God Bless America, Rid Her of Islamic Fascist

Today, nine years ago, Americans learned the truth about Islam and Muslims. President Bush said they hated us because we were free.

He was wrong. They hate us because we are not Muslims and especially because we are Christians...for the most part.

As long as we remain not Muslims and as long as we remain Christian, we will be hated and terrorized.

A pastor of a small church recently stirred the global poop-pot by announcing he would burn the Qur'an on 9/11 as a statement. The Muslim world almost had a collective heart attack. I truly wish they had all had a physical heart attack.

The American military had to burn American bibles in Afghanistan for fear of reprisals from those Islamic bastards.



Now we can't exercise our 1st Amendment Right to freedom of expression, including protest in our own country because of these Islamic bastards of Satan, however, THEY can do whatever they want, wherever they want, because the whole world is scared of them and what will happen....yet the world allows Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

In 2007 "...Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on." -- Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses and that is OK but Americans can't burn a Qur'an in their own country, in their own town?

The repeating chant of the Muslims worldwide to to kill all infidels, kill anyone not a Muslim.

"Islam does not differentiate between civilians and military (targets) but rather distinguishes between Muslims and infidels ..." -- 2005, Al Qaeda’s Zarqawi backs killing civilian ‘infidels’

Now given this outlook by the Islamic Bastards of Satan, do you REALLY believe any high ranking, self-respecting Muslim would ever state the desire to have an infidel as a leader or to say their holy prayers? Of course not! They behead infidels, not ask them to give the prayers, yet we are to believe that is exactly what has come to pass.

“The coming Eid would expectedly be observed on 9/11, this a golden opportunity for President Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero and become Amir-ul-Momineen or Caliph of Muslims. In this way, all the problems of Muslim World would be solved,” he thought.
Durrani argued that Muslim World was in “dire need” of a Caliph and the distinguished slot of Caliphate would earn President Obama the exemplary titles of what he termed, “Mullah Barrack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama.” -- Minister wants Obama to become Ameer-ul-Momineen

This, more than any thing else, should open the self-imposed blindness of the Obama supporters to see, there is a Muslim in the White House.

You say, "So what? America was founded on religious tolerance."

I say you are correct however, this religion as made it a holy dictate, a holy mission, it is ordained by that Qur'an we can't burn as false heretical propaganda, that Muslims are to convert non-believers (that would be you and I) and if they refuse, kill them. Period. End of story. No tolerance. No religious freedom. No America as we know it.

And we have a Muslim, who by definition believes this way. All one has to do is stop listening to his words and watch his actions to see the truth.

Even as early as Sept 11, 2009 many Americans could see the mistake voters had made by electing this person.

Faye Parrish wrote an detailed and very telling article titled An Open Letter to President Obama on the Occasion of 9/11 and while it is too long to copy here, her message is that the American people have noticed what he has and hasn't done. I can only imagine what she would add to it given Obama's support of Black Panthers against Republican voters and how he has treated Arizona.

No...on this day, Sept 11th, America remembers what Islam is all about, the families of those beheaded remember what Islam is all about and voters will remember what is happening in their country in Nov 2012.

America Ain't Britain

Some disturbing videos have been coming out of Britain over the past year in response to the Islamic element beginning to demand Shari'ah Law.

Pat Condell on Criminalizing Freedom of Speech by Islam (Oct 2009)



Below is a short video news cast from June 2010:


This is exactly what we here in America have been warned against.

"The principle source of Shari'ah is the Qur'an itself; the very core of the Shari'ah are the arkan ad-din, or the "five pillars of relgion," which prescribe all the rituals incumbent on a believer. There are, however, a plethora of social and ethical matters not covered in the Quranic revelations. For these, the Shari'ah bases its principles on the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunnah are the collected histories of the actions and words that Muhammad spoke outside of revelation; for the Shari'ah , the sayings of the prophet Muhammad (hadith) are the most vitally important aspect of the Sunnah. Still, the Qur'an and the Sunnah leave several social and ethical matters untouched; for these, the Shari'ah turns to the consensus (ijma') of the most religious and scholarly members of the community and to argument through analogy (qiyas), that is, by using established truths of the sacred law to come up with rules or judgements for matters not covered in the sacred law. These are the four principles of Shari'ah :the Qur'an , the Sunnah, consensus, and argument through analogy."-- Shari'ah, Sacred Law,by Richard Hooker, 1996

When the Muslim population in a host country is small, the Muslim leadership is willing to "play nice" and get along. As the population grows and Muslims begin to take leadership positions within the community, and then at the national level, they will begin to demand (note the word DEMAND) Shari'ah Law under the guise of wanting to follow their own law, intertwined with their religion in such a manner as to not allow it would be deemed a violation of a religious right.



In the video below, Anjem Choudary (Head of Islam4UK) explains what the future of Britain will be like under Shari'ah. There is NO COMPROMISE, there is NO TOLERANCE, there is NOTHING BUT SHARI'AH! This is how Britains will live, how the Queen will live. She will have to remove herself from Buckingham Palace and either convert to Islam or leave the country...HER OWN COUNTRY!



We in America know that happens in Britain usually happens over here within a year or two. Will America see this Islamic trampling of our Constitution and our laws? Will we see some Muslim leader begin to tell us, we can either convert or leave our country, our homes, family farms handed down for generations, family businesses handed down since great-grandfather emigrated from Italy, France, Germany, Scotland and even Britain?

Yes, I think we will see this...hear this.

Already in parts of the country we are seeing the movements of the coming wave of demands, first locally and soon nationally.

* 2005 - "Muslim lore has it that dogs are impure, so pious Muslims often try to avoid the animals. In most circumstances, this does not present a problem in the West, but it can when seeing-eye dogs are involved, for they have legal rights of entry. Interestingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations often rushes to the defense of Muslims behaving illegally." -- Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs by Daniel Pipes
[Note the story a few weeks ago about the 1st dog, BO being flown in his own jet to the family vacation spot....hmm?]

* 2006 - "...Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol."--Airport Check-in: Fare refusals in Minnesota USA Today

*2008 -- "The Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national group, has formed a Muslim Accommodations Task Force (MATF) that now leads efforts to bring foot baths, halal food, and Muslim prayer rooms to schools everywhere. As of the summer of 2007, MSA announced that at least nine universities had set aside prayer rooms for Muslims only. At least 17 universities had installed footbaths for their Muslim students or were in the process of doing so." --Schools Accommodate Muslim Students, Education Reporter

And let's NOT forget what happened in 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas in the name of Allah, the God of Islam:

"Thursday's massacre was the worst mass killing ever to take place on a U.S. military base. A female civilian police officer identified as Kim Munley who shot Hasan was the one who stopped the spree. She survived, contrary to earlier reports that she had died." -- Suspected Fort Hood Shooter Was 'Calm' During Massacre, May Have Shouted 'God Is Great!', FOXNews.com

Maybe that massacre at Fort Hood was a test run. Maybe Islamic fanatics think, based on this and Obama's support for the Ground Zero Mosque in NYC, that America will be an easy target.

Just because there are pockets of demands and concessions throughout the north and just because Muslims (Islamic Fascist) have not been thrown out of the country (yet), do not think America will go quietly as Europe has.

The only way Islamic radicals will ever take over America is to continue to breed like pigs, and over take this nation with sheer numbers. But how many of their children will be converted to Christianity in the mean time?

And will Americans tolerate the beheading of children on this soil?

What? You didn't think the Islamic-fascist-radical-Antichrist-type "religion" would do such a thing as behead children? Take the blinders off and at least learn the enemy you are welcoming into your "homes".

Three 12-year-old Indonesian Christian schoolgirls were beheaded by Muslims for walking home from school, unattended by a male family member. Is this what you want in America? If we allow the religion of the Antichrist to become a powerful force within our borders, this is what you will have secured for your children and grandchildren.



The complete story and the video can be found at Bare Naked Islam

Women in America won the right to vote, the right to have credit in their own name, the right to equal pay for equal work, and many other liberties their counter parts around the world do not enjoy. By allowing the religion of Antichrist to demand Shari'ah Law in the USA, we will become partners with the enemy in the abuse of our daughters, mothers, sisters and wives.

Just this month, Time's cover was very hard for many of us to view, but we must see what we are allowing here in the greatest country in the world.



Thanks to Obama and Eric Holder's views on gun ownership, Americans bought every bullet and gun they could within the four months of Obama taking possession of the White House.

"...honest Americans buying enough guns to outfit the current active army’s of China and India...firearm purchases or sales in the USA with a record 1,529,635 background checks being performed in March of 2009. Firearm Sales Continue to Climb in March 2009." -- Update: USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army, AmmoLand.com

America is not Britain, or Australia or any country where the individual citizenry are unarmed. We are armed and "to the teeth" as the saying goes.

Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On

This article is reprinted with permission from the author. Originally posted August 10, 2010: "Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On" Adask's law Blog

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.

But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.

For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.

The first “company” on the list is:

“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
“the u.s. Capitol Washington DC”

The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”.

Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”.

That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information.

For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at:

“the u.s. capitol

“Washington, DC 20515-0001”

Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121”. Business Hours are “24/7”.

You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC.

None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”). But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read:

“government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”.

Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?

A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):

“all receipents [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by barack obama administration.”

The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States” that we all so love and admire. (Don’t forget that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies.)

OK, OK—maybe this article isn’t really all that “funny” (ha-ha!), but it’s still pretty “funny” (strange).

• Go back to the top of the “Government of the United States” page and click the “More Info” tab. Under “Employees (Estimated)” you’ll read:

“2,768,886

“At this location

“3”

2.7 million federal employees sounds about right. This enormous number of employees confirms that we’re viewing information on the “Government of the United States”.

But if only “3” of those millions of employees are “At this location” (the “HQ”) who are the “chosen 3”? And where, precisely is “this location”? Capitol Hill? Yes—but where on Capitol Hill? In the Senate chamber? The House of Representatives? If there are only “3” people at the HQ, that HQ might be as small as some cloakroom.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Under “State of Incorporation” you’ll read “Information not found”. This could mean that this “Government of the United States” was never formally “incorporated”. Or it might mean that the information concerning that incorporation is intentionally concealed.

However, we can see a clue to the possible date of incorporation for this “Government of the United States” under the heading “Years in Business” which reads “223”. If the “Government of the United States” began 223 years ago, there should be a constitution or charter to mark its creation at that time.

This is A.D. 2010, so “223” years ago would be A.D. 1787.

But that’s odd.

Why? Because our current “Government of the United States” should have been created by “The Constitution of the United States” and therefore could not have existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention completed the final draft of the Constitution on September 17th. That proposed Constitution for a new “federal government” was then submitted to the Congress that already existed under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in A.D. 1781). The Confederation Congress quickly “approved” the proposed Constitution under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation and then sent it out to We the People for ratification.

Article VII of the Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I.e., the Constitution (and resulting federal government) could not become effective and operational until it was ratified by at least nine of the States of the Union.

Thus, while the Constitution may have been “approved” by the existing Congress in A.D. 1787, it could not have been established and ordained by We the People until ratified by at least 9 States. But the 9th State (New Hampshire) didn’t ratify until June 21st, A.D. 1788.

Wikipedia article “Unites States Constitution” reports:

“Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire’s ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the new Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the [new, federal] government began operations.” [Bracketed insertion mine.]

Since the Constitution created the federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before A.D. 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true. The earliest that the Constitution could’ve been deemed ratified and operations was A.D. 1788—222 years ago. Similarly, given that the new federal “Government” was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken. Under this criteria, the earliest that the federal Government might become operational was A.D. 1789—221 years ago.

Big deal, hmm?

Who cares?

Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill? Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “222” or even “221”?

I doubt it. If I’m right, it is a “big deal”. Here’s why:

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”. When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format. In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States” started in “1787”. (Today, they report “223” years in business.)

In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year before the Constitution itself was ratified and two years before the resulting federal government became operational.

If so, whatever currently passes for our “Government of the United States” is not based on the authority of We the People, but on some other “authority”. Thus, this is a potentially “big” deal.

I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788. So, in A.D. 2009, I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta.com used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years. That’s not a big change. It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error. But given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced. It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States” may correctly declare that that “Government” started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People.

If so, as crazy as it sounds, it is therefore conceivable that there might be two editions of our “Constitution”: 1) one approved by the Confederation Congress in A.D. 1787; and 2) another, ratified by We the People in A.D. 1788. The text of both of these “editions” of the Constitution would be identical, but the underlying authority would be completely different.

Under the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would (consistent with the principles of the “Declaration of Independence”) be We the People. As individual sovereigns, We the People would enjoy the “republican form of government” guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of the federal Constitution.

However, under the possible Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would be the Congress. If Congress were the constitutional sovereign, our form of government would be an aristocracy of 535 men and women. Worse, under such aristocracy, you and I would be presumed to be subjects or even slaves. If the Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787 were in effect today (rather than the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788), you and I can’t be free.

Yes, this conjecture sounds like another howling conspiracy theory. But even so, since the Constitution wasn’t ratified until A.D. 1788 and the resulting government didn’t become operational until A.D. 1789, D&B’s report that the government began “223” years ago and/or began in “1787” can’t be accurate. So, it seems at least “odd” that an entity as professional a D&B would make such a peculiar error.

It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company and “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.

Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:

1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and

2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.

Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:

“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”

Whut th’ . . . ?!

The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?

More?

Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:

“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”

The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?

Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.

Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”?

• Enter “US Social Security Admin” into the search engine. Scroll down a bit and you’ll read:

“US Social Security Admin is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Social and Human Resources and located in West Branch, MI.”

So-So Security is a “private company” . . . ? That’s not located in Washington DC, but rather in “West Branch, MI” . . . ? I don’t know what that means, but I can’t help but laugh. Somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

• Try “Internal Revenue Service”. Manta.com will produce “41,632 matching U.S. companies”. Some of these are clearly private entities that have no governmental pretense, but many or most are “governmental”.

If you click the link to “Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Dst Council,” you’ll read “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Goverenment-Finance and Taxation and located in Portland, OR.”


Click the “Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center . . . . Andover MA” link and you’ll read that “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Andover, MA.”

Two different locations indicate two different “private companies”.

These reports (and scores more) suggest that each individual IRS office may be a separate “private company”. Therefore, if you’re contacted by an IRS office in Austin, Texas, you may be dealing with one “private company”. If you’re subsequently contacted by another IRS office from, say, Provo, Utah—you might be dealing with a completely different “private company”.

What’s your obligation to talk to several different “private companies” about your income taxes? Are there privacy concerns in sharing your tax information with several private companies?

And given that there are at least several score (and perhaps several thousand) “private companies,” operating as an “Internal Revenue Service,” who are you really paying your income taxes to? H&R Block?

• There are a host of additional “private companies” that you might want to research. I collected website pages for about two dozen in 2008 and 2009. I’m not sure how many of those can still be found, but if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be fascinated. Search for: “United States Court of Appeals,” “District of Columbia,” “George W Bush,” and “Supreme Court of the United States”. All were listed by D&B as “private companies”.

You may find other D&B reports that are similarly fascinating or bewildering. What does D&B have to say about the CIA or Homeland Security? Inquiring minds wanna know.

• What’s it all mean? I’m not sure. Perhaps D&B is merely guilty of gross negligence when it comes to entering data on governmental entities.

Or, maybe the entire structure of what currently passes for “government” is actually a conglomerate of “private companies” run by an aristocratic Congress that’s owned by . . . who? The world’s bankers?

If so, the true nature of the “Government of the United States” might not be that of a “republic” or even a “democracy,” but rather a combination of governmental and corporate interests (“private companies”) that’s usually described as “fascism”. If so, we no longer have “government of the People, by the People and for the People” but instead have “government of the people, by the Congress, and for the Corporations.”

Whatever the explanation, somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

Today, when it comes to government, an appearance of reality appears to have been substituted for reality. Our government is not what it appears to be; not what it professes to be—and that’s not funny at all, is it?

Written at arm’s length and at my political choice of venue within The United States of America,

Alfred Adask

Confederate flags will be flown all across America

Over the latter part of the twentieth century, a segment of our society, Southerners and people with Confederate ancestry, have been denied their right to freedom of expression and the pursuit of [their] happiness due to another group within our society who believe this modified Saint Andrew's Cross represents a support of slavery or pro-slavery ideology.

Southerners and Confederate supporters see the CSA battle flag as a representation of the battle for States Rights against an overstepping and tyrannical federal government.

This is their flag and that is their reason for wanting to fly the Confederate flag, yet because others have stated they are offended by this flag, the CSA battle jack has become politically incorrect and the "offended" have grown so bold as to remove the smaller versions of the flag from the graves of Confederate veterans, often with little or no consequences. In one case in 2009, an Auburn, AL city councilman removed CSA flags from four graves the day before Confederate Memorial Day because the flags were offensive to him and represented the Ku Klux Klan.

The "offended" win and history loses. The rights of people with Southern historical beliefs are trampled by the opinions of others who shout loud enough and protest loud enough to block out Constitutional protections.

Now take this same argument, the one of "I'm offended so you can't enjoy your rights under the Constitution" and apply it to the Ground Zero Mosque.

Many have argued that the people wanting to build a mosque, which has become known as the "Ground Zero Mosque", 200 yards from the 2001 Sept 11th massacre should be allowed to do so because of THEIR rights under the Constitution. Please note that this would not even be an issue if not for the belief system held by those who want to build the mosque in the first place.

OK. They have a Right to buy and build whatever they want, where ever they wish. IF the stated purpose of "in the spirit of understanding and healing" is actually the truth, they have a moral and ethical duty to NOT build the mosque so close to the hallowed ground of the former WTC.

I suspect this purpose is nothing more than propaganda.

In battles, when an opposing side wins the ground from the enemy, do they not raise a flag? This was done in the American Revolution when the Patriots took ground from the British, it was done in every battle against the Native Americans with the building of a fort and the raising of the Stars & Stripes. The Indians understood the presence of a fort and flag would indicate they had lost control of the land.

During World War II, did not one of the most famous war-time photos in history depict the raising of the American flag on the eight square mile island of Iwo Jima?



Most of the countries of the world will raise flags over their battle fields and conquered lands. Why the middle eastern mindset is to build a mosque on the land as a testament to their victory is beyond my understanding but I do not have to understand the "why?" to believe it is so.



In every poll where the question is whether a mosque should be built so near to the place where innocent lives were destroyed, the overwhelming answer is "NO".

New Yorkers don't want it and the rest of America doesn't want it.

If this mosque is allowed to be built, then I say the "I'm offended" argument is pure poppycock and Confederate supporters should start flying their flags every where they wish, any time and without one single whimper from any one.

I especially do not want to hear from the U.S. Dept. of [in]Justice, or the perceived "closet Muslim-in-Chief" sitting in the White House, or the Black Panthers from any town. I don't want any city councilman, any La Raza-type group, or any self-righteous, indignant person even thinking of claiming an offense to the flag of my ancestors.

At least my ancestors were and I am, an American!

Does America Have a Mentally Ill President?

In the days leading up to the War of Northern Aggression, many families discussed, debated, fought and eventually split over their positions concerning which side was right, which side was wrong.

Both sides thought they were doing right by God and following His desires.

Today, who could possibly agree with turning America into a Socialist state? Only Progressive Liberals and others too ignorant to understand what they are doing.

It really isn't about Obama, although the Left and the New Black Panthers would like to make it so. This so they can call us racist and focus on Obama being the "first Black" president.

In truth, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his race or his undercover Muslim faith. It has everything to do with his ripping apart the Constitution and destroying the country.

And not just him...not just the Democrats because many Democrats who are not on the Globalist bandwagon are starting to see the end result if Obama is left unabated...and they don't like it either.

"And President Obama's approval ratings on the economy are dropping. Down to 43 percent. That's down seven points in one month. 54 percent now disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing on the economy." -- ABC's George Stephanopoulos Touts Negative Poll Numbers for GOP, Spins for Obama

Before the 2012 elections, if America makes it that long before a civil war breaks out over 1) the treatment of Arizona & the silent invasion from Mexico, 2) The DOJ and the New Black Panthers, 3) New Black Panthers violent agenda for Whites, 4) the lack of jobs and families in despair, 5) the loss of jobs and a devastated economy along the Gulf of Mexico and 6) policies strangling the American people such as Cap & Trade...and the list could on and on...but if anything happens for which Obama can declare a state of emergency, would that ensure his being "president" long past 2012?

Right now, the only real solution is to force his hand over the Birth issue. Many people do believe he was born here..somewhere..that he is an American. I am not one of these people, but OK. Why all the secrecy? Why all the sealing of records, spending over a million dollars to hide something that really doesn't need to be hidden.

Could this strange action make an argument for his being mentally unstable, even paranoid? Could one argue that based on his irrational behavior, he is not fit to be president? He has stated he was a Constitutional Law Professor (actually just a senior lecturer..not a REAL professor, in the truest sense of the title) so he should know, above the average guy, what he can and can't do, yet he still breaks the Constitution at every opportunity! Is this not the irrational behaviour of a person suffering from delusions? Perhaps it is because he believes he is King already, therefore can do what he pleases with absolutely no regard for the Rule of Law!

This is the only explanation that makes any sense. For someone so educated, so intelligent, so above the world as the Obamaessiah, who has come to save the poor pitiful Democrat underdogs from the mean old Conservatives in America. Perhaps he should be hanging on a cross in Philadelphia since they think he is the new Messiah anyway. (Now don't go getting your panties in a wad. I am NOT advocating a lynching...it is a metaphor. Take an English class.)

The following quote came across my email. I have no idea who is being quoted or if they really are from the Czech Republic but whoever said it, they are right on the money!

This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do!

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Amen brother!

My Grandmother's Sayings

I have been sitting on my hands waiting to write the next entry. With each week, my anger and frustration grows more and more.

My grandmother use to say "you can have a skunk for a pet as long as you remember it is a skunk and not a cat". What she meant was, the skunk as certain traits and you can't blame the skunk if he sprays you.

She also use to say, "it's given to a dog to bark and a baby to cry", meaning you can't blame the dog for barking and the baby for crying. If you don't like barking dogs or crying babies, don't have any.

And lastly, she use to say, "just because a cat has kittens in the oven, it doesn't make them biscuits", meaning just because something happens a certain way, it doesn't mean it is what it appears to be.

What does all this have to do with Obama?

It means, Obama is a Socialist, Progressive Democrat who from day one refused to act like he had any respect for the Rule of Law or the United States Constitution.

He refused to deliver the documents requested, unlike Sen. John McCain who did release all the documents, and this lack of cooperation should have been a major clue! A B-I-G RED FLAG!

Since his "election", he and his cronies in office have thumbed their collective noses at America almost daily.

Given that it was apparent Obama was not going to be a follower or supporter of America, we can't blame the skunk for spraying us.

We can't blame the dog for barking or the baby for crying.

And just because he says he was born in America, doesn't make it so and it damn sure doesn't make him an American.

Being American is more that just geography. It is the belief in the founding principles, which sparked the flame of the revolution, that man was created by God and therefore got his rights and liberties from the Creator and therefore was individually sovereign. This meant the citizen had the final say in his affairs so long as he wasn't harming another or an other's property, or breaking the law.

John Adams stated that the real revolution happened in the hearts and minds of the people long before the first shot was fired or the first meeting was held.

So, who do we blame for the sad state of affairs America finds herself in? We can blame every idiot in America who voted for this piece of crap.

California and New York are broke or nearly broke, Obama apologizes for us at every opportunity, he refuses to support the military, he refuses to support the states such as Arizona and he refuses to support the many Americans who have lost their jobs, homes and businesses to British Petroleum's reckless endangerment of America's ecology and financial stability in their search for oil dollars.

Obama still has not declared a state of emergency in the states damaged by the oil spill! The video below is from June 8th. Pay attention at 2:18min.



When Arizona passed their version of the FEDERAL law on illegal immigration, the knee-jerk response by Obama and company was to call it UnAmerican, UnConstitutional and threaten to file a suit to stop it from becoming law in Arizona. Obama even allowed the president of Mexico to lecture our Congress on our laws, with the Democrats giving him a standing ovation! Does Obama think we are already a One World Government and only we stupid citizens of each sovereign state fail to comprehend this?

Clearly "Zero & company" had no clue as to the Federal Law, admitting they had NOT read the Arizona law, yet pouncing on it with both feet, basically saying, "Hello world, we are incompetent!"

And what about California's version of the federal law? Why aren't the illegals and Calderon speaking out about this law? Probably because California doesn't enforce their own laws, yet they are crying they are broke.

SEE: California Penal Code 834b & 834c.

A result of Obama's view of a new America, his "fundamental change", can be summed up with this:

Bureau of Land Management gives a piece of America back to Mexico, or at the very least, prevents Americans from visiting their own park land because the federal government refuses to protect America from gun-toting illegal criminals!



Obama is doing everything in his power to kill the economy of the US and using every crisis to further his plan.

In Louisiana, Gov. Jindal begged for assistance and finally, exercising their 10th Amendment right, just took matters into their own hands to protect their state. Louisiana began dredging and building sand berms to protect the delicate marshlands and was having some success.

What does Obama do?

Now, with the state not kowtowing to the almighty will of the "Wizard of Oz",
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging

Actions speak louder than words (my grandmother use to say) and the words of Obama are like honey, tainted with poison. His actions are the path to understanding what his real goal is for America, which can only be our destruction.

Another cliche my grandmother was fond of, "a leopard never changes his spots". Obama was raised a Communist, indoctrinated in Marxism, spent 20 yrs being mentored by American-hating Rev Jeremiah Wright...do you really believe he somehow found the God embodied in the principles of our foundational documents? Not hardly.

If America does not find some method, any method, to rid ourselves of this demon, this Jinn, this antichrist, America may not make it to the 2012 elections.

Fighting Vampires

I was living in New Mexico (1999) when the Border XXI program was being pushed through, rather quietly, as are all attempts to steal the sovereignty of the United States and the American people.

There are those who feel they know what is best for us dumb worker bees. We are to just work, pay the Federal Income Tax, which is for nothing but to pay the interest on the loan, which the United States government borrows from the Federal Reserve to operate (spend money at will). How else can they tell us the country is in debt trillions of dollars and then turn around and send a combined $350 million in tsunami relief (2004)? Where does this money come from? Out of thin air. From the future tax payments of hard working Americans, the government is spending money they don't yet have, betting on the incoming taxes every April 15th.

The truth is, the United States entered into treaties and agreements with Mexico and Canada via the United Nations to create the North American Union.

There is an article written by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, which contains so much good information, I would have to include it all and that is too much to post here so, please review "The North American Union and the Bigger Plan", Dec 17,2007. Seeing things in hindsight always seems to make the points clearer.

Thank God some of these did not come to pass!

Our American independent spirit and our Constitution has been for us like the Cross and garlic has been to vampires in the stories. In reality, I think it is a fair comparison to equate those hell bent on destroying America with Vampires.

They want to suck America dry. When the last great "blood supply" is gone, no other country to bail them out, defend their citizens, protect their borders, when America is gone, to which nation will they turn to then?

Are Holder and Obama Guilty of Treason Against the States?

Other states, which do not border Mexico and do not have to deal with the magnitude of the illegal alien crime problem, which Arizona citizens deal with, have no qualms about not only voicing an opinion but committing to economic sanctions against the good people of AZ.

"The Seattle City Council unanimously voted Monday to boycott Arizona in protest of their recent law that cracks down on illegal immigration."-http://www.komonews.com/news/local/93978609.html

No doubt the Seattle City Council were urged on to some degree over the outspoken disapproval of Obama and his henchman, Eric Holder.

Remember the old Mark Twain quote, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

Not only has this been a habit of Obama ("I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.." and his remarks about the police in Cambridge, Mass., when Henry Louis Gates grew angry over having to identify himself), but it seems it is also a qualification for the people around him.

We heard Joe Biden discussing with Katie Couric that a leader must know what he is talking about to instill confidence in the people. Then he had his Mark Twain moment with "we all know how Franklin Roosevelt got on television and..."

Just recently Eric Holder, after voicing strong, negative opinions concerning the Immigration law Arizona passed, even going so far as to threaten legal action against the State, has finally admitted he had not even read it! Basically he is depending on someone else to read it and then brief him. So he will not know what the law says, he'll get his opinion via the spin of whomever he authorizes to read it and then he'll sue Arizona over it!

His opinion carries weight due to his position, and he does not care enough about the law to read it before he voices an opinion?

I wonder if he and Obama (since prez O has also voiced opinions designed to extract negative public opinions against Arizona) are not guilty of treason against the State, against all the States?

U.S. Constitution: Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Who is "them"? It isn't the Federal government. There is no Federal treason. The "them" are the parties to the United States Constitution, the individual States.

The Constitution is an agreement for group government between the sovereign States, which is WHY the Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government.

Now we have a self-proclaimed Constitutional Law instructor as president and a United States Attorney General, both apparently ignorant of The Law and it's limits, duties and responsibilities.

The Federal government has a responsibility to assist the States in their defense of invasion or crimes from another country. While this is a provision under a "Declared War" (ONLY Congress can make such a Declaration and the last time that happened was the Korean War), do you really think the Founders ever thought America would come to a point when the leadership was more interested in joining a global community at the sacrifice of the nation they took an Oath to protect and defend?

This is exactly what is happening and has been happening for decades. The Federal Government, in not providing assistance during the numerous pleas for help from the States, has in essence, been providing Aid and Comfort to the enemies of the affected States and is therefore, guilty of Treason against the States, if not in a strict sense then at least in a broad one.

The only way one could argue this is wrong, would be to argue that due to the various treaties the United States has entered into allows for the free flow of peoples across the borders and that these treaties are superior to our Constitution.

The argument would of course not be a valid one since no treaty or section of treaty that is in conflict with the Constitution, would be valid.

The government, no matter how misguided, cannot treaty away the superior law of the Constitution. Our Constitution always has the superior claim, is first in line and is always the protector of the People and the sovereign States against the Federal government, regardless of the propaganda coming out of Washington, D.C., Eric Holder, Obama, the United Nations or the spin espoused by socialist professors in California universities.

Perhaps the States should make a Declaration of War for the protection of its Citizens and these states should come together and form a pact. But didn't we do this 1861?

America's #1 Domestic Terrorist

Noun
terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people; Dictionary.com

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)] -- FBI Policy and Guidelines

The entire life of the current administration has been one of a series of anti-American acts designed to promote a Socialist/Marxist agenda. Such an agenda is in direct opposition to the ideals and foundation of what it means to be American. [SEE: Top 7 Marxist Communist Policies Being Implemented By Obama Today by Hal Licino]

...RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, — Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws — Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe. -- A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law by John Adams, 1765

There are people in this country, native born, who have no concept of this spirit of America. Their minds are weak and their souls are void of the spirit of the Founding Fathers, who realized man had a God-given right to free will and as long as one did not hurt an other's being or their property, could do as they wished with their lives.

Because of events set in motion, not of their own doing, but which could only have been by divine concoction, men of this mindset, strong in principle and character, found themselves gathered in the new world, the victims of a tyrant and benefactors of an emerging spirit of independence from the subservient tradition of the "Divine Right of Kings".

"The real revolution began 15 years before a shot was ever fired as an intellectual and moral revolution in the minds and hearts of the people." John Adams

The Socialist would never have voted for independence. Anyone who can watch the following video and NOT grasp the importance of what just happened and who does NOT feel a flutter of warmth in their being, who is not stirred to pride in the event, they have not the Spirit of America and they can not understand what is happening right now in this country. Because their soul is devoid of this Spirit, they will become our enemies because they will become the tool by which the Social agenda will work it's destruction in America.



At the moment, the greatest threat to America, the real domestic terrorist, has been blindly "elected" to the highest office in our land.

He is the culmination of decades of hard work, covert legislation and cunning maneuvering within the American political landscape to set the stage for what the enemies of Freedom and Liberty hope to accomplish, the fundamental change of America from a position of independence to one of dependence on a global government already in place in much of the world.

It is not a political government but a monetary government. Read the treaty, (original, 1944) Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and pay attention Article IX:

ARTICLE IX
Status, Immunities and Privileges

Section 1.Purposes of Article

To enable the Fund to fulfill the functions with which it is entrusted, the status, immunities and privileges set forth in this Article shall be accorded to the Fund in the territories of each member.

Section 2.Status of the Fund

The Fund shall possess full juridical personality, and, in particular, the capacity:

(i) to contract;

(ii) to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property;

(iii) to institute legal proceedings.

Section 3.Immunity from judicial process

The Fund, its property and its assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that it expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

Section 4.Immunity from other action

Property and assets of the Fund, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure by executive or legislative action.

Section 5.Immunity of archives

The archives of the Fund shall be inviolable.

Section 6.Freedom of assets from restrictions

To the extent necessary to carry out the operations provided for in this Agreement, all property and assets of the Fund shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

Section 7.Privilege for communications

The official communications of the Fund shall be accorded by members the same treatment as the official communications of other members.

Section 8.Immunities and privileges of officers and employees

All governors, executive directors, alternates, officers and employees of the Fund

(i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Fund waives this immunity.

(ii) not being local nationals, shall be granted the same immunities from immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements and national service obligations and the same facilities as regards exchange restrictions as are accorded by members to the representatives, officials, and employees of comparable rank of other members.

(iii) shall be granted the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities as is accorded by members to representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank of other members.

Section 9.Immunities from taxation

(a) The Fund, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions authorized by this Agreement, shall be immune from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Fund shall also be immune from liability for the collection or payment of any tax or duty.

(b) No tax shall be levied on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid by the Fund to executive directors, alternates, officers or employees of the Fund who are not local citizens, local subjects, or other local nationals.

(c) No taxation of any kind shall be levied on any obligation or security issued by the Fund, including any dividend or interest thereon, by whomsoever held

(i) which discriminates against such obligation or security solely because of its origin; or

(ii) if the sole jurisdictional basis for such taxation is the place or currency in which it is issued, made payable or paid, or the location of any office or place of business maintained by the Fund.

Section 10.Application of Article

Each member shall take such action as is necessary in its own territories for the purpose of making effective in terms of its own law the principles set forth in this Article and shall inform the Fund of the detailed action which it has taken.

Does this not seem in conflict with the Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution? Since the Constitution solidly states only Congress can coin money and since the Constitution does not provide a method for Congress to abdicate it's authority, even though the people, by their ignorance of their own organic law, have allowed the Federal Reserve to manage their money, does it not seem logical to any informed and reasonable person that this treaty should be in direct conflict with our supreme law and therefore void?

"The rights and liberties which citizens of our country enjoy are not protected by custom and tradition alone; they have been jealously preserved from the encroachments of Government by express provisions of our written Constitution. ...

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. ..." REID V. COVERT, 354 U. S. 1 (1956)

Does the Constitution allow for anyone to to be above the Law? Would it not be a throw back to the "Divine Right of Kings", if we allowed for the substitution of "the wealthy" or "the global banking community" for "Kings"?

The Governor and Alternate Governor representing the United States within the IMF currently are Timothy F. Geithner and Ben Bernanke. (Insert their names in the Article above and read it out loud. "Member" means "Country".) To question the legality of this is kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have ran out but it is important to demonstrate the magnitude, for those who not aware, of the tentacles of deception running through our government, if it is even "our" government any longer. Perhaps it is just a masquerade being played out to placate the people until all areas have been secured by the Socialistic, global minded enemies of the United States of America.

Since Obama is simply a small part of the over all agenda, and since he did not get here on his own but was either covertly or overtly placed into his position, he has been on the fast track of implementing the policies necessary to bring America down. Only those with tunnel vision, or who are supporting our demise, still think he is a positive force in and for America.

His choices for Czars have included those who relished their association with Communism and Socialism, those who do NOT hold dear the American ideals of Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms and other uniquely American principles.

His recent pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, wrote her college thesis on "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933", which reveal her admiration for a governmental philosophy diametrically opposed to the freedoms and liberties envisioned by Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. What loyal American, faithfull to the American Revolution, could even think the words "socialism's greatness", much less write them in a thesis?

When these dark days are over, hopefully with the 2012 election, we can only pray that he and his henchmen will be brought up on charges of treason and dwelt with accordingly.

Solidarity for Arizona

Let me be crystal clear: I support Legal Immigration to America.

The operative word here is LEGAL.

All the brouhaha is nothing but a smokescreen to rile up the illegals so they can be used to put pressure on Arizona. It is like giving the Indians "firewater" in the old west days and then get them on a "War Path".

People who are running on pure emotion are much more easily manipulated and can be used to promote an agenda.

Out of the woodwork come the entertainers with their opinions, most against Arizona's new Immigration Law. I am glad they are doing so. Now I can see who to boycott.

On the subject of boycotts, Hispanics and others are threatening to boycott Arizona until they rescind the law. I am urging all supporters of Arizona to visit the Arizona Chamber of Commerce link and then the city Chambers of Commerce and urge you to do as much business over the Internet with Arizona's American owned businesses as you can.

Americans across the nation must come and show solidarity for Arizona. The eyes of the nation, even the world, are watching what is happening here. They are watching to see what Obama will do, what Mexico will do, if there will be a border war ignited over this, or whether there will be a type of Civil War between illegals & their sympathizers and patriotic Americans.

If there was some sort of skirmish, even on a small scale, would it be enough for Obama to declare Martial Law, just in time to freeze November elections in order to avoid a Democratic bloodbath at the polls?

Even Obama knows the pot is simmering and could boil over.

"President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite "extreme elements" to violence."

Which extreme elements, the illegals who are trespassing on American soil or patriotic Americans, defenders of the Constitution and States Rights? How can a president incite people to not follow a state's law? How can a president make ignorant statements about a law, which clearly provides proof he does not know what he is talking about? Well, he did this during the campaign with his "57 states" comment so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." --How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle by Bryon York

If he would have read the Bill, he would know that this will not be the case. The police have better things to do than stand around and wait for a brown-skinned person to walk into view so they can ask to see his papers. Now if the brown-skinned person was involved in a crime, then, if the police thought the person was illegal, then they would ask. Or maybe during an investigation of MS-13 gang members or theft, assault, rape, drunk driving, and other such crimes.

Already an AZ Deputy was shot and 17 suspected illegals caught while looking for the men who shot him. Are the illegals in this country so ignorant that they cannot see they have brought the wrath of Americans upon themselves with their actions?

Not all Hispanics are against Arizona's attempt to protect its citizens. There is still some common sense left:



The biased media would have you believe that no one in America supports the new law in Arizona, but nothing could be farther from the truth. 64% of Arizona's citizens and 51% of Americans favored the new bill. "In the same survey, 76% of respondents told Rasmussen that it is more important to gain control of the border than it is to legalize the status of undocumented workers."

There is an online petition, "We Stand With Arizona, and Against Illegal Immigration" where you can sign and leave a comment. Most everyone welcomes LEGAL immigrants but they are opposed to this government supported silent invasion of ILLEGAL aliens. If you are so inclined, please visit the site and sign the petition, which now has 19,974 signatures.

Of the four states which border Mexico, why is Arizona the only one to make it mandatory for employers to use E-Verify? This is a FREE service and is available in all 50 States.



Listen to Roy Beck of NumbersUSA. He points out that there are 7 million illegals holding down jobs in the construction, trades and service industry. That these are jobs unemployed Americans could and should have.



With all the "normal" day-to-day crime, add in the spillover from Mexico's drug wars and kidnapping trade, and now the anger over this new piece of legislation, it is a wonderful thing that Gov. Brewer signed into law a bill allowing AZ citizens to carry concealed weapons WITHOUT requiring a permit, making Arizona the third state, behind Alaska and Vermont, to do so. I think the citizens are going to need it.

Arizona is the Line in the Sand

The illegal immigration issue is nothing new. It has been brewing for decades. Shame on Washington,D.C. and past Arizona governors who stuck their heads in the sand and prayed it would go away or sit on simmer so another administration could deal with the issue. Well, the pot has finally boiled over and I am actually surprised it took so long.

What has happened in Arizona needs to happen with California, New Mexico and Texas.

Back in 2004, a report was issued by FAIR, Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"...the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle class tax base," stated Dan Stein, President of FAIR. ..."Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually, by Robert Longley

California is an excellent example of what happens when the elected leadership refuses to go along with the voting public. (Are you listening America? Does this sound like the recent Health Care Reform?) Anyone with any sense should get out now.

Dan Stein went on to say, as quoted in that report: "Nineteen ninety-four was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration. Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens," said Stein. "Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy."

In California Governor Seeks Bail Out Money Too I reported that California was spending $970 million dollars in the CA prison system for Mexican Nationals during 2009.

New Mexico now has the very real possibility of seeing illegals who may have come in through Arizona, now coming in through that state.

Internet blogger Heath Haussamen posted an interesting piece on the views of the candidates concerning Arizona's excellent new law: Guv candidates share views on Arizona immigration law. Almost to the man (no offense ladies), they voice support for the new law, picking their words carefully that NM should do the same or similar. They must realize the citizens of that state want action as well.

In 2003, then Mexican President Vicente Fox asked New Mexico for medical benefits for illegals. Why didn't he also offer to pay for the added cost to the New Mexican citizens and the state's budget?

From the office of the president to the peon who works the land, the Mexican mindset is one of freebies and handouts. Mexico is a socialist nation and they bring their entitlement agenda with them.

In 2006, WorldNet Daily published an article wherein it was stated:

"Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. ... King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually. .." -- Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily By Joseph Farah.

I wonder what the stats are today? Every night it seems we hear something about another murder, rape, kidnapping, drug related crime, by illegals on the nightly news or on "America's Most Wanted".

Read the text of a GAO report number GAO-05-646R entitled 'Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States' which was released on May 9, 2005, that studied population of 55,322 illegal aliens. They found illegals were:

*arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

*About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses.
*About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage.

*About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes.

*The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud--including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.

Some other stats as quoted from One Reporter's Opinion — Americans Killed By Illegal Aliens by George Putnam, Thursday, March 15, 2007:

*Ninety-five percent of warrants for murder in Los Angeles, Calif. are for illegal aliens

*Eighty-three percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix, Ariz. are for illegal aliens.Eighty-six percent of warrants for murder in Albuquerque, N.M., are for illegal aliens

*Seventy-five percent of people on the "Most Wanted" list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens

*Twenty-five percent of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals who are here illegally

*Forty percent of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

*Forty-eight percent of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

*Twenty-nine percent (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons occupy our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

*More than 53 percent of burglaries in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens

*More than half of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border

*More than 70 percent of all cars stolen in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California are stolen by illegals

*Forty-seven percent of drivers stopped by police in California have no license, insurance, or registration; and of that 47 percent, 92 percent are illegal aliens

*Sixty-three percent of stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, insurance, or registration for the vehicle. Of that 63 percent, 97 percent are illegal aliens

*Sixty-six percent of stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, insurance, or registration; and of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegals

U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

America needs it's job for Americans. That is not a protectionist view, that is a necessity for Americans who have been hurt by disloyal companies which have sent their jobs overseas, by employers hiring illegals who will work for less than minium wage and by decades of unAmerican policiys such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs) with the United Nations -1993, which is the root of the job market deterioration in America today.

"The long-term effect of NAFTA/GATT just emerged in the form of Circuit City firing 3,400 of its highest paid employees for the publicly announced purpose of hiring replacements who will work for substantially less." -- Circuit Firings Only
The Beginning By Carl F. Worden, 2007

In April 2001, then Mexico President Vicente Fox stated during an PBS interview:

Now we want to go further. I'm talking about a NAFTA plus, a NAFTA that takes us to a further integration. I've been talking with [U.S.] President Bush, and fortunately he's seeing it the same way. In the long term what we're looking for is convergence of our two economies, convergence on the basic and fundamental variables of the economy, convergence on rates of interest, convergence on income of people, convergence on salaries. Of course this is a 10-, 20-year program. But when we reach that level, then we can just erase that border, open up that border for [the] free flow of products, merchandises, [and] capital as well as people.

How can a second class nation based on Socialism with a commonly known corrupt government like Mexico ever "converge" with a nation based on Individual Rights, Private Property Rights and Capitalism? To force America to sink in order to help float a cesspool is unthinkable.

Why don't all the wealthy entertainers, corporate executives and billionaire globalist dip into THEIR wealth and redistribute that! No..they want to keep their money and spend yours. Just ask Pelosi. She would rather cost Americans millions of dollars to take her trips than to take her own jet.

The American people are tired, they are sick and tired...they are mad as hell and they are going to show it at the next election. Democrats, bleeding heart liberals, RINOs and any other politicians who do not have an "America First" mindset, will probably be looking for a packing company in November.

Well, there are plenty of illegals working in that industry as well. They shouldn't have any trouble finding some.

No Truth Allowed Where Obama is Concerned

WorldNetDaily, a credible and reputable online news magazine, has just published another article on the Birth Certificate issue with Obama.

SEE: Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama 'American' 'If you're not willing to produce birth certificate, you've got something to hide'

In that article eleven State Representatives, three former politicians, another columnist and an Il Mayor are quoted with various comments about the never-ending eligibility issue.

The Champaign, Il Mayor Gerald Schweighart, who was attending the West Side Park Tea Party was asked about what he thought of Obama. The Mayor stated he did not think Obama was an American. Hear for yourself his actual words:



Within the article several persons are quoted in opposition of the Mayor's remarks.

In the original Daily Illini.com news article, a county board member was on the record that the Mayor didn't understand the issue since the State of Hawaii has released a copy of the original birth certificate and that the Mayor's comments were "real biased" and "doesn't show much research or in-depth study of the situation."

The truth is THAT county board member has demonstrated it is HE who does not show much research or in-depth study of the situation! Let me help you with your research: WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue

IF the "copy of the original birth certificate" had been released, then why is Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero planning legislation which will allow for the release of the actual records? Seems a bit extreme for something that has already happened.

A District 1 City Council member shot back with the brilliant statement that Obama has "...been approved by congress". That may have been enough had Congress done it's job in vetting the candidate in 2008. Had ANYONE vetted Obama in 2008! Had Congress taken their duty seriously by looking into the NUMEROUS cases filed in courts across America as to the question of Obama's homeland. However, Congress and the courts did nothing except to bury, sweep under the carpet, ignore and basically fail America.

This is an excerpt from a 2008 blog, Albany's Insanity. Did you ever read this?

"...the Obama birth certificate controversy has been left alone by the major media. They have simply assumed-because they favor his candidacy-that Obama, with a history of being moved from country to country under different names, is a legitimate U.S. citizen. A lawsuit has been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications to be president and some bloggers say the birth certificate is a fraud. But it’s not an issue for the major media. They would rather examine photos of Bristol Palin’s tummy.

An FBI investigation of Obama might get at the truth about the Democratic candidate. But an FBI background check is something that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has not been forced to undergo. How many people even know that?" -- original piece: Who Vetted Obama? by Cliff Kincaid, Sept 2, 2008

Another Champaign, Il Council member made the assine comment: "It's a non issue. It started out as a campaign ploy and it's been settled a long time ago."

Following the United States Constitution is a "non-issue"? Really! It is ONLY the supreme law of the land and one that every elected official swears an oath to follow and protect, in some form or fashion when they take office. HAD the vetting process been instituted with Obama and HAD the Congress not failed in their Constitutional duty and Had the Courts not failed in their responsibility to the American People, then perhaps it would be a non-issue because the TRUTH would have surfaced. And Obama knows this, which is WHY he has spent thousands of dollars to seal records that evidently don't matter. Why was his FIRST Executive Order to SEAL his records? [Links to a pdf file]

“Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity’s liberty!”--Samuel Adams

Not only NO, but HELL NO, it has NOT been settled a long time ago. It just appears this way because your local and national news outlets refuse to report the continuing waves of cases filed, court hearings and editorials dealing with the eligibility issue, which, if it came out (and it will..it is only a matter of time) would render every decision, every Exec. Order, every appointment, every business taken over by the Federal Government, etc., including Joe Biden's Vice-presidency, NULL & VOID!

Of course he has a vested interest in keeping the fact that he is Kenyan born out of the American news.

SECURITY CONCERNS FOR TOURISM AS SENATOR OBAMA JETS INTO KENYA

As Kenyan born US Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security preparations for other visitors and residents. While Senator Obama will of course be accorded security from the presidential protection details, just a few days ago the Russian Ambassador was hurt when his car was stopped outside Nairobi and he was robbed of valuables. ..." Uganda Newsletter

Why is the news outlet NPR (National Public Radio) engaging in revisionist news reporting?

Here is the WND article where a screenshot clearly shows NPR reported Obama as being Kenyan-born, however if you view the article now, it is simply saying his father was born in Kenya.

For all of you "Americans" who are OK with a foreign-born Muslim, Socialist usurper masquerading as President of the United States of America, I have just one quote to give you:

“A free-born people … may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their … liberties.” –Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty after the Boston Tea Party

========= Update April 22, 2010 =========

Many of you know by now of the case of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who is "refusing Army orders until Barack Obama documents his eligibility to be commander in chief" (see article referenced below).

In another case where this argument has arisen, the court backed off its threat of sanctions toward the attorney, possibly due to not wanting to reveal the truth in the discovery process. Now why is that? If all is well and in order with Obama's eligibility, why would the court back off?

IT WOULD NOT!

"The discovery issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency. ... Hemenway brought the court challenge on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility. ... Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past. ... The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions. ... The orders later were canceled by the government. ... '...the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief."-Vox Day'... "-- Approaching apocalypse: Will Obama docs surface? By Bob Unruh, Apr 20, 2010

The video below can be seen here (approx 2-1/2 hrs)



Americans know there is something wrong. Are we a nation of LAWS or we a nation of slaves, people with no right to question authority? Where does that authority come from? It comes from us, the people. We give them the authority, in trust to govern our land, but only ACCORDING TO AND INLINE WITH OUR CONSTITUTION. This is NOT being done and it is our DUTY to correct this.

Will YOU, as an American, do your DUTY?