Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.




Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.





Sunday, June 27, 2010

Dr Ron Polland, A Youtube instructional regarding Obama's Short-Form COLB Fraud.

1-1


1-2 (embedding was disabled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obuLAZ0iizw&feature=related

1-3


1-4


2-1


2-2



Prologue


Bio info


Polland video regarding collusion/fraud by 5 women in Hawaii

Friday, June 25, 2010

Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform", a Communist-Socialist Legislation to seize all US non-bank Private Businesses and their assets

In the May 20, 2010, Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform"
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/HR_4173_Senate_passed_as_amended.pdf

we see the attempt to sneak in totalitarianism in the legislative branch of US Government.

The totalitarianist clauses are reminiscent of and somewhat parallel to history in what ended Weimar Germany from being a Republic, and transforming it into a Socialist State (in the sense of legislation being sneaked in for passage). That is, by stealth, Congress is de facto attempting to pass the kind of legislation in huge bills, where just a few vague passages will have effectively the same end result as the Nazification of 1933 in which a Fascist Socialism usurped the authority in Germany.

For those unfamiliar with history, in 1933, the totalitarianism was effectively accomplished in two very quick legislative steps. At that time, the Nazis as "Socialists", beginning with the decree of February 28, 1933:
1) Restricted free speech
2) Removed the rights of a free press to exist
3) Removed the rights of free assemby and associations
4) Restricted personal libeties
5) Subjected all communications of any type as not private to the Socialist State
6) Allowed for warrantless searches and easy confication of personal properties
7) Allowed for the defining of what did or did not materially endanger the Socialist State to be subject to the whims and interpretations.

This last part was permanently ensured by the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, when all laws no longer needed a German Reichstag (the Congressional equivalent) to approve and pass laws. All that was neded was an approval of the Fuhrer (Hitler) or someone he had appointed (much like a Czar, by the American example).
http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/artandhistory/history/factsheets/enabling_act.pdf


Thus, the Nazis did a one-two to destroy freedom in Germany. In America, with greater freedoms, a tradition and history and psyche for freedom as a Republic and a centuries old Constitution...that one-two is more difficult and must be eroded away by many decades of betrayal, with large betrayals to the Constitution toward the end. To the Communist-Socialists, the word "Revolution" isn't just throwing words around...they really desire to create a Communist overthrow of the US Government and its Constitution. Soldiers and Veterans and all who have taken the oath to uphold the US Constitution may soon have to decide if their oaths meant anything, or to go with the flow, and commit blood-baths upon the civilian populations who will resist the new up and coming Communist-Socialist Regime. These are ugly and sad realities that must be considered, and resisted peacefully and legally via the Courts and by other legal and peaceful means now...so that day of bloody revolution and totalitarian usurpation of the entire US Government NEVER comes.

Initially, in 1933 Germany, the Enabling Act was "Democratically" passed, after the crisis of the Reichstag fire, and sold as the ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’. The Catholic Party of Germany (the Conservatives by example) was tricked, and a Dictatorship was enabled and came to power with Hitler at its head, and the Nazis so greatly empowered, that they were only removed by a World War, a pummeled and bombed out nation and many millions in war corpses.

Today, we have the Communist-Socialists who wish to duplicate the same death grip dismantling and takeover of a Republic as the Nazis did to the Weimar Republic of Germany. But the problem is, they cannot pass their own February 1933 decree, because we have a US Constitution and we have a court system that vigorously defends many of the very same things the February 28, 1933 decree outlawed or removed.


In a large part, the jumps have been by installing a non-US NBC Usurper into the Presidency, who also violated the Logan Act in Iraq as a US Senator, and installed an unConstitutional Secretary of State in the form of a sitting senator, passing unconstitutional and unaccounted for trillions in spending and unconstitutionally socializing US Industries, Banks, Companies...passing unconstitutional mandates in the form of forced Healthcare purchases by rich and poor alike, and so forth. The next leap will be the taking over and Nationalizing all private businesses and related private wealth into the control of secret boards and unelected Communist-Socialists, as stated in this bill...oligarchies subject to and answerable to the whims of the Usurper Obama.

Starting with page 60 and Section 120's
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ACTIVITIES OR PRACTICES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY PURPOSES
of the May 20, 2010 Senate amended HR 4173, we read:

P. 60
† HR 4173 EAS

1 (1) ROLE OF PRIMARY FINANCIAL REGULATORY
2 AGENCY.—
3 (A) IN GENERAL.—Each primary financial
4 regulatory agency may impose, require reports
5 regarding, examine for compliance with, and en
6 force standards in accordance with this section
7 with respect to those entities for which it is the
8 primary financial regulatory agency.
9 (B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.— The author
10 ity under this paragraph is in addition to, and
11 does not limit, any other authority of a primary
12 financial regulatory agency. Compliance by an
13 entity with actions taken by a primary financial
14 regulatory agency under this section shall be en
15 forceable in accordance with the statutes gov
16 erning the respective jurisdiction of the primary
17 financial regulatory agency over the entity, as if
18 the agency action were taken under those stat
19utes.
20 (2) IMPOSITION OF STANDARDS.— The primary
21 financial regulatory agency shall impose the stand
22 ards recommended by the Council in accordance with
23 subsection (a), or similar standards that the Council
24 deems acceptable, or shall explain in writing to the
25 Council, not later than 90 days after the date on


[Focus on the aove bold print. What the Council deems means that the law changes with the subjectivity or whims of those who are on the council...they ARE the law.]


P. 61
† HR 4173 EAS


1 which the Council issues the recommendation, why the
2 agency has determined not to follow the recommenda
3 tion of the Council.
4 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Council shall report
5 to Congress on—6 (1) any recommendations issued by the Council
7 under this section;
8 (2) the implementation of, or failure to imple
9 ment such recommendation on the part of a primary
10 financial regulatory agency; and
11 (3) in any case in which no primary financial
12 regulatory agency exists for the nonbank financial
13 company conducting financial activities or practices
14 referred to in subsection (a), recommendations for leg
15 islation that would prevent such activities or prac
16 tices from threatening the stability of the financial
17 system of the United States.


The ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’ has been reworded as "activities or practices that threaten the financial stability of the United States." And what are those activities or practices? That is explained in Section 121 as those financial institutions having $50 billion dollars or more in assets, and the desire to possess those non-financial institutions and companies valued at ANY AMOUNT. From the child who runs a lemonade stand, to the employer with one employee, to the largest non-financial company having assets of less than $50 billion dollars. The specificity of Section 120 is that if legislation does not allow the unelected board to have the power in 121, that Congress ought to pass the legislation to complete the principle of the enabling act to fulfill the parameters laid out in Section 121.

62
† HR 4173 EAS
15 SEC. 121. MITIGATION OF RISKS TO FINANCIAL STABILITY.
16 (a) MITIGATORY ACTIONS.—If the Board of Governors
17 determines that a bank holding company with total consoli
18 dated assets of $50,000,000,000 or more, or a nonbank fi19 nancial company supervised by the Board of Governors,
20 poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United
21 States, the Board of Governors, upon an affirmative vote
22 of not fewer than 2⁄3 of the Council members then serving,
23 shall require the subject company—24 (1) to terminate one or more activities;


63
† HR 4173 EAS
1 (2) to impose conditions on the manner in which
2 the company conducts one or more activities; or
3 (3) if the Board of Governors determines that
4 such action is inadequate to mitigate a threat to the
5 financial stability of the United States in its rec
6 ommendation, to sell or otherwise transfer assets or
7 off-balance-sheet items to unaffiliated entities.


What is a threat to the financial stability of the United States? It is a subjective term that is as vague as "hope and change". It means whatever those in power want it to say. By voicing an opposing opinion, the Communist-Socialist traitors to the US Constitution in the Media deemed all conservatives who disagreed with them as a "threat to the United States". In August and September 2009, people who dared challenge Congress with questions, or peacefully assemble and wag their ditties on posterbopards at television cameras and then go home...these were called a "threat" to the security of the United States of America. When violent anarchists of the Left actually threw molotov cocktails, rolled dumpsters into Police lines, and could have gotten people killed by their violence, as they terrorized neighborhoods and vandalized peaceful businesses and destroyed and victimized the vehicles of private citizens, many of whom faced hardship to pay to repair their vehicles...the Left approvingly nodded their heads, because the Communist-Socialists love to oppress and beat down the poor, and keep them as half-starved dogs, licking the hands of sweet talking cruel masters, who want people to be like dogs to do their bidding and empower them all the more...unquestioningly, obediently.

The Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform" hits the poor as well as the middle class and the rich. It uses the assets of 50 Billion dollar Financial Institutions as a smoke screen to conduct it real intent: to seize the assets of all public and private non-bank companies of ANY AMOUNT, from a single dollar in value to infinity.

By Section 121, we see that "the Board of Governors then serving" becomes an oligarchic dictatorship…literal dictatorship of the proletariat Communism in practice. Who comprises this "Board"? More Czars, and / or political Obama hacks?

In other words, Sections 120 and 121 are telling us that anyone having a bank account, payroll, or issuing credit or financial assistance in any form…and is subjectively demed a threat by an emotionally unstable or mentally challeneged Communist-Socialist zealot who believes in Islam or Third World Communism (as Obama frequently surrounds himself with and appoints) can be deemed a threat to the financial stability of the United States. Anyone...any group...any company...any size.

Fathers who own their own business and wish to buy the wife a car, give their kids a present, pay for their parent's medical bills, all financial transactions will no longer be private, but must be reported to the bureaucracy of the Communist-Socialist dictatorship, and will be State regulated because the vaguery of the language of the bill permits such a reasonable interpretation to that end.
Therefore, part of the language of this bill is crafted in such a way, that it is aimed at eliminating family owned businesses and the dispensation of private wealth derived from franchise or private ownership in a business of any type. Only employees are exempt in the above scenario…but the Communist-Socialists Senator Dodd and Representative Barney Frank will go after even the employees once they nail all private owners to the wall.

In today's America, these evil-doers are free to hold office, free to collapse the economy into recession, free to then continually assist in the robbing of the US Treasury via their official positions, they are fre to play the archilochean thespian role of victim and conqueror, and be defended by the Media and many Communist-Socialist sympathizers to commit treason and sedition all the more…actively enabled and supported by the corrupt of both major political parties, inclusive of Richard Shelby - John McCain - and others, who now perhaps see jumping on the Communist-Socialist bandwagon and overthrowing the US Constitution as a survival mechanism to hold onto a position of title and rank or some grand illusion of theirs.

So now that we have learned that the HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform" is a de facto enabling act of this nations private sector finances toward dictatorship in disguise, what is America going to do about it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------




Supplement:

Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people."
[XIIth amendment.]

To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.


I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.
2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.


II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:
1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.


It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory


But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection,

It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.
Thomas Jefferson, 1791

----------------------------------------

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
letter to Judge William Johnson,
(from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Sunday, June 20, 2010

The Dream of a little sparrow in a world on its way to hell

Awake from sleep, but alas it is still a dream.
Go outside, and behold how that a new morning has arrived.

Dawn has broken forth on this cool and cloudy morning,
as a sparrow lands on the plush green grass of a lawn soaked with dew.

The wind blows gently to moderately creating waves and patterns,
as the sparrow twists its head watching the sea of green bend with the wind.

The little bird looks up,
and beholds the trees,
and then lifts its head to the sky;
letting out a whistling call,
it shakes in the breeze for a moment,
but hears no reply.

Then upward into and between the trees the sparrow flies;
seeking out answers to questions only it and G-D knows.

On and on, the sparrow flaps its wings,
as it is blown to and fro by the gusting winds along its course.

And finally hearing others in the reeds and among marshes,
the sparrow comes down,
and joins hundreds in song and in happy bouncing joy,
bouncing from reed to reed and bush to bush,
having found water and food and nearby trees for shelter.

Alas, it seems,
our little sparrow has found a happy community and a welcome home.

We are to enjoy the dreams of good things while we can,
for the winds of judgment are blowing,
and the harshness of war and depravity...
have returned to the conscious will mankind,
as this planet prepares to descend into another World War,
one from which no nation or people shall fully escape;
as the masses of humanity cling to ideas of death,
until Communism and Socialism embrace its corpses as if pillows.

And daily live, and daily die,
the Communists and Socialists cry,
"Revolution. Revolution. Let us like the Third World be!
Let us like masters, master the art of practicing lawlessness and depravity.
We must have fresh corpses upon which to lay our heads,
for there is nothing like having dreams on the unrotten deads."

And the living, like the sparrow...
so many loving liberty wish that away they could fly,
to a land of peace, free from war...
only to find there are no other places of refuge left to go.

History repeats, but the lesson has never been learned;
and once more humanity plays with the fire of extinction,
and though it shall by the grace and intervention of G-D live,
it shall again with a World War get burned.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Obama to Kenyan Television, June 2010, and his non-US NBC loyalties to Kenya slipping through

“The constitution requires,that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States….
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”

James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255


From the 1780s to 1826, Kent is telling us that to have even one foreign national parent who never becomes a US Citizen, is to ever have a foreign inducement upon one’s life to corruption, negotiation, and like biases that are based on one’s own familial past or heritage rather than upon the exclusive interests of the people and sovereignty of the United States of America.


The very activity of Barack Obama having a foreign national father is "an inducement", ""a bias, persuasion, influence to consent " to that of a foreign rather than domestic only socio-political influence upon one's life that disqualifies a person from being a United States Natural Born Citizen even were he born here. This will be visually seen in the Kenyan Television interview below.

By even writing and titling his first auto-biography (with Ghost writer Bill Ayers) "Dreams from my Father", Barack Obama blatantly and openly has defined himself before his age of Pseudo-Transparency Propaganda that he was NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen via foreign citizen national paternal parentage and inducements.

And oddly enough, Obama has denied any United States NBC status as openly as Hitler did beforehand of his aspirations for another war in writing My Struggle / Mein Kampf . Barack Obama has a definite biological and international law political tie to Kenya, his father never immigrating to the US, and he says so in his own words in his own book and on tape also.



Further, Kent clearly tells us that anyone with the same kind of split international nationalities as Barack Obama has cannot be a native or natural born citizen of the United States as it pertains to US Constitutional Law.

Skin color has nothing to do with it – it being purely a matter of domestic versus international legiences, clearly –absolutely-unmistakably ... Barack Obama by even a matter of natural condition, has from the point of his birth into the world to the present day, been in violation to the US Constitution’s NBC Clause through no fault of his own.


-----------------------------
Kent’s Commentaries informs us that the presumption of 2 US Citizen parents having no foreign attachments of any kind, is the precise intent upon the word native even in 1826 in regards to US Constitutional Law; and that the preceding American generations, especially those who drafted the natural born clause of the US Constitution, says James Kent, viewed the word native with the same presumption of a domestic only jus soli and domestic only jus sanguinis (lone nationality at birth and at all times after by blood from both parents having same legience attachments to the same national soil upon which the child is born).

OBAMA IS UNQUALIFIED BECAUSE OF HIS ALIEN NATIONAL FATHER, BORN AND DIED IN KENYA, AND EVER UNDER KENYAN SOVEREIGNTY. HENCE, BARACK OBAMA USURPED THE US PRESIDENCY.

It has now been reported, that...

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default...=item&idx=2041

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...ite-house.html

"The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim," said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. (Israel Today, direct quote).

In Obama's own words, this has already been on youtube




where Obama professes to be a Muslim, and a former White House aide to Clinton corrects him on what his faith is (for the American public).

Obama has already in an anti-Christian vein, denied the Biblical Scriptures with the arrogance of a Muslim rebuking Christians, in order to justify allowing Bible passages in the US Government.



When searched for who and what he is, and what authorities of religion he reaches out to, we find it is to the Muslim Imams and leaders of Shia Islam in Iran specifically, and of Muslims around the world generally.
The videos of him reaching out to Iran's imams and his Cairo Speech as presently still available on the internet, but may eventually be scrubbed by his Orwellian Newspeak defenders.

Obama's version of being "Christian" is alien to Christianity, because to Obama, it is that Messianic Faith into the coming Mahdi, NOT in Jesus Christ the Creator who bore our sins upon the Cross and died, descended into hell, and was raised from the dead and ascended back into Heaven, but rather Obama is dedicated to the "anointed" or Muslim version of a Christ, the 12th Imam that the Shiites worship.

We already know that Obama informed the Muslim world a year ago that he is here on Earth to promote Islam. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18084.xml?media=print

There are some who blindly deny Obama is Muslim, as if clutching to a mythological portrait and fabricated ideal of the man, instead of examining the flawed living animal and mortal firsthand themselves.

Obama was reared by Muslims (Father Barack, and step-father Lolo Soetoro were Muslims. The inactive Muslim father had litle to do with Barack, but the step-father reared Barack in Mosque attendance).

Obama was schooled by and with Muslims in Jakarta Indonesia.

As Usurper in the Preseidency, in 2009 Obama called Jakarta (a place where he spent but 3-4 years) as "home".

Obama wife is on record as saying that Kenya (being Islamicized and destined for a Sharia Law takeover via Obama's cousin Odinga) IS Barack's "home country".

That is, Barack's views Muslim Indonesia as "home" and Kenya as his "home country".

In College vactioned with Muslims that made other Muslims bow to them, visited Shiite Muslim sites in Pakistan and India with some of the same Muslim friends.

Obama specifically and intimately roomed with Muslims for years in college (those who prayed in the same dormroom up to 5 times a day, usually in the widest common space, and recited prayers in Arabic out loud). Only a Muslim would repeatedly select and room with such individuals.

In Cairo, on road trips, and on television, Obama proseltyzed the Muslim agenda. Obama as Usuper to the US Presidency reached out publicly to Shiite Muslims in Iran, bowed low to the keeper of the Sunni and Shiite mosques and received gifts of gold from him, quoted the Quran in faith while deriding the Bible passages and doctrines, spoke in awe of Islam and covered up the Cross and IHS (refusing to be photographed in their presence), went to Cairo to proclaim himself as Baraq the jacka** -- a forerunner as if a Muslim neo-John the Baptist of an alien type --who will enable the Mahdi (who must by lore also appear in Cairo, perhaps there first) to ascend to the heavenlies in military strength and bathe the world in blood (using Islamic passages and direct inferences at that Cairo speech to say just that), and so on.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32430
Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch, writes:

'ISNA’s { Islamic Society of North America } “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood” ought to raise the concerns of every free American, not just the Justice Department. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is dedicated -- in its own words -- to “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” '


These of ISNA and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same guys that Obama hires to the number of 300-400 positions in Executive Branch staff (especially in the West Wing) positions, and intimately flies over and has with his entourage in Cairo in 2009.

I ask then: Who else but a Muslim idealogue would surround himself with Jihadist Muslim idealogues as companions, friends, associates, employees, and then push and proseltyze their religion on others except if he be one himself?

UNLIKE OBAMA, any true born-again Christian who dared say he was a Muslim would be cut to the heart so quickly, that a facial expression of pain and self correction would have immediately preceded any interviewer's correction after a pause of even a couple to a few seconds.

The Nile TV statement by the Egyptian Foreign Minister merely adds to what we already know.

This month, prior to Joe Biden's arrival in Kenya last week to support Obama's cousin Odinga, (who pushes for a Sharia Muslim New Constitution of Kenya), Usurper Barack Obama has told Kenyan Television to the effect of virtually making a promise that the US Taxpayer may soon be paying what sounds like a vague but perpetual commitment to educate Kenyans here in the United States and then send them back after being University educated to build up Kenya (like his Communist Kenyan father).


But an even more enlightening exposure of Obama's true self slipped through....one where I would argue that he himself does not believe he is even remotely a United States Natural Born Citizen (via his facial expressions, and subconscious body language).





At one point in the video, following a sentence speaking of the citizens of Kenya,


"I think it is up to the Kenyan people to make a decision about the direction of their country."
(2:07 - 2:12 on the video)



Obama then follows those very words with a Freudian slip, and refers to himself as



"But, as a great friend of the United...ah, of Kenya..."
(2:13 - 2:17 of the video)



he trippingly calls and views himself as a foreigner representing Kenya's interests in the United States as if a great friend of the United States (transforming it to Communism is apparently thought by him to be comradery or friendship), before reversing and correcting himself. In his own words, his psyche (it seems to me) is clearly that of an alien and NOT a US NBC.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Michael Savage rightly lets loose on the radio, & Honolulu Clerk elections clerk Tim Adams refutes any Obama US Birth!!!

Update 06/12/2010: Video addendum and brief comment





Tim Adams, a contracted temporary Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu during the November 2008 Presidential Election, states that the records of Hawaii THEN SHOWED That Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii AND that there were other records stolen as well.

The website scrolled on this first video is NOT endorsable...but the original radio interview it contains, and kept in context, is what I and fair minded people as well as those of the legal profession to the journalists should focus upon, and so I recommend viewers of that video to do so likewise.

Fast forward to 1:54 and listen until 5:58.



This second video, newly released and which does not scroll an undesirable website, was endorsed by World Net Daily as preferable:



The issue was not voter registration of Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii at the time of the 2008 election; but whether he, Barack Hussein Obama was "born" there in Honolulu, Hawaii at all.

The Office of which the contracted temporary Chief Elections Clerk served in Honolulu, including those (public) officials of the two levels above Adams discovered that Obama was NOT Hawaii NOR USA born (states Adams).

If this is so, then Adams is a "whistleblower" subject to federal protections and immunities...and there should be a full blown and fully honest Criminal Investigator with greater powers, staffing and funding, and tenacity than that once conducted by Kenneth Starr regarding an actual US President (Bill Clinton). Unfortunately, such an authorization of the Independent Counsel Act and the enabling of a 3 judge panel requires an "act of Congress"...and we all know how corrupt this Democratic Congress is, and could care less about real justice over the enabling of their devisive and destructive Communist-Socialist agendas .

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Siding with Israel in the Flotilla agitation created by Muslim fanatics, Muslim Nations, and US friends of Obama / Terror sympathizers

I side with Israel's right for self-preservation, and to continue its blockade against arms for the propagation and instigation of war and/or terrorist acts against Israel. We see in this flotilla, a coming together of Iran and Turkey as allies, now with the same cause for Islam (annihilate Israel, working in part through Gaza) ties with US citizen activists of the 1960s and 1970s and back-door sympathies of high officials of the pro-Muslim anti-Christian Obama Presidential Usurpation Administration.

Though intentionally creating nedless multi-generational suffering and deaths of multitudes of the Gaza residents, displaced by the Muslim societies as cast off refugees to die so that they might have an "ideological excuse and cause"; the Muslims of the Middle East care only for whatever means that gives them an eventual Jew-free Israel, and eventually where the very name of Jew and Christian, and the very writings and influence of which, is eradicated and made extinct im the world. They follow after Satan (the Adversary, the Devil) with blind passion and often with near absolute commitment, and call a lying fallen cherub as "allah" (in hebrew, comically expandedly translated as "the ascending one who nibbles away like a mouse").


But in regard to the Flotilla incident:

1) Perhaps Turkey and Iran (et al.) wished to use as a test of Israel's will;

2) while others, as provocation for world isolation and sanctions against Israel (Brennan, Bill Ayers and his wife, and Code Pink); and

3) while the ones directly creating the violence, did so as an initiator for inciting a multi-national war by Islamist Staes against Israel.

The videos clearly show that the truth of the matter of this international incident, is that the Muslims created the incident, and then at night unprovokedly attacked the IDF Policing Force: those peaceful Israelis who were just doing their job in ensuring the blockade was not violated by boarding to check for arms smuggling.





What provoked this Hamas driven attack and repulsion of the Internationally legal Israeli blockade on arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip? White House pro-Islamic fanatic John Brennan has friendly contacts with the Hamas driven "Free Gaza" terrorist movement
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162377
that very group that attacked the Israeli soldiers policing the waters per a United Nations legal arms blockade. This guy speaks on how that he views himself, since his father never emigrated to the US until he was 28...Brennan isn't really a US Citizen, like Obama, he views himself as "a citizen of the world", where the US takes a backseat to other interests.



Brennan is apparently an Obama-Saudi stooge
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=125592
in his politics and actions, and whether his ties with the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, are monetarily or otherwise linked remains to be seen. He demonstrates a love of the Arab cause and language, and prefers to label Jerusalem after the Arabic renaming of that city as Al Quds, with Jerusalem being as a hushed or parenthetical after-breath.



As Pamela Gellar (co-author of the Post-American Presidency) at AtlasShrugs rightly reminds us, Brennan covered up the destruction of Obama's Passports scandal, and is in his position for literal political corruption and quid pro quo (his current position as payment for the coverup).
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/john-brennan-involved-in-obama-passport-breach.html


What is also being made clear in all of this, though, is that the neo-Weather Underground in the personages of Bill Ayers and wife (both founding members of the Weather Underground, and now coming out of retirement), have been Barack Obama's old school Chicago contacts and anarchic advisors to the "Free Gaza" Hamas terrorists,
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=5496
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=160661
intentionally provoking this incident at night (forgetting about recordings from night vision cameras by the Israelis possibly being in use). This provocation has been in the making since January 2010 when other efforts and coalition support failed.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120711









In spite of the violence by Hamas killers, inspired to violence in this Flotilla by perhaps Obama via Bill Ayers and John Brennan, Israel let the murdering Hamas fanatics of the Flotilla to go free.

In the future, Israel needs to be willing to strafe the ship's lifeboats, then order a "cease and desist"; and if that does not pacify the suicide fanatics, to then follow that action by straffing the ship bow to stern below the water line and sink it where it is. If the terrorists wish to be without mercy and die as martyrs, then in times and acts of war on their part, as even we would hypothetically expect the US Navy to treat a hypothetical Al-Qaida terrorist ship steaming straight toward a US Naval base or major metropolitan area, may their wishes for removal from this world and eternal damnation be granted. More souls to be added to the flames of hell for the pseudo-deity Allah, and themselves made into an object lesson.

We need to back Israel's right to defend itself from allowing Gaza to be inundated with more massive Iranian arms supplies to Hamas and the Gaza strip to rain down unprovoked thousands of rockets on Israel et al. because of their hatred of G-D and His Son Jesus Christ, and the role that G-D has planned for Israel as his chosen people, set apart from the rest of humanity upon the Earth to be eventually be humanity's priests and rabbis in Christ Jesus.

Brigitte Gabriel gets the issue correctly when she calls the incident as "Jihad in humanitarian clothing".
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/03/jihad-in-humanitarian-clothing/#ixzz0ptROpWE4

We cannot blame the Israelis for their frustration at the pro-Muslim world media in siding with their Muslim sympathies, and perhaps their producer and editorial bosses being on the Arabian Oil baron doles as their stooges to always blame Israel wherever and whenever they are told to, as well.



Addendum: June 07, 2010

Whose side are you on, America? Those who desire to kill and subjugate you as the Muslims do? Or those who wish you to live free and prosperously, and to be a ever-existing beacon of hope and support in the world among the nations with them...as Israel does?








Thursday, June 3, 2010

Sanctus Real: Everything About You




An exceptional Christian Rock Worship song.

Census 2010: Undercover