GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....


Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Bachmann Tells Glenn Beck About New Axis of Evil - Beck Endorses Bachmann, Santorum Second Choice

During Tuesday’s broadcast of the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn interviewed GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann, asking the Minnesota congresswoman a myriad questions on topics ranging from foreign and domestic policy to the economy and crisis preparedness. At one point, Bachmann spoke about the dangers of “the new axis of evil” comprising Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia.

Both Glenn and Bachmann pointed out Russia‘s role in aiding some of the world’s most notorious aggressors and state sponsors of terror — from providing Russian chemists and engineers to aid Iran in its development of nuclear weapons to sending Russian warships to aid the Syrians in their defense.

“The UN has reported that 250 children were tortured and killed and Russia sends warships to Syria to defend Syria,” Glenn stated in disbelief.

Bachmann later noted that it was Senator John McCain, rather than former President George W. Bush, who got it right when looking into Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s eyes. McCain, according to Bachmann, saw “KGB,“ not a ”soul,” noting that the former Republican presidential nominee may have been more accurate than Bush in his assessment of the Russian PM.

As the conversation progressed to acts of aggression committed around the world, Glenn expressed concern over the well-being of the U.S. military abroad, citing the recent Iranian ransacking of the British embassy in Tehran as an example.

In response, Bachmann said the British embassy raid was orchestrated by the Iranian regime in defiance of recent sanctions. She then questioned “why the Brits would even have an Embassy in Iran anyway?”

“It [Iran] is a state sponsor of terror,” Bachmann said, before suggesting the British might want to consider removing their embassy from such hostile territory.

“Wouldn’t they [the Iranians] feel like they then won?” Glenn asked.

Bachmann said that, rather than it being construed as a retreat, the British could just “fall back” in order to regroup. But she stressed that these were merely her opinions and that it is up to the U.K. to decide best how to handle its own affairs.

Prior to discussing foreign policy and the emergence of a new axis of evil, Bachmann also spoke about how Americans can prepare for potentially “very difficult” times ahead. Citing the ripple effects — namely a recession — America will feel as a result of a European Union collapse, Bachmann expressed disappointment in the fact that “we are hearing more about the Kardashian wedding” than the impending economic implosion of the EU and subsequent U.S. risk.

While Bachmann acknowledged that the U.S. stands to lose $50-60 billion, it will be U.S. companies overseas that will be the hardest hit in such a collapse.

Glenn also pointed out that the U.S. comprises nearly 27 percent of the International Monetary Fund, and because of that will be forced to bail Europe out.

“I wouldn’t,” Bachmann began. “I wouldn’t put U.S. taxpayer exposure at risk.”

Bachmann asserted that the world’s financial resources are either sitting in China, or held by Saudi Arabian sheiks and Russian oligarchs.

“We‘re broke but we act like we’re still on top of the world,” Bachmann said.

“For the first time we’re making decisions that a Banana Republic would make,“ not those ”a first class nation” would make.

With growing financial burdens and worldwide turmoil bearing down on the U.S., Glenn then turned his focus to emergency preparedness.

“What would you say to the American people about preparing their own house?” Glenn asked Bachmann.

“I would tell them that EU economic collapse could mean U.S. recession,” Bachmann started, qualifying that she would “urge people to not give into that form of panic but think about their own resources” like food, water, and the basics needed for survival.

Bachmann noted that every home in Switzerland is required to have a bomb shelter, food, water and a firearm, suggesting the European country is a potential model for the U.S..

Bachmann urged that Americans “just need to take precautions” in the event of a military or economic “disruption,” however unlikely that may seem, and asked people to consider supplying themselves with what they would need to survive a 7 to 30 day period.

Bachmann also explored the issue of potentially abolishing the Fed, or at least “taking them down from the mighty perch they are on.”

Below is the first segment of Glenn’s fascinating interview with Bachmann. Watch below — the “new axis of evil” comment comes around 12:30…but you might want to start listening around 11:55

Glenn Beck Michele Bachmann

Video:  Bachmann Tells Glenn Beck About New Axis of Evil

During Tuesday’s (11.29.11) broadcast of the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn interviewed GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann, asking the Minnesota congresswoman a myriad questions on topics ranging from foreign and domestic policy to the economy and crisis preparedness. At one point, Bachmann spoke about the dangers of “the new axis of evil” comprising Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia.

Glenn has endorsed Michele Bachmann as his GOP candidate of choice; Santorum a close second.  Later that night he was interviewed on the Factor by O’Reilly who asked Beck if he would support Mitt Romney if he ends up being the GOP nominee and Beck said he would.  

In the end, ‘Anyone But Obama’ (ABO) will require all our support to save America. With the choices at hand Bachmann and Santorum would be my first choices, with Palin out of the running, but I will support whomever with all my energy and ability once the final choice is made.


Beck to O’Reilly: GOP Race is the Battle of the ‘Big Government Republicans’

The Newt World Order… Worth a Look and Some Consideration

Not looking at all good for Gingrich!

"The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution," he said. "Under our [constitutional system] - either we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have to rethink our process of decision-making." He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in "very strong but limited federal government," and pledged, "I am for the United Nations." said Newt Gingrich

That is certainly no surprise since his mentor is none other than former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger (also a CFR member, Trilateralist and one-world internationalist or globalist, just like Newt).  "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." …Henry Kissenger

While in Congress Newt supported GATT, NAFTA, WTO, has done a commercial with Progressive Princess Nancy Pelosi supporting global warming legislation, and although it will take some compromise to deal with 11 million (more like 22 million) illegal aliens living the United States, after securing our borders Newt’s stated plan is leaning pretty far into the Amnesty Arena.

This maybe the most important election of our lives if not in America’s history.  We must, as people vet each candidate running in the primaries and general election from both parties, and that includes Barack Hussein Obama, who was never vetted before the the 2008 Election and was promoted and favored by the mainstream media without that vetting. So with all the questions, it needs to be done this time around.

Newt's record

04/02/1987 - He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)

10/22/1991 - He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.

11/19/1993 - He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.

11/27/1994 - He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.

08/27/1995 - He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.

01/06/1996 - He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.

04/25/1996 - Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)

06/--/1995 - He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.

06/01/1996 - He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.

09/25/1996 - Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.

01/22/1997 - Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.

11/29/2006 - He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a "serious debate about the 1st Amendment."

11/29/2006 - He called for a "Geneva Convention for terrorists" so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.

02/15/2007 - He supported Bush's proposal for mandatory carbon caps.

04/04/2007 - He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.

04/17/2008 - Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.

09/28/2008 - Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.

10/01/2008 - Says in an article that TARP was a "workout, not a bailout."

12/08/2008 - He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.

03/31/2009 - Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.

07/30/2010 - Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the "Axis of Evil".

08/03/2010 - Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.

08/16/2010 - Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.

08/16/2010 - Compares mosque supporters to Nazis

11/15/2010 - He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals

12/02/2010 - He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

12/05/2010 - He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.

01/30/2011 - He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.

01/30/2011 - He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.

02/10/2011 - He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.

02/02/2011 - He says we are "losing the War on Terror"; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War

02/15/2011 - His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating "a new endowment for conservation and the environment."

03/09/2011 - He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.

03/15/2011 - Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.

03/19/2011 - He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)

03/23/2011 - He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.

03/25/2011 - He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.

03/27/2011 - He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists.

04/25/2011 - He's a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.

05/11/2011 - His campaign video said that he wants to "find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change."

05/12/2011 - He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.

05/15/2011 - Said GOP's plan to cut back Medicare was "too big a jump."

05/15/2011 - He backed Obama's individual mandate; "All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care."

05/16/2011 - He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.

05/17/2011 - He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany's Jewelry of between $250K - $500K.

06/09/2011 - His own campaign staff resigned en masse.

07/15/2011 - His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.

08/01/2011 - He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.

08/11/2011 - His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.

09/27/2011 - He says that he "helped develop the model for Homeland Security"

10/07/2011 - He said he'd ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

Newt knows how to talk like a conservative in election cycles. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency.

But when the chips are down, here is how he has behaved:


In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS--DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti‑family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!


Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de‑constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

He campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller and advocated reading "The Third Wave", "Creating a New Civilization," and "Future Shock", written by his good friend (Newt wrote the forward) Alvin Toffler.

Newt is a democrat liberal Nationalist FOR a New World Order.

He is a member of the Bohemian Grove.

He granted "Most favored status" to Communist China with their slave labor goods that steal American jobs and the most murderous regime in history. This allowed our $800 Billion Chinese debt dependence on China of 2008-2009.

Check out: The Record of Newt Gingrich 

One more time, please don't loose sight of who Newt Gingrich really is and what he believes.  He keeps saying he has changed… but has he? You owe it to yourself and the country that we are trying to save to know who it is that you are voting for, please!

Ask Marion~ – h/t to Michael Carpenter


Surging Newt Gingrich Nabs New Hampshire Union Leader’s Endorsement

Video: The Real Newt Gingrich

Could There Still be a Palin Reconsideration?

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Silent Running – The Targeting of Americans


Hear that? That’s the shredding of the Constitution and your rights as America sinks into a full-fledged police state. Not only are the government goons now shutting down more and more sites at an alarming rate (without due process), they are now putting their literal sites on Americans who fall under their personal definition of ‘terrorist.’ And the last time I read the Southern Poverty Law Center tripe, that included Tea Partiers, patriots, Christians, Libertarians, gun enthusiasts and pretty much anyone who does not tow the government line. Welcome to Obama’s Third Reich – American style…

While Americans were giving thanks for what little we have left, our politicians were cooking up a doozy of a surprise for us just in time for the holidays. And who can you thank for this poisonous present? Well, none other than Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) – a Progressive on the Left and a Progressive on the Right. Now that’s bipartisanship to die for, literally.

>From the ACLU via The Daily Sheeple:

The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

If that doesn’t make your blood run stone cold, I don’t know what will. I looked at the bill and it looks to me as if it is referring more to the Department of Justice and Homeland Security than the military, but hey, either way, it’s a crap sandwich for Constitutional Conservatives like me and all other patriotic Americans. I can’t stand the ACLU, but this time they are right and people better pay attention. If I’m wrong about the military angle on this, then our boys and girls will be forced to turn on Americans or be ‘disciplined.’ That could be a life and death decision for them. Pray for our troops – I know in my heart they will not turn on their family and friends. They would be forced into a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and that would be the final straw to break in the birth pains of a civil war.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of elitists telling us we are overreacting, while legislation is being crafted and debated in secret, while we lose more and more of our freedoms with each passing day. All of us should be royally pissed off. You don’t actually think these asshat politicians have our best interests and security in mind do you? Damned right they don’t. They want to control us, enslave us, shut us up and close us down. I know that I won’t go down without a fight, what say you?

If they pass this monstrosity, they can come to your home in the dead of night and take you with no due process and you will simply disappear. They will never give the reason – the fact they consider you an enemy of the State will be all it takes. That’s not America. That’s a fascist totalitarian State and I’ve got news for America – it will happen if the Progressives stay in power. Many, many will disappear and many more will die.

The vote on this either happened today or will take place tomorrow. Remember who voted and how. I know Udall out of Utah was presenting an amendment that would neutralize a lot of this, but I don’t hold a lot of optimism that he will prevail.

From InfoWars:

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

Convinced yet? Silent running indeed. I suggest you buy food, silver and keep a gun by your door.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - the NoisyRoom


Have a look at this Website Take Down Order on  - h/t to Alternative News

Senate Legislation: Senate To Vote on Legislation to Detain Americans Without Charge or Trial

Monday, November 28, 2011

Congressman Hansen Clarke and the Michigan Marxists


Hansen Clarke

Michigan freshman Democratic Congressman Hansen Clarke has openly aligned himself with the Detroit local of the US’ largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America.

Reaffirming a relationship that began several years ago, Congressman Clarke personally presented awards at Greater Detroit DSA’s 12th annual Frederick Douglass-Eugene V. Debs Dinner on October 1st at UAW Local 600 in Dearborn Michigan.

Clarke presented Congressional citations to far leftist, the Reverend Ed Rowe and to the Restaurant Opportunities Center-Michigan.

Other speakers included an event regular, Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO President Saundra Williams and newly appointed DSA National Director Maria Svart.


Hansen Clarke’s relationship with DSA goes back to at least 2002.

In that year, Greater Detroit Democratic Socialists of America contributed to the primary campaign of  Hansen Clarke, who ran against incumbent State Senator Ray Murphy in the first district. The local did some early fundraising and conducted a postcard campaign on Clarke’s behalf to its members in the first senate district. Hansen  Clarke achieved an upset victory, winning comfortably by thirteen points.


Greater Detroit DSA boasts a “simple but effective electoral strategy.”

We endorse progressive candidates in competitive races where the focused efforts of a small group such as ours can tip the balance in favor of the progressive candidate. This strategy has served us well in electing state representatives such as Steve Bieda, Alma Wheeler Smith, John Espinoza, Aldo Vagnozzi, and Fred Miller, and state senators such as Gilda Jacobs and Hansen Clarke.

Hansen Clarke has also enjoyed a strong relationship with the pro-Cuban and North Korean Workers World Party. In 2008, Rev. Ed Rowe and Clarke worked with ACORN and other radicals on the WWP’s anti-eviction campaign.


Workers World Party leaders Jerry Goldberg and Abayomi Azikiwe, with Hansen Clarke, June 14, 2008

Clarke is also affiliated with Detroit’s Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice – named after the late pro-communist labor lawyer Maurice Sugar, and affiliated with the Communist Party USA founded National Lawyers Guild.

On November 18, 2010, the Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center presented “The Maurice Sugar Voice for Justice Award” to former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, “a Human Rights Activist and Green-Jobs Advocate,” at the United Way for Southeastern Michigan, 660 Woodward Ave.


Members of the Honorary Host Committee included Hansen Clarke, David Elsila, Retired Editor, UAW Solidarity Magazine and a DSA member, Bob King, President, UAW International Vice President and a DSA supporter, Claudia Morcom, Retired Wayne County Circuit Court Judge and a DSA and Communist Party affiliate, Hasan Newash, Palestine Office of Michigan, and a Communist Party affiliate, Saundra Williams, President, Metro Detroit AFL-CIO and a DSA affiliate, and the Hon. JoAnn Watson, Detroit City Council and a long time Workers World Party affiliate.

The half black, half Bangladeshi Hansen Clarke, has been described as Detroit’s answer to Barack Obama.

The freshman Congressman from Michigan and the US President certainly share similar political roots and affiliations.

By: Trevor Loudon  - New Zeal  - Author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

h/t to the NoisyRoom

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Once They Own Your Kids, What’s Left?


Once They Own Your Kids, What’s Left?

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at the Noisy Room

“Parsons was Winston’s fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms—one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended.”

“Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children.”
“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.”

George Orwell’s 1984  - A must read if you haven’t:  Nineteen Eighty-Four

Not content with the massive government growth since Obama came into power, Comrade Pelosi wants even more. This time she’s campaigning for federal child care which is a true Communistic principle:

Just as housework withers away, so the obligations of parents to their children wither away gradually until finally society assumes the full responsibility. Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family. We already have homes for very small babies, creches, kindergartens, children’s colonies and homes, hospitals and health resorts for sick children. restaurants, free lunches at school and free distribution of text books, warm clothing and shoes to schoolchildren. All this goes to show that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective.

The parental care of children in the family could be divided into three parts: (a) the care of the very young baby, (b) the bringing up of the child, and (c) the instruction of the child. Even in capitalist society the education of the child in primary schools and later in secondary and higher educational establishments became the responsibility of the state. Even in capitalist society the needs of the workers were to some extent met by the provision of playgrounds, kindergartens, play groups, etc. The more the workers became conscious of their rights and the better they were organized, the more society had to relieve the family of the care of the children. But bourgeois society was afraid of going too far towards meeting the interests of the working class, lest this contribute to the break-up of the family. For the capitalists are well aware that the old type of family, where the woman is a slave and where the husband is responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, constitutes the best weapon in the struggle to stifle the desire of the working class for freedom and to weaken the revolutionary spirit of the working man and working woman. The worker is weighed down by his family cares and is obliged to compromise with capital. The father and mother are ready to agree to any terms when their children are hungry. Capitalist society has not been able to transform education into a truly social and state matter because the property owners, the bourgeoisie, have been against this.

Communist society considers the social education of the rising generation to be one of the fundamental aspects of the new life. The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the “new person”. The playgrounds, gardens, homes and other amenities where the child will spend the greater part of the day under the supervision of qualified educators will, on the other hand, offer an environment in which the child can grow up a conscious communist who recognizes the need for solidarity, comradeship, mutual help and loyalty to the collective. What responsibilities are left to the parents, when they no longer have to take charge of upbringing and education? The very small baby, you might answer, while it is still learning to walk and clinging to its mother’s skirt, still needs her attention. Here again the communist state hastens to the aid of the working mother. No longer will there be any women who are alone. The workers’ state aims to support every mother, married or unmarried, while she is suckling her child, and to establish maternity homes, day nurseries and other such facilities in every city and village, in order to give women the opportunity to combine work in society with maternity.

The masks are coming off the Progressives. They don’t even try to hide their Marxist agendas any more. Pelosi wants to be reinstated as Speaker of the House (she must dearly miss the power that position has) and as her primary campaign topic, she is going all out for national child care.

Last week, the California congresswoman hit five cities in five days, barnstorming for money to try to win the 25 more seats it would take to regain control. And if that happens — or when, according to her — at the top of her to-do list, she says, will be “doing for child care what we did for health-care reform” — pushing comprehensive change. …

Of the need for child-care legislation, she says, “I could never get a babysitter — have five kids in six years and no one wants to come to your house. . . . And everywhere I go, women say the same thing” about how hard it is to find the kind of reliable care that would make their family lives calmer and work lives more productive. When it comes to “unleashing women” in a way that would boost the economy, she says, “this is a missing link.”

Congress did pass such a bill, in 1971, but President Richard M. Nixon vetoed it because he thought it would undermine families and force them to put children in government-run centers.

Tell me that doesn’t sound exactly like the Marxists in 1920′s Russia. They never, ever give up and have been pushing the destruction of the central family unit along with complete government involvement in child care for a long, long time. The Communists wanted women to have to work, so the government would get to step in with national child care and an iron grip on citizens from cradle to grave. She wants to resurrect the bill form 1971 that Nixon vetoed as her next big goal. Pelosi is just the corrupt, Marxist Progressive to get it done too. She is incredibly dangerous and evil.

Pelosi is an elitist and very, very bitter over being replaced as Speaker of the House. But true to her nature, she learned everything she knows from Daddy and will never give up getting her power back. From She’s The Boss:

Pelosi’s mastery of the insider game most definitely took place beyond the classroom walls. Indeed, Pelosi possesses the political street smarts of a party boss harking back to the days of Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall or the Daley Machine in Chicago. And that’s not surprising, since her father, “Big Tommy” D’Alesandro, Jr., ran his own well-oiled machine. She saw precinct party politics up close where the means to power was deal making, backroom bargains and, when necessary, strong-arm tactics and intimidation. New York Times reporter David Firestone writes, “The ability to make merry while reaching for the jugular is an essential characteristic for politicians, and friends say Ms. Pelosi learned it from one of the classic political bosses and characters of an earlier era, Thomas J. D’Alesandro, Jr., a congressman, mayor of Baltimore and doler of favors for Northeastern Maryland for 40 years.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking she is incompetent or crazy. Pelosi is anything but. She is aggressive, brutal and power hungry. She crushes anyone who gets in the way of her agenda. Now she is coming after our children. Parents, it’s crunch time. You need to get your children out of the government controlled school system and now. You need to find a way to NOT let the government take care of your child as well. They are masters at propaganda, thought policing and brainwashing. The government and our elites are the ultimate bad man offering our children candy and many parents are nudging their children right into the government’s loving arms. God help us all.

If indeed Pelosi achieves her goal and the government does for child care what it did for healthcare, it might look something like this:

· A childcare mandate requiring all parents to buy childcare for their children and enter the workplace.

· A national electronic database of all parents and their parenting habits, ostensibly to determine and enforce the use of “best practices” for raising children.

· Forcing all private-sector child care professionals out of business, creating a single-caregiver government monopoly subjecting impressionable young children to government indoctrination in everything from climate change to illegal immigration and abortion.

1984 comes knocking on our doors and our children are the price of government oversight. Makes you all warm and fuzzy doesn’t it? More likely, it chills you to the bone and there is fear in the pit of your stomach for your family and children. You have to ask yourself, “Once they own your kids, what’s left?”


The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - E Book download is NOW FREE TO ALL!!!
Right click and "Save Link As"
Click here to begin download
File is 6.75 MB

The Dumbing Down of America Series

Omission of God or Christ in the Thanksgiving Address (Again)

President Obama gave his weekly radio address, one devoted to Thanksgiving, by praising U.S. service members and volunteers at shelters and soup kitchens.

The president outlined the many ways that Americans were coming together and the various things he was thankful for, but not once thanked God.

And that caused a stir on Twitter among conservatives.

Among the comments were things like, "So sad!" and "God help us!" Republicans across the country retweeted the Fox News headline: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address."

"To give thanks for luck is to deny God much less omit!" tweeted "PastorJeffBrown," whose Twitter account lists him as a rural Oklahoma husband, father and Baptist pastor.
Obama's message carried a tone of American unity and praise for those who serve others.
"We're especially grateful for the Americans who defend our country overseas," Obama said in his Thanksgiving Day address. "To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families, the American people are thinking of you today."

The video of the address is below at Obama Omits God From Thanksgiving Message

Hope you all had a great and blessed Thanksgiving!!


h/t to Just One More Pet for Photo

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Hedge Broker Goes Galt: Ann Barnhardt Shuts Down Firm With Chilling Letter

This is an absolute must-read.

If you haven't yet read this letter, due to the recommendation of Rush Limbaugh yesterday, you really need to. This lady, Ann Barnhardt, tells it like it is.

She speaks without fear, holding to the truth, in a manner that would shock most in the business world. Needless to say, she's a Bible-believing Christian. She simply doesn't care about the consequences of telling the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may. This lady rocks!

Here's the story, from The Blaze:

Posted on November 18, 2011 at 8:45am by Jonathon M. Seidl
Ann Barnhardt describes herself as a an “an old-school commercial hedge broker specializing in CATTLE and GRAIN.” And she just shut down her business by delivering a passionate and chilling open letter posted on her website.
“I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets – because they are not,” she writes. And then she unloads:

Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm. Let’s not sugar-coat this or make this crime seem “complex” and “abstract” by drowning ourselves in six-dollar words and uber-technical jargon. Jon Corzine STOLE the customer cash at MF Global. Knowing Jon Corzine, and knowing the abject lawlessness and contempt for humanity of the Marxist Obama regime and its cronies, this is not really a surprise. What was a surprise was the reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. No informed person can continue to engage these markets, and no moral person can continue to broker or facilitate customer engagement in what is now a massive game of Russian Roulette. [Emphasis added]

The letter caught the attention of Rush Limbaugh on Thursday.

“The letter from the hedge fund guy sounds particularly filled with vitriol, but he’s right about something,” Limbaugh said after reading an excerpt. “Corzine was that firm, and the customers’ money is gone, and it’s like $600 million of it, and it’s gone, and they’re trying to get it back, it’s a miniature Madoff in that sense. And somebody did steal that money. Somebody at that firm, which is now bankrupt and 1,100 people or thereabouts have been laid off, somebody stole the clients’ money. It is a big deal to a lot of people.”
We’ve included the entire letter (originally presented in two parts) below (courtesy of Zero Hedge):

BCM Has Ceased Operations (source)
Posted by Ann Barnhardt – November 17, AD 2011 10:27 AM MST

Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt Capital Management,

It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased operations. After six years of operating as an independent introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere spectator.

The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets – because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients, but for every futures and options account in the United States. The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to be in jeopardy.

The futures markets are very highly-leveraged and thus require an exceptionally firm base upon which to function. That base was the sacrosanct segregation of customer funds from clearing firm capital, with additional emergency financial backing provided by the exchanges themselves. Up until a few weeks ago, that base existed, and had worked flawlessly. Firms came and went, with some imploding in spectacular fashion. Whenever a firm failure happened, the customer funds were intact and the exchanges would step in to backstop everything and keep customers 100% liquid – even as their clearing firm collapsed and was quickly replaced by another firm within the system.

Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm. Let’s not sugar-coat this or make this crime seem “complex” and “abstract” by drowning ourselves in six-dollar words and uber-technical jargon. Jon Corzine STOLE the customer cash at MF Global. Knowing Jon Corzine, and knowing the abject lawlessness and contempt for humanity of the Marxist Obama regime and its cronies, this is not really a surprise. What was a surprise was the reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. No informed person can continue to engage these markets, and no moral person can continue to broker or facilitate customer engagement in what is now a massive game of Russian Roulette.

I have learned over the last week that MF Global is almost certainly the mere tip of the iceberg. There is massive industry-wide exposure to European sovereign junk debt. While other firms may not be as heavily leveraged as Corzine had MFG leveraged, and it is now thought that MFG’s leverage may have been in excess of 100:1, they are still suicidally leveraged and will likely stand massive, unmeetable collateral calls in the coming days and weeks as Europe inevitably collapses. I now suspect that the reason the Chicago Mercantile Exchange did not immediately step in to backstop the MFG implosion was because they knew and know that if they backstopped MFG, they would then be expected to backstop all of the other firms in the system when the failures began to cascade – and there simply isn’t that much money in the entire system. In short, the problem is a SYSTEMIC problem, not merely isolated to one firm.

Perhaps the most ominous dynamic that I have yet heard of in regards to this mess is that of the risk of potential CLAWBACK actions. For those who do not know, “clawback” is the process by which a bankruptcy trustee is legally permitted to re-seize assets that left a bankrupt entity in the time period immediately preceding the entity’s collapse. So, using the MF Global customers as an example, any funds that were withdrawn from MFG accounts in the run-up to the collapse, either because of suspicions the customer may have had about MFG from, say, watching the company’s bond yields rise sharply, or from purely organic day-to-day withdrawls, the bankruptcy trustee COULD initiate action to “clawback” those funds. As a hedge broker, this makes my blood run cold. Generally, as the markets move in favor of a hedge position and equity builds in a client’s account, that excess equity is sent back to the customer who then uses that equity to offset cash market transactions OR to pay down a revolving line of credit. Even the possibility that a customer could be penalized and additionally raped AGAIN via a clawback action after already having their customer funds stolen is simply villainous. While there has been no open indication of clawback actions being initiated by the MF Global trustee, I have been told that it is a possibility.

And so, to the very unpleasant crux of the matter. The futures and options markets are no longer viable. It is my recommendation that ALL customers withdraw from all of the markets as soon as possible so that they have the best chance of protecting themselves and their equity. The system is no longer functioning with integrity and is suicidally risk-laden. The rule of law is non-existent, instead replaced with godless, criminal political cronyism.

Remember, derivatives contracts are NOT NECESSARY in the commodities markets. The cash commodity itself is the underlying reality and is not dependent on the futures or options markets. Many people seem to have gotten that backwards over the past decades. From Abel the animal husbandman up until the year 1964, there were no cattle futures contracts at all, and no options contracts until 1984, and yet the cash cattle markets got along just fine.

Finally, I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed from office AND the government of the United States has been sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may reform. So long as the government remains criminal, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to attempt to rebuild the futures industry or my firm, because in a lawless environment, the same thievery and fraud would simply happen again, and the criminals would go unpunished, sheltered by the criminal oligarchy.

To my clients, who literally TO THE MAN agreed with my assessment of the situation, and were relieved to be exiting the markets, and many whom I now suspect stayed in the markets as long as they did only out of personal loyalty to me, I can only say thank you for the honor and pleasure of serving you over these last years, with some of my clients having been with me for over twelve years. I will continue to blog at, which will be subtly re-skinned soon, and will continue my cattle marketing consultation business. I will still be here in the office, answering my phones, with the same phone numbers. Alas, my retirement came a few years earlier than I had anticipated, but there was no possible way to continue given the inevitability of the collapse of the global financial markets, the overthrow of our government, and the resulting collapse in the rule of law.

As for me, I can only echo the words of David:

“This is the Lord’s doing; and it is wonderful in our eyes.”
With Best Regards-  Ann Barnhardt

“I am going to head out of town for a few days, but will be checking email and messages,” Barnhardt wrote, after describing her letter as “going Galt” — a reference to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”
“Thanks to one and all for the kind support and prayers. Please be assured of mine in return, for all of us.”
Read more about MF Global here and here.
It turns out Barnhardt has a history of being quite outspoken. She regularly posts videos to a YouTube channel and has a history of making controversial statements about Islam. She’s also come under fire for her thoughts on the bin Laden raid.

Despite some of her baggage, though, she is grabbing headlines. Besides catching the attention of Zero Hedge and Limbaugh, her story was also featured in an article on Bloomberg Business Week’s website today.

Could it be that despite her past, her present story is still compelling?
(H/T: Andrea Shea King)
And if you think that was bold, just watch her video clip where she dares to criticize Islam, in very candid terms (she's not happy about the pro-Islamic propaganda in the media, and she goes after Islam itself, for being a TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM, not a religion, and she goes after Mohammed's sexual perversions [CONTENT WARNING: Graphic Descriptions of Mohammed's Sexual Perversion]), so don't watch it if you're uncomfortable with harsh criticism, including criticism of sexual perversion.

While I don't agree with every word she says in the video (and elsewhere; I disagree with many, but not all, of her thoughts on the Bin Laden Raid in Pakistan, for example), she is largely correct. And it's definitely worth a watch, unless you're defensive of Islam, or you don't wish to watch criticism of sexual perversion, or you're a Muslim (In the last instance, you'll be quite upset), you'll definitely have your eyes opened if you haven't studied the Qu'ran. This is as politically incorrect as it gets. If you don't want to see hardcore (yet factual) criticism of Islam, DO NOT WATCH THIS. Ann pulls no punches. She simply speaks without fear, questioning with boldness (this is part 1 of 4, so if you liked it, go to her YouTube channel and watch the rest):

Video: Ann Barnhardt "Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil" Part 1 of 4

Don’t know who Galt is?  If not you need to read: Atlas Shrugged or better yet get Ayn Rand’s Box Set including Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead

Also check out Schweizer’s and Abramhoff’s new books:  Throw Them All Out and Capitol Punishment

Friday, November 18, 2011

Governor Palin’s WSJ Editorial: ‘How Congress Occupied Wall Street’

A Wall Street Journal editorial:

Mark Twain famously wrote, “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Throw Them All Out,” reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it’s sickening.

Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it’s easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

The corruption isn’t confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It’s an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It’s an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

None of this surprises me. I’ve been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.

We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol’ boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end “business as usual”?

The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they’ll moan that they can’t govern effectively without it. Perhaps they’ll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of “We the people” to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.

I’ve learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public’s attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.

What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party’s mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been “Occupying Wall Street” long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

By Sarah Palin


REVEALED:  Nancy Pelosi Blocked Credit Card Reform While Investing Millions in Exclusive Visa Stock

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Greg Palast: Vulture’s Picnic

The older you get the more you realize how often things are connected and how sometimes things that you thought were at opposite ends of the spectrum actually come full circle and intersect. Such is the case here… see side story at the bottom.

Video: Greg Palast "I Do Investigative Reporting! I Don't Think It's Legal Under Patriot Act 4 In The U.S."

Lazy Ouzo-Swilling, Olive-Pit Spitting Greeks
Or, How Goldman Sacked Greece

Here's what we're told:

Greece's economy blew apart because a bunch of olive-spitting, ouzo-guzzling, lazy-ass Greeks refuse to put in a full day's work, retire while they're still teenagers, pocket pensions fit for a pasha; and they've gone on a social-services spending spree using borrowed money. Now that the bill has come due and the Greeks have to pay with higher taxes and cuts in their big fat welfare state, they run riot, screaming in the streets, busting windows and burning banks.

I don't buy it.  I don't buy it because of the document in my hand marked, "RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION."

I'll cut to the indictment:  Greece is a crime scene.  The people are victims of a fraud, a scam, a hustle and a flim-flam.   And––cover the children's ears when I say this––a bank named Goldman Sachs is holding the smoking gun.


This is an adaptation of an excerpt from Vultures' Picnic, Greg Palast's new book, out next week, an investigator's pursuit of petroleum pigs, power pirates and high-finance fraudsters. Read the first chapter or just get the book here.


In 2002, Goldman Sachs secretly bought up €2.3 billion in Greek government debt, converted it all into yen and dollars, then immediately sold it back to Greece.

Goldman took a huge loss on the trade.

Is Goldman that stupid?

Goldman is stupid—like a fox. The deal was a con, with Goldman making up a phony-baloney exchange rate for the transaction.   Why?

Goldman had cut a secret deal with the Greek government in power then.  Their game:  to conceal a massive budget deficit.  Goldman's fake loss was the Greek government's fake gain.

Goldman would get repayment of its “loss” from the government at loan-shark rates.

The point is, through this crazy and costly legerdemain, Greece's right-wing free-market government was able to pretend its deficits never exceeded 3 percent of GDP.

Cool. Fraudulent but cool.

But flim-flam isn’t cheap these days: On top of murderous interest payments, Goldman charged the Greeks over a quarter billion dollars in fees.

When the new Socialist government of George Papandreou came into office, they opened up the books and Goldman's bats flew out.  Investors' went berserk, demanding monster interest rates to lend more money to roll over this debt.

Greece's panicked bondholders rushed to buy insurance against the nation going bankrupt.  The price of the bond-bust insurance, called a credit default swap (or CDS), also shot through the roof.  Who made a big pile selling the CDS insurance?  Goldman.

And those rotting bags of CDS's sold by Goldman and others? Didn't they know they were handing their customers gold-painted turds?

That's Goldman's specialty.  In 2007, at the same time banks were selling suspect CDS's and CDOs (packaged sub-prime mortgage securities), Goldman held a “net short” position against these securities. That is, Goldman was betting their financial "products" would end up in the toilet. Goldman picked up another half a billion dollars on their "net short" scam.

But, instead of cuffing Goldman's CEO Lloyd Blankfein and parading him in a cage through the streets of Athens, we have the victims of the frauds, the Greek people, blamed.  Blamed and soaked for the cost of it.  The "spread" on Greek bonds (the term used for the risk premium paid on Greece's corrupted debt) has now risen to — get ready for this––$14,000 per family per year.

Euro-nation, the secret Geithner memo, and the Ecuador connection

Why did the Greek government throw its nation's fate into Goldman's greasy hands?  What the heck was in the "RESTRICTED" document? And why did I have to take it to Geneva, to throw it down in front of the Director-General of the WTO for authentication, a creepy French banker I otherwise wouldn't bother to spit on, and then tear off to Quito to share it with the grateful President of Ecuador?

To give you all the answers would require me to write a book.  I have:  Vultures' Picnic––in Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Fraudsters.

It's really quite important to me that you read it, that you get it now.  That's a funny statement, I suppose, from an author.  But if you've been reading my stories in The Guardian or watching my reports on BBC Newsnight, you've gotten the facts; but I really want to let you inside the investigations, to cross the continents with me and follow down the leads so that you can get a full picture of The Beasts.  The Beasts and their trophy wives, intelligence agency go-fers, political concubines and bone-breakers.  And besides, it's enormous fun when it's not scary as sh*t.


Here's a taste of Chapter 12 - The Generalissimo of Globalization - from the film-enhanced eBook edition.  [And more on the 1% Greece-ing us, check out the upcoming issue of In These Times.]

VIDEO:  Vultures' Picnic - Chapter 12 - The Generalissimo of Globalization

Note:  I will be in Chicago for In These Times on November 29, part of our 15 city tour that begins this coming Sunday, November 13, in Portland, then moves to San Francisco, LA, San Diego, Denver, Boulder, New Mexico, Albuquerque, Chicago, Madison, New York, DC, Houston, Burlington, and Atlanta. Find out more info here.


Greg Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, which will be released on November 14 by Penguin USA.

Greg Palast just wrote Vultures' Picnic

Video:  Vulture's Picnic, 1% Vultures Praying on 99% Greg Palast Interview


Video: UKIP Nigel Farage – How dare you tell the Italian and Greek People Wath to do!!!  - Nov 2011

Out of the blue I received information from a friend on Greg Palast’s new book:  Vultures' Picnic 

In 1970 two politically active kids were Presidents of their high school classes in Southern California.  Both went through the next 40+ years of their lives involved in writing, photography and political activism… one a progressive and the other a tea party type.  One is Greg Palast and the other is the writer of this was well as several other blogs, Marion Algier.

Amazing how two people, coming from the same high school with opposite points of view can come full circle and actually find some common ground…  agreeing on fraud, corporate greed, inept and corrupt government, banksters and the list surely goes on, while still disagreeing on so much. And fun to look back!

Class Presidents

Poly Class Presidents 1970  - Left:  Greg  and Middle: Marion

By Marion Algier

Ask Marion~  -  h/t to Jean Stoner

The Obama Eligibility Question - (best article on the topic)

This is an extremely important document to read, with consequences that need to be understood.

Congress is obviously complicit and impeachment may not be a possibility, or reality leaving the question of Obama's eligibility and retention in office strictly up to his public rating, and democrat party acceptance or rejection.

It is obvious as per this dispatch that there have been numerous shenanigans in the works.

Corruption of government exposed!

This; “… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country [emphasis added].” not only pertains to the presidency or vice presidency, but would also pertain to the so called "ANCHOR BABIES" who the leftist government claims are legal residents.


By Paul R. Hollrah

Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze what we know to be true.


Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama.  Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya?  Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967?  Where did he spend the summer of 1981?  Did he actually attend classes at Columbia?  Did he write Dreams from My Father?  These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones.  The most critical question relates to his eligibility.  Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper?  Let’s analyze what we know to be true. 

First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years.  But is he a “natural born” citizen?  What is a “natural born” citizen, and how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from ever becoming president or vice president?

To answer these questions we must examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term “natural born;” we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama’s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.

What is a “Natural Born” Citizen?

In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel.  In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defines the term “natural born Citizen” as follows:

“… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country [emphasis added].”

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States?  Not likely. 

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that gripped the hearts of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own (a “Manchurian candidate?”) to the chief magistracy of the Union?”                                           

What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1 so as to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen.  That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

At the time the Constitution was adopted there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized citizens by act of law, requiring a loyalty oath and renunciation of all foreign allegiances, and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

To fully understand the importance of the words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates.  Those dates are: 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date on which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776… became thirty-five years of age.  (It was not until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration that the first natural born citizens became eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.)

Since the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president… excluding naturalized citizens and those with a history of dual nationality… it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those who were born prior to July 4, 1776.  For example, presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson were all “citizens,” but not “natural born” citizens because they were born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” Martin Van Buren, born to U.S. citizens on December 5, 1782, became the first “natural born” U.S. president. 

It was the simplest and easiest way of creating a body of candidates during the earliest years of the republic, unconstrained by the requirement that they be “natural born” citizens, at least 35 year of age.  Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen. 

The Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to “natural born” citizens and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.  There can be no exceptions… not even for Barack Obama. 

In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty [emphasis added] is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born Citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today? 

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue.  In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen [emphasis added].”

This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining).  The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court concluded in Minor that, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.”  For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced House Joint Resolution 104 on September 15, 2004.  The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:  (Thank Heaven this did not pass as the cataclysmic collision of Schwarzenegger's election would have sunk this nation with out Obama. Anglo)

“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”

H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress.  Then, early in the 109th Congress, on February 1, 2005, Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress.  And while it is understandable that Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained. 

For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” (Obviously, or perhaps, Obama was included in the planning stages with hopes of this becoming law prior to his eligibility. Anglo)

The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on September 3, 2003 by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”

On January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress.  And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress. 

All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate.  All died in committee without being acted upon. 

Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  However, what distinguishes Rep. Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear… he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency.  The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a mystery; they only serve to raise important questions.

In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party? 

So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives?  More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it? ( Yep, we are on the same train of thought here. Anglo)

U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:

“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.  Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…

“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.  Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.  However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship…

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it…because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries…”

It is incomprehensible that any person who has held allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Barack Obama’s Citizenship Status

Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., of Kenya, a British colony. 

Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth.  Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect. 

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963.  Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.  (Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.)

“(2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

In other words, on December 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship, presumably giving him, at least temporarily, dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship.  Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father.  And since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Chapter VI, Section 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.

However, to complicate matters even further, the constitution adopted by the people of Kenya on August 4, 2010, brought Obama back into the fold by creating a category of Kenyan citizenship called a “citizen by birth.”  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya). 

What this tells us is that, since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. 

The Vetting Process for President and Vice President

The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities.  The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed. 

All of the documents provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:

“We do hereby certify that (at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”

The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.  The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the following affirmation:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though [sic] 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  The document was signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson. 

The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, the two documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer JB Williams in a September 10, 2009 article, titled, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie.” Immediately upon publication of Williams’ article, Obama-doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats’ deception was exposed.

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?”  Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen?  So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?  And is it Pelosi’s certification of Obama’s eligibility that the State of Hawaii has relied upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate? 

The second vetting opportunity occurs on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December when the Electoral College meets to elect a president and vice president.  Between November 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and December 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility.  None of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College.

The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College.  As the final fail-safe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College.

So if, in fact, the Democratic National Committee knowingly certified a candidate for the November ballot who was ineligible to serve, the Democrat members of the Electoral College failed to vet the men they elected, and no member of Congress questioned his qualifications, what are the possible alternatives?  Is it possible, as some suggest, that we simply ignore the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1? 

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient. 

“Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting what lawyers refer to as the ‘best available evidence,’ (Obama’s published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate).”

But what if the members of Congress fail in their responsibility?  Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’[emphasis added],” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.

When members of Congress are sworn into office they solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  So, one might ask, why have members of Congress not questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president when they were obligated to do so and when he clearly does not meet the “natural born” standard? 

In the days following the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, when not a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, chose to honor their oath of office, the members were inundated with demands that they justify that dereliction.  A great many members sought guidance from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a division of the Library of Congress.  Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, drew the “short straw” and was assigned the task of drafting a response.  His April 3, 2009 memorandum, provided to all members of Congress, read, in part, as follows:

“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation.  Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”

It is that memorandum, the now infamous Jack Maskell Memorandum, that members of Congress have been hiding behind since April 3, 2009.


What Dr. Viera asserts, and what any sixth-grade student would understand, is that it is not within the power of Congress to waive the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 by simply ignoring them… as they have attempted to do since January 8, 2009, the Maskell Memorandum notwithstanding.  Nor is it within the power of the people, the states, or the courts to waive the eligibility requirements… short of a constitutional amendment.

That being the case, and assuming that Obama could not be convinced to voluntarily evacuate the White House, what are the alternatives?  Is it possible to impeach a usurper president or vice president when the impeachment process is designed to apply only to individuals who are fully qualified, legally elected, and officially inaugurated?  And if the House of Representatives proceeded to impeach him, would that action legitimize his illegitimate presidency? 

The most likely answer lies in the Nixon model, in which leaders of his own party would go to the White House to demand his resignation.  In Obama’s case… he being less of a gentleman and less of a patriot than Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon… that is unlikely to happen until a substantial majority of Americans become convinced that he is a usurper and his approval rating drops below 20%.  Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of salvaging their own political careers, to demand that he leave.  And that will occur only after some courageous American, such as Lt. Col. Terry Larkin or New York real estate developer Donald Trump, is able to force Obama to produce his bona fides

With each passing day, the damage that Obama does makes the future of our constitutional republic more and more problematic.  Will the nation be able to survive two more years of his destructive social and economic tinkering?  If consensus can be reached on the questions surrounding Obama’s dual citizenships and the definition of the term “natural born,” then all of the remaining questions about his origins and his true identity will become academic… mere fodder for the history books. 

What cannot wait for the judgment of history are answers to the following questions:

1. Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first fourteen weeks in the U.S. Senate?

2. Since the Chairman and Secretary of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, purposely dropped language from certifications sent to forty-nine of the fifty states, certifying that Barack Obama was eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution, when was Pelosi first made aware that Obama was ineligible to serve, how widely was that known within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, and who participated in the deception?

3. Since Barack Obama’s former OMB director has suggested that the U.S. government would be better if it were less Democratic, and since Governor Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, an Obama ally, has called for a two year suspension of congressional elections, the American people deserve to know the source of those trial balloons and who instructed those individuals to float them.

Since the three foregoing questions are critically important.  They appear to be elements of a grand plan to establish a socialist dictatorship in the United States, with a dedicated Marxist serving as its leader.  Is there a direct relationship between the three foregoing questions and, if so, who are the co-conspirators?  The American people deserve to know.

Source:  CFP  -  h/t to Anglo at Sovereignty in Colorado


Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

Federal Judge Rules in Obama SSN Case! Says it Doesn’t Matter if Prez Broke the Law… the Manchurian President is Alive and Well~

Eligibility Rulings Vanish from Net

Obama’s Occidental College Transcripts Provide Concrete Evidence to Annul His Presidency

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Dreams from My Father