, it is up to Congress to certify the results. A final check-and-balance against eligibility irregularities lies with the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court."


    He said Obama has passed each of those standards.

    "Further, in President Obama's case – in addition to his Hawaii birth certificate – there were two birth announcements in major Hawaii newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin," he said.

    The comment suggests the perspective that being born on U.S. soil would be sufficient for "natural born citizenship," even though there are experts who define "natural born citizen" as the offspring of two citizen parents on the country's soil, which would be an issue for Obama as his father never was a U.S. citizen.

    WND previously reported how Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group of the Congressional Research Service, issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Obama's presidential eligibility under the natural-born citizen requirement of the Constitution.

    WND has posted the CRS memo on for download.

    Attached to the memo was an attack-piece published by to dismiss claims that Obama's short-form Certification of Live Birth, originally published during the 2008 presidential campaign by, was a forgery.

    Many of the statements from members of Congress also appear to make assumptions about Obama, such as the validity of the "Certificate of Live Birth" that was released by the White House, even though a multitude of experts have concluded that it is a fake.

    When Obama released that image on April 27, after years of stating that the document was not available, the Hawaii Department of Health and governor's office refused even to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state's records.

    And the questions about Obama's status continue to grow. A recent poll showed fully half the nation wants Congress to investigate his eligibility.

    Instead of resolving issues, the image that Obama released to the public on April 27 has raised new ones. For example, during an interview by NBC News' national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, former Hawaii health department chief Chiyome Fukino, who has claimed to have examined the "original" documentation in the state archives, said the original document was "half typed and half handwritten."

    But the statement conflicts with the document that Obama released on April 27 from the White House, which his staff members described as "proof positive" of a Hawaiian birth. Only the signatures and dates are "hand-written," not half the document.

    An extensive report from Mara Zebest, who has contributed as author or editor to dozens of books on computer software, concluded the image clearly is a fraud.

    Among the statements from members of Congress:

    • Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, "In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections."

  • Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The "Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America." But then she explains that the "Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama." Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of "citizenship" equates to meeting the requirement for "natural-born citizenship."
  • Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency."
  • Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama's eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:
  • Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."
  • Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."
  • U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
  • Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."
  • Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
  • Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: "I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president."
  • U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: "As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office."
  • U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama's birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the website"
  • Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, "The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama's case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an "application for emergency stay" filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution."
  • Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."
  • U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: "According to State of Hawai'i officials, the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state's policies and procedures.
  • Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: "The U.S. Constitution is our nation's supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama's birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii's major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama's birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office."
  • Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., "As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation's Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the 'Certification of Birth' document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded 'fact check' websites such as,, and support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations."
  • Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., "The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country."

  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama's long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.

  • Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., "Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it's likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard."
  • Expressing doubt:

    • Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in the From the Trenches World Report, "I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don't have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution. … "

  • Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, "Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards ... so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering."

    Rep Lance on Obama eligibility

    Congressman Leonard Lance says he "Loves the Consitution"....But

    Quote    Reply   

    #5 [url]

    Jul 17 11 10:01 AM

    Clueless Barack Claims Only "Professional Politicians" Understand Budget While Economy Implodes

    Obama’s Amateur Paint-by-Numbers Liberalism Driving the World Off a Cliff

    Did you happen to catch Obama’s recent budget speech where he advised the little man to step aside to allow the “experts”—that is, the professional politicians—to address the nation’s most serious problems? If you didn’t swoon after that miracle of delusion, you may want to go get tested for terminal cognitive dissonance. Here is what Barack said when asked why the vast majority of Americans did not support a higher debt ceiling:
    Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. You know, the public is not paying close attention…

    Shockingly, despite all the warning signs of misadventure—from staggering joblessness, cratered budgets, perpetual trillion-dollar deficits, shrinking military, and government program downsizes, Obama still believes he’s captaining America’s ship to unsurpassed achievement. Instead, Barack has America sailing full-speed into an economic tsunami, as unconcerned as a blind man stumbling across a minefield, drunk and barefoot.
    This essay plumbs the remarkable obduracy of Liberals who condescendingly mistake their elitist attitude for competence to lead.

    I. What is Liberalism?

    Question: Is it not a fundamental assumption of leftism that modern liberalism is transparently true by definition; whereas Conservative ideas are embarrassingly stupid and utterly false? Further, don’t liberals naturally assume that the elite class—aka Ivy League grads and leftist politicical Brahmans—are simply smarter and more efficient by light years than the average person? Were this self-satisfied assumption correct would we be in the desperate straights we find ourselves today? Currently, mendacious politicians savagely battle to waste borrowed money like bubonic rats tearing each other limb-from-limb over government cheese.
    Liberalism, as the term is used today, is shorthand for socialism. This must be differentiated from the worldview of the Founders, who used the same word for their ideas. But the colonist’s theories must now be referred to as “Classical Liberalism,” to contrast. So when speaking between the two ideologies, leftism of today should be called “Modern Liberalism”; and that of the American Revolutionaries as “Classical Liberalism.”
    Classical Liberalism is by far the most influential and successful political theory in world history. It consists of these elements, according to American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia:
    “Classical liberalism” designates the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and press, and international peace based on free trade. Until 1900, this ideology was simply known as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now necessary because liberalism has become associated with socialism—interference with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals.
    But at the core of our political struggles we are still battling over the vision of left versus right regarding theories of the nature of mankind.

    II. The Elite Vision: Are Politicians Really Masters of the Universe?

    One of the fascinating developments in political history is the advent of socialist and Marxist ideology which made politicians default geniuses of the world. One does not have to look far to find how Marxist leaders inevitably mistook ruthless rule for competence. Consider Mao’s agrarian debacle the Great Leap Forward, murdering 40 million Chinese by sheer stupidity and ignorance. Each Marxist master has similar dumb, uneducated and murderous mistakes which prove dispositively that Marxism and socialism are horribly false and misbegotten belief systems. Consider Lenin’s claim, “Any cook should be able to run the country” when pondering how leftism combines the very worst of illiterate, simplistic thinking combined with arrogant overconfidence.
    And yet, America is currently trapped in the miasma of Obama’s reign of unlettered incompetence. We stand at the edge of the precipice of economic Armageddon while the Con Artist in Chief beams his happy, dysfunctional smile across a land laid waste. Every single major decision by Obama has either been a precipitous failure or a hypocritical, hornswoggling continuation of his officially damned predecessor’s policies.
    So what drives such relentless failure, done with such remarkable hubris?

    A. Conflict of Visions: Liberalism as a Condescending, Simplistic Ideology

    Thomas Sowell has written extensively upon the conceits and failures of modern liberalism, and leftist political hacks like Barack Obama. He calls progressive ideology “Vision” politics, and describes how the enthusiasts of this theory lord over others their high-minded, but impotent ideals. He describes the tragic results of the Liberal tendency to see themselves as a special elite force, who are the only persons fit to tackle humanity’s challenges and crises—just as Barack so condescendingly claimed about the budget debate.
    In A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Sowell maps out the essential difference between progressive and conservative ideas. Beliefs and policies of the left and the right hinge upon their respective views of human nature. In general, Leftists believe individuals are no more than the sum of their influences, such as family, neighborhood or society. He calls this the “Unconstrained Vision,” and such progressives are the “self anointed” people—being those with a liberal, or socialist political view. This group relieves individuals of their responsibility when they fall short, because they believe when one person fails we all fail, and the society is responsible for raising them up again.
    But the Conservative vision is one of individual responsibility, where people make it or fail upon their own initiative, willpower, and character. He calls this the “Constrained Vision,” which is opposed to utopian systems, and socialist schemes meant to perfect all people. The constrained vision relies on a modified belief in the goodness of human nature, allowing the free market, rule of law, and constitutional government to help remind people the differences between good and bad behavior.
    Sowell writes,
    The constrained (Conservative) vision puts little faith in deliberately designed social processes, since it has little faith that decision-makers could effectively cope with the enormous complexities of designing a blueprint for an economic system, a legal system, or a system of morality or politics. The constrained vision relies, instead, on historically derived traditions.

    B. Vision of the Anointed: Liberalism as a Holy Caste of Enlightened Saviors

    Sowell then maps out a further point in Vision of the Anointed. Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. Modern liberals are elitist who have a very strong, almost religious vision about themselves and their purpose on earth. Liberals believe they are a sacred and holy order, a group “anointed” to help the poor, weak, ignorant—the social, legal, and moral misfits. He writes of those verbally talented, but intellectually bankrupt liberals, like Barack:
    This vision so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things. Many of these “thinking people” could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind many historic catastrophes.
    These anointed, like Obama, are convinced they exist in an ethereal state, above all mankind whom they must help with their great genius. Writes Sowell:
    The anointed make much of their “compassion” for the less fortunate, their “concern” for the environment, and being “anti-war,” etc. One reason for the preservation and insulation of a vision is that it becomes inextricably intertwined with the egos of those who believe it. Despite Hamlet’s warning against self-flattery, the vision of the anointed is not simply a vision of the world but is also a vision of themselves and their moral role in that world. It is not a vision of the tragedy of the human condition: Problems exist because others are not as wise or as virtuous as the anointed.

    III. Apocalypse Now?

    We stand at the precipice of utter world currency instability and collapse. Some even talk about a return to the Gold Standard because of the failure of fiat “paper” money. Currently, Europe teeters on the edge of the abyss as Italy and Spain join Ireland and Greece on the way to insolvency. Meanwhile, Obama is pouring trillions of dollars down the drain on pie-in-the-sky “stimulus” projects; and “quantitative easing,” while the dollar plummets and hyperinflation crouches in the shadows, waiting to destroy.
    Directing the collapsing global fiscal order, Barack sits like Major King Kong in Dr Strangelove, riding the “recovery” down to doomsday like a bull-rider clinging to a plummeting atom bomb. But does it have to end this way—with the blind leading the blind into an economic abyss?


    Thomas Sowell also wrote,
    Whether Barack Obama is simply incompetent as president or has some hidden agenda to undermine this country, at home and abroad, he has nearly everything he needs to ruin America, including a fool for a vice president.
    Barack’s arrogant claim that “only the politicians can solve our crisis” was simply a reconfirmation of what we already knew: He is a leftist blinded by ideology into thinking his anointing will save us all. But the fact Barack is utterly unaware of his own epic failure, seeing spectacular success where others only detect decay, carnage, bones and fresh graves of the economy means he either must be stripped of power or permanently removed from office before America enters permanent decline.

    Quote    Reply   

    #6 [url]

    Jul 17 11 10:03 AM

    Barack Obama is, according to the Constitution, an illegal President and has committed multiple felonies both in and out of office

    Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Congress is inviting rebellion

    I do not know how I can state it any clearer.
    The American people are victims of the greatest fraud and the deepest and widest conspiracy in the history of the United States. This fraud and conspiracy stretches throughout our government and the main stream media.

    It is now widely known that there is
    sufficient evidence to conclude that Barack Obama is, according to the Constitution, an illegal President and has committed multiple felonies both in and out of office.
    Members of Congress are deliberately hiding the truth from the American people. By doing so, every member of Congress is also committing a felony; known as “Misprision of felony.”
    What are the citizens supposed to do when their government is committing crimes and considers itself above the law?
    The republic is in grave danger because we now have a government of men, not of laws, and there is no longer any restraint against the commission of more extensive and intrusive criminal acts by those in power.
    Our liberties are at risk.

    We have elective despotism

    We have elections, but we have members of Congress who feel absolutely no accountability to the electorate. We have elective despotism.
    Obama is an illegal President according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution and the binding precedent of Minor vs. Happersett (1875).
    When Obama took the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he committed the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7).
    Obama’s purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, makes every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
    There is strong evidence that Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
    There is strong evidence that Obama is using a stolen Social Security Number.
    There is strong evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration is a forgery.
    Yet no action is taken by the Congress or the courts.
    Why? They are either afraid or they are complicit. There is no gray area. In both cases, they have succumbed to political blackmail.
    Many are hoping that Obama will be beaten in 2012 and all these alleged crimes will just quietly go away. That is the same mistake they made in 2008.
    What if Obama wins?
    The Constitution is being flouted, felonies at the highest levels of government are being tolerated and dangerous precedents are being established, all of which threaten the survival of our republic.
    The political elite and the judicial system seem willing to take that risk. We should not. They have failed in their duty to the citizens. It is our government and our country and we need to take it back.
    We can not allow Obama to enter another election cycle without addressing his ineligibility and the questions raised about his birth and Selective Service documents and his Social Security Number.
    The documents must be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization.
    If neither Congress nor the courts are willing to act, then ordinary citizens must act in order to restore the Constitution and the rule of law.
    With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own. — President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address (1961)

    Quote    Reply   

    #7 [url]

    Jul 17 11 10:04 AM

    Tuberculosis, Leprosy, pertussis or whooping cough, dengue fever, Hepatitis, Chagas, Dysentery, Malaria

    Democrats import illegal voters with communicable diseases

    America was built on the backs, hands, and minds of legal immigrants. We all came from somewhere else, except the Native Americans. We fled from religious persecution, communist tyranny, oppressive monarchies and regimes, legal entanglements, murder raps, theft, moral and financial responsibility to others.
    We longed for the lure of riches and unbound freedom, but most of all, we desired the opportunity to be better off than our fathers and ancestors.

    Lady Liberty welcomed us all, initially at Ellis Island, where thousands and thousands of newly arrived would-be Americans, gaunt and ragged from the arduous Atlantic passage remained on board three or four days in the harbor, then in quarantine before they were allowed inland. Wealthier crossers were processed on board the ship.
    The would-be Americans, particularly the poor ones, suffered indignities at times but there was no ACLU to sue for their unjust treatment – they were thankful to be allowed onto the Land of Opportunity.
    Proud, intelligent people with dreams, representing every country in the Old World, poured into America, bringing their cultures with them into the melting pot. They entered the enormous Ellis Island Receiving Station, the “Hall of Tears,” as it was known, on “Heartbreak Island.”  Some family members were separated in the long lines, some were accepted, some rejected. Painful decisions had to be made quickly. People’s names were entered in records misspelled or changed on purpose to suit the clerk’s whims or inability to spell.
    If they survived the treacherous Atlantic boat crossing and received a clean bill of health after the quarantine, they were free to explore their new country and make their dreams a reality through hard work, self-reliance, and perseverance. One such immigrant from Italy entered Ellis Island in 1902 and became a naturalized citizen in 1908.
    In the last twenty years, immigration enforcement has become so lax that now,  illegal immigrants are causing huge financial and social burdens on Americans in spite of La Rasa’s claim that they do the jobs that Americans refuse to do. According to Democrats and the sycophant media, they are “undocumented workers,” not illegal aliens. Only in the irrational progressive mind is someone, who is deliberately breaking the law of this country, an undocumented worker and must be rewarded with citizenship, free schooling, housing, food stamps, medical care, and free or in-state tuition for their children.
    The liberal media refuses to discuss the burden millions of illegals place on this country’s resources. They steal benefits from American citizens who have worked and paid Social Security and Medicaid taxes their entire lives and now are unable to draw benefits because the promised lock box is empty.
    Hundreds and thousands of hospitals are strained or bankrupt because of the gratis care they must extend to illegal aliens. Having anchor babies in hospitals at taxpayer expense while the rest of Americans have to bankrupt themselves paying hospital bills is an injustice that lawmakers should have addressed long time ago.
    An important issue that threatens the health of our nation is the communicable disease emergence, ills that have been eradicated in this country years ago.
    Diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy, pertussis or whooping cough, dengue fever, hepatitis, Chagas are prevalent in third world countries and are being transported to the U.S. via illegal immigrants who are not checked and given treatment or vaccinations.
    Whooping cough is a disease associated with lack of sanitation in third world countries. Places of high concentration of illegals experience sudden problems of disease related to the developing world.  The media in Smithtown, Long Island,  reports “dozens” of whooping cough cases without making the connection to the culprits.
    Dysentery, a deadly and very contagious disease for babies has been found to have infected a Phoenix Police officer. Not washing hands or laundering clothes aids in the spread of dysentery.
    Malaria, which was eradicated sixty years ago, has re-appeared in California, New York City, and Houston, centers of high concentration of illegal aliens. Blood supplies infected with malaria have also been found in our cities.
    Dengue fever, a virus-based disease spread by mosquitoes, which kills millions of children in third world countries, is now increasingly found in the U.S. where immigrants both legal and illegal congregate.
    Leprosy currently known as Hansen’s disease to hide its presence, is steadily rising with the invasion of illegal aliens and has accelerated since 2002.
    “Hepatitis A-E is making people sick across the country. Chronically suffering illegal aliens who work in our restaurants, are sneaking across our borders from oil-rich Mexico to receive the free $1,500 per patient treatment. Not only do we pay for these treatments with our tax dollars but also we unwittingly become infected with hepatitis. Some forms are transmitted through unwashed hands while handling food, others through blood donations or contact with infected blood.
    Tuberculosis, another deadly disease found in Mexico at a rate ten times higher than the U.S., is popping up nationwide wherever illegals are concentrated.  More than half of the medical reporting districts in California have active TB cases. To make matters worse, a new incurable type of TB, XDR strain (extensively drug resistant) has appeared worldwide, including the United States.
    Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic disease, previously found only in South America, Central America and Mexico, slowly destroys its victim’s heart and other internal organs. The Chagas Disease Foundation said, “Chagas disease affects more people than any other infectious disease in Latin America and that it ranks as the largest cause of heart disease-induced deaths in the region. The result of a bug bite that leaves behind contaminated fecal matter, the disease can be spread through contaminated food, blood transfusion, organ donation, and mother to fetus.
    According to CDC, “Since initiation of voluntary blood screening for Chagas disease in 2007, nearly 800 cases of confirmed Chagas disease have been detected at United States blood centers. The greatest numbers of positive donors, now deferred from donation, have been identified in those states with the largest populations of Latin American immigrants.”
    “Population migration can have a profound impact on movement of infectious diseases. The relative magnitude of movement of persons from Chagas endemic countries, including an estimated 18 million to the United States illustrates the problem.” (CDC, 2009)
    “Although historically Chagas disease has been considered restricted to Latin America, the disease is becoming a serious health issue in the United States because of the presence of a notable number of blood donors seropositive.” (CDC, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.16, No. 3, March 2010)
    Legal immigrants have always been checked for communicable diseases before they were allowed to immigrate to the United States. We even require k-12 American students and college students to provide records and proof of immunization for certain childhood diseases. Why do we then think that it is a good idea to allow unchecked immigration and risk the health of our population for the sake of political votes and power?
    The Democrat Party, Code Pink, ACLU, the environmental nuts with their debunked global warming, the Communist Party U.S.A. La Rasa, SEIU, other big unions, and like-minded progressives have openly embraced and invited illegal aliens into our country.
    Democrats want the illegal aliens’ fraudulent vote or legal vote at all costs, including our health, when they become automatic citizens through forced Amnesty and the Dream Act for illegal alien college students. Democrats, in their quest for totalitarian control, do not care that, in the process, they have invited into our country a host of health problems. This Pandora’s Box of societal and financial ills caused by unchecked illegal immigration cannot be cured simply by spending money or signing more freedom-stealing Executive Orders.

    Quote    Reply   

    #8 [url]

    Jul 17 11 10:05 AM

    Misprision of felony

    Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – Citizen’s Arrest of Congress

    I would think, by now, it should be clear to the entire planet that the Certificate of Live Birth presented by Barack Obama as his own at a press conference on April 27, 2011, is a forgery.
    The evidence of forgery in that Certificate of Live Birth has been documented in detail by Doug Vogt and has been submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    There is, therefore, evidence of an ongoing felony.

    There is also little doubt in my mind that members of Congress are fully aware of it.
    “Misprision of felony” is still an offense under United States federal law 18 U.S.C. § 4:

    “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
    The documentation provided by Doug Vogt should be sent to all members of Congress such that they are duly informed of the alleged ongoing felony by Obama. Do all of the following:
    • Send the documentation to your members of Congress by email,
    • Send the documentation to your members of Congress by registered, return-receipt mail,
    • Deliver the documentation in person, together with a witness, to your members of Congress’ local offices.
    Having been fully informed of a potential ongoing felony, the member of Congress may then be complicit in active concealment and may be subject to a citizen’s arrest for “Misprision of felony”  in the absence of action by law enforcement officials.
    A citizen’s arrest is one performed by a civilian who lacks official government authority to make an arrest, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, “The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.” Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).
    The laws regarding citizen’s arrest vary from state to state. It is very important that you act according to your state laws because misapplication of the citizen arrest laws can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Seek legal advice in your state before organizing citizen’s arrest teams.
    For example, California Penal Code mandates:
    A private person may arrest another:
    1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
    2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
    3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. 837).
    In some states, however, the citizen making the arrest must have actually witnessed the felonious act.
    That is, California law allows a citizen’s arrest when a citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed a felony, whereas New York law applies only to situations in which person has in fact committed a felony.
    Acceptable guidelines for carrying out a citizen’s arrest also vary by state. In general, the arresting party must notify the suspect as to why he or she is being arrested, and may enter the building or private residence where the suspect is residing, using a reasonable amount of force to apprehend the suspect. In California, for example, to make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired. (C.P.C., 844).
    Once the suspect has been taken into custody by the citizen, it is the citizen’s responsibility to deliver the suspect to the proper authorities in a timely fashion (C.P.C. 847).  A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.
    Rules of engagement for a citizen’s arrest:
    • Inform local law enforcement, at the time when you are ready to conduct the citizen’s arrest,
    • If an identified law officer intervenes during the citizen’s arrest, then stand down,
    • If union thugs or leftist goons become threatening, inform them that a citizen’s arrest is being conducted. If they persist and you feel endangered, be prepared to defend yourselves.
    If our government officials refuse to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, then American citizens will be forced to act to save our republic.

    Quote    Reply   

    #9 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:06 AM

    by Refusing to Raise Debt Ceiling, Speaker Boehner Can End Obama’s Hopes for Re-election Now

    n 2006, every Democrat Senator (including Senator Barack Obama) voted against raising the debt ceiling. Among the reasons Obama listed for voting against it was that doing so would be “a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills” and “a sign that we [were dependent] on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

    Of course, that was under George W. Bush. But now that Obama is president, and the debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion is about to end the spending spree Democrats have been on since January 2009, Obama has reversed course. Now, he not only favors raising the debt ceiling but also talks as if our nation’s very continuance depends upon doing so.
    The truth, of course, is that Obama’s legacy and re-election are on the line and he knows it.
    Thus everything we’re hearing from him about raising the debt ceiling is nothing more than the cry of a president who has spent his country into oblivion and is looking for a way to avoid the blame for doing so.
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who also voted against raising the debt limit in 2006) is doing his best to lie to the public to save Obama from the consequences of reckless spending by pressuring Republicans into supporting he idea of raising the debt limit. To do this, he is giving them a fictional narrative of what life will be like if we decide to live within our means instead of continuing to spend money as fast as we can print it:
    Default won’t just roil the financial markets, pushing interest rates higher, and tank the stock markets; it will affect every American’s wallet as well. Here are a few things that will happen. Social Security checks and veterans’ benefits and paychecks to our troops would stop.
    Folks, think about it: This is a grand slam for Republicans. They can win by simply saying “no.”

    And this is why all eyes are on House Speaker John Boehner.  If he can rally the Republicans in Congress to oppose raising the debt ceiling he will literally end any chance Obama has of being re-elected. That’s how big the stakes are in the current debt ceiling talks.
    By the way, Obama knows this is true. And that’s why he’s pressuring Speaker Boehner and the rest of the Republicans to come his way.  (It’s also why he’s making outlandish claims about how “80%” of the American people want to pay higher taxes.)
    Pay attention: Obama’s entire economic team has left. “A bunch of czars have left,” and Defense Secretary Gates left. Although it’s normal for a few members of an administration to move on and pursue moneymaking opportunities in the private sector, Rush Limbaugh accurately described the defections from the Obama administration as “a greater exodus than is common.”
    In other words, Obama’s people have decided to jump ship rather than to go down with it.
    Look folks, we literally have Obama right where we want him. Not only is he beatable, he has actually already beat himself by spending this country into the ground. Now is no time to do him a favor by raising the debt ceiling and letting him off the hook.
    Speaker Boehner has the power to sink Obama’s ship, and he needs to go ahead and sink it right now by voting “no” on raising the debt limit.

    Quote    Reply   

    #10 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:13 AM



    My waitress at lunch yesterday was wearing a “I love Obama shirt”. I asked her if she could explain Obama’s wealth distribution plan to me, she said it means he will tax the rich and give it to the poor like me. I said no it means, well let me show you, here is your tip, you worked for it but I am going to take it from you and give it to that sweet old woman over there to help pay for her lunch. I got up and walked over to the sweet lady and gave her the money and left, the waitress jaw was still hanging when I left. How's that for sharing the wealth!!!!
    From this day forward I will ask all of them whomever is taking my money stores, restaurants and any business did you support OBAMA?  If so you will not get my money I will drive a few extra miles to get to a place that didn't support him!!!! Please Repost, I want to start a wave across this country to show People whom support Obama we will not support them!!  Obama loving waitress,
    MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PISS OFF AN AMERICAN!!!!   THis was on facebook so thought to share this .
    I will not

    Quote    Reply   
    Remove this ad

    #11 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:15 AM

    SAF, NRA slam U.N. arms treaty as Dems push new gun control scheme

    Two national gun rights organizations currently monitoring international gun control efforts, including the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, drew lines in the sand Thursday against a proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, while anti-gun Congressional Democrats push a new gun control measure in "the other" Washington.

       SAF's activities at the U.N. this week further bolster the Washington State-based group's growing prominence in the gun rights community, guaranteed by last year's McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court victory, and now on an international scale.

       The spotlight was on the National Rifle Association yesterday, however, as Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre threw down the gauntlet, telling the U.N. hands-off of this country's Second Amendment rights. Any doubt that this proposed treaty will face stiff resistance vanished within seconds after LaPierre began speaking.

       Whether the new gun control initiative gains much traction on Capitol Hill amid continuing revelations about the Obama administration’s botched gun trafficking sting – it was initiated in 2009, months after George Bush left office, and reportedly bolstered with Obama stimulus funds so the “blame Bush” option is out – remains to be seen.

       Critics of the proposed “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act” unveiled today by Reps. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), and Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn B. Maloney, both New York Democrats, have declared it nothing more than an attempted distraction from the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. Essentially, critics argue, Cummings and the two Carolyns are trying to steer the blame for Fast and Furious to American gun dealers and away from the Obama administration’s Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

       There is no small irony in the introduction of this legislation, the ongoing scandal investigation, and the proposed international small arms pact. American firearms owners, retailers, gun makers and the constitutional right that binds them all are under attack by the proposed U.N. treaty, according to LaPierre's remarks delivered yesterday at a U.N. session. In a brief but blistering statement, LaPierre noted:

    We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government….

    Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there arenumerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight…

    The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

       Shortly after the session wrapped up, SAF’s Julianne Versnel issued a report on the proposal that has raced across the Internet. Versnel, who has spoken previously at the U.N. about international gun control issues, stuck this time to writing about the details, among which were these observations:

    Another egregious proposal is the Victim Assistance proposal...This provision is one that has been presented repeatedly at Programme of Action and Conference of Parties meetings. Many African, Southern American, Central American and Caribbean countries have proposed that manufacturers contribute to a fund based on their sales. Alternately they would assess fees on countries based on the value of its arms exports.

    As the ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) moves closer to its final form, it is imperative that we realize that the technical requirements and definitions still to be determined are very dangerous. Much of the debate on these will take place in side events that are very often closed to NGOs (non-governmental organizations).

    The US already has the most stringent import and export requirements for firearms in the world. While this proposed treaty is supposed to be about conventional weapons, the focus in the discussions is on small arms, the very firearms that our US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear.

       That the U.N. is considering an arms trade treaty – ostensibly to blunt illegal firearms trafficking – while Congressional investigators continue to unearth evidence that this country’s government agencies may be among the biggest illegal gun traffickers on the map, is a bizarre scenario not lost on the gun rights community.

    The U.N. plan calls for final action on the treaty in 2012, which cannot be good news for the Obama administration. If Operation Fast and Furious is not already a campaign issue on its own, combining that scandal with a treaty described as a direct attack on the Second Amendment could bring gun owners to the polls in record numbers, Even now, 17 months out from the election, that prospect must be on the minds of campaign strategists.


    Quote    Reply   

    #12 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:18 AM

    The president has made a thinly veiled, Tony Soporano threat to hold up Social Security checks next month if congressional Republicans don’t give in and raise taxes because, he says, “There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."  Either Barack Obama is the most ignorant man ever to hold the Office of the President, one of the most duplicitous or maybe just the most gullible if he has allowed Geithner Boy to convince him there might not be money available to send out Social Security checks. 
    A man this out of touch or duplicitous has no business running the financial affairs of the country.
    A quick look at the Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the U.S. Government puts the lie to Mr. Obama’s “uncertainty.” During the past 18 months, the entire monthly expenditures of the Social Security Administration comprised an average of 36.1 percent of total monthly receipts of the federal government, never once exceeding 58 percent and less than 30 percent seven of the 18 months. 
    Average monthly interest on the national debt averaged 17.9 percent of total revenues over the same 18-month period. Combined, Social Security and interest on the debt averaged just under 54 percent of total revenues.
    Here are a couple of graphs showing the details:


    There is more than enough revenue to ensure that all interest on the debt is paid and all Social Security checks go out even if the federal government cannot borrow another penny. 
    Either the president is lying or he doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says, “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this [debt-limit] issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” Either way, he is a clear and present danger in the Oval Office as the chief executive officer in charge of managing the national finances.
    Make no mistake about it, if the United States Government defaults on its debt or Social Security checks do not go out next month, it will be a conscious and intentional decision of the Obama Administration. As such, it will be Barack Obama’s fault and no one else’s.

    Quote    Reply   

    #13 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:21 AM

    Holder must go over gun scandal, but what did Obama know?

    Operation Fast and Furious is a growing scandal. Attorney General Eric Holder must go, but Congress should not stop investigating there, and ask if Democratic operatives knew anything. Fast and Furious is the latest variation of the ATF's Operation Gunrunner (aka Gunwalker), allowing U.S. guns into Mexico. It's a disaster involving more than 2,000 guns, many now being used in crimes, and one used to kill a federal agent.
    Despite Holder claiming to have only recently learned about Fast and Furious, found a 2009 speech wherein Holder bragged about Gunrunner.
    In "The Bourne Identity," Jason Bourne is a secret assassin for Operation Treadstone. When Treadstone became a liability, the government terminated it, simultaneously launching Operation Black Briar. Same people, objectives and tactics. Same operation, different name.
    The only way Holder didn't lie to Congress is if he's parsing with Bourne-style doublespeak. "Oh, I meant Fast and Furious, not Gunrunner." It's a distinction without a difference.
    A July 5 letter from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa says that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives leadership has been "muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials ... obstruct[ing] our investigation."
    Few recognize the name Ken Melson, the acting ATF director currently offered up for blame as a sacrificial lamb. But many know the name Eric Holder, whose resignation as attorney general would weaken President Obama.
    Search warrants were authorized, which Issa notes is above Melson's pay grade. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration were involved, suggesting possible interagency coordination by DOJ.
    And U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke (Attorney General Janet Napolitano's former chief of staff in Arizona) was involved, who is DOJ. Now we learn that similar operations were being conducted out of Florida.
    An editorial last week in this newspaper asked: What did Holder know, and when did he know it?
    We also must ask: Did any political operatives calling for gun control know the ATF had caused these gun crimes? And did the president or anybody else in the White House know about this?
    Anti-gun Democratic congressmen and liberal politicos have been citing U.S. guns showing up in Mexico and Southwestern states as proof that America needs new gun control laws.
    In the aftermath of Gunrunner, they're shamelessly adding the solution is to give the ATF new gun control powers.
    After the tragic Tucson, Ariz., shooting, Obama told anti-gun activists that his team was working on gun control behind the scenes. The next question becomes: Is there a connection?
    The National Rifle Association has fully engaged this issue. CEO Wayne LaPierre gave a passionate speech at the NRA's Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh, demanding answers.
    Did White House allies calling for gun control know Obama's ATF had created the problem? How many people knew about Gunrunner, under any name?
    The NRA is perhaps the most formidable public-interest group in America. LaPierre's justified focus on this scandal could bode ill for Obama in 2012 if anyone close to the president is implicated.
    Congress can discover the truth. It can force Melson to testify about details over Holder's objections. It can force Holder to testify. And it can obtain any DOJ emails, including any to White House allies.
    The legal doctrine of when administrative officials can be forced to testify is called executive privilege. Certain matters are always confidential, such as military movements and diplomatic secrets.
    Others are always unprotected, such as criminal behavior. Between those two, there are various factors courts consider to determine whether officials must testify.
    Everything pertaining to this scandal is unprotected unless the president was personally involved. Even then, one of the questions DOJ officials can be required to answer is, "Have you communicated with anyone in the White House on this? If so, who?" We need those answers.
    But regardless, DOJ was clearly in charge. So Holder must go.

    Quote    Reply   

    #14 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:22 AM

    Debt Crisis? What Debt Crisis?

    As the debt drama has unfolded over the past few weeks, we've seen President Obama try on different personae as if he were in a costume shop before Halloween.

    In just two and a half years in office, he has taken a $450 billion annual deficit and turned it into annual $1.6 trillion deficits. He has added nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. He has engaged in unprecedented spending as he grows the size and scope of government in ways that makes the Greek socialists blush.

    But now that he's got a debt crisis crashing down on the country and his presidency, and now that he sees the polls showing that the vast majority of Americans do not want a raising of the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and certainly do not want it without real and deep spending cuts and no tax hikes...well, then he tried pretending to see the light of fiscal responsibility.

    He put on the mask of fiscal discipline as he faked support for true entitlement reform and meaningful spending cuts. But as soon as the Republicans became encouraged that he might actually mean it, Obama backed away from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security reform faster than Bill Clinton from an angry husband.

    Obama has never intended to take on those budget monsters, nor has he ever intended to cut spending. Federal spending has historically been between 18% and 20% of GDP. Obama has bloated it to a staggering 24%, with spending levels climbing to an eye-popping and bankrupcy-tempting 25%.

    Obama has been arguing for tax increases as a fig leaf for his refusal to cut spending. He also needs those tax increases for another reason: to make his huge welfare state and 25% of GDP spending levels permanent.

    Don't believe me?

    Here is the beginning of a piece from the Associated Press on June 9, 2009:

    "Obama: It's OK To Borrow To Pay For Health Care

    "Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan.

    "President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul....

    "It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years."

    For years, in words and in actions, Obama has told us exactly who he is and what he intends to do. Anybody who is surprised by it now is a fool. Republicans must stop him from achieving the final phases of his dream to transform America into a European socialist economy. They must not facilitate it out of political fear. Because if they do, not only are they the fools, but the rest of us will lose the country we love.

    Quote    Reply   

    #15 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:25 AM

    US warns of bombs at Mexico border crossings

    'A cartel may be targeting the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez or U.S. Ports of Entry,' it says


    Following the recent arrests of drug cartel suspects, the United States on Friday warned Americans traveling to or from Chihuahua, Mexico, that U.S. border crossings and the local consulate could become the targets of attacks.
    "Information has come to light that suggests a cartel may be targeting the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez or U.S. Ports of Entry," the consulate said in a statement Friday. "In the past, cartels have been willing to utilize car bombs in attacks. We ask American citizens to remain vigilant."
    On Tuesday, 21 people were gunned down in drug violence around Ciudad Juarez. That made it the bloodiest day of 2011 so far, surpassing 20 killings reported Feb. 18.
    Ciudad Juarez, which sits across the border from El Paso, Texas, is a sprawling industrial city that has been plagued by violence as rival drug cartels fight over turf and smuggling routes.
    A growing number of locals are making long-shot bids for political asylum next door in the United States.
    More than 9,300 people have been gunned down, mutilated or beheaded there since early 2008 when the rival Juarez and Sinaloa cartels began an all-out war for rich trafficking routes.
    That conflict has unleashed further violence as local gangs battle over street corner drug rackets, and turn to kidnapping and extortion. The Mexican military and federal police sent to curb the mayhem are also blamed by many residents for killings and other abuses

    Amid the violence, asylum requests from Mexico reached a record 5,551 last year, according to U.S. government figures, more than a third up on 2006 when President Felipe Calderon took office and sent the military to crush the cartels. Just 165 asylum requests were granted in 2010.

    Story: Cartel mayhem in big Mexican city rivals that on border
    Among the wave of panic-stricken asylum seekers are muckraking journalists who chronicle brutal gang warfare in Ciudad Juarez and Mexico's northern Chihuahua state, police officers tasked with curbing the violence, and rights campaigners clamoring for justice.
    Among those seeking refuge in the United States is Marisol Valles, a criminology student once dubbed the "bravest woman in Mexico" after she volunteered to become police chief of Praxedis G. Guerrero, near Ciudad Juarez, after her predecessor was tortured by drug cartels and then beheaded.
    But after only five months on the job, Valles fled with her family to Texas in March after she received telephone death threats, apparently from a drug gang.
    To gain asylum status, refugees have to prove a "well-founded fear" of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality or as a member of a specific social group or political opinion -- and for many fleeing Mexico, it's a long shot.

    Quote    Reply   

    #16 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:32 AM

    Bombshell revealed: Major White House Scandel about to break

    Dr. Jerome Corsi was in Wellington on Friday. What Jerry had and what I had could very easy become the issue that could be the final piece of the puzzle that makes the house of cards fall.
    CHECK OUT ED HALE LOL in the video   apparently ED has a messageboard back up again . hmm  here is the front of the messageboard

    JimBot, we are coming after you.

    Dr. Corsi will be releasing the story one day this week along with the complete video on World Net Daily.

    Quote    Reply   

    #17 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:42 AM

    A Bill to End Automatic Citizenship for Babies of Illegal Immigrants


    H.R. 140 is not a separate amendment to the Constitution, nor will it nullify the 14th Amendment. The intent is to revert back to the original intent and meaning of the  “subject to jurisdiction” clause in the 14th Amendment which states in whole, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    This clarification is sorely needed to straighten out once and for all whether children born within the borders of the United States are automatically granted full citizenship and all the accompanying privileges and immunities, or whether the language and intent and sense at the time of adoption of the 14th Amendment shows that babies granted full citizenship needed to be born to those who were here legally, subject to the laws of these United States, and without allegiance to any foreign powers. The original intent of the founding fathers of the 14th Amendment — Lyman Trumbull, Jacob Merritt Howard and John Bingham — is difficult to miss.

    With 340,000 anchor newborns added to this country in 2008 belonging to illegal parents, plus the 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal parents that will be or are already being educated and covered by taxpayer funded health care programs, it’s no wonder Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of closed borders, no amnesty, and the end to what is a de facto immigration policy that is in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

    Many highly organized and well-funded special interest groups are mobilizing to pressure congress into opposing and stifling any clarification of the “subject to jurisdiction” clause.  Those favoring a non-existent but wholesale “immigrants' rights” policy include the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, American Immigration Lawyers' Association, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and others. They are attempting to influence the debate by carefully shifting the terminology they use to promote their cause.

    Contact your Representative and Senators and explain your stand, educating them on this issue if you, too, are in favor of the original 14th Amendment that did not grant automatic citizenship for all children who happen to be birthed on our soil, regardless of their parents’ status. And be sure to emphasize that any sovereign nation has the right to set boundaries, geographic ones as well as those concerning human affairs and sustainability.


    Quote    Reply   

    #18 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:44 AM

    Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland and Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, listen to David Aguilar, the Deputy Commissioner of U. S. Customs and Border Protection, during a hearing on homeland security at the National Governors Association annual conference at the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Saturday, July 16, 2011.
    Arizona governor criticizes Utah’s guest-worker law

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer defended that state’s tough immigration law Saturday, saying she thinks it is preferable to the course that Utah took and insisting the state has not suffered an economic backlash from its passage.

    “I am very, very supportive and believe Senate Bill 1070 is the right way to go and believe eventually it will be held up as the law,” Brewer said.

    Fearing the fallout that Arizona suffered after passing its tough immigration bill, Utah lawmakers opted for a less stringent enforcement bill and included a first-of-its-kind state-based guest-worker bill.

    Brewer said she supports guest-worker laws, but they shouldn’t apply — as Utah’s does — to immigrants who have entered the country illegally.

    “We have laws,” she said. “I think we’re a nation of laws, and crossing the border is illegal.”

    The Arizona governor said that, contrary to popular belief, she doesn’t believe Arizona’s economy has been damaged by the passage of its controversial immigration law.

    “I don’t believe that’s true,” she said. “We just got our revenue estimates from our tourism bureau and it’s up, better than ever.”

    She said polls have shown that 70 percent of people support what Arizona was doing and wanted to show their support with their pocketbooks.


    Brewer’s comments came after a hearing during the National Governors Association conference in Salt Lake City, where she once again demanded stronger border security, saying violence along the border remains at unacceptable levels.

    David Aguillar, deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said that the flow of immigrants across the border has fallen sharply, but will never drop to zero as long as people believe they can get jobs or there is a demand for narcotics.

    Aguillar said that border apprehensions in Arizona have fallen sharply and are projected to finish the year at between 106,000 and 119,000 individuals, down from the highest level of 630,000 apprehensions in 2000.

    “It doesn’t mean it’s under control,” Brewer insisted. “We are feeling the pain. I think anybody who has read the newspaper or watched the news, they realize that.”

    She pointed to the December slaying of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry as a sign that the situation remains untenable.

    “We unfortunately are the recipient of a very porous border that brings violence to our state,” she said.

    Quote    Reply   

    #19 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:45 AM

    Boston Mayor: Car Theft by Illegal Aliens Not a 'Serious Crime'

    Trying to weasel out of the 'Secure Communities' program (sends fingerprints of arrested perps to DHS) in order to pander to Hispanic (and ILLEGAL) voters, Mayor Thomas Menino claims that stealing a car is not a "serious crime", and illegal aliens should not be reported to ICE if guilty of committing it. Menino also says he talks to "community leaders" (leaders of illegals?) and that they told him which crimes it was ok to deport other illegals for committing. The inmates are running the asylum up in Boston.

    Quote    Reply   

    #20 [url]

    Jul 17 11 11:49 AM

    More Illegal Immigrants From India Crossing Border


    Police wearing berets and bulletproof vests broke down the door of a Guatemala City apartment in February hunting for illegal drugs. Instead, they found a different kind of illicit shipment: 27 immigrants from India packed into two locked rooms.

    The Indians, whose hiding space was furnished only with soiled mattresses, claimed to be on vacation. But authorities quickly concluded they were waiting to be smuggled into the United States via an 11,000-mile (17,700-kilometer) pipeline of human cargo -- the same network that has transported thousands of illegal immigrants from India, through Central America and Mexico and over the sandy banks of the Rio Grande during the past two years.

    Indians have arrived in droves even as the overall number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has dropped dramatically, in large part because of the sluggish American economy. And with fewer Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border, smugglers are eager for more "high-value cargo" like Indians, some of whom are willing to pay more than $20,000 for the journey.

    "Being the businessmen they are, they need to start looking for ways to supplement that work," said Rosendo Hinojosa, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, at the southernmost tip of Texas, which is the most active nationwide for apprehending Indian nationals.

    Between October 2009 and March 2011, the Border Patrol detained at least 2,600 illegal immigrants from India, a dramatic rise over the typical 150 to 300 arrests per year.

    The influx has been so pronounced that in May, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee that at some point this year, Indians will account for about 1 in 3 non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught in Texas.

    Most of the border-jumpers are seeking jobs, even though India's economy is growing at about 9 percent per year. Once safely inside the U.S., they fan out across the country, often relying on relatives who are already here to arrange jobs and housing.

    Indians have flooded into Texas in part because U.S. authorities have cracked down on the traditional ways they used to come here, such as entering through airports with student or work visas. The tougher enforcement has made it harder for immigrants to use visas listing non-existent universities or phantom companies.

    Also contributing to the spike was a quiet change in travel requirements in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Beginning in 2009, those nations sought to attract investors by allowing visitors from India to enter without visas.

    Mexican authorities have been unable to stop smugglers from moving illegal Indian immigrants over their country's southern border, then north to Texas. Instead, Mexico asked neighboring Guatemala to restore the visa requirement for Indians, which it did June 6.

    Still, the lack of a visa requirement allowed at least 8,300 Indians to enter Guatemala and fewer than 28 percent of them exited legally, according to Enrique Degenhart, director of Guatemalan immigration. The others disappeared to continue heading north.

    Indeed, the group of Indians police discovered in Guatemala City eventually went free because, at the time, they were in Guatemala legally.

    Meanwhile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras still don't require visas for Indians, meaning smugglers can shift routes and use those countries as alternate jumping-off points for the journey north.

    El Salvador's director of immigration, Ruben Alvarado, said officials have begun quizzing arriving Indians about what Salvadoran tourist sites they intend to visit in an attempt to spot those entering the country simply to head north.

    Indians caught by U.S. authorities often claim they fled their homeland because of religious persecution. Then they wait for months in federal detention centers like Port Isabel, in the town of Los Fresnos, about an hour's drive from the Texas-Mexico border.

    On a recent morning at Port Isabel, young Indian men wearing navy blue detention uniforms filled the benches in Immigration Judge Keith Hunsucker's courtroom. Sixteen of the 32 cases on the docket were Indian immigrants, including Salimbhai Mansiya, from the state of Gujarat, who had been detained more than a month earlier.

    Through an interpreter, Mansiya told the judge that he needed more time to find an English speaker who could help him fill out an application for asylum. The judge ordered his case delayed.

    The Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review received 951 requests for asylum from Indian nationals between October and March -- a six-month tally nearly equal to 1,002 asylum requests received from Indians in all of fiscal 2010.

    Some seeking asylum can arrange to have their bond paid and are set free. Then they melt into American society and skip subsequent court dates. Immigration courts eventually order them deported, but only in absentia.

    Many of those detained in Texas hail from Indian states such as Punjab and Gujarat, places that are relatively prosperous and where it's common for people to seek greater fortunes abroad even if they are financially secure at home.

    Pramod Kumar, a political scientist at the Institute for Development and Communication in the Punjab capital of Chandigarh, said immigrating to other countries is an important regional tradition that's even reflected in folk songs.

    If people face dire economic straits, "you try and sell your land and go abroad," Kumar said. "If you're prosperous, still you go abroad because, culturally, it gives you a higher status."

    Many immigrants take jobs driving trucks or taxis or working on farms. Initially, the pay is not substantially greater than they would make back home, but simply living in the West elevates their social standing in India. And over time, their earnings increase, Kumar said.

    Smugglers often move their cargo from India to Mexico via intermediate stops such as Hong Kong and Macao and other parts of China, as well as Singapore, Amsterdam, Ecuador, Brazil, Belize and Panama.

    The pipeline shuffles Indians north using the same "plazas," or corridors, preferred by cartels moving drugs into the U.S., Hinojosa said.

    "It's very organized," he said. "They're pushing narcotics through those plazas. They're pushing aliens through those plazas. And it's almost like the mob where they're paying for the right to use that land at a certain time at a certain point."

    By the time they reach American soil, Indians are mingled with groups of Mexicans and Central Americans. They are often captured after swimming the Rio Grande or traversing it in rafts. Almost none carry identification or speak English or Spanish, Hinojosa said.

    Many of the Indians apprehended are Sikhs, followers of India's fourth-largest religion, who tell authorities they face persecution back home and want asylum. Applicants need to convince officials that they have a credible fear of persecution in India. If so, the case is referred to an immigration judge.

    Such persecution was common in the mid-1980s, when the state battled a Sikh secessionist movement, Kumar said. But today the ruling party in Punjab is Akali Dal, a Sikh party, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is also Sikh.

    "It's all nonsense," Kumar said of asylum claims.

    Quote    Reply   
    Remove this ad
    Add Reply

    Quick Reply

    bbcode help