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
-- 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.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, addresses AIPAC (May 2011 - video)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference, May 2011
There will be several interruptions in the below speech of the Prime Minister. 

    AIPAC  http://www.aipac.org/  found its origins in 1963 as a response against US Antisemitism with the Rise of the Nation of Islam among  Negro / Black Americans in 1963, and the general rise of Islamic slander and libel against Israel in the ears of those in US Government.

AIPAC essentially is a lobby group that grew out of professional Washington D.C. lobbyists associated with the then American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs a means to garner a more fair and balanced presentation of Israel to help further its existence, right to exist, and be aided in participating as a partner with the United States.

Personally, they are not as Conservative as I prefer that AIPAC should be, but I guess that's part of lobbyist diplomacy.

In regard to warmly receiving Obama, I personally believe, in light of his Shia Muslim and anti-Israel stances and emboldened handcuffings of Israel's right to exist,  that they of AIPAC in the Conference receiving Obama should have given him the same silent treatment that Rab-shekah got in 2 Kings 18, and should have stood and sat down when he came in to respect the office, but offer no hand-clap or a word of anything to Obama as their ancestors also held their peace in 2 Kings 18:36.  However, it was a lost opportunity that they did NOT do so, it seems to me.

Of a note at 22:46 ff. is that Israel is on a 10 year program to find a substitute for gasoline.  If we simply apply the technological advances of 100 mile a gallon car engines that they have developed, along with advances in kinetic and solar power, as I have recently posted, we already advance in 5 to 10 years a 50 year leap in carbon efficiency that can be applied now.  Alas, alas...Obama would rather live in a backward religious bias of antisemitism, and yearn to hear the calls of Mecca.  In fact, he had the US Ambassador and VP Joe Biden use the $23,000,000 of US Aid to rewrite Kenya's Constitution to make him a repatriate citizen of Kenya  who can run for office as President of Kenya 10 years from the time they ratified their most recent Constitution in
Chapter 3 Section 16 [page 19  of pdf link below];
Chapter 8 Part 2 Section 99  (2)(c)  [p. 67 of pdf];
and Chapter 9 Part 2 Section 137 1 (a) & (b) [p. 86 of pdf]

In other words, when America is Wahabi pledged to become Moslem or else in 2020, Obama will pack his bags and move to Kenya to become its President, whether the US converts or is destroyed by Iranian and Russian nukes in  preemptive nuclear launch following his emasculation of our nuclear arsenal, and on the heels of a nationwide crippling virus that for one hour locked all US Defense systems down..or so would fit a interpretation of Biblical Prophecies in revelation, etc.  

No matter how you look at Obama's words, it always comes back to one theme:  where America and Israel, and where true Christians and Jews are concerned, he can't be trusted.

That's my input.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Orly Taitz, still standing. New Lawsuits v. Obama by 2012 contenders needed.

John Jay, in a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787,

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

It is important that whoever is President be publicly vetted beyond all reasonable doubt. It is part of our Constitutional Checks and Balances, as suggested by the First US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay.   If a naturalized citizen swears off all allegiances to all other loyalties and nations, then he / she becomes someone who can pass a natural citizenship to their child.  They do NOT pass a dual citizenship, but a sole United States Citizenship.  Therefore, a Natural Born Citizen has only one allegiance, and only one nationality at birth...else, why make a naturalized citizen take the oath, swear off all other allegiances, if a natural born can have multi-nationalities and multi-national conflicting allegiances?  It is idiocy to suggest such can exist because it is a non sequitor...a logic that does not follow.  No, if a naturalized citizen can have children born to him on US Soil, and pass on a natural born citizenship...the child must have sole allegiance and sole citizenship to be a NATURAL born citizen of the United States. 

But there are those who resort to Common law and the 14th Amendment, require others to produce documentation, boast of theirs, but REFUSE to have their alleged documents or their own identity vetted in a US Court of Law?  Why?  Unless there is something rotten and fraudulent about them. 

Why is it that the LAWYERS @ Perkins Coie or the Chief White House Counsel Robert Bauer never released the alleged Barack Hussein Obama II Long Form Birth Certificate in its hard copy form to the Press (et al.) themselves, and instead it was released through unnamed and unknown sources from within the White House via the Press Secretary?

They must KNOW beforehand that it is a fraudulent document, and that an electronic release is nothing more than a Public Relations gimmick...hence, any conduct outside the Court to this effect, must be to them, therefore, "fair game"?  

I would even go so far as to speculate that this fact alone, that none of Obama's lawyers dare enter his electronic forgery into the Court record on their own, suggests to us that Perkins Coie and Robert Bauer are allegedly duplicitous in felony fraud upon the American People in not presenting themselves as officers of the Court with the alleged documentation, vetting its authenticity at the risk of losing their law licenses in so doing.

Nor especially have we seen the US Attorney in rebuttal to Orly Taitz ever submit the alleged Barrack Hussein Obama II Long Form Certification of Live Birth (LF-COLB) into ANY Court Record as a legal document to refute even the allegations of actionable claims and/or standing.  Even the US Attorney refuses to submit the blatant Obama LF-COLB forgery into the Court Records.  That speaks VOLUMES of its very appearance of Fraud, and felony conspiracy and collusion on the part of the US Attorney in behalf of Barack Hussein Obama II. 

Under US Law, and a decision made by the US Supreme Court in 2001, 533 US 53 @ 54,62; the US Attorney in defending Obama's having standing to be US President is obligated when challenged to produce Obama's LF-COLB into the Court Record, or it can legally be subpoenaed by the Plaintiff.

As I understand it, Barack Obama was served 4 Times with subpoenas, two granting standing:
1) prior to his election on November 04, 2008,
2) after his election and prior to usurping the office.
The two later servings of subpoenas after his swearing-in would ergo have chain of standing and representation predicated on the prior two, before he took office and are duplicative, carrying over a good faith effort to enforce what the Court by dereliction previously failed to enforce, and by illegal actions Obama's lawyers failed to abide by under current US Supreme Court decisions that were Law at the time of enforcement.

What does a Judge say to a lawyer ignorant on the Law? 
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.  This is especially so for those who are BAR certified.

This would especially be true for those who are supposed to be the top attorneys in the nation, especially if they are over-paid attorneys working for one of the nation's top Law Firms...would it not?   So what is Robert Bauer's or Barack Obama's or the current US Attorney's excuse for a claim to be legally ignorant of 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54, 62?   I submit that unlike the lay person, THEY have no excuse.  Or perhaps, no legal claim to the ignorance of it, especially when specializing in the knowledge and field of being required to know. 

Therefore, I submit the premise that by Barack Obama and his lawyers' dereliction to yield to the subpoenas emanating from Court via Orly Taitz and her clients, this gives Orly Taitz (representing Dr. Alan Keyes et al.) legal standing to challenge Obama by failing to comply with the subpoena prior to usurping the Office,  and the onus of the dereliction lies upon both the Court and upon Barack Hussein Obama II for failure to comply in November-December 2008 and in January 2009 up to the moment prior to Obama's swearing in. 

I respectfully submit that Orly Taitz should also pursue that line of attack, or that she pose such questions to the Judges to solicit a response, and go from there.  

Orly Taitz, a Naturalized United States Citizen thoroughly familiar with the effects and signs of political Marxist-Leninist Communism and indoctrination ploys from first-hand citizenship experience abroad, has kept her arguments against Obama on points of facts regarding Barack Obama's Social Security Number Identity Fraud, his LF-COLB.

Since 2008, she has become as a champion fighting taking her issues of contention head on, and enduring as the last one truly standing against the Goliath of political and media corruption in the United States, which as grown into such a behemoth, that the only ones seeming to report that Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress was the most corrupt, evil, and treasury robbing Congress in the history of the United States is small independent media and internet bloggers.


Orly Taitz, despite whatever flaws you may or may not attribute to her (English not being her native-born language) has taken on the issue and person of Barack Hussein Obama II, who is flagrantly guilty of identity and Social Security Number Fraud by using a stolen Social Security Number that was issued to a Connecticut citizen of the United States and born in 1890, used for Barack's entire adult life. 

  As the Law Enforcement quip once went, "Be stupid if you must, just don't be felony stupid".  (Or words to this effect.)

The same can be said of Barack Hussein Obama...the man is not only criminal, his three decades use of a stolen Social Security Number up to and including the time he entered and served as a United States Senator was and is the "proof" of that editorializing of the characterization of the actions of the man. 

Point of Fact:  The US Attorney (now representing the Usurper Obama) refuses to introduce Barack Hussein Obama II's Social Security Number into the Court Record because it is a stolen Connecticut Social Security Number, and proof that he has committed many felonies in its use.

Point of Fact:  The US Attorney (now representing the Usurper Obama) refuses to introduce an alternate Social security number, especially one with an Hawaii State prefix, because Obama is on record for 3 decades as using a Connecticut prefix, dating to his Selective Service filing in 1980, and almost certainly to his 1979 Occidental College records.

So let me ask this:  Why would Obama feel the need to seal his Occidental records?  I believe that the answer that Obama's records at Occidental are still sealed most likely will be because of dismal grades and a Fulbright Foreign Undergraduate Student scholarship he received using either his then still active Indonesian passport and citizenship OR his then still active Kenyan Citizenship.  Most likely the former, with a letter of introduction from his step-father Lolo Soetoro to the Financial Aid office at Occidental.  This coupled with the fact that he had extremely close ties with three Pakistanis at Oxy. 

Those Pakistanis who still join him annually for Ramadan dinners at the White House are:

* Imad Hussain: Freshman @ Occidental College room-mate with Obama.

* Mohammed Hasan Chandoo: wealthy Pakistani Sophmore year rom-mate with Obama @ Occidental College, and host to Obama's visit to Pakistan in January 1981.

* Wahid Hamid: another wealthy Pakistani who accompanied Obama and Chandoo to Pakistan. This was Obama's second Muslim handler.

Question:   Where did Al Qaeda find its deepest home and where was Osama Bin Laden killed?
Answer:   In PAKISTAN.


See also another curious insight by Pam Geller of AtlasShrugs to Obama's probable later than Occidental Saudi financial connection  @

Alex Jones Interviews Jerome Corsi about Obama

Moving on to the recent release of the Jerome Corsi expose' on Obama, on May 20, 2011, Dr. Corsi was interviewed by phone on Prison Planet with Alex Jones.  Say what you will about Alex, it is far better to be informed and spend some time to research for yourself and either vet or debunk him on this or that issue, than to NOT listen and dismiss him. 

A January 11, 2009 "flash-back" video interview with Alan Keyes  
which could be labeled,
"The Constitution, Common Sense, and why won't Obama just simply show a physical copy of his vault Long Form Birth Certificate?"

Where to go from Here:
    It seems to me that while Orly valiantly carries on, a whole new group of Lawsuits challenging Obama can be issued by any Democrat challenger running for President in the Primary.

   In fact, every Republican Candidate should be asked the question of whether or not they are willing to spike Obama's entire Presidency in a Court of Law AS SOON AS they receive the Republican Nomination, while even the Convention is on-going, and have Obama thrown off the ballot on legal technicality that he cannot prove he is a US Natural born Citizen.


Leaving aside the Paternal Power and Common Law argument over Natural Born Citizen under US Law, Obama does not even rise to the Wong Kim Ark level of US Citizenship:

Obama supporters dance between Obama being a Natural Born Citizen by the 14th Amendment and the application of British Common Law as if British Common Law were US Law.  The primary case they point to is the US v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898.

Specifics of Wong Kim Ark refute / disqualify Obama:

1)     @ 169 US 652, Wong Kim Ark (WKA) was born and reared in one permanent residence in California “and never lost nor changed  that residence."               
2)       @ 169 US 653 – 654   neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him
Page 169 U. S. 653  therefrom.”

3)      @ 169 US 654, we are told that he temporarily left the United States at age 17 to visit China, and returned in the same calendar year.  WKA was admitted in by Customs as a native-born citizen of the United States.

4)      @ 169 US 654, although both parents were resident aliens in the United States, they kept and maintained a permanent residence and domicile for WKA to be born in and spend his first 21 years of life in, until he became of age at 21.
5)      @169 US 654, the resident alien parents were employed, “and there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China…”    

6)      @ 169 US 654, it was immediately recognized that WKA appeared to have immediately qualified as a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment Section 1’s “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."     

7)      @ 169 US 705, the conclusion was: “ The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Conclusion drawn from WKA:   
The Court concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –
1)      Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.
    Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him. 
2)      Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
3)      Neither of his parents were employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth. 

Barack fails the WKA test: 

By comparison, Barack Obama has never proved he was USA born.  He refuses to submit a hard copy into Court record under penalty of perjury, etc.

By comparison, Barack Obama had his allegiance renounced by swearing fealty to the Indonesian flag daily in Menteng - 1 in Jakarta Indonesia, being an adopted Indonesian Citizen where the step-father took him to the renunciation of all other allegiances, including the United States, to the consent of the mother.

By comparison, Barack as Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah) -- his adopted and legal name in Indonesia -- had 4 years residence in Indonesia, and would visit Hawaii and stay temporarily for up to 3 weeks at a time, and attend Elementary School as a visitor pending his removal and return after his mother finished vacationing in Hawaii with her parents.   The primary residence of the mother was with her husband in Indonesia, and the primary residence of the child was with his mother.  Hence, there was no permanence of a US Domicile at any time for Barry Soetoro / Barack Obama until he was about age 10 or 11 and moved in with his grandparents at that time.

Obama's Mother declares Obama Jr. lost his US Citizenship as of August 13, 1968

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10
The above passport file information on Barack Hussein Obama II's mother reveals that  
Barack Hussein Obama II 
has NO 14th Amendment US Citizenship,
and de facto, 
was sworn under signed oath by his Mom
to no longer be a Citizen of the United States
as of August 13, 1968!!!

The immediate form following the opening letter has the mother sign under oath on the back page of  Form FS-299 of 7-64.

Following the instructions:
"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state, accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivisions thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory, made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force , the Government of the United States.

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement  under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}

Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, and the document stood to apply all relevant passages that could apply to a 7 year old who lost US Citizenship by naturalization to Indonesia with a renunciation of his allegiance and renunciation of his citizenship by both he and his mother and his step-father for him. 

Thus, it can legally be argued before the Court that Barack Hussein Obama II may very possibly, even probably have never been a US Citizen beyond the age of 7, even by Wong Kim Ark Standards as the Court laid out @ 169 US 652-654,705; and that the Court needs to have him prove otherwise per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 -- 

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the states, is upon those making the claim"  
                   {i.e., Obama has the burden to prove legitimacy}

-- and that his putative Presidency is of  NO Constitutional legal effect, with exigency the US Supreme Court needing to have his putative term in office (and all laws and regulations and policies thereto) be declared NULL and voided out.  

[This post has been edited by the blog's author and modified to correct prior factual error, and add new material on this same date of May 23, 2011.  I apologize for any previous wrong presumption now since corrected and excised from presentation.  Thanks. -- Brianroy]

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Guest Blog: Reasserting Federalism in Defense of Liberty! by Ken Cuccinelli Attorney General of Virginia

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
KEN CUCCINELLI was elected the Attorney General of Virginia in November 2009. From 2002-2009 he was a member of the Virginia State Senate. Prior to that he was a partner in the law firm of Cuccinelli and Day, where he specialized in business law. A graduate of the University of Virginia, he has an M.A. in international relations from George Mason University and a J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law and Economics.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 1, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

     SOME FAVORITE VIRGINIANS OF MINE who inspired and crafted our federal Constitution—Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and Henry—also drafted the Constitution of Virginia. And in the latter, they included a critical statement that said, “No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved . . . but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
Our founders well understood that our liberty could not be preserved without frequently referring back to first principles. But while they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defend those principles, we have often taken them for granted, as we have become complacent in thinking that government will take care of every problem.
We have asked government to do more for us, and all the government asks for in return is a little bit more of our liberty. Over the decades, we kept asking. And because the courts and the politicians were all too happy to oblige, regardless of what the Constitution said, we no longer have a federal government of limited powers. We have an overreaching central government—a government that seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance.
Thankfully, though, in the last several years, people have woken up and are pushing back. With this pushback, we are seeing the idea of federalism reemerge. People want to return to a government of limited, enumerated powers, and an arrangement in which states serve as a check when the federal government oversteps its constitutional bounds.
In the current lawsuits brought by the states over health care and against the EPA, state governments are pushing back and reasserting federalism as the Founders intended them to do. Indeed, I am not aware of a time in history when this many states have sued the federal government to rein in its power: Today, more than half are parties to lawsuits against the new health care act and its individual health insurance mandate.
Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health care law is unconstitutional. When we brought the suit in March 2010, most media outlets and many legal experts said we stood no chance. One law professor said our argument about constitutionality was, if not frivolous, close to it. Another legal expert said our case relied on a “controversial reading of the Constitution.” Apparently, it is controversial to apply the Constitution as it was written.
But back in December, when a federal judge ruled in Virginia’s favor that the mandate is unconstitutional, assertions that we did not stand a chance faded fast.

Shades of King George III
Let me explain a bit about our lawsuit. Our first legal argument is that the government’s attempt to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mandate the purchase of a private product—in this case, health insurance—goes beyond Congress’s power. The reason there has never been a mandate like this in all of American history is because, up until now, everyone knew Congress lacked the power to impose one.
I often give the example of the colonial period, when the colonists were boycotting British goods while demanding that King George III and Parliament repeal the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. I am sure it was to the king’s dismay, but his own lawyer—the solicitor general—told Parliament that the boycott was legal under British law. In other words, the colonists could not be forced to buy British goods.
Yet in 2010, we had a president and a Congress who believed they could compel Americans to buy a private product even when the king of England, whom we rebelled against, knew he did not have that power. And back then, we were merely subjects!
The federal government has argued in court that not buying health insurance is as much of an economic activity as buying it, and therefore that it can regulate a citizen’s decision not to buy government-approved health insurance under the Commerce Clause. Nonactivity is the same as activity in the government's argument. Clearly, someone in Washington needs a dictionary.
That same reasoning could be used to force us to buy cars, vegetables, or gym memberships. If Virginia loses this suit and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order us to buy or do anything. It would be the end of federalism—not to mention individual rights—as we have known it for more than 220 years.
There is also a secondary argument made by defenders of the health care act. The Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses its Commerce Clause argument is to say that the fine for not buying government-approved health insurance is not a penalty, but a tax. The administration is asserting this because a tax to pay for a health care scheme would be constitutional under Congress’s taxing authority. We argue in response that the government cannot all of a sudden start calling a penalty a tax to try to make the law legal. In fact, every court that has heard the government’s tax argument has rejected it.
When Congress and President Obama debated the health care law, for political reasons, they repeatedly said that the fine for not buying health insurance was a penalty, not a tax. And indeed, under the law they passed, they structured it as a penalty. So now the administration is both flip-flopping and misrepresenting facts.
We will soon see which arguments the appeals court agrees with, because we will be arguing the case in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10th. Whatever that ruling, the case will end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why we are also running a second track and asking the Supreme Court to skip the Fourth Circuit and take the case directly. We have asked the court for this expedited review because states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and real health care reform is on hold until the Supreme Court rules. If we do not get this suit resolved as quickly as possible, we impose crippling uncertainty on the states, businesses, individuals, and our entire economy.

Liberty as an Environmental Principle
As bad as the federal health care law is, the economic consequences of what the EPA has in store for us will be equally damaging to our freedom and our economy. Thus the EPA is another front in Virginia’s federalism fight.
In December 2009, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants dangerous to public health because they are alleged to cause global warming. This finding gave the agency the immense power to regulate CO2 emissions—and remember, this dangerous pollutant, carbon dioxide, is what we exhale from our bodies every second of every day.

For the ruling, the EPA relied primarily on data from a United Nations global warming report. Emails leaked in 2009 in the Climategate scandal showed that some of the world’s prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment. Much of the U.N. report relied on that questionable data, and the EPA relied on that report. Since the revelations from the leaked emails became public, some scientists involved in the report have had to back off some of their positions and research. Renowned climate researcher Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, a long-time proponent of the global warming theory, admitted recently that there is no question that data in the U.N. report was misleading, and that “it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data” that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.
Pursuant to this, in February 2010, my office petitioned the EPA to reopen its hearings on greenhouse gases and review new evidence. Instead it ignored our request—in fact, it ignored the law. So we filed a federal lawsuit to force the hearings to be reopened, and we are still awaiting our day in court.
If the EPA is allowed to move forward with its regulation of carbon dioxide, costs to every American household are projected to increase by $3,000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. Talk about taxing the poor!
In a document the EPA published on regulating greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, it admits that its new rules would add about $950 to the price of each new vehicle. And buried deep in the report, the EPA’s own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, in testimony before Congress, called this amount of temperature difference “immeasurable.” But that has not stopped the agency from trying to move the new auto regulations forward.
Greenhouse gas regulations will also cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in increased energy costs, and could price several industries out of business or force them overseas, resulting in permanent job losses.
These are serious consequences of decisions made by unelected bureaucrats. All we are asking the EPA to do is to look at all the data, not just the data that supports the pre-conceived views of the people in charge.
For my challenges to these rules and to the federal government, I am accused of being a flat-earther and an enemy of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not only an attorney; I was also an engineer. As a former engineer, I have a certain trust in science: the math, the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the objective quest for new answers. But when science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.
And contrary to the image some in the media have created, I do not have a battle with environmental protection. In fact, my office works in close coordination with our Virginia regulatory agencies to enforce environmental laws. I also have seven children who will be on this earth for the better part of this century, and I have a vested interest in seeing that they have clean air, water, and land.
But I also have a vested interest in seeing that my children have the opportunity to get good jobs and achieve at least the same standard of living we have today. That means we have to balance care for our environment with care for our economy.
We also have to recognize that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. Wealthy countries pay for environmental improvement, and healthy economies are critical to it. The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets. Economic success will help deliver environmental improvement far more effectively than any number of forcibly-applied regulations. Yet we are gradually suffocating our free market economy with command-and-control regulations from our federal government.

Freedom in the Balance
With the EPA’s attempts to regulate our lives by regulating the by-products of practically everything we buy and everything we do, and with the federal government’s attempt to assume the power to command us to buy its chosen health insurance, we face some of the most significant and unprecedented erosions of liberty in our lifetimes. And federalism—that tension between state sovereigns and the federal government—was designed for the very purpose of helping to preserve that liberty.
While we can derive some satisfaction from last November’s election results as a backlash against the centralization and growth of raw federal power, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past where conservative victories were followed by liberal policies. We must ensure that the newly elected officeholders have learned from past mistakes. We must hold the representatives we put into office accountable to first principles, and then demand from them concrete action. For the failure of conservative principles has not been due to the principles themselves, but to the failure to fight for them.
At a time such as this, when principled conservatives do not control the reins of power in Washington, state attorneys general become the first line of defense against federal government overreach. When I ran for Attorney General of Virginia, I said that if the federal government crossed certain lines, I would challenge it. Unfortunately, we have a federal government that is giving us more opportunities to challenge it than I would like. But we are keeping our promise. With fellow Virginians and the American people, we have planted our flag and we are taking a stand. And if we are successful, future generations of Americans will have a chance to enjoy the liberty that has made America the envy of the world.
Success in this fight for federalism is critical, for as Ronald Reagan warned us:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Losing Our Community - Educational Video of Islam corrupting America. A local example and a national Criminal Terrorist Conspiracy being legalized via Sharia Law allowances, etc.

You may also wish to view the 630 page pdf  of

Shariah Law and American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases



The Center for Security Policy's home address is www.securefreedom.org

The pdf. demonstrates that Sharia Law is being recognized in 23 US States.

 I personally have an input on the seriousness of this Sharia Law implementation or "Sharia Law allowance in the USA" issue.  By seeing what Sharia Law demands in Moslem countries, we can see what they will do and demand here.  Most of the America REALLY needs to understand the seriousness and consequences of allowing Sharia Law to be legally practiced in the United States.  It is a separate set of Laws and distinctions where US Citizens cease to ALL their rights under the US Constitution, where those of foreign loyalties and foreign allegiances are given free terrorist and anarchist reign, and will be able to demand that Law Enforcement protect them from any retaliation of self-defense or vigilantism by US Citizens.    This is one of the kinds of  Islamic Terrorism that Obama is actively by clear and open Treason to the US Constitution, trying to create in America, while enabling and promoting a creation of an Islamic Caliphate in Africa via the influence and scope of powers granted to the Executive Branch he by identity and election fraud (not being a natural born citizen of the US with a US father) usurped..

The Activist Legal Anarchists, the Communist-Socialists, and the Liberal Left are intentionally advocating an acceptance of Sharia Law within US borders by way of insanity.  They either are in constant states of unjustified socio-pathic rage and evil, or they are living proof that minds on dopes ARE dopes.

What does Sharia Law allow and enforce?  
 We need only look to Moslem countries, and see their practices and judgments...be it against how they treat Coptic Christians and Jews, or how they treat themselves for the answers.

Want to enslave children and adults with literal chains and make them slaves, that not even Child Services or any Social Services of the US Government can see rescued?  Sharia Law makes it possible.

Want the right to throw gasoline upon someone based on a mere rumor, and burn them to death, be it an insult to Mohammed or the Quran...or looking at your daughter or wife the wrong way...and get off as legally justified without any punishment ?  Sharia Law makes it possible.
Want to cut out your daughter's of wife's clitoris so they won't have sexual desires?  Sharia Law makes it possible. 

Want to kill any non-Muslim and get off for murder?  Sharia Law makes it possible.

Want to kidnap and rape girls aged 9 year olds and up, and get off without penalty by simply stating you took them as wives,  and then will make them behave by constant beatings and further rapings into Islam (i.e. "submission by force") and obeisance?  Sharia Law makes it possible. 

Want to rob and steal from any non-Muslim neighbor and the US Government or State and Local Government with impunity?  By creating precedent, Sharia Law advocacy is geared to one day make it possible (unless or until those Government entities become Moslem themselves).

Sharia Law is an anti-Constitutional Blight as Criminal a Conspiracy as the Underworld of Mafia Family demands of loyalty and obeisances over the Laws of the United States. 

Sharia Law within the confines of the United States of America is a system of Criminal Corruption hiding behind the mask of religion, and needs to be completely and utterly abolished with the borders and jurisdictions of the United States of America immediately.  But with a Shia Moslem illegally occupying the US Presidency...Sharia Law continually advances in strength and influence in the United States as part of  what at the very least "appears to be" an Obama "Convert or Die America" plan.  Though it sounds melodramatic, it is a reality, and seems the best way I can describe the  Sharia-ization of America through an illegally placed Obama Administration via election and identity fraud in the person of Barack Hussein Obama II. 

That's my input.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Israeli Technology: Kinetic, Solar, and Turbine Technologies the US and major US Companies should purchase and utilize IMMEDIATELY.

Previously, I had posted this...but Google, in doing maintenance, froze up all blogspot blogs from May 10 - May 12, and then rolled back and erased previously posted blogs dated May 10.  I am re-posting this today,  in a re-edited format.


    This technology has already been tested and passed from the development and testing phase to a ready for application phase.  It is a must for major city streets, Freeway turnpikes or anywhere there is heavy vehicle, train, or pedestrian foot traffic.


Kinetic Energy: Innowatttech

A single 3 to 3.1 mile stretch of road or highway having just 500 heavy trucks pass over its length per hour can produce 1,000 Kilowatts / 1 Megawatt of electric energy per hour. This is enough to power between 250 to 350 homes, and should be considered as a supplemental (not primary) for particular use during peak usage times.  This also tells us that turnpikes, interstates, major city center streets,  trucking terminals or anywhere where there is high heavy vehicle traffic, those places are not only optimum, but the almost exclusive applications of this technology when in highway or urban road systems.

One stretch of railroad of 3 to 3.1  miles having just 300 railroad cars pass over it per hour will produce 600 kilowatts of electricity per hour, or enough power to constantly supply 150 to 210 homes. For some small rural towns, there may be a preference to invest in this kind of technology to supply a more localized power source such as this.  However, such technology, in my opinion,  should also be coupled with wind and solar technology as well. 

It seems to me, that a practical measure of actual expectancy in highways should remain at about 60% of these above figures.  That means, according to my calculations, using a rounding off of every 3 miles of application in busy highways, that we should expect 600 kilowatts of consistency...enough to consistently supply 150 to 210 homes.   However, in railway applications, that figure should remain at 80% expectancy or 480 kilowatts per hour... enough to consistently supply 120 to 168 homes.

30 miles of railway application correctly applied will yield about 4.8 megawatts hourly, day in and day out.
30,000 miles of eventual railway application completed in 10 years time, will result in 4.8 gigawatts of energy per hour each day and every day, year in and year out.  That is enough power to supply 1,200,000 to 1,680,000 homes with all the power they need.   If this is coupled with street / highway application over the course of the same 10 years, then 2,700,000 to 3,780,000 homes can be supplied with this kind of supplemental electric power by the year 2025 (allowing us 3 plus years of bureaucratic red-tape before seeing such an effort launched, if taken up NOW, that is).                                     

 The optimum initial application will probably be in railroad tie replacements in busy train-yards, freight routes.  One suggestion is to utilize this technology in the New York City Subway system to supply power to the Subway network.  In cases of blackout or emergency, battery power storage stations along the route can either keep the lines running, or at least get passenger to safety, and send excess power to designated emergency centers, traffic lights, or what have you. 

Optimum Highway results will probably result from using a higher recycled tire to asphalt ratio, such as is used now in Israel,  and more corrosion resistant than that US formula now in use in Arizona. 

The cost of implementation will be initially high, but can be covered in a self-paying (that is, once it becomes "on-line") with a 5 year loan, cutting the need to raise electricity rates to wherever it services.  It, like wind and solar energy stations, is a supplemental source of energy...but this Kinetic Energy innovation is designed to be made with more environmentally recyclable parts to it once it reaches or surpasses its 20 year design life.   Because of the profit ratio over actual maintenance costs will be quite for the the first 15 years of the 20 year life expectancy before replacement, once the electricity rates are set, they can be essentially retained or frozen at those levels within the set volume of power supply expectancy over the course of the following 10 years.  So that if the usage remains within the preset margin for the area served, there should be no reason other than line usage or a currency value crisis to raise the rates of electricity supplied even modestly.

Solar Energy:  Brightsource

Brightsource is an Israeli venture to help "Green" America's energy sources.  Currently, their program of solar power is the most efficient in the industry.  I would recommend that they be allowed / authorized to build at least 20 more plants in the American Southwest (in Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, southern Utah, New Mexico, and western Texas) at 1 Gigawatt or more per facility.  20 Gigawatts would give the Southwest United States the approximate power (for 300 days a year) of servicing (@ 250,000 to 350,000 homes per Gigawatt), a total of 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 homes for the 300 days (on average) per year. 

Turbine Technology:  for Cars
 (Edited repost from 02.28.2011)

Since 100 mile per gallon technology is available now, why isn't the now US Government owned General Motors etc. using and applying this technology to a new line and fleet of vehicles?    Instead of an electric hybrid, this technology more than doubles the range miles per gallon claimed by the hybrids.  The tradeoff is that for 80% less gas usage, an extra 5 quarts may be needed at the time of the oil change.  The trade off in oil refining (needing to convert hundreds less gallons of gas per vehicle using this technology) and cost savings is MORE than worth it.   

There are very practical solutions that can be fast-tracked and implemented. 
That's my input.   

Saturday, May 14, 2011

This has been a public service announcement -- Humor, Educational

Earlier this week, I went to use a multi-stall public restroom at very large supermarket.  A certain individual whom I did not directly see, could be heard in a very short amount of time, using a stall, (fart-fart, roll-roll sound of the toilet paper) then immediately flushing, and promptly walking out (stomp, stomp, stomp and door slams open and he exits) without washing his hands.

Perhaps it was the fact that he was in a supermarket and was extremely likely to handle food...be it canned goods, boxes, produce, or what have you...perhaps that caused me concern.  The extreme haste of whoever this was suggested that it was either an employee or another individual either in their teens or twenties.  And I wondered, if I had to reach that age group with a message how would I do so.  It would have to be by humor and a commercial that they would talk about as humorous, and with a moral or message that they wouldn't soon forget.   I had just the thing in mind.

However, lacking funds and the expertise to create a television skit in video form, I thought I would convey the idea for a Public Service Announcement in a blog format, and maybe somebody can manifest it into a physical non-profit Public Service Announcement television commercial.

Just one special effects mention, when the sound effect "chomp!" is used, think of the following sound of biting into a Tootsie Roll Lollipop by "Mr. Owl" after 3 licks.  


"Wash Your hands, both before and after using the Restroom."
This is a Public Service Announcement.

Commercial opens:

Scene: a man meanders about in a supermarket, using a small tube (such as Chapstick {TM}) he marks select items of interest at a shelf heigh of 2-3 feet high.  

Screenshot: he marks a fillet minion with a yellow paste substance in the Meat self service case, angles it sideways up, looks around and moves off screen.

Screenshot: he marks a 6 pack box of Instant Breakfast bars, angles it on the shelf,  looks around, and moves off screen.

Screenshot: he wanders onscreen from one side, applies the yellow paste to a 4 pack roll of toilet paper, angles it, and continues off screen on the other side of the screen shot. 

Screenshot: he applies the yellow paste to a six pack of long neck bottled beer, puts on a very dark pair of sunglasses, bobs his head a couple of times as if he's cool, and exits the screenshot.

Screenshot: the man is now outside somewhere open, sitting on a bench with a large German Shepherd.  He gives the dog a scent whiff of the tube of yellow paste and sends it on its way.  He places the tube of paste in his back pants pocket.

Screenshot: the dog runs into the Supermarket entrance.

Screenshot: the dog runs up to the self-service meat case and bites up and runs away with the  fillet minion.

Screenshot: The dog bites and takes up the box of breakfast bars. 

Screenshot: The dog bites up a 4 pack of toilet paper, exits the screen.  A store employee runs into the screen shot from the opposite side the dog exits, and yells, "Hey! Hey!"

Screenshot: The dog runs back into the park bench scene, and offers up the toilet paper.   The owner of the dog happily takes up the toilet paper from the dog, and places it in a black duffel bag on the ground.  The dog runs back, off screen, in the direction it came. 

Screenshot: Overhead view into the bag as the owner places the toilet paper into the bag, showing the fillet minion and the breakfast bars also in the duffel bag.

Screenshot: Back to horizontal as two Security guards run into the shot, each grabbing up one arm of the shoplifter.  

Screenshot: as the dog runs up to the entrance, two female supermarket clerks with brooms swing and wave their brooms and chase the dog back.

Screenshot:  Wide angle the dog is sitting by a parking curb panting, as the two Security Guards haul the shoplifter toward the store entrance.  After a few seconds, 

Shoplifter (yelling): GET IT, BOY, GET IT.

Screenshot (close-up): the dog looks and cocks his head, and runs off-screen.

(off-screen commotion)

Shoplifter:  NO, NO!!! Get HIM! GET....

Dog:  ROWR, ROWR!!!   "CHOMP"

Shoplifter:  AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!  

Screenshot: Paramedics have shoplifter on a gurney, with a huge white patch on his rear end.  

One Paramedic talks silently on a cell-phone, as the other looks up at the one security guard in the screenshot.  The shoplifter rolls his head and moans.  The dog sits by the owners head and dogs a quick lick of his face, and then looks upon his owner quietly.

Paramedic (to Security Guard):  Where's your partner?

Security Guard # 1:  He had to pass empty his bladder.  He'll be back.. (Security Guard #1 looks offscreen)...Oh, wait.  Here he comes now.

Security Guard #2 enters screenshot:  What's up?

Security Guard #1:  You did use the restroom to empty your bladder...er, to go out the front,  right?

Security Guard # 2:  Yeah.

Security Guard # 1:  Well, I hope that you had the common sense to wash your hands both BEFORE and after using the restroom, especially after handling that yellow paste you found in his back pocket.

Screenshot (camera remains here to end of commercial):  
Close up of the dog looking intently, cocking its head a little.  

(Off Screen dialogue:

Security Guard #2: Well as a matter of fact...well, anyway... just what was that yellow paste?

Security Guard #1: Deer urine!)

{The Dog exits the screenshot quickly.}

Dog:  ROWR, ROWR!  "Chomp!!!"

Security Guard #2:  AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Announcer:  So remember, ladies and gentlemen.  Both BEFORE and AFTER using the Restroom...WASH YOUR HANDS!

(Still staying on the now empty close-up Screenshot, roll and announce the

"This has been a Public Service Announcement" 

credit followed immediately by the  voice-over response of the dog.

"ROWR, ROWR!  "CHOMP!" )     

[End Commercial / Break here]

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Obama's Agenda: The SEIU Agenda. The SEIU's Agenda: a Maoist hybrid form of World Communism. Obama's Agenda: A Communist Overthrow of the USA and promoting World Communism.

Text of Obama's Speech.
Everybody: There’s not a presidential candidate, a gubernatorial candidate, a congressional candidate, who won’t tell ya, that they’re pro-union, when they’re looking for their endorsements. They’ll all say, ‘Oh we love SEIU.’ But the question you gotta ask yourself is, do they have it in their gut, do they have a track record of standing alongside you on picket lines? 

 Do they have a track record of going after the companies that aren’t letting you organize? Do they have a track record of voting the right way? But also helping you organize to build more and more power?
And some of you know I come from an organizing background, so — I’ve been working with the SEIU before I was elected to anything. When I was a community organizer, SEIU Local 880 and myself we organized people, to make sure that healthcare workers had basic rights; we organized voter registration drives, that’s how we built political power on the South Side of Chicago….and now the time has come for us to do it all across this country, and then we’ll paint the nation purple, with SEIU!

I would not be a United States Senator had it not been for the support of your brothers and sisters in Illinois. Those folks, they supported me early, they supported me often. I’ve got my purple windbreaker from my campaign in 2004.

And so, we’ve just got, what, four more days? Four more days of knocking on some doors. Four more days of working the precinct. Four more days of making sure all your co-workers are caucusing.
SEIU, I am glad you are with me, let’s together change the country! 

The SEIU, 
who Barack Obama so vehemently promotes and states promotes his ideology,  
marches for the installation of World Communism, 
“Legalization or Revolution!”

And what was it Barack Obama said?
Your agenda has been my agenda
in the United States Senate. 
  Before debating Healthcare, I talk to Andy Stern and SEIU members. 

Before Immigration debates took place in Washington, I talked with Authia Media {sic, Eliseo Medina.  This is a Communist coded "drop phrase" for an individual used among Liberals and Communists.  "authia Me-dia" is "authorized Media".  While those NOT in the know might simply place it as a gaffe, in US Communism, these kinds of "gaffes" are intentional, and a means of communicating something to the party faithful.  The Central Committee of the Communist Party and like-minded subversives communicate their agendas in the post-2001 world via attorneys, authorized spokespersons acting as interviewed experts or sought after opinions, and the Media itself ...which encompasses those who sit on the Council of Foreign Relations or are specific radicals or radical sympathetic. Although this network was evolving since the late 1980s and heavily in the 1990s, the stated above is the NEW politics of America in the post 9/11/2001 world.  Anyone failing to recognize the new entrenchment of the Communist enemy of the State and Republic of the United States is sadly naive.

} and SEIU members.  Before the EFCA I talked to SEIU, so, we’ve worked together over these last few years.  I’m proud of what we’ve done.  I’m just not satisfied, because I know how much more we can accomplish as PARTNERS in an Obama Administration.
 {Obama’s own emphasis into microphone}
Just Imagine.  Just Imagine what we could do together.  Imagine having a President whose life work was Your work.   
We have a lot of good friends of Labor who are running in this election.  I admire all of them.  But the question I do want SEIU to ask yourselves is NOT who is talking about Your Agenda, but who can change our politics in Washington  so we can actually make your Agenda a reality.  And I believe I can do that.”

So WHAT did Obama advocate that Andy Stern and other SEIU leaders called as THEIR AGENDA? 
under a Maoist hybrid of that political oppressive / enslavement of the masses ideology.

Since 2007, that goal was openly the installation of World Communism.
The use of and tactics of Maoist Communism 
through its leader and CEO Andy Stern, 
and Barack Hussein Obama II has in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS stated that Andy Stern's Agenda (i.e., World Communism)
is his Agenda also "in an Obama Administration".

Barack Hussein Obama II, 
born a dual British Citizen at birth, 
son of a Muslim Communist who used Islamic Sharia Law to divorce his wife in Kenya and fell away as a practicing Islam in America to become a drinking playboy when he came to America to study (from what we glean from Obama Sr.s Immigration file).  

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Immigration File

So who defends Obama in the Media?  Let them choose their sides.  Are they openly advocating Communism and proclaiming fealty to Barack Hussein Obama II over the US Constitution?  Or will they proclaim the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and that by the Constitution, by having a foreign citizenship at birth...and by Treaty with the United Kingdom,  it is illegal for the United States to place a foreign subject at the time of his birth, to the Office of the Presidency of the United States.  A birth of foreign British Citizenship that is stipulated by the Communists and "Factcheck.org" themselves.