"The REAL Obama, " Sean Hannity (Watch Before Google Censors the Clips)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Gallup: Obama Hits New Low

Gallup shows Obama hitting a new low in the polls although this evaluates popular opinion. Rasmussen polls only likely voters and Obama's numbers are even lower then.

Informant Who Spied on Right-wing Organizations Trained in Provocation

The FBI is training people, in this case a blogger, to be deliberately provocative and is targeting right-wing organizations. The blogger was taught how to stop just short of crossing into committing crimes.

'Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day'...

An article or two, describing economic sanity, is taking Obamanomics to task. Obama does not seem to grasp the elementary facts of the economy.

1st the Vaccine Then the Pandemic

Josh Gerstein, Politico, has gone on record stating that Obama is reviving quarantine rules that Bush dropped.

Kistner Pharm filed the patent of H1N1 vaccine on 28 Aug 2008, before the virus spread. The documentation appears in the US Patent office document: p. 7, #0056. You can view the evidence yourself. How is it that the vaccine was patented, and only then, the borders were left wide open for the pandemic to occur?

In July 2007, I noted pandemic planning was in the works. In November 2008, Google began to track flu outbreaks. Then, in April I noted a tape obtained from early 2008 that an Islamic professor threatened a chemical attack on the U.S. And finally, we have a smoking gun, a vaccine produced before the swine flu pandemic. Not to mention of course there is the murky Chicago world of Obama and Chicago-based Baxter. It all seems a bit too convenient for me.

There are legitimate concerns about the injections and early reports from the medical community are indicating caution. The vaccine has killed 25 and aGerman researcher suggests that the vaccine could be a "fast-cancer" injection.

AARP Loses 60,000 Members Over Health Rationing

60,000 members dumped AARP because of health rationing. These former members specifically canceled their membership between 1 July and mid-August directly over health care rationing.

Man Obeys Law!

Black Panthers march on the California State Assembly.

The Black Panther Party immediately captured the attention of the national media when they marched on the California State capitol on 2 May 1967. The issue at stake this day was publicity and the Panthers gained significant press in the Bay Area as a result of their armed, but legal patrols.

Appearing with displayed weapons was a significant part of the Black Panther image.

Anonymous man appears at Obama health rationing meeting.

The headline would seem odd if it stated: "Man Obeys Law!" but that is exactly what news reports today are saying about an Arizona man who carried a gun to an Obama health care rationing meeting.

What does seem odd is his statement: "I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely." The gun-toter was not identified in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. So he is from another state and he was not identified, they did not ask or he would not reveal his identity? The article did not state. I would suspect that he could be a plant. The CNN article adds that no "charges or arrests" were made. Why would anyone think of charges or arrests? What are the infractions? No one cited a statute or a law that was broken but according to CNN "officers explained the law to some people who were upset." Again, anonymous people were upset. This incident sounds like a provacative act to me. In whose interests would it be to cause an incident, gun-owners, or, the Federal government?

The lap dogs in the mainstream press have had a field day attacking the Constitution though they should remember their roots, left-wing protest premised Mao's statement that `political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Palestinian Joker

A Palestinian-American has been unmasked as the creator of the Joker; he is a senior history major at the University of Illinois who crafted the picture of Obama with the recognizable clown makeup using Adobe's Photoshop software.

20 Critical Security Controls

20 Critical Security Controls according to the SANS Institute are sound recommendations to follow.

Opie: The Dog Who Wants No Treats From Obama

Spammer-in-Chief

The spammer-in-Chief got caught spamming people in favor of health care rationing. The good news is that once caught the policy will change: if you believe them and their Google-like practices.

Mexican Army Takes Over U.S. Customs

Mexico's Army took over U.S. customs work yesterday in what some have noted as the foreign militarization of America. Not only are U.S. troops increasingly present within the U.S. but foreign troops are as well. There are no constitutional protections from foreign troops.

Dick Armey Predicts Hyped-Up Swine Flu Hysteria: September/October

Dick Armey, head of Freedom Works, stated:

"In September or October there will be a hyped up outbreak of the swine flu which they’ll say is as bad as the bubonic plague to scare the bed-wetters to vote for healthcare reform. . . . That is the only way they can push something on to the American people that the American people don’t want.”

Clearing Up Obama's Lies on Health Care Rationing

Obama's Rationing Makes Worse Health Care

Obama health care rationing ignores U.S. higher survival rates, U.S. shorter wait times.

Congress' Speech Censored by Obama

Members of the House were allowed their Special Orders session where they were able to expound upon this assault of the First Amendment rights of members of Congress.

Flu Vacccine Killed 25 (So Far)

The swine flu vaccination killed 25 people according to a story released today. As in the case of earlier flu vaccines, the brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) perhaps has been triggered by the vaccine.

Among a parents’ fears are the fear of autism, fear of children becoming paralyzed by novel reactions similar to the syndrome that occurred with a different type of swine flu vaccine in 1976. For example, the Nov. 24, 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association article, Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following Influenza Vaccination reports on this danger. According to the article’s abstract,

“An unexplained increase in the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) occurred among recipients of the swine influenza vaccine in 1976-1977. Guillain-Barré syndrome remains the most frequent neurological condition reported after influenza vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since its inception in 1990.”

The problem is that the onset of serious side effects could take four weeks or longer to appear. The Journal of the American Medical Association article noted,

“From July 1990 through June 2003, VAERS received 501 reports of GBS following influenza vaccination in adults. The median onset interval (13 days) was longer than that of non-GBS reports of adverse events after influenza vaccine (1 day) (P<.001). The annual reporting rate decreased 4-fold from a high of 0.17 per 100 000 vaccinees in 1993-1994 to 0.04 in 2002-2003 (P<.001). A GBS diagnosis was confirmed in 82% of reports. Preceding illness within 4 weeks of vaccination was identified in 24% of reported cases.”

"There's an App for That"

Representative Fleming: Politicians Take Same Pill as American Rationing

Many Americans have thought that Congress and Senators should be forced to have the same health care rationing plan that Obama is forcing down our throats. However, under the current proposed legislation, they are exempt, and retain their own special “Cadillac care.” On the other hand, Congressman John Fleming (LA-4th) offered H.Res.615 (House Resolution) which states:

- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.

If you too want the Cadillac option, or no rationing, the Open Congress website allows a simply way to express your opinion-—there is a choice of two buttons:

* I Support this Bill
* I Oppose this Bill

You can also express your opinion on Congressman Fleming’s own website. Question:

“Do you feel Members of Congress should be forced to enroll themselves in the health care plan they vote for?”

* Yes
* No

Congressman Fleming is a physician. Fleming explained his resolution to the House of Representatives:

State and Local Governments Deciding on Vaccinations

We are Change Colorado confirmed in interviews with military representatives and the CDS that state and local officials are deciding whether to administer vaccinations.

Dr. Alan Keyes on Alex Jones

Dr. Alan Keyes interviewed on the Alex Jones show.

Keyes highlights critical aspects of Obama's administration by articulating his thesis that Obama has a socialist/communist agenda that parallels Nazism. He invokes the crushing reality of an atheistic society without regard for humanity and as an illustration, the pro-abortion stance of Obama deepens his discussion. Obama is a demagogue who attempts to shape American thinking to achieve his goals and the ease with which he can do so to accomplish his agenda.

John David Lewis, Visiting Associate Professor, Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program Duke University

August 12, 2009 / by Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, what I have here is very long. I cannot read the entire thing. But there are summaries that I can read. This is a piece entitled, “What the Health Care Bill Actually Says,” and it was put together by John David Lewis. It is from the website Classical Ideals. John David Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University, and here is how he introduces his analysis: “What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’ actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

“This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) ‘Health Choices Commissioner’ (Section 141); (2) a ‘Health Insurance Exchange,’ (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions. This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways — but this is too important to ignore. We may answer one question up front: How will the government … pay for all this?

“Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services — there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government ‘option’ or not.” So, when we talk about how we’re going to pay for it, “How will the government … pay for all this?” it’s all of the following: “Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services — there are no other options” to pay for it. “We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government ‘option’ or not.” The first question that he wanted to discover here is: “Will the plan ration medical care?” Then he cites the relevant passages from the bill and then evaluates the passages in real language, not the legalese that he found. This section, rationing medical care:

“1. This section amends the Social Security Act. 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an ‘applicable [medical] condition.’ 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital. 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.” In other words, there’s nothing personal about this. That’s why Obama’s answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother, “Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?” was, “I don’t think we can do that.” It’s going to be statistic based. “5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.”

There is no other way to analyze this section of the bill. “6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.” All this language is in this piece. The language from the bill is from the piece. I’m not just going to read that to you. I’m reading his evaluation, stripping away the legalese, what it all means. “7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.” The next question that the classics professor at Duke researched is: “Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?” and then he gives the relevant portions from the bill as it’s written followed by his evaluation. Number one… Remember the question here is: “Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out? … 1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

“2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.” Now, this we know. We’ve seen this ourselves. “3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan,” as written in this bill. The IRS will be a major enforcer. The next section that he analyzed: “What constitutes ‘acceptable’ coverage?” Because, in the previous passage the bill said: “Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax” So, what is “‘acceptable’ coverage”? Here are the relevant passages, sentences from the bill. “Evaluation of the passages. 1. The bill defines ‘acceptable coverage’ and leaves no room for choice in this regard. 2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.”

Let me read that again: “1. The bill defines ‘acceptable coverage’ and leaves no room for choice in this regard. 2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services” out of their own pockets, “but carry insurance only for catastrophic events … illegal.” That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now. Pay for what you want — a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor — and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank. Doing that will be illegal in the House bill. In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal. The next section that our classics professor, an average citizen, was curious about: “”Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance? Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses ‘contribution’ to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)

“Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE,” and then the relevant passages from the bill. Here is the evaluation of those passages. Again, what we’re talking about here is: “Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?” “1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance. 2. Small businesses — with say 8-10 employees — will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government ‘option.’” Now, let me explain this. Small businesses, say eight-to-ten employees, will either have to provide insurance up “to federal standards.” If they don’t, they will pay an additional 8% payroll tax.

“Business costs for health care are higher than [what will be charged], especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government ‘option.’” If they go to the government option, they’re fine. If you don’t and you stay private, you’re going to pay a penalty. The penalty will make it ridiculous and stupid business-wise to stay with your private plan. Therefore, you will — your small business will — be forced out of private insurance onto the government option. “3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous,” the financial pressure, the business pressure. “4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.”

Now, none of this is anything new. Everybody showing up at these town halls knows this. This is nothing that has already been learned when discussing it. That’s why when Obama is saying, “If you like your plan you can keep it, it’s not true, because the meat and potatoes of the bill is going to make it impossible.” If your private plan is from an employer, your employer is going to find it very difficult to hold onto private insurance and remain competitive with businesses that opt out and go in the government option. When Barney Frank or Obama himself says, “We can’t do this immediately. It’s going to take 10 to 15 years,” this is what they’re talking about: Eventually forcing small businesses and others out of private insurance because they won’t be able to remain competitive with competitors who go the public option.

“5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable” even if you do stay private. “6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government ‘option’ will have no place else to go” if they don’t like it. So all this talk from Obama about adding to competition is the exact opposite, which is what everybody who’s read this understands and which is why they know he’s lying to them when he says, “If you like your plan you can keep it.” Another way to look at that, “If you like your plan, you can keep it,” is: What if everybody decided to do that, but he says the health care plan, the system we have now is unsustainable. It’s horrible.

Yet if you like your plan you can keep it? How do those two go together? The next question that our classics professor at Duke wanted to figure out by reading the bill: “Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS? Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS ‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS,” and then it has the legalese. Here’s the evaluation of what it says: “1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code. 2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes. 3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth. 4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.” Successful small business owners, will bear the highest cost of this plan.

“Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES? What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,” and then the legalese of the bill. The analysis or the evaluation: “1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited. 2. The official” commissioner, bureaucrats “will decide what constitutes ‘excessive,’ ‘deficient,’ and ‘efficient’ payments and services. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs? What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES,” then the legalese in the bill.

The evaluation: “1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code 2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials. 3. Any stated ‘limits’ to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed. 4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan,” meaning your medical records, your employment records, how you’re living your life, what kind of risk that’s posing to the health care system. Next: “Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan? What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” then the legalese. Here’s the evaluation: “1. Do nothing and you are in” the government plan. “2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

“What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,” then the legalese and the evaluation. “1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan ‘based on per capita spending.’ 2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.” So the question, “Does THE PLAN exempt federal officials from court review?” and parts of the plan do. This is Mr. Lewis again. His name is John David Lewis, professor of classics at Duke University. He’s a common, average citizen. He’s not a lawyer, not a doctor. What this goes to show is, just about anybody can figure out what’s in this bill if they just take the time to read it. And a lot of people have, and the people showing up at these town hall meetings saying “no,” already know what this bill says and the elements to it, or of it, that I just shared with you.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081209/content/01125108…

Little Gems From the Obama Health Care Bill

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatmen ts and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government=2 0rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.” • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls20productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resource s, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Source Jennifer N MS Director Resistnet.com

"Say No to the Vaccine," Trillion

Trillion lyrics:

I put the needle to the record cos the needle is defective
and the needle breaks the record when the needle is the method
for prevention of the fever bringin' death to the receiver
there's no effort in believing that the method feeds the fever
see the leader - diseases are invented in a lab
one believes it on reading recent mentions of the jab
centered in a grand scab of corruption and lies,
injecting views of doom from news room into the public eye
but now the floor has risen on a cause of autism
doctors show research and scores applaud with 'em
it's mercury in vaccines often there's more given
peace ignored and forbidden cos profit is war driven
profit? A Score billion - on vaccines alone
and the government don't care - they're always taxing the clones
and the CDC is right behind this rolling cart,
part involved from the start in this evolving art
of Big Pharma Big Deception, Obama - Big Karma:
enter Wyeth, Roche, Bayer and Baxter Health care (and co)
all a sordid history with stacks of health scares
you got HIV and bird flu mixed up in the shots
Ive been connecting the dots between the money that swaps?
conspiracy? Yeah I sense a couple of plots.

but there is one little word that could save your health, just say NO, say NO to the vaccine.
and if the doctor says YES, then make him take it himself - just say NO, say NO to the vaccine.
there is one little word that could save your health, just say NO, say NO to the vaccine.
and if Lawman says YES, then make him take it himself - just say NO, say NO to the vaccine.

(then pat says)
I don't need your prescription
I ain't go not affliction
Corporate pharmaceutical
Teaming with politician
Put them on proscription
That should be our own decision
Whether we want spending on vaccines
Or health and education
Soon they enlist
The general populous,
They adding to the list
pharmaceutical benefits
Well its thin line
Glaxo Smith Kline,
profit margin fine
still ain't seen a diseased
mad cow, coughing bird, or swine
depopulation linked, with-holding vaccines
rather let a product lapse than save some human beings
now they're busy counting there beans
So they won't hear us runnin' up on the machine
another new flu that is the biggest threat
What about an aging population with no safety net,
so we continue to believe everything we read,
There just ain't No taste in the news feed...

(back to trillion)
Weapons of trial and error, were smiling in terror at the doctor and nurse
take a hold of yourself and control of your health and say no, why don't you go first!

so where was I, conspiracies, secret ops and spy stations
and the catch word of the year - Depopulization
but humans generally are hard to kill, even with a jar of pills,
that's why the politicians have to pass a bill, for compulsory Gardasil
from Malta to Dargaville. and farther still,
another bill protects the maker Merck
from liability for illness and deaths that may occur
cos infertility and cancer are hidden inside the prick
and immune disorders have you bedridden, retired and sick
research is your friend - knowledge keeping is king
every vaccine has a poisoned dollar deep in it's sting
theres no master flu, theyre just after me and you
the last dance is due now their mask is see-through
SARS was a cheats sweep through, swine flu - a scam too,
designed to make a trillion bucks on out of date tamiflu
Manufactured viruses - biological war-fares,
Psychological torture - jail or jab! Dial some more prayers.
our bodies are designed to fight - those bugs intrudin'
But only when our diet is right dont shove junk food in!

The First Amendment is Under Attack by Academics to Placate Islamism

Yale University Press has bowed to Islamists by refusing to publish illustrations about Mohammed in a book about, the banned illustrations.

Camp Preparations

A FEMA camp is pictured in Idaho, June 2009 and the National Guard is recruiting
Interment and Re-settlement specialists. The most difficult thing for people to grasp during the Holocaust must have been that it could actually happen to them. Camps are in the works.

Straight From the Horse's Mouth: The White House is Against the First Amendment

The White House is accumulating information against American citizens and the enjoyment of their constitutional liberties.

Excerpt from the August 13 White House Press Briefing with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:

BQ: The briefings the past 2 days have been unbelievable. Gibbs is out of control, paranoid and defensive; a growing number of press corps are clearly suspicious of the White House admin’s antics.

One of the more interesting exchanges happened between FoxNews.com’s Major Garrett and Gibbs. This is most of the dialogue, with Gibbs cutting Garrett off at the end, never answering his question:

Major Garrett: Do you in any way seek databases or information about people who might be interested in health care?

GIBBS: I will certainly check. I will certainly check. I am not under that impression. But again –

Major Garrett: I mean, folks have emailed me — I just want to know — would like to know how they get an e-mail from the White House when they have never asked for one.

GIBBS: I’d be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they’re on the list. I don’t –

Q May I follow up politely on one of Major Garrett’s –

GIBBS: Well, let me — let me finish needling Major.

Q — this row, please.

GIBBS: Again, I just want to be — but I just want to be very –

Major Garrett: So what you’re telling me is I need to give you these people’s e-mails so you can check them on a list? I’m just asking.

GIBBS: Well, you’re asking me if they’re on a list.

Major Garrett: No, they’re telling me –

MR. GIBBS: If you can figure out a different way of checking without asking me to double-check the name, I’m happy to –

Major Garrett: Perhaps I’m not phrasing this correctly. They’re telling me they’re not — they can’t be on a list because they never asked for an e-mail from the White House.

GIBBS: Right, but what I’m saying is I don’t — I’d have to look and see –

Major Garrett: So there’s no — you don’t have an explanation for how someone who never signed up and never asked for anything from the White House would get an e-mail from David Axelrod?

GIBBS: Well, I hesitate to give you an answer, because you might impugn the motives of the answer.

Major Garrett: Why would you say that?

GIBBS: Because of the way you phrased your follow-up. I’d have to look at what you got, Major. I don’t — I appreciate the fact that I have omnipotent clarity as to what you’ve received in your e-mail box today.

Major Garrett: You don’t have to have omnipotent clarity. You don’t have to impugn anything. I’m telling you what I got — e-mails from people who said they never asked anything from the White House –

MR. GIBBS: And I’m simply saying –

Major Garrett: — and yet they received something.

GIBBS: We can — let me go to someplace else that might be constructive.

UPDATE:

BQ: Major Garrett “keeps pushing” in this excerpt from today’s Laura Ingraham radio show.

Major Garrett: Let me update your listeners to what’s happened since.

I hesitated in the briefing to offer up emails because I didn’t have permission from the few people who contacted me.

Laura Ingram: Right, you actually are respecting people’s privacy

Garrett: And since then – it will come to no surprise to you and your listeners – many have emailed me and said, “Here, give these to the White House. I want an explanation.”

I’ve since gone back to Robert [Gibbs] a number of times and said, ok, I have what you requested, let’s have a substantive conversation about this. I’ve gotten no response.

Ingraham: And so how are we gonna get the answer here then?

Garrett: Well, we’re gonna keep pushing. We’re gonna keep pushing.

And there’s a whole additional issue that’s going on right now that’s in the whole other office management budgets out of the White House, y’know O&B recently put out a new change in federal law, a regulation, taking away a 9-year ban on using persistent internet cookies on federal websites. They want to put those in there so if you come to a federal website more than once or twice the federal government can capture your email address. That’s a change in policy that’s being worked out at the federal regulatory process right now but it’s raised concerns among internet privacy advocates that this is something the government hasn’t done; maybe it ought not to.

Now persistent cookies are used by commercial internet sites all the time but –

Ingraham: gmail

Garrett: Yeah, but are we comfortable with the government using that, I don’t know. It’s being worked out. It’s a separate issue but it’s a part of this larger question of the government having an email address and what it may or may not do with it. I’m not suggesting there’s anything nefarious, I just wanna know!

How did someone who never sent anything to the White House get on a list that would make them able to receive directly – not forwarded, I get that, I’m not dense, I don’t misunderstand the concept of forwarding emails. These are not forwarded, they are directly from the White House. How did it happen?

400,000 Military Troops in the U.S.

If this headline from the Progressive, a liberal publication, does not alarm Americans, I do not know what will. Think it can not happen here? Yes, it can. The headline states: "The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S."

The posting of military troops is in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. But we being slowly acclimated to accept the presence of military troops posted in the U.S.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Previously, the governors of individual states, as a system of check and balances, maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster,” such as Hurricane Katrina, but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”

But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”

The current definition of emergency can be re-defined with legislation.

But even the ACLU is alarmed by proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

Flip Flopper Pelosi from 2006: ‘I’m a Fan of Disruptors"

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

Whole Foods CEO weighs in against Obama and he makes sensible, reasonable suggestions for health care reform.

Peacable Assembly

Call out the National Guard! The Federal government is alarmed because, and I quote: "The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign," "another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display," "Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff. . . . officials said the man had mental problems," Rush Limbaugh "legitimizes people who are on the edge to go do something or say something," "someone painted a swastika outside the office of Congressman David Scott of Georgia, one of Obama's supporters."

Let me summarize, a man held a sign, as stupid as the saying was, it is just a sign, and he was exercising a First Amendment right; another person, who as research pointed out actually holds a valid concealed weapons permit in his state, New Hampshire, and thus exercising, even as an alarmist article states, his "legal" Second Amendment right; a mentally ill person was in a stand-off in L.A.--seems to be business as usual in Los Angeles; a talk show host spoke, hmmmm, seems like the First Amendment again; and, an unidentified person painted a swastika on an office. Anyone know who? Any identified Nazis in town? Any groups meeting there? Any uptick in violence? Any Brownshirts marching in the streets? Anything of substance at all?

No.

One anonymous person performed a reprehensible act.

None of these isolated actions widely dispersed and unconnected across the entire country are indicative of a rise in racial hostility. They are not even racial incidents.

However, as the alarmist news report attempts to drive up emotion, God forbid, the bad guys are also associated with rock music and the Internet. Goodness, what will they think of next? These people must be truly evil, the article can impugn them with guilt by association with connotations of racial hatred, rock 'n' roll, and the Internet.

The news media is ratcheting up the rhetoric. Another story from Florida notes that: "city officials, meanwhile, are trying to determine what local crimes might be associated with the posting of the images on public and private properties," about a possible suspect who is posting the Obama as Joker posters.

Graphic source: poster of Soetoro as the Joker at the S.R. 50 underpass in Clermont, Tom Benitez, Orlando Sentinel/12 August 2009.

Why is it that the local police are "currently. . . still conducting interviews of victims, witnesses, and other suspects," yet they have not determined what crime was committed? First they are pursuing an individual for an unknown offense, then they will find the crime. Isn't that the fascist way? Let's face it, at the worst this is vandalism, at best it is free speech and worth defending.

Nonetheless, the alarmists, such as the Southern Law Poverty Center and the Secret Service, are implying as a headline states: "Fear Grows for President as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash." There is no concrete evidence for this position. Evidence exists that stories are manufactured. For example, Fox News reported that an African-American man from Mississippi admitted to posing as a white supremacist to send a death threat across state lines by Facebook. Even the Department of Homeland Security cobbled a threat assessment together from nothing more than pointless Internet drivel and did not follow standard intelligence practices to conclude that hate groups are thriving.

Yet, that watchdog of violence, the Southern Law Poverty Center, states that there is: "a genuine backlash against Obama."

They are correct to a certain extent. People are simply exercising their liberties under the law. The Center and others are mistaking genuine, simple American frustration with Obama and his misguided policies. If every dumb expression was censored then there is no way to distinguish between truth and falsehood. It is more revealing that the opponents of expression are so dumb founded with legitimate dissent. The cognitive dissonance that they are experiencing demonstrates how out of touch they are with ordinary simple expressions of dissent. Not all dissent is violent, the First Amendment states that there exists: "the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Peaceable assembly is just as American, and just as authentic. Consider Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s example if peaceable assembly is American. The genuine backlash against Obama may, as in the case of King, involve boycotts, demonstrations, marches and other staples of non-violent protest.

The media created a problem: a cult of personality of Obama as the first black president. Actually, he is not black. If he would release his long form birth certificate we might know for certain but by all reasonable accounts he is a product of a white mother and a black father. Thus, he is half-white and half-black. Nonetheless, he was packaged both by the media and in the election rhetoric as black. Despite his black packaging the American people, 53%, voted for him. The Americans, we have to reasonably conclude, did not invoke the "Tom Bradley" effect, named after a former L.A. mayor who did not garnish white voters since as a black man they would not vote for him.

Meanwhile, real people, an African-American Kenneth Gladney, are physically assaulted by Obama's purple-shirted Union thugs SEIU, yet this incident is not mentioned at all as a racial crime. In addition, the most consistent and incindiary anti-Obama statements are made by African-Americans such as Dr. Alan Keyes,

The Reverend Dr. James David Manning,

Manning interviewed on Fox News, Part 1, in the interview, it is Hannity and Colmes who object to Pastor Manning's characterization of Obama.

Manning interviewed on Fox News, Part 2

and Sonja Schmidt.

The estimates vary but white voters by and large voted for Obama and they are off the hook. They are not racist in electoral voting for the presidency.

When will the mainstream media get off this dead horse? They need to stop waving the bloody shirt and move on.

Peaceable assemblies will continue, more to follow. Get used to it.

ACLU Opposes Obama On Privacy

You know Soetoro is in trouble when even the farthest left of organizations, the ACLU for instance, identifies how intrusive Obama's policies are.

Australia Rejects Cap and Tax

Australia had the good sense to reject a cap and tax proposal similar to the one proposed by Obama. One advantage of the Parliamentary system is that the Prime Minister has to amend the bill or face an early election. I wonder how Soetoro would do in a national referendum on his policies right now.

National Guard drill at high school to prepare for possible H1N1 riot

Is it time for America's Reichstag fire? Health care rationing has set the Americans on fire and awakened a sleeping giant, Soetoro is tanking in the polls, and it may just about time to: invent another crisis. Before there is any emergency whatsoever, the military, this time the National Guard, is in the streets and drilling. In Maine, the headline reads: "National Guard drill at high school to prepare for possible H1N1 riot."

Twain on Truth and Fiction

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.

Mark Twain

How to Use the Census to Manipulate Elections

Susan Tully, national field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, explains how the census can be misused to manipulate elections.

Where to Go When You Dump AARP Membership

I dumped AARP and I will receive my remaining membership refund check of $32.15 in 4-6 weeks according to "Vickie Marie." I am disturbed by AARP that suggests supporting health care rationing, despite Barry Soetoro's protestations to the contrary. He knows how the game is played and we should too: AARP of course is "on board" and they support his rationing of health.

I called AARP a week ago and talked to "Steve." I told him my opinion at that time and I was assured that my comments would be taken seriously. In the meantime though, I understand that SEIU remains as a partnering organization with AARP since these "purple shirts" remain listed on AARP's website. You may recall Kenneth Gladney, an unemployed African-American man who attended a Town Hall meeting, trying to raise money by selling patriotic "Don't Tread On Me" flags. The SEIU "purple-shirt" thugs beat him up for his efforts. SEIU remains as a supporter of AARP's "Divided We Fail" campaign, and is listed as a co-sponsor while linked directly to their site from AARP. I noted the connection in my comments to the AARP representative.

As they old saying goes: `Politics makes strange bedfellows' and while checking out AARP's page I also noticed a supporting organization: The Islamic Society of North America. Although ISNA often claims to be a mainstream Muslim organization, it is actually a Wahhabi Muslim organization. The Wahhabi's originate from the extreme purist brand of Islamism characteristic of the Saudi royal family as well as representing the religious background of Osama Bin Laden and his family (Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens, pp. 81-83). Perhaps the Saudi royal family and al-Qaeda does not advocate sound health care practices for Americans and do not wish us well.

It occurred to me also to ask AARP if my comments, since they are "recorded for training purposes," are considered "fishy" and I asked if they would be reported elsewhere, such as to the White House. The answer was in the negative.

In any case, since I am no longer a member of AARP I need to take stock. I considered what services they provide, I get discounts when renting cars and making hotel reservations. Thus, some type of Senior discount membership is useful. Fortunately, there are alternatives. For example, although I am not endorsing anyone in particular, there is another organization that is pro-American and patriot.

AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, may be a handy alternative for others once they cancel their AARP membership. According to their website they state:

As an American, you have the freedom to make your own health care decisions, along with the guidance of your trusted doctor. Imagine this freedom being stripped away by your own government.

Under proposed health care law, your freedom to choose your own doctors, treatments, procedures, and hospital needs would be limited. Government controlled health care would mean rationed health care.

AMAC may be a reasonable alternative and seems to actually advocate the interests of American seniors.

I do not need AARP and apparently they do not need seniors either. Good riddance.

As a follow-up to this blog, according to my blog traffic, D.C. was interested:

Washington, District of Columbia arrived from blogsearch.google.com on "Blog Smith: Where to Go When You Dump AARP Membership" 09:57:59 -- 4 hours 45 mins ago

Washington, District of Columbia arrived from blogsearch.google.com on "Blog Smith: Where to Go When You Dump AARP Membership" 09:37:07 -- 5 hours 6 mins ago

Washington, District of Columbia arrived from blogsearch.google.com on "Blog Smith: Where to Go When You Dump AARP Membership" 09:24:26 -- 5 hours 18 mins ago

Representative and 25 Year Practising Physician, Tom Price, Testifies Before Congress

"Sleeping Giant," A Natural Born Citizen Speaks

"Sleeping Giant" Town Hall protester was once a loyal Democrat but not any more. She is getting calls abusing her as a racist once she opposed health rationing.

Green Is Red

John Bellamy Foster: "The transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one."

Ecology, Capitalism, and Socialism from mrzine on Vimeo.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Town Hall Meeting: Rationing to Pay for Abortions

Many people do not realize that rationing must include Federal funding for abortions. It is the law and unless an amendment in the various bills explicitly restricts abortion funding, it will be included. I noted this point when Senator Claire McCaskill stated, correctly, in another Town Hall meeting that abortion is not mentioned in the various bills in Congress: exactly. The pro-rationing forces do not want it mentioned or it may engender debate about Federal funding for abortion.

In the Town Hall Q&A a constituent asks Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA 16) to explain why rationing will cover abortions when at least 90% of them are not medically necessary — in other words, the kind of elective surgery that insurance plans usually don’t cover. CA-16 is a heavily Democratic district and she states truthfully: abortion will be Federally funded with rationing, and personally, she believes it should be so.

Soetoro's Facts in Question

Surely Soetoro should name those greedy physicians who are profiting from cutting off feet for profit as he stated at the New Hampshire Town Hall. On the other hand, he irresponsibly states numbers without regard to reality. The American College of Surgeons took issue with Obama: “Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot. Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation.”

Esquire Article About Orly Taitz.

Esquire magazine ran an article about Orly Taitz.

Banned Words in Textbooks: "American"

2.5 million job losses since Obama took office

Google banned Orly Taitz interviewed in Israel

Can't You See I'm On the Phone?

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee blabs on her cell as a woman asks an emotional question about health care rationing at a town hall event.

Other jobs, such as teaching, do not allow a professional to ignore constituents, for example, if this ever happens to a teacher, they could be fined as much as $22,000.

Increased Data Collection In Flights

Oh yeah, nothing wrong with this plan. Some airlines will begin requiring some people making reservations for domestic flights to submit their dates of birth and genders as part of a screening process aimed at keeping boarding passes out of the hands of suspected terrorists, the Transportation Security Administration stated. Not all airlines are fully participating yet and might not request the data. According to the TSA spokesperson, it will up to "individual airlines or travel agents to decide how to collect the required information at the time a reservation is made."

So let me get this straight. We are concerned about terrorism and more data will be collected about a travelers genders and DOB as part of the vetting process to board a flight. And, who is collecting this information? Travel agents who are not trained as counter-terrorism experts. Will they have access to more personal information? Will they be a part of law-enforcement agencies? Are travel agents now an arm of Homeland Security?

These data collection and dissemination efforts are a part of Secure Flight, a program aimed at meeting congressional mandates, including those passed in 2007 to put into practice recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. The TSA said the collection of additional data would make it easier for the agency to more accurately match prospective passengers with the thousands of names carried on the government's terrorism watch lists.

My question is how and who is to compare the data at the point of flight and the lists kept by the TSA? Who gets to use, and by implication abuse, the personal data on a larger pool of citizens?

Civil-liberties groups and privacy advocates have criticized the watch lists, saying they should be more narrowly focused on suspected terrorists. "One government estimate put the number of names appearing on its lists at more than 700,000 two years ago," according to the article in The Wall Street Journal. However, the 9/11 Commission stated that our challenge: "is to prevent the very few people who may pose overwhelming risks from entering or remaining in the Unites States undetected," (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 383).

If the government has a list of 700,000 persons I think we can reasonably assume that the U.S., although facing a genuine threat of terrorism, does not have that many terrorists in the U.S.

I mean, as a hypothetical let's say, what if the White House were to keep a list of "fishy" individuals for example, and law-abiding citizens ended up on a White House assembled "terrorist" list. We can rationally deduce the list is far too large anyway and Secure Flight is not actually targeting terrorists at all. The only target is the law-abiding natural citizens of the U.S. and other citizens.

The TSA's own lists, however, are smaller than that collected by Federal agencies. A TSA spokesman said publicly late last year that there were fewer than 16,000 names on the lists TSA uses for banning fliers or for subjecting them to special scrutiny. At the very least, the TSA list is more focused and represents about the highest number of possible, actual, persons whose motives are suspect.

Obama: New Lowest Poll Numbers

According to the latest Rasmussen poll:

"Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove."

I do not know which is falling faster, Obama's numbers or his Teleprompter. Health care rationing may be his Waterloo.

"Thin Ice," Molotov Mitchell

Barry Soetoro Lying on Tape

“I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal health insurance.”

Soetoro's staged Town Hall meeting yesterday in New Hampshire where he states “I have not said that I was a single payer supporter.” This is a lie.

Obamacare: not a slippery slope, but a cliff By Phill Kline

How To Argue (In These "Wise Latina" Times)

Understanding the difference between an attitude and an argument is a critical step that is all to uncommon today.

Barry Soetoro Without TOTUS: "post office"

Barry without his Teleprompter is a fascinating experience.

What was that Barry? A government-run service, such as the Post Office has difficulties, while privately run postal companies do just fine?

Are you hinting that government-run health care might not be efficient or run smoothly?

Thanks for clarifying that point.

A headline from today is a case in point: "With Fewer Customers and Fixed Labor Costs, U.S. Postal Service Faces $7 Billion Net Loss in 2009."

That whole government take over of health care rationing is sounding bleaker and bleaker Barry; just keep talking without TOTUS so you can clarify it for us.

Bussed In Paid Union Workers for Soetoro Alleged Town Hall Meeting

DHS Made Up Report About Right Wing Extremists

ALG (Americans for Limited Government) discovered a bogus report by filing a Freedom of Information request in April demanding all documents related to the drafting of the controversial “right-wing extremism” memo by the DHS. As suspected, the government wanted a statement with no research or documentation. There was no evidence of any actual active recruitment of "disgruntled veterans" by these groups, no evidence showing that folks who purchase guns or oppose gun-control legislation are necessarily dangerous, and no evidence that the economic downturn or the election of Barack Obama that is fueling any actual ‘resurgence’ of ‘extremism.’” The memo had reported that “right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans.” “The background DHS used was not based on credible intelligence sources, reporting, and analysis. Instead, what we found is that the Department was apparently surfing the net to see what news stories happened to turn up to support a pre-determined conclusion,” ALG President Bill WilsonWilson explained.

Sonja Schmidt on Friends

Mobs: Then and Now

A Republican satire on Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech.

Graphic source: this image is in the public domain due to its age.

The populist William Jennings Bryan delivered his famous "Cross of Gold" speech to advocate the interests of the people. The speech was delivered at the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Bryan advocated bimetallism. At the time, the Democratic Party wanted to standardize the value of the dollar to silver and opposed pegging the value of the United States dollar to a gold standard alone. The inflation that would result from the silver standard would make it easier for farmers and other debtors to pay off their debts by increasing their revenue dollars. It would also reverse the deflation which the U.S. experienced from 1873-1896.

The speech gets its popular name from its ending, with its biblical allusions:

Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

At the conclusion of the speech, Bryan stretched out his arms in a Christ-like manner for five seconds, while the crowd remained quiet. According to the New York World, at that point everyone seemed to go mad at once and shrieked and rushed the stage. The New York Times commented that "A WILD, RAGING, IRRESISTIBLE MOB" had been unleashed.

Today, if a public figure advocates the public interest, as Bryan did, "mob" is a term of derision.

McCaskill Asked About Barry's Long Form Birth Certificate

The original article, which has generated an incredible amount of hits, has mysteriously disappeared: 24 November 2014.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127362/

http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DemocraticTwoStep.html

How Obama Circumvented the Constitution

One of the key events prior to November's election received no attention nationally whatsoever; however, I believe that the key to the election occurred months before. Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, and co-sponsored by Barry Soetoro, was an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and to amend the clear statement in the Constitution regarding the "Natural Born Citizen" clause.

SR 511 states that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen:

* Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

* Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

* Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

* Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

* Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

* Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

* Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

The resolution addresses a Constitutional clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

The term "natural born Citizen" in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; however, other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and writings such as originating with John Bingham, do define "natural born citizen."

For example, a Chief Justice stated in 1875:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

There is no evidence that the Framers or any Congress intended to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President; therefore, the Senate resolved to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ or some might call it a devil's bargain when passing the provision.

Most of the resolution means very little but one clause is significant.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President.

This is not common knowledge, and the resolution provides no examples so we do not know who the Senate referred to: unless the resolution refers to a current presidential candidate.

Who is actually referred to here as a presidential candidate, with no military experience, yet, born "outside" the United States and wants to be viewed as eligible?

The answer is simple to deduce: Barry Soetoro, or, the co-sponsor of the resolution, Barack Obama. Research has elicited a great deal of personal information on previous presidential candidates but a double-standard exists in regard to Barry. He has released no accurate documentation at all. I am reminded of the old expression, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Formerly, American politicians were the target of parody, hatred, and abuse. It may be unseemly but has been part of the political process for a long time. The only reason Barry is not held accountable is the same reason why statist countries do not allow discussion because they promote the cult of personality: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini head the list.

Health Care Rationing Bill Replaces Parents

Thanks to Chuck Norris who is still fighting; Norris has identified a dirty little secret or two in the Obamacare disaster. The government will enter homes and usurp parental rights over child care and development.

In sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that government agents "well-trained and competent staff" would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Not on my watch will the government tell me how to parent. How will the government know all about each individual child's social, religious, and emotional development? What ever happened to parenting and their rights as adults who can raise their own children?

But the government will be really helpful according to the bill. The bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on page 840 for example: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

So the government becomes a nanny in place of parents in low-income families? Is Obama saying that low-income families are stupid and they don't know how to raise their own kids? Isn't this a stereotype? Isn't this prejudice?

The government health care rationing includes government child care. Children belong to their parents, not the Federal government. The rationing entails the ever-intrusive nanny state to control and co-opt the nation. A free people should resist the government.

The Spartans tried all this in the ancient world and it was unsustainable then and we should know better now.

Obama Tracking Citizens

The White House Office of Management and Budget plan to end a ban on federal Internet sites using comprehensive tracking and surveillance technologies.

American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology have also objected to provisions of the change in policy. Google technology, the most sophisticated tracking available, has already been accomodated and exempted from Federal policy. EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg stated: "Our primary concern is that the GSA (General Services Administration)has failed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens."

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pakistan's Nukes Attacked Three Times Already

While Obama insists Pakistan's nukes are safe a report from India Times indicates that Pakistan's nukes have already been attacked three times in the last two years.