George Mason and Richard Henry Lee, two of the Founding Fathers who participated in the writing of the Constitution refused to sign it until a bill of inherent rights (God-given) was added...April 7, 2018—Although the Bill of Rights was intitially penned in 1787 by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and the wealthy artisocrat, Alexander Hamilton, the bureaucrats—Hamilton, and John Adams favored the document minus any inherent rights for the people that the government could not rescind, and pushed to ratify it before Virginia signed the document in 1791.

The Bill of Rights, Federalists Hamilton, Adams, John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), Rufus King, Timothy Pickering, and Charles Pinckey argued, did not need the Bill of Rights addendum proffered by Mason and Lee since, they argued, the people and the States retained all power not specifically delegated to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty and protect the People from its government. It is important to always remember that the Second Amendment, which gives the People the inherent right to own and use firearms.

The first President (while President-elect) to attempt to outlaw the right of citizens to own fireams was Franklin D. Roosevelt. On Feb. 15, 1933, 19 days before his inauguration, FDR was on a whistle stop tour of Florida to thank the voters. accompanied by Chicago Mayor Anton Cermack. In the crowd was an immigrant from Italy, Guiseppe Zangara, who fled Benito Mussolini's Italy and applied for political asylum in the United States. As the election neared, Zangara saw Mussolini in FDR, and realized that the global money cartel owned both men. When he arrived that mornrng, Zangara had a .38 pistol in his belt. When he had a clear shot at FDR, he empties his pistol. All bullets missed Roosevelt and fatally struckt the Mayor because as he was pulling the trigger to fire the first shot, a local woman, Mrs. M.J.Cross, wanting a glimpse of the new President, saw the the gun and bumped his arm, deflecting the bullets. It took Cemack 13 days to seccumb from his wounds. His remains were being buried as FDR was being sworn into office.

FDR demanded that his New Deal Congress enact the Federal Firearms Act of 1934, which would completely ban on the private ownership of all guns. His effort failed. Instead, all the law did was impose a sales excise tax of $200 on the sale of a machine gun, short-barreled rifles, or sawed-off shotguns (referred to in the law as "Title 2 weapons"; or when such weapons were transported across a State line. When the law was written, Roosevelt expected a total ban on the private ownership of guns. Such a law would have been unconstitutional, since the 2nd Amendment guarantees all Americans (except those with criminal records, or are proven to be mentally afllicted) have the right to buy and possess firearms. The right is inherent. Politicians cannot waive or abrogate that right.

If politicians want to eliminate gun rights in the United States, the House of Reprsentatives must proffer a constitutional amendment approved by 2/3 of the all of the States (the people's vote). To ratify a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment, three-fourths of the States must then concur with an "aye" vote. Only then, with the consent of the People and the Congress will that amendent to the Constitution be repealed.

First, using our children and their dimwitted parents as props and shills to pretend they are opposed to gun ownership because everyone knows that "guns kill." And the dimwits who believe the garbage they are fed by the socialists with an agenda that requires getting automatic and semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of patriotic Americans (particularly those with military training) by making it a crime for former military personnel to own weapons of any type--even Red Ryder BB guns because, we are told, all guns kill.

Anytime someone kills someone else with a gun, we can count on the liberal media plastering the story on the front page of every newspaper in the country, or leading the evening TV—not just once, but for three or four days or more. Let some screwball stab someone with a knife or a pair of scisssors or knitting needles and it merits two minutes on the news. Guns, after all, are the enemy. The private ownership of firearms, after all, is what's preventing the left from overrhrowing our government.

If you think I'm wrong, let's go back to 1939 when President Franklin Roosevelt was attempting, for the second time, to legislatively erase the 2nd Amendment by outlawing the private ownership of guns. Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, wrote the majority opinion on US v Miller 307 US 174 . In it, he said:"...based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century..." (which was, and still is, the superior government of the United States) "...the general public—not the State-controlled militias—has to be as well-armed as its central government since the people, and the States, view the federal government as much, if not more, a threat to liberty than any foreign intruder on American soil."

Whenever governments fear its citizens, the first thing those in government do is disarm their citizenry in order to protect themselves from the people. Citizens armed with nothing more threatening than scythes, garden hoes, lawn rakes and pitchforks pose no threat to government, and thus, their voices are muted—as are our voices muted today by political correctness which makes pointing a finger at the evil within government a perverted form of racism. Why? Because if you can't describe the evil plotting against us, we can't stop it.

In the strictest sense, can any single judge, or nine sitting Supreme Court justices ban the private ownership of guns? No. Any alterations in the verbiage of the US Constitution cannot be done by politicians or judges; only by an amendment to the US Constitution.

Nov. 28, 2017—When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution of the United States specific rights were encased within its addendum that no judge or legislator—then or ever—could modify or erase them or weaken them is such away to abrogate them in any way. We seem to know some of them—but we screw them all up because politicians in power and judges picked by politicians in power refer their own interpretation of what rights the American people possess, or in their view, should not possess.

The only right we possess with the strength to quash not only the rest of the Bill of Rights, but the entire Bill of Rights. That's the 2nd Amendment. Without the right of honest Americans to own firearms, no other right would exist today. (Now, never forget this: the term "a well regulated Militia [is] necessary for the security of a free State" isn't referring to a federal army. It referred to two elements: State militias which were part-time soldiers and volunteers when Indiian-uprisings occurrred and when hostile nations like Mexico attacked Texas. The frontier Indian-fighter and the volunteers who died at the Alamo didn't enlist and were armed for war by the governments who start most of the wars today. Today, the government is afraid of the public--particularly the trained fighting machines. who the left views as the most dangerous threat to the country. (What that means in plain English is "most dangerous threat to the socialist communists who are try desperately to erase the Constitution and create a Soviet-style totalitarian government with an erased bill of rights.

That's how the leftwingnuts inititated fake news and have, since the Clinton regime in 1993 began the media bible of political correctness. Which brings us to Freedom of Speech, which no longer exists. Truth is no longer defined by what your eyes and ears see and hear, and know to be truth, but which you are now longer allowed to speak if what personally saw and heard today or yesterday; yet some completely identified source claims that some 40 years ago one of America's best known Christian judges is accused by (possibly a Democratic figment of the Left's imagination) that (???) was sexually abusedd--but not a single word of such an assault leaked out until Democrats desperately needed to win a Senate seat in Alabama. I wonder if that "victim" still believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

And how the Obama Administration blocked honest conservatives applying for tax exempt status to "commit" free speech? And how leftwng hate groups can protest the inauguration of President Trump, destroying private property as an act of free speech?

But without going through all of them--many of which should not be protected rights--let's look at one more. The second half of the 1st Amendment: it is so sacred no politicians or judge can, in any way to any person, ban their right to pray in public, display religious symbols or assemble on street corners and pray. Oh, wait a minute. People do assemble on street corners or block all traffic from moving on streets and avenues so they can lay their prayer rugs on the road and pray to Allah without any interference from anyone. I remember one Christian that did. US Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who read passages from the Holy Bible at the fence surrounding the White House and was dishonorably discharged from the UN Navy and reduced in rank from Lt. Commander to 2nd Lieutenant. Wasn't that a horrific crime?

The media talks like it will take at least 60 votes to kill Obamacare, not 52. July 23, 2017>>>ManyTrump supporters—and even many of those who never voted for Trump now wished they did. Many still believe the fake news"ghosts of FDR, Barack Obama, John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and Harry S. Truman, with Obama inching FDR out by a nose are the American socialist heads of State. (I would have used the designation, "President," but because Obama is included in the list, I can't since he was never legally elected President for two reasons. First, to become the President of the United States you must be a "natural born" citizen of the United States. Obama was "natural born" in Kenya, a province of Great Britain. He was legally adopted in Indonesia by his Indonesian step-father. Forget his mother. For her to pass citizenship rights off to her offspring, she had to be 19 years of age. She failed that test by 3 months. Add to that the fraud in the Election of 2008 where the Democrats found over 132 million votes cast in the ballot boxes, but only 96.9 million legitimate registered voters cast ballots.

Looking at the candidates who won their particular 18th cenutry races, the first fraud was socialist John Adams who busied himself almost from the first day of his single administration pushing through laws which would provide him dictatorial powers since he believed "presidents" should have the power of kings. Adams decided that common people did not possess the freedom of speech to belittle their national leader, and enacted the Aliens & Sedition Act, making it a criminal act carrying a year in jail and a stiff fine to speak out against the President.

Barack Obama, who with his inner circle, used fakery to frame Republicans in an attempt to overturn President Donald Trump's election. (In my thinking, Obama was both the worst and third third worst (while not ever being the president). However many times you count Obama, Franklin Roosevelt was the second or third worst President who who played "German-Japanese Roulette" with the world's wealthiest tyrants to create a new world order. Had Hillary Clinton stole the Election of 2016 she would likely be the first Yankee president moving from the White House to the Big House.

But, before I run out of space, let me ask again: "How many Congressmen or other politicos does it take to legally erase 100% of Obamacare?

We keep hearing two numbers being bantered back and forth...60 and 52. Both numbers, while theoretically correct, are both wrong. It only takes one, two or three. Actually ONE being the correct number if that one is [a] the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The Originality Clause of the Constitution requires that all revenue bills begin, and first be enacted by the House of Representatives. HR3790 which actually did originate in the House doesn't qualify simply because it was a piece of legislation written to finance homes for veterans returning home from battle—and it was passed in the House, but as part of the Obamacare, healthcare never shows up. Which means, ONE man, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can kill Obamacare. Third, the Attorney General of the United States, can also kill Obamacare completely because it was deliberately created through fraud. Only, the nice thing about using Secretary Jeff Sessions he can file criminal charges against every Democrat who voted for Obamacare in 2008 and participated in the fraud.

The nice thing is, since the original 2008 hucksters all committed fraud trading deals back and forth...and bribing insurance companies out the wauzu. I think of President Donald Bush should use this technique to kill Obamacare. He could create any form oflegitimate healthcare system—minus the fraud and the sneaky addendums that feed their primary constituents (better known as fat cat donors) back home.

Just think about the whole thing. Not only do you fix the healthcare system, you drain the swamp; lock Bill and Hillary Clinton up for the rest of their lives, and for the first time, the whole "swamp mob" like back when President Chester Arthur became President and shut down Roscoe Conking's longshoremen's "swamp, wiping out patronage for several decade."

The FBI Director who was part of Fast & Furious that no one seems to remember was Robert Mueller. Aug 16, 2017>>>In 2012, I wrote two pieces on Fast & Furious. The first one, posted on my web site on June 30, 2012 was entitled Fast & Furious Was the Obama Plan to Fast Track the Small Arms Treaty? The second piece, written a month later on Aug. 10, 2012 was entitled After a speedy kangaroo trial, Holder found one family to blame for Obama's, Holder's and Clinton's scheme to ratify the UN's Small Weapon's Treaty. It was also the same person the FBI tried to blame for the shooting death of US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry (for theoretically selling him the gun which killed Terry) but whose death was caused of the FBI and the ATF who were deliberately letting illegal automatic weapons gun walk across the border to drug dealers in order to build a case for more strenuously regulating the sale of firearms with more stringent international regulations— convinced that the high court, while it wouldn't ban gun rights, would make it harder for gun peddlers along the border to move firearms across the international border until Hillary won the White House, that the Supreme Court would uphold the UN Small Treaty which would outlaw the private ownership of guns in America.

It would greatly benefit every conservative American to read both of the articles mentioned above because someone's name who should be in them is not there. His name was FBI Director Robert Mueller. He served, first as George W, Bush's FBI director from Sept. 4, 2001 until Sept. 3, 2011 (when Fast and Furious began in 2009. He served as Obama's FBI Director for two additional years, from Sept. 4, 2011 until Sept. 3, 2013 through Fast & Furious.

You should remember him—after all, John McCain and Lindsay Graham both said he was the most honest FBI Director and former assistant US Attorney General in the country. And Barack Obama extended his "tour" by two years because Fast and Furious was still going on. Someone just failed to mention that its the FBI background checks that are supposed to determine which Americans are honest enough to own guns and which have criminal records and shouldnt. Or those who have too many guns and, maybe, shouldn't have any more. Makes you wonder why some of those along the border being allowed to buy guns had criminal records or already owned arsenals of small arms and the ATF or the FBI doesn't seem to care if they own more. You know, the ones—those the FBI said were okay, and, without anyone raising an eyebrows why they were being allowed to buy even more.

Now remind me one more time—who was it that picked Muelller to investigate President Donald Trump? Oh, yes. Liberal Democrat Dianne Feinstein. She passed Mueller's name to Deputy AGl Rosenstein.. Fired FBI Diector Maanes Comey, who was seeking revernge against President Trump pased Mueller's name on to Feinstein. And who were the Republicans who said Mueller was an honest man? Oh, yes. Republican Senators Lindsay Graham who bet his job on it, and John McCain who never saw a Democrat who wouldn't vote for him.

And, of course, Deputy AG Rosenstein who seemed to think the minority party whip had the authority to select a special prosecutor (whose instructions appeared to be to ignore Hillary's carnal sins as long as he found at least one impeachable sin committed by Trump or, a least by one of his kids, or some other key appointee, that could destroyTrump.

President Trump needs to fire Rosenstein first and foremost because Rosenstein clerked under Mueller in the Justice Department under Rosenstein, prosecuting public corruption cases as a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division led by Mueller. The relatiionship between Mueller and Rossenstein was too close. The only perfson in the Justice Department unb iased enough to make that decision was the Attorney General himself, Jeff Sessions. Rossenstein, Comey and Feinstein vdfry deliberately poinsed the well.

When you want to fre someone high up in government, you need to use people high up in government whose sins warts don't matter.

I don't know about you, but I think Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to fire every Obama appointee who played a role in outlawing the ownership of firearms in America, and who is associated with Obama'swith collusion and try them before the Supreme Court. McCain runs in 2018. Maybe Sarah Palin will help JD Hayworth retire McCain this time around since she was snookered by him in 2012 and deserves some payback in 2018. And, I'd like to see Jim DeMint run for Graham's seat That way, we could have two honest Senators in that State.

Sean Spicer...Honest man; White House Enigma and the brunt of humor on Saturday Night Live. July 23, 2017>>>Like most Trump supporters and those who voted for Trump out of necessity (voting for anyone but Hillary), I was pleased and relieved when the President-elect was actually sworn into office, and the Obamas were finally evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I was looking forward to the Trump Administration's first press conference—particularly after the White House bantering about changing, or even eliminating, the live daily briefings in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. On Jan. 21, 2017 the new White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer did something I didn't expect—even though Trump declared war on the media during the campaign. (I say that because of the rumors I picked up following the first couple of press briefings, that there was a not quite polite paternal reprimand about the way Spicer was handling the media. I think President Trump expected Spicer to defuse the media wars, but they escalated because its an immutable fact that the media wars were promulgated by the leftwing status quo money mafia which not only controls the print and electronic fourth estate, they also own the air the elitist left politicians who control the unconstitutional fourth branch of government breathe.

Spicer's first press conference began with a bang! and it only got worse. The Washington Post and other false news mega circulation media giants launched their first assault on the new President on Jan. 21 by comparing photo stills of the turnout to Obama's inauguration (shot as the program began with full attendance). The visual of President Trump's inauguration, were taken a half hour to an hour before the proceedings began. Outside of the big metropolitan centers (which carried the pictures for comparison) the fake imagery of what was purported to be the total attendance was deliberate. It was made to look like far less people showed up for Trump's inauguration than Obama's which was simply not true. The left was trying hard to rewrite the history of the Trump presidency before he was even sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.

To President Trump and Sean Spicer, it was just one more deliberate, manipulated example of fake news meant to deceive the voters outside of the beltway by suggesting that far more Americans attended Obama's inauguration than Trump's. But, I suspect that Spicer received special instructions for that first press conference—be tough! When Spicer chastised the press corp for deliberately misrepresenting the crowd size, the press corp retaliated against the Trump White House, and the war was on.

Spicer told friends shortly after he joined the White House team that he didn't think he'd last more than a year as White House Press Secretary. He lasted six months and one day before tendering his resignation—an expected formality once President Trump offered the job of Communications Director, which he had previously offered to Spicer, to millionaire financier and hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci.

On Friday evening, July 21, Trump issued a statement praising Scaramucci in which he said: "Anthony is a person I have great respect for. We have accomplished so much, and we have been given credit for so little. The good news is that the people get it even if the media doesn't." I think what those words said without speaking them is that Sean Spicer, the President's voice to the media, didn't get the job done. Late Friday evening Trump tried to erase the sting to Spicer by tweeting that Sean Spicer is "...a wonderful person who took tremendous abuse from the Fake News Media—but his future is bright. Just look at his great TV ratings." (Note: the president wasn't referring to the Saturday Night Live parodies, but the fact that Spicer's ratings during the live news briefing tops the audience charts every afternoon. It became the top rated daytime program on TV.)

On June 11, 2017 Politico reported that days after his first overseas trip, the President set a July 4 deadline for Chief of Staff Reince Prebius, reportedly berating him in front of Trump's former campaign manager,Corey Lewandowski and his deputy campaign manager, David Bossie in an Oval Office meeting. In that meeting Trump gave Prebius until July 4 to clean up the dysfunctional mess in the White House before major changes took place.

According to mysterious quotes that magically appear in print and which may or may not be true, President Trump agreed to make a berth for Spicer to continue as part of the White House team in order to avoid a public turf war. Spicer, of course did the right thing and fell on his sword for the President. Time will tell whether Spicer or Scaramucci was the best surrogate for the President. I think, over time, Sean Spicer will prove to be the most loyal of the two but, in the end, money talks—and enough money silences negative speech.

In reality, I think the promised "job," had Spicer not resigned, would have been a resume title with a paycheck for Spicer's job search. (Remember, it's always easier to find a job when you have one. Remember this as well: Spicer was not hired by Trump. He was hired by Prebius. In Trump's mind, Spicer's inability to "calm the beast" in the press gallery was as much Prebius' fault as Spicer's. In other words, Spicer is gone for one reason: he failed to defend the president better.

That was the biggest handicap Spicer carried into his job as Press Secretary—a complete lack of a confidence-building business relationship with real estate tycoon Donald Trump. I think in the case of Donald Trump the businessman, the sum and substance of a man's worth is that man's net worth. Prior to Trump's inauguration, during the power-grab factional infighting between Steve Bannon, the former CEO of Brietbart.com, Reince Prebius and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner (who, along with Donald Trump, Jr. are due to testify before a Senate witch hunt during the week of July 24), Trump came close to firing either Bannon or Prebius but held back, I think, because he was more afraid of Brietbart News than he was CNN and MSNBC.

If the organizational reshift in the communications strategy at the White House works with the appointment of Scaramucci as Trump's Communications Director, it will work not because of Scaramucci's skill dealing with newspaper and TV newshounds but because Scaramucci is a smooth-talking, Long Island hedge-fund hustler and millionaire who, when he was approached by Trump, was senior vice president and chief strategy officer at the US Export-Import Bank. Trump just needed someone rich enough to "still the beast."

The Vatican needs to practice lip-zipping when it comes to science. Pope John needs to study celestral science from a scientific perspective, not a social progressive one. Global warming is caused exclusively by God's sun, not God's man. Mar. 31, 2017>>>I had to get this piece done today so that the date on it does not appear as April 1st. I don't want anyone to think this is an "April Fool's Day" parody. There is no such thing as man-made global warming regardless how much the Holy See wants President Donald Trump to "agree it into existence" with the likes of Barack Obama and Al Gore, Jr, or when early scientists like Copernicus [Niklas Koppernigk] who, in 1514 with the use of a primitive telescope, discovered that Earth was not geocentric (earth centered) but was heliocentric (sun-centered). Copernicus was charged of heresy. Facing excommunication and likely execution, Copernicus recanted a scientific fact and saved his life—but lived in ridicule from his lesser intelligent peers.

In 1911 (Solar Cycle 14), Niagara Falls (the American side of the international boundary) froze over—a remarkable feat considering that 2,271,247 liters of water per second cascade over the falls. While skeptics are still convinced that it was impossible for Niagara Falls to freeze over, it should be noted that from 1911 to 1913 was the coldest segment of Solar Cycle 14, with almost no sunspot activity activity at all.

The ecowackos will never breathe a word that they know the same weather patterns which affect Earth also impact Venus and Mars—in precisely the same way. If they did, it would be pretty hard for them to explain why it's your fault that coal and oil-fired factories on Earth are polluting Mars and Venus. For that reason, in the storyline promoted by the ecowackos, global warming does not exist on Mars and Venus because, well, if it did, it would be just a little too hard to explain.

And the social progressive watermelons who promote global warming don't want you to know they sell their global warming myth to the educated idiots not only because it's making the Watermelons millionaires and billionaires, but moreover because the cataclysmic emergency they fabricated allows them to create "eraser laws"—laws which justify erasing your liberty under the Bill of Rights under the dire circumstances which the left claims threatens the world's existence.

What federal judge anywhere would let the Constitution of the United States get in the way of protecting America from itself? After all, the social progressives in the Clinton and Obama Administrations have already decided that carbon dioxide was the culprit that would ultimately pollute the whole planet and extinguish God's creation from existence.

Fox News contributor Alan Colmes died around 9 am, Thurs., Feb. 23, 2017. Feb. 23, 2017>>>The news that Fox News contributor Alan Colmes had died after a brief illness came to Fox News from his former partner and close friend Sean Hannity shortly after 9.am. today. He was 66 years of age. Colmes had recently announced that he was taking time off from his radio show due to undisclosed medical problems. He is survived by his wife of 13 years, Dr. Jocelyn Elise Crowley. She is the sister of Fox News contributor Monica Crowley.

While I've never met Alan Colmes, I discovered a few years ago that we had a "cyber connection." He didn't like the content on my website. One evening I wanted to check on the reaction to a piece I launched, so I googled the topic I had written on (and, no, I don't remember what it was.) When the Google page opened, the first listing was from Sean Hannity. Paraphrased, Hannity's comment was that this was an article every American should read. With a slightly puffed chest, I glanced at the second listing. It was from Alan Colmes. The first line was a question: "Who is Jon Christian Ryter?" His less than ego-building comment was simply that he would advise those who stumbled across the article (which his Hannity & Colmes partner thought every American should read), was that it wasn't worth the time because, he said, if a writer is so ashamed of his work that he uses a nom de plume, it isn't worth reading. It was about that time, I guess because he realized I wasn't going away, that Alan initiated his "Who is Jon Christian Ryter?" page on his website.

Whenever I had a few extra minutes, I always visited Alan's website. He would take a few jabs, but when you wear big-boy pants you have to expect a few big-boy jabs. He was never offensive. When I visited his website, I generally found his views interesting, even if I didn't ascribe to them. He was a gentleman. For some time I couldn't understand the friendship between Alan and Hannity. But, because it existed, that was one of the reasons I never jabbed at Alan. Really good friends are a prize. Hannity had one, and sadly, lost him today. Wish now that instead of just popping in on his website to see the latest "Who is Jon Christian Ryter?" jab, that, instead, I had made an effort to visit with a very prolific writer with a very good sense of humor. Alan Colmes will be missed—even by some of those he panned.

When Jim Comey back-peddled his investigation to July's status quo, he was not exonerating Hillary Clinton. Without speaking it, he told the American people that the Justice Dept alone can indict a criminal suspect, or impanel a grand jury. Hillary is just as dirty today as she was yesterday. Nov. 7, 2016)>>>The commoners on Main Street America aren't privy to the private schemes which secretly take place in "The Swamp" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (since Obama is not quite as crooked as Crooked Bill and Criminal Hillary) although I don't know just how big a crime perjury is (when the lies concern that person being a citizen of the United States when he isn't), particularly when that lie puts that individual in the White House.

If Hillary manages to steal the White House (the election is tomorrow), the first thing she will do is try, as President. is pardon herself for the email scandal, because 18 USC § 1001 bans her for life from holding any government job for exposing protected federal government documents from scrutiny by those without top secret clearance—including Hillary's Filipino immigrant maid, Marina Santos who was privy not only to secret and top secret materials on Hillary's computer in her Washington, DC residence (known as Whitehaven) as well as sensitive non-secret communications between candidate Clinton and her campaign staff.

What does that mean to the Clinton Email Servergate scandal? And FBI Director James Comey's coerced statement reiterating that Hillary is no more guilty today than she was in July when Comey made it clear that Hillary violated the law over and over again, but in the Obama Administration, she has not done anything she could, or would, be indicted for simply because Barack Obama and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch (a former US Attorney appointed by Obama) had absolutely no intention of filing criminal charges or impaneling a federal grand jury to indict the former Secretary of State—or pursue the investigation of "pay to play" (money for concessions from the US federal government which, in times past, bordered on treason) by both Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is likely that any investigations on either Bill or Hillary Clinton will be buried somewhere in the Clinton Swamp in Chappaqua, protected from scrutiny by voracious alligators. Just as Barack Obama declared himself a "natural born citizen of the United States," Hillary will declare herself innocent of all charges.

Obama has authorized the US Citizenship and Immigration Service to omit portions of the Oath of Allegiance to accommodate Muslims and others who will not fight inthe defense of the United States of America. Sept. 23, 2016 (Moved Article)>>>The first official recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made during the American Revolution on May 30, 1778 at Valley Forge. Three years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790 providing for a mandatory oath of allegiance to be administered to new citizens, affirming their support of the Constitution of the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1795 added the renunciation of the new citizen's ties to his or her former sovereign nation. The Naturalization Act of 1906 added the section of the oath requiring new citizens to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. The 1906 law required all prospective US citizens to speak English. That law, a revision of an 1870 immigration law, was signed by Theodore Roosevelt. It required that all naturalization tests, in all States, be conducted in English only. If the applicant could not master English sufficiently to pass the test, the citizen would be denied citizenship until he, she or they had mastered the language. America, a nation of immigrants, knew that if you couldn't speak the language of the land you could not be assimilated into the nation. If you are not wholly assimilated into your new nation—heart, mind and sinew—they you are a stealth enemy of that nation, waiting for the opportunity to destroy it.

Prior to 1924 there was no standard, mandatory oath of allegiance. The oral oaths recited at the naturalization ceremonies were independently adapted from the 1795, 1870 or 1906 naturalization laws, with each court (federal or State) or the government bureaucrat administering the oath of allegiance could create their own verbiage. On May 26, 1924 the 68th Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, Public Law 68-139 43 Stat 153 which standardized and mandated the oath of allegiance. Subsequently, on Monday, July 20, 2015 Barack Obama approved changes in immigration law (attributed to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service [USCIS] who incorporated it into the US Code) the following day, is an invalid exercise of presidential power, but just one among many that Obama has exercised with impunity

. On Tuesday, July 21 Muslims and/or any foreigner taking their oath of allegiance to the United States can skip the provision of the oath where the new citizen is required to swear they will bear arms, and defend and protect the United States of America. Instead, the new citizen can insert the phrase "I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law."

Didn't Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan have a noncombatant role as a medical doctor and psychiatrist at Fort Hood, TX? That is, until he was notified that he was being transferred to a hospital in Afghanistan. (Keep in mind that medical doctors serving in war zones are noncombatants.) Notified that he would be going to a war zone where his job would be patching up Americans engaged in killing Muslims, Maj. Hasan planned to end his life at the Fort Hood Readiness Center. Obama ordered the military to call Hasan's slaughter of 12 military personnel and one civilian "work-place violence" instead of terrorism. Emails on his computer made it clear he planned to to kill as many Army personnel as possible in an jihadic act. Caught off guard and slaughtered by Hasan were Lt. Col. Juanita L. Warman, 55; Maj. Libardo Caravee, 52; Capt. John R. Gaffaney, 54; Capt. Russell Seager, 41; Staff Sgt. Justin DeCrow, 32; Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29; Spc. Kham Xiong, 23; Spc. Jason Hunt, 22; Spc. Frederick Green, 29; Pfc. Aaron Thomas Memlka, 19; Pfc. Michael Pearson, 22; Pvt. Francheska Valdez, 21 and one civilian employee at Fort Hood, Michael Cahill, 62. Valdez was pregnant and expecting her first child., so in reality Hasan killed 14 Americans.

Hillary wants to resurrect the Clinton Health Security Act from its 23-year old moldy tomb in Box 1748 in the National Archive—Jan. 27, 2016 >>>Hillary Clinton lies. Everyone knows that. Hillary Clinton lies about everything. Everybody knows that, too. Hillary Clinton thinks she's God.. Actually, Hillary would get me on that one. She would make it clear she does not think she's God.

Let's rephrase that: Let's say that if one of Hillary's loyal, low-income welfare recipients walked up to her on the street and asked her that question—oops, wrong example unless the media cameras were rolling. If the media cameras (and even the cell phone cameras) were absent, no loyal constituent without a check or cash in hand would get within a dozen yards of Hillary. After Queen Hillary evicted Prince Albert Gore from the East Wing in 1993 (because she wanted his office), among her first edicts was that it would be a firing offense for any White House employee to look directly at the First Lady when she walked down any hall or corridor in any federal building. Now, if one of Hillary's personal acquaintances—I almost said friends, but I doubt she has any real serious friends—were to ask Hillary if she thought she was God, it's probable that with a hint of a smile, she'd reply, "Of course not. I'm not dead yet."

But, ask anyone with a Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump bumper sticker on their foreheads and they would likely offer you evidence to prove she honestly thinks she is because in Hillary's world, money is God. And it doesn't matter if that money comes from enemy or friendly nations. After all, God loves everyone.

On Tuesday, Jan. 26, speaking to leftwing loyalists in Cedar Falls in the Hawkeye' State's upcoming Iowa Caucus on Feb. 1, Hillary said she was "...taken aback by the amount of concern that people have about addiction and mental health. I really wasn't expecting it, and I didn't know that it would be top of mind for so many people." Yeah, I can imagine that subject moving to the top of the political "wants"and "needs" list where the number one concern in most homes not only in Iowa, but in Anytown, USA, is American jobs for Americans, lower taxes and much lower government spending, getting rid of Obamacare—and Obama, filing sedition charges against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid for violating the law concerning the vetting of presidential and vice presidential candidates; and stopping the influx of illegal aliens—particularly from Muslim countries/ And, of course, the impeachment of Barack Obama for ignoring a federal judge's orders and flying literally hundreds if not thousands of what appears to be ISIS illegals into various mid-sized cities all over the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic region on UPS cargo planes converted for passenger use, in the United States in the middle of the night. And, imperatively, a nice new tariff against American branded goods made in the third world would be pretty high on my list of wants. Particularly one repealing the illegal federal law of forcing States to use electronic voting laws when the Constitution gives the right of how elections are voted exclusively to the States. Blame this law, the Help American Vote Act of 2002 on President George W. Bush..The left did not have the votes to overturn his veto, but Bush-43 signed the bill into law, forcing every State using paper ballots to convert to an electronic vote counting system, which allowed Barack Obama to steal the Elections of 2008 and 2012. Those are the things Americans are concerned about. Not drug addiction, alcoholism, or a nicotine addiction. Far leftwingers who think their role in life is to control your life are interested in laws which allow them to control every aspect of your life.

If you think I'm wrong, think about this. Before he officially jumped into the race, Donald Trump began polling every America about their views of the government, and what they thought needed to be changed to make life in America better. He's recited a litany of things Americans want changed. And you know, not once did Trump get up on a stage and tell a cheering crowd that if he was elected, he pledged to fight drug addiction, alcoholism and smoking. Pass one or two more anti-smoking laws and smokers will have to find a neighborhood sewer, pry off the lid, and climb down with the sewer rats for a smoke. Of course, the left would sue to protect the rats from getting cancer (which you don;t get from smoking). (And this from a former 3-pack a day anti-smoker who doesn't drink and has never touched an illegal drug of any type.)

Hillary's lie about discovering that the majority of Americans are concerned about mental health and addictions of all types was stated because—surprise—it's in her failed Heath Security Act of 1993 which she needs to resurrect before she's eaten alive by socialist Bernie Sanders, and she needs something more on the front page of America's newspapers than having her lies about her secure email server as the first article everyone reads with the morning coffee,

Carly Fiorina is the GOP "Hillary" with the same corrupt baggage. Talk about sucker punching America.—Sept. 20, 2015 >>>Two presidential wannabes are a powerful former Hewitt Packard CEO and a powerful former US Senator, former Secretary of State and a former First Lady who's married to a former US President whose family foundation is earning billions selling political patronage to both America's allies and enemies. Since America is now getting so sick of Hillary Clinton that they're willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, let's skip her and look at Carly Fiorina. Hillary and Carly appear to share at least one former friend among America's deadliest enemies—Iran.

Fiorina likes to pretend she has the expertise to run a country because she ran Hewlett Packard from 1999 to 2005 when they fired her as CEO—after she bought junk computer maker Compaq in 2001 for $25 billion in stock and merged it into what became America's largest, personal computer manufacturer. Fiorina took advantage of the merger to lighten HP's payroll. She fired 30 thousand employees. In January, 2005 HP stock lost 65% of its value. On Feb. 8, 2005 Fiorina was fired for incompetence. In Keven Maney's employment eulogy of Carly Fiorina in USA Today, he said: “Fiorina was bad. Everyone seems to agree on this now." So much for potential job growth in a Fiorina Administration. And, so much for Fiorina's bragging rights that as the first woman CEO of a global Fortune 20 corporation, she's the only woman in America qualified to be president.

The only problem is, according to Article II of the Constitution, no woman is constitutionally qualified to be president since Article II mandates a male-gendered head of State. In fact, the Founding Fathers affirmed that fact 22 times in the Constitution. Now, you might argue that the use of male-gendered pronouns is, and has been, common grammar that does not exclude women from being referred to under broad use of male-gendered words. Women, after all, can be "chairmen" of companies or committees. But, that was not the intent of the Founders. In fact, that was the farthest thing from their minds since women lacked the right to vote in the United States until the 19th Amendment was ratified on Aug. 18. 1920.

Four times in Article I, Section 7 the President is referred to specifically as a man. Again, this was not an accident. The President is referred to, by gender, a total of 22 times in the Constitution. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a male gender national leader. In doing so, they explicitly barred women from ever becoming the President of the United States without first enacting a constitutional amendment that would allow them to accept the office if elected. In his book, "America's Constitution: A Guided Tour," Yale law professor Akhill Reed Amar suggests that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, also granted them the implied corresponding right to seek the office of President of the United States. "In effect," he said, "that amendment required that the word 'he' in the original constitutional clauses dealing with the president would henceforth be read to mean 'he' or 'she.'"

Amar unfortunately, read words or meanings not in evidence. The 19th Amendment merely grants women the right to vote. Although liberals have mastered the art of creating supra rights in existing case law by implication, there is no implied corresponding right to be construed here—particularly for women seeking the office of President of the United States which, constitutionally, is uniquely a male job. Sexist, isn't it?

Simply stated, the 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Granted, starry-eyed liberals will automatically see the expansive nature of the phrase "...shall not be...abridged..." and will expand that phrase sufficiently to drive a Mack truck through it since the entire Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 were crafted from the "commerce clause" (two words) in Article I, Section 8. But the simple truth is that all the 19th Amendment does is provide women with the right to vote in federal, State, county and local elections. While women have never been denied the right to seek public office (even when they could not vote for themselves or for other female candidates for office), there is nothing in the 19th Amendment (or any other amendment for that matter) that neutralizes the gender specific qualities required of those who become the President of the United States.

That would change under the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment proposed in July, 2003 by then Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch.. Hatch—a close friend of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—said he proposed Senate Joint Resolution 15 to amend the Constitution to provide naturalized citizens like Schwarzenegger and Canadian born Governor Jennifer Granholm [D-MI] the right to seek the highest office in the land. S.J. Res. 15 and its H.J. 104 (proffered by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]) would specifically amend Article II, Section 5 while effectively amending all of Amendment II by innocuously degenderizing it by using the term "person" to describe those seeking the Office of the President. The proposed new amendment concealed its purpose well:

The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, proffered on October 5, 2004 for consideration by Congress says: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: `Article-- `SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States. `SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.'"

The Hatch-Rohrabacher proposal mirrors the initial naturalized citizen resolution offered by Congressman Barney Frank as House Joint Resolution 88 on July 24, 2000 when there was much speculation in liberal circles of a Hillary Clinton "primary test" against Vice President Al Gore that never materialized. Frank's H.J. Res. 88 said: "A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible for the Office of President is not ineligible to that office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."

But the simple truth is, this amendment—which never made it through Congress is not the law of the land which means that neither Hillary Clinton nor Carly Fiorina, are qualified to run for, or serve as, President of the United States.

Hewlett Packard used a European subsidiary which had been partnering with a Dubai concern called Redington Gulf to sell computers and printer ink to Iran from 1997 (before Fiorina's reign). In 1999, with Fiorina at the helm, Iran was one of HP's biggest markets. In 2003 Hewlett Packard was doing $120 million in computer and computer parts business with Iran. That year, Fiorina named Redington Gulf as HP's "Distributor of the Year." Redington released this statement to the media: "The seeds of the Redington-Hewlett-Packard relationship were sowed six years ago for one market—Iran." Sanctions officials argue that Hewlett Packard used a loophole in the sanctions law by diverting the sales to Iran through a subsidiary in the Muslim world—a murky area in the law—to sell them to a country banned under sanction from receiving them.

On the campaign trail Fiorina, like front runner billionaire big mouth Donald Trump, decided that once you pay for your own polls to determine what voters like and dislike, you then know what to campaign for—and against. The nice thing is, then you can pretend you feel like the rest of conservative America when you really don't. In other words, when you're richer than the above-averge American working stiff, you don't have to believe in anything. You just need to know what the suckers...er, the voters, believe in—and pretend. That's why American voters always seem to elect politicians who should be in the Big House instead of the White House.

Oops...Murdock's HarperCollins lost Israel in its new Atlas of the Mideast—Jan. 2, 2015 >>>Open any Muslim nation's geography or social science textbook and you will find Palestine on the Muslim maps found in any classroom or library. What you won't find is a nation called Israel. On a Muslim map, it doesn't exist. The map of the Mideast in the Collins Bartholomew Atlas (a subsidiary of HarperCollins) which is sold in English speaking schools in the majority-Muslim nations in the Gulf area also omitted Israel. In its place you will find "Gaza." When Arutz Sheva, Israel national news.com reportedly blew the whistle on the newly released atlas of the Middle East, the London Telegraph and the Washington Post were among the first mainstream media to report what HarperCollins labeled as an "error."

A HarperCollins spokesman issued the following statement when the omission hit the front page of several newspapers around the world, and was attacked by Bishop Declan Lang, chairman of the Bishop's Conference's Dept. of International Affairs. "HarperCollins regrets the omission of the name Israel from their Collins Middle East Atlas. This product has now been removed from sale in all terrortories, and all remaining stock will be pulped. HarperCollins sincerely apologizes for this omission and for any offense caused." (Note the bold face, above.). Once the Muslim extremists purchased all of the atlases they needed—produced not by Muslims, but by Rupport Murdoch, the owner of the ultra-conservative Fox News, who could accuse Islamic extremists of claiming that Israel is, and historically was, owned by the Palestinians when a politically conservative American company created the atlas?

First, let's look at the statemernt made by Collins Bartholomew,. which defended the deletion of Israel from the atlas and amending the verbiage to change "Israel" to "Gaza" by admitting "...the decision to do so was based on "local preferences." In other words, it wasn't an error. It was a deliberate decision to sell the Atlas to the anti-Israeli Muslim schools in the Islamic majority nations in the Mideast. And, even more specifically, it was because their customers in the Gulf States (the only place in the world where the maps were sold) would find the inclusion of Israel as 'unacceptable.

The Collins Bartholomew decisuion to delete Israel from the atlases they sell to the Muslim world has sparked what may well become a boycott of all HarperCollins titles

Strong G-2 Solar Storm Hitting Earth<<<Sept. 11, 2014—NNASA's Goddard Space Weather Prediction announced that a G-2 Solar Storm caused by a coronal mass ejection [CME] AR2158, that was first observed on Sept.9 will become a R3 (strong) solar flare will erupt tomorrow, Sept. 12 and will be on its way to Earth and beyond. The king of ecowackoism, Al Gore and the watermelon global warming econuts who are aligned with him (to profit with him by buying and selling "carbon credits" that are imposed on the industrial nation's working class taxpayers). They will blame this G-3 geomagnetic storm whose magnetized plasma began causing radio and TV interference on Sept.10 and an R1 (minor) solar flare we will experience interference from around September 14, on the working class people in the industrialized world (except, of course, China and the Soviet Union who, like Barack Obama, blame America for everything).

The R1 solar storm that erupted on Sept. 10 will be felt for the next few days. You can bet real money on Harry Reid and the watermelons in the House and Senate, along with the leftwing media, to continue to conceal the fact that all global warming and cooling in this solar system is caused by solar activity on the sun, and will instead blame it carbon dioxide emissions from factories and car exhausts, from fat people sweating or farm animals and fat men loudly excreting intestinal gases.

The Goddard's Space Weather Center in Boulder, Colorado has been making it clear for decades that space storms—which created Al Gore's "global warming" happen very often unless the sun is in a period of very minimal solar activity. Normally solar storms don't harm people. Solor storm that erupt from the center of the sun play havoc on Earth.. What makes these storms worrisome, the Goddard Center said, was both the fact that the storm is erupting in the center (mid-level where the sun "quarters" meet) and, of course, based on the strength of the storm. The Goddard warning said "...there's been a giant magnetic storm on the sun. Because it is pointed right at us, we'll at least catch some of the cloud of highly energized and magnetized plasma that can disrupt Earth's magnetic sphere, which sometimes leads to temporary grid problems."

Goddard said that forecasters don't know yet when Wednesday's solor storm will fully arrive here, and which part of the Earth will be facing the that part of the sun where the flare will erupt, because that area will take the brunt of the effect. The first waves from the solar blast arrived minutes after the flare erupted and has already affected radio and satellite TV transmissions. So don't waste your time calling your radio or TV station or Directv or Dish. Blame Al Gore because he's already blaming us.

Did the 1975 Church Committee Report prove that Andrew Brietbart may have been murdered by an icy poison pellet in 2012?—Sat., Aug 23, 2014 >>> Around 10:30 pm or so on Feb. 29, 2012, Andrew Brietbart stopped in at The Brentwood, a neighborhood restaurant and pub near his home for a glass of wine and engaged in a political discussion with Arthur Sando who, as the last person to speak to Brietbart, just happened to occupy the bar stool beside Brietbart. They talked for about two hours or so before Brietbart said goodnight and headed the couple of blocks to his Brentwood home. He never made it home alive.

Let's pause for a moment to consider three points. First, Brietbart had a heart condition known as cardiomegaly (an enlarged heart). Second, as the recipient of a triple bypass necessitated by one massive heart attack that should have killed me and perhaps a dozen "warnings" (before and after the major heart attack) that would have sent an intelligent person to the hospital). I know every heart victim gets warnings: chest pains, partial or complete momentary paralysis of the left arm or hand, clamminess, or a myriad of other symptoms.

In Brietbart's case, he would start coughing first, and experienced a severe shortness of breath. What would have been happening inside his body would have been pulmonary edema (build-up of fluids in his lungs) and likely, at the same time, pleural effusion (excess fluid around the lungs). He would have been experiencing swelling of the abdomen. Since Brietbart had an enlarged heart for some time, he would have recognized those symptoms as immediately life-threatening, and someone in the pub would have called an ambulance. He would not have bid ado and calmly strolled from The Brentwood to his home a couple blocks away where he would then would have then suddenly realized he was in cardiac distress and then, hypothetically, called out to his wife, "Susannah, you'd better get me an ambulance. I think I'm dying." The official story is that as he walked down the street, a passerby saw him collapse and called an ambulance. Brietbart was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center where he died.about an hour later.

Within minutes of Brietbart's death the rumor mill was churning out the story that Andrew Brietbart had been assassinated by the Obama Administration. The most common theory was that he was poisoned. At least one fan supposed he'd been shot with a poisoned dart. When I dug into Brietbart's medical history I learned the 43-year old man suffered from heart disease. The coronor ruled his death was caused by a heart attack. I accepted the coronor's conclusion—until this morning.

This morning I chanced across an email from a cyberfriend. In it was the summary of the 1975 Church Committee Hearing on how the CIA developed a secret assassination tool. The devise was a poison that would cause its victim to have an immediate fatal heart atack. What made this poison remarkable is that it could be frozen into an untraceable, minute ice dart that could be fired soundlessly from an air pellet gun.into the intended victim. The choice target was the victim's neck, but the ice dart would penetrate clothing. The ice would melt quickly without leaving evidence of the point of entry except a minisimle red dot that looks like a tiny strawberry birth mark. Andrew Breitbart arrved at autopsy on March 1, 2012 his, medical history in a manila folder, laying on his chest. When Breitbart's enlarged heart and medical history and the fact that he suffered a major heart attack, the coroner rules the political journalist's death was due to cardiomegaly. Case closed.

Which raises the question: why would anyone want to kill Andrew Brietbart? Brietbart was the first conservative media person to connect the dots that there never was a House version of the Affordable Care Act, which means Obamacare violates the Originality Clause. When I stumbled across a couple of Brietbart columns just prior to his death in which he impled that all might not be kosker with Obamacare; and that the Affordable Care Act may violate the Constitution, concluding with these words: "More to come."

Where I originally concluded that Andrew Brietbart was the tragic victim of an enlarged heart and that the cause of his death was cardiomegaly; I now believe there's a good chance that his heart attack was induced by a cold war era poisoned ice pellet

Using the sketchy tips, like a Hansel and Gretal bread crumb trail, Brietbart used like his master fisherman skills to keep his readers nibbling the bait, I found both HR 3590 and the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act, but the search engine references had been scrubbed clean and the references to either brought up the Affordable Care Act. The Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act was enrolled in the House on Sept 17, 2009 and passed 416-0. Since the search engines had been scrubbed by Obama's allies in Google, Yahoo, and Bing I decided to search for the companion Senate bill for the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act, and found it. It was S-1928, and it referenced the House version of the same bill as HR-3590, the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act.

This sentence is a hyperlink that will show you the connection between S-1928 and HR 3590 as the House and Senate versions of the Service Members Home Mortgage Ownership Tax Act,not the Affordable Care Act which was fraudulently enacted and violates the Originality Clause. 538 Congressmen and Senators and 9 members of the Supreme Court knew Obamacare fails the Originality Clause, and is unconstitutional.

The left rebelling against the left—Thurs., May 8, 2014 >>>What does it take for the super wealthy left to protest the political left in America? Apparently not as much as conservatives thought. If you look at how the left votes, they vote for whatever candidate the Democrats put up—from center left to hardcore social progressive, communist left. Somewhere if the bag of goodies the left offers the minorities to get their votes will be something every lefty loves. Everything else they can live with. Except when the Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Jewish al Qaeda and other extremist friends of Mr. Obama do one or two things the wealthy left doesn't like. Two incidents set them off. First, when 290 Nigerian female students were kidnapped from a boarding school in Chibox, Nigeria on April 14 to be sold as sex slaves. Their captors were members of the Boko Harem Islamic militant group. The leader of the extremist group, Abubakar Shekau who threatened to sell the girls as sex slaves because they attended a western culture secondary school. (In the local Hausa language, the term boko harem means "western education is forbidden." In March, the same group attacked a school in Yobe. The militants killed 29 male students but spared the lives of the girls and ordered them to go home and get married.

While her husband did nothing, Michelle Obama joined a growing number of lefties include actress Angelina Jolie and demanded the release of the Nigerian school girls. Following Jolie, other Hollywood celebrities like Jada Pinkett Smith, Leona Lewis, Sharon Osbourne, British comedian Stephen Fry and Amy Poehler joined the chorus condemning the stoning of homosexuals..

On May 6 lesbian comic and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her comedian friend Jay Leno (whose wife is a strident feminist) launched a boycott against the hundred year Hollywood landmark hotel and getaway spot for the rich, the Beverly Hills Hotel because of the hotel's corporate connection to Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, the sultan of Brunei (on the north side of Borneo), which recently adopted an extreme and, critics say, one of the harshest forms of Shariah law. In Brunei, for example, adulterers, homosexuals and lesbians are now stoned to death. Surprisingly, getting pregnant outside of marriage and promoting a religion other than Islam brings a prison sentence, not death. But, according to Brunei officials, the severity of penalties for crimes against Islam will be ramped up in three phases which means in phase three, expect those who proselyze to be stoned to death and in phase three, women who get pregnant outside of marriage will die for their sin. Phase two will include the severing of limbs for those caught stealing. The media did not reveal it, but 100% of stock in the Dorchester Group is owned by the Brunei Investment Agency which is owned by Haji Hassanal Bolkiah. Brunei is an oil-rich nation of 400 thousand people. The Sultan likes his role. With Muslim Brotherhood inspired militant Shariah on the move

Leno and his wife Mavis attended a protest against the Beverly Hills Hotel after pulling a different event out of that hotel a week earlier. Actre3ss Mia Farrow launched a tirade against the Sultan of Brunei, asking people not to stay at hotels owned by him. Virgin Group founder Richard Branson announced on his Twitter account that neither his family nor any Vr gin Group employee would be staying at any of the ten luxury hotels under the management control of Dorchester. And, the Motion Picture and Television Fund which sponsors the annual pre-Oscar party has already announced it will not host next year's event at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Then, adding stupidity to elitist arrogance, the Beverly Hills City Council railed against the Sultan by passing a resolution condemning Brunei for enacting a law which "...imposes harsh penalties including death by stoning for homosexuality and other behaviors." Beverly Hills Mayor Lilli Bosse demanded that if the Sultan did not repeal Shariah law then he should divest himself of ownership of the Beverly Hills Hotel. Bosse also said their resolution would be sent to the State Department demanding that Secretary of State John Kerry take appropriate action in condemning Brunei.

The State Department's spokesperson, Jen Psali has made it clear that the United States "...has relayed its concerns privately to the government of Brunei but that it will not be following the boycott of the Sultan's luxury hotel chain." Makes you wonder if, and by how much, Obama is going to pucker up to appease Hollywood? Or, will Hollywood close their checkbooks to social progressive Washington this fall?

FBI breaks up a ring operating since 2009 in the El Cajon Dept. of Motor Vehicles selling drivers licenses in the parking lot to customers of a local driving school that trains Middle East customers "how to drive"—usually without their ever having to take a driver's test. Feb. 25, 2014—FBI agents led by Special Agents Mike Peters and Kim George arrested four California State employees at the El Cajon Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kuvan Piomari who owned the US Driving School in El Cajon. The FBI is calling this an ongoing investigation as agents search for several accomplices.

Beginning shortly after Obama took office in 2009, Piomari let it be known to his "students" that "for a price," he could guarantee the student a genuine, California driver's license—even if he failed his driving test The drivers' licenses would cost the buyer anywhere from $500 to $2,500 depending, one imagines, on just how "illegal" they were. I imagine a simple undocumented illegal wanting a permanent tax-free life if the United States would readily pay $500 for a driver's license that would get him through an ICE highway checkpoint. A Middle East terrorist trying to buy an airline ticket would quickly pay $2,500 or more for a driver's license that would secure him a seat on a 757 to anywhere in the United States,

As it turned out, most of the US Driving School "students" never even had to take any test thanks to Piomari's "connections" at the DMV. His connection? DMV Examiner Jeffrey Bednarek and three other DMV employees. Bednarek would simply give them a passing grade on the written and behind-the-wheel driving test which they never took, and then escort them to his accomplices. behind the counter where the license applicant would get a regular or commercial driver's license. Bednerek's accomplices. would then falsify whatever records needed to be fabricated at that end of the process.

The four were arrested according to FBI. Court documents which revealed that the four DMV employees and Piomari took part in a long-running bribery conspiracy that generated hundreds of genuine, albeit phony, ill-gotten drivers' licenses over a period of at least three years before law enforcement got involved. When the DMV transferred a new manager to the El Cajon DMV in 2012, Peters said, "...she instantly knew something wasn't right. That manager alerted the DMV's investigative arm who, in turn, called the FBI."

Using undercover operatives and federal court-approved surveillance techniques which included wiretapping the phones of the US Driving School and the phones of the suspected DMV participants, and those who received the unearned right to drive on US highways and byways. In all, 30 defendants (which included several people who gamed the system by bribing State employees to provide them with a driver's license) were charged. Some of the "students" who paid for a driver's license, Special Agent Kim George said, "were bad drivers; and some paid because they were too lazy to take the test." And some apparently knew they would fail either the written test or the driving skills test. And others knew they didn't have sufficient data to prove they were eligible to even apply for a driver's license.

Special Agent Peters noted some of the students were buying commercial licenses that allowed them to drive tanker trucks which "...took things to a different level in terms of safety. We hope this case sends a message," Peters added, "this type of corruption will not be tolerated."

Bednarek and another DMV employee, Jim Bean, pleaded guilty. Bean was sentenced to 18 months for his role in the scheme. Bednarek will be sentenced in April. Bednarek reportedly produced more than 100 fraudulent drivers licenses for which the drivers' license applicants paid over $50,000. "They'd gotten away with it for so long," Agent George said, "that they were extremely confident and had no plans to stop. Sometimes the corrupt DMV employees would issue multiple bogus licenses a day. They would leave work with $500 in cash in their pocket," she commented, adding, "That could be one day a week, or two. They were doing very well."

The case is still ongoing because the FBI learned that many of the applicants for drivers' licenses were not Americans. In one instance, Peters said, "One guy flew in from Dallas, took a cab to the [El Cajon] DMV office, paid for his license and flew back to Dallas a few hours later. It was so blatant," he added, "that our surveillance showed the driving school operator brokering multiple deals in the DMV parking lot."

J&J family member paying to salvage the hemorrhaging healthcare start-up by putting a "Band-Aid" on Obamacare to make it appear like something the American people actually want—and can afford.—Thurs., Nov. 28, 2013>>>On Oct. 4, 2013, a self-proclaimed non-partisan political action committee [PAC] was given a $1.1 million grant to create a database of Obamacare success stories to help Barack Obama "rehabilitate" Obamacare before the Election of 2014. The problem is, all of the players in this scenario—from Families USA, who received the stipend to the leftwing Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (one of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson Band-Aid™ fortune) which bequeathed the funds, have close personal, business or political ties with the Obama Administration.

Ron Pollack, the co-founder of Families USA and its Executive Director, told Time magazine that the organization's purpose is to "...bridge the information gap for people who can significantly benefit from the Affordable Care Act."

It must be noted that Families USA and Ron Pollack are far from "non-partisan." In 2010, long before the social progressives screwed up Obamacare by making it completely unworkable, Pollack told the Washington Post that he was going to form a new group called Enroll America and raise millions of dollars to assist leftwing special interest groups enroll the young from all economic strata into Obamacare.

Pollack still sits on Enroll America's board.That's not really surprising since Enroll America's address is Suite 1100, 1201 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC. What is surprising is that it's Families USA's address. When the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation sent $1,100,000,000.00 to Families USA the checks were addressed to Rachel Klein and Anne Filipic. Klein was a former employee of Enroll America. Before going to Enroll America Filipic served as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. Before that she was Deputy Director for Intergovernmental for Health and Human Service for Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. And the current CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, who supplied the cash to the Obama-linked special interest group also sits on Obama's Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, who sits on the Board of Trustees for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff of Policy from January, 2011 to January, 2013. Prior to that, DeParle served as Obama's Healthcare Czar and led the effort to get Obamacare through Congress.

And, finally, let's consider the ties to the social progressives by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation itself. In 1998 they financed a secret healthcare-related project for the Clinton Administration in order to keep it off the public's radar screen—funding biometric healthcare cards containing tracking chips.for an experimental welfare program. The Clinton DHHS created a biometric card called the Health Passport Card. The test program was conducted in North Dakota, Wyoming and Nevada. Smart card technology was used to create not only a medical database on the families of the welfare recipients in the program—including any histories of mental illness or criminal activity. (Not exactly the type of information a family physician needs to know to determine if the welfare recipient's children's vaccinations are up-to-date.) The purpose of the tracking chip in this experiment was to allow authorities to physically track the whereabouts of the cardholder. And track them the DHHS did. For four years. Since the poorest Americans are the most transient, the tracking card provided the DHHS with the migratory pattern of America's poorest citizens. Hillary Clinton, who wants to be your next president, believes that the poorest among us who live on the dole shouldn't mind being guinea pigs for Big Brother.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Board of Trustees member Peter R. Orszag served in the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant to the President on Economic Policy and then as a senior adviser on Bill Clinton's Council on Economic Advisors. Prior to joining the Obama Administration in Jan., 2009, Orszag was appointed by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Philippe Villers, the co-founder and president of Families USA. Villers fathered several businesses in his career and a foundation in 1981 known as the Villers Foundation which focused on studying the problems of aging. (At the time, Villers was working in the industrial robotics industry.) The foundation, according to the New York Times, was a temporary study group with an expected life of a decade, but no more than two. Villers picked Ron Pollack to run the foundation which was studying how robotics could be used to provide assisted living for aging Americans. (Claiming that Families USA was formed over 3 decades ago is just one more Barack Obama bald-faced lie.)

Villers and Pollack, by the way, created the healthcare spin, "If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it," to softsell Obamacare as a non-threatening government program like Medicare or Medicaid when, all along, everyone involved in passing it—particular Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and most of all, Barack Obama who orchestrated the strong-arm takeover of the American healthcare system—knew that ultimately no one would be allowed to keep their healthcare plan because allowing them to opt out of Obamacare defeated the purpose of the Affordable Care Act—using the IRS as the government's personal Gestapo to use legal terrorism to force the American people into submission and.of course, to use "publicans" to collect the "fines" and "penalties" assessed by the IRS for non-compliance.

On Oct. 14, the media reported that Families USA was the recipient of a $1.1 million grant without making any personal connections between the players and the Obama Administration. The White House announced, on Nov. 25, 2013, that several special interest groups were launching a campaign to find "success stories" of Americans coping with the intricacies of replacing low cost group insurance in the private market with Obamacare—and making it appear that Obamacare is competitive with the private market. Of course, it's not. To pull off their lie, the Obama Administration will present a scenario in which a variety of seemingly unrelated organizations are finding related correlations in their data retrieval. Only, an almost invisible thin red thread connects all of the players. At one end of the thread is the gratuity of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—the most lucrative healthcare trust fund in the world. In the middle are Villers and Pollack. On the other end of the thread is Obama and the financing of socialist billionaire George Soros which converted the dormant Villers Foundation into Families USA and Enroll America.

But you can bet, when the data is deciminated for public consumption before the midterm elections of 2014, the liberal media will showcase enough fairytale data to make the weak-minded believe now that the bugs are worked out of the Obamacare database, the Affordable Care Act really will be cheaper than the private group plans were. Only, like everything coming from the Obama White House and the social progressive news media, that lie will forever be a lie.

Obama claims that the credibility of the United States is on the line in Syria—Wed.,Sept. 4, 2013>>>Barack Hussein Obama, whose Muslim Brotherhood star may be fading, flew to Stockholm, Sweden to meet with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, hoping against hope that he could get someone in the world community to support his effort to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. In a passionate plea for international support to launch sustained military strikes for 60 to 90 days against Syria, Obama said the credibility of the United States—and that of the international community as a whole—is at stake. In reality, the only person whose credibility in on the line is Obama's.

On Sept. 27, 2012 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the UN General Assembly and made his famous impassioned "red line" speech in which he put Israel's struggle with Iran into perfect context. Israel could not accept a nuclear Iran, saying "...a nuclear-armed Iran would be analogous to a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. Given the record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons," he said, "imagine them with nuclear weapons." The world heard his words, and no one doubted what will happen to Iran when they reach that red line. Not cross it—reach it. Then he said, "Red lines don't lead to war. Red lines prevent war...NATO's red line in Europe helped keep peace in Europe for nearly half a century."

Shortly after Netanyahu established Israel's "red line" on Iran's nuclear program, and it appeared to have no repercussions from any world leader—including the Iranians, Obama decided to get tough on Syria, saying that the "red line" for him would be Syria using chemical weapons—or even just moving them around. Yes, it feels good to talk tough. But when someone calls your bluff (and since it's not yet clear that Bashar Assad is the one who used poison gas on noncombatant men, women and children in Damascus) the world wants to see what you're going to do when your "red line" gets crossed. What do you do if you're Barack Obama? Apparently, you deny, deny, deny.

Which is what he did. In his press conference with Reinfeldt. Obama said, "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line." When Obama made the "red line" statement, his minions made sure the tough guy's words were posted on the White House website wall in April, 2013. Obama was making it clear to 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (not his first choice for the job) that if the red phone rang at 3 p.m., he knew what to do with it. We now know what that is. Deny. Deny. Deny.

The message on the White House website said: "[T]he people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President..." [not my word] "...means what he says when he set that red line..." That was April. In July, Jay Carney reminded the White House press corp that Obama was not bluffing on his red line. Fast forward to Sweden, and we see Obama blaming the world for his words. It's no wonder that no leader in the world believes him.

Obama, sadly, still doesn't doesn't get it after 5 years. "Credibility rules" are different for world leaders than they are for community organizers. When a community organizer runs a bluff, everyone still walks away alive. When a world leader runs a bluff and gets called on it, people die. America can't afford that, and our allies and soon to be former allies have no intention of letting Obama use his executive power magic eraser to make his sins transparent. America needs to stay out of Syria's civil war for one good reason—our enemy's enemy in Syria is still our enemy.

Legal and illegal immigrants now account for virtually 100% of all job gains in the United States—Sat., Aug. 3, 2013>>>The Center for Immigration Studies released its labor report on July 3, a month before the US Dept. of Labor released its July numbers on Aug, 2, 2013. The CIS study confirmed that immigrants—both legal and illegal—account for virtually all job growth in the United States since 2007.

While the Obama Administration continues to perpetuate the myth that unemployment in the United States is at its lowest level since 2005, the reality is that since the Obamas moved into the big white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC those hopelessly unemployed between the 2000 census and the tabulations of the 2010 census in 2011 skyrocketed from 35 million to 48.6 million out-of-work Americans.

Foreign labor in the United States since 2007 has increased 5.3 million, up to 22.4 million as the number of employed American citizens dropped from 114.8 to 113.5 million. US citizens who are gainfully employed in the United States dropped by 26.9% over the last five years as 5.3 million foreigners—mostly illegal—found work in the land of opportunity while scores of high middle income Americans with three weeks of vacation or more each year, who also had a nice 401K pension plan, got the boot—and the last full time job they will see as long as Barack Obama has the key to that big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Over 48 million Americans have lost their full time jobs since the social progressives won the keys to the congressional piggy bank in January, 2007. A month earlier, in December, 2006, Barack Obama began to campaign for the White House on a promise to redistribute the wealth of the rich (by which, of course, Obama meant the working middle class since the elite know that the wealthy, with the very liberal use of tax exempt foundations and tax exempt trust funds, are virtually exempt from taxation. Unless they have a very bad tax lawyer, only the gratuity earnings they receive outside their tax exempt shields is taxable). While the underclass couldn't care less who is robbed by the now-armed thugs at the IRS, they sleep better believing their benefactors are rich, white plutocrats—the new super rich and not their struggling neighbors who are a month behind in their mortgage and working four part-time jobs to keep their head above water.

Obama's welfare constituency, who was convinced Obama was talking to them when he made his July 14, 2008 99th anniversary speech to the NAACP saying he would return for the NAACP's 100th anniversary in 2009 and "...stand before you as the President of the United States. At that moment," he said, "you...will know that a new day has come in this country..."—the re-establishment of the Lyndon Johnson welfare society with a whole new battery of entitlements for the disenfranchised—since that's how you control the minds of the voters. Make entitlements more important than liberty. Give everyone a handout paid for by the rich, and the greatly expanding underclass will always vote for the socialist. What we view today as the middle class (those with some wealth but lacking the means on their own to produce an income stream without being employed by someone else) will move down the ladder of affluence to meet the underclass, subsized by the redistribution of the wealth of the middle class, moving up to meet them.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] says today's official unemployment rate has declined two-tenths of a point, to 7.4%, since June, for two reasons. First, with 114 million fewer employed people than there were a decade ago, there is now a lower labor participation rate. And second, with 48 million less people collecting unemployment benefits in 2013 than there were in 2010, the government assumes those people have either found a job of some type, are self-employed or they simply no longer want a job. Regardless if those "workers" are eking out a "hand-to-mouth" meager living that feeds the family but not much else, the BLS no longer views those people as either employed or unemployed. They are simply no longer part of the labor force statistics.

Forty-six United States Senators—all liberals— voted to affirm Barack Obama's taking step-one in surrendering the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people to the UN—Fri., June 14, 2013>>>On April 2, 2013 then UN Ambassador Susan Rice cast Barack Obama's vote in the United Nation's General Assembly to ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty (now officially known as the UN Arms Trade Treaty) which regulates the international sale of small arms (which includes, in addition to handguns and rifles, tanks, artillery, rocket launchers and other handheld weaponry). The UN approved the Small Arms Treaty by a vote of 154 to 3 (with 23 nations abstaining). Barack Obama pledged to sign this treaty and, even if the US Senate failed to ratify it, Obama intended to sign it.. Tacitly, when Rice cast the United States' vote for the Treaty, it is tentatively binding on the United States until it is signed by the Administration which initiated it or, according to US law, repudiated by the United States Senate which needs the "aye" vote of 66 Senators to ratify it.

On March 22, 2013 Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT] offered Senate Resolution 8 (S.2369), Amendment SA-710 to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that the United States would not negotiate or support treaties that violate America's Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. It passed on a voice vote. The following day, Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] introduced a measure, S.2039 to prevent Barack Obama from entering into the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. (Text in S.2313). It passed on a vote of 53 to 46, effectively killing the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty. In his press briefing the following day Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney told the assembled media that Obama intended to sign the Treaty, probably before the end of August. "We believe it's in the interest of the United States," he said. "While we look forward to signing the Treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved."

Antiwar protester Secretary of State John Kerry said he welcomed the signing of the Arms Trade Treaty, noting that as soon as the official translations are completed satisfactorily, Obama will sign it. It's important to note that when the Senate repudiated the treaty, they effectively killed it. However, in their public show of doing so, all they really did was absolve 100 Senators of the blame when Obama signs it and it becomes the law of the land, enforced by the World Court.

Confused? Let me explain. According to US law, treaties must be ratified by the US Senate before they are signed by the President of the United States. The signature of Foreign Ministers or Secretaries of State, while indicative of the intent of the nation to ratify the document is preliminary, but not binding on the signatory nation until it is signed by the head of State. However, under the common law of Europe, based on Emil de Vattel's Law of Nations, while the signature of a nation's emissary does not legally bind the nation to the contract, it does obligate that nation to act in accordance with the terms of the treaty until such time as that nation's Senate or Parliament accepts or rejects the treaty. If the Senate fails to act on the treaty by either ratifying it or rejecting it, the signature of the Secretary of State or Foreign Minister will perpetually bind that nation to the terms of the treaty in the same way the nation would be bound through the signature of that nation's President or Prime Minister.

As you read the House and Senate floor rants about gun control by the socialist left in the US Congress, or by antigun rights lobbies, or the well-rehearsed talking points of members of the yellow journalism society, which are artfully penned to convince you that all the international community is doing is trying to stop the flow of illegal weapons to terrorist states, or keep international arms dealers from selling automatic weapons to street gangs in the United States, or to drug cartels in Mexico or to radical extremists in the United States. The reality behind the UN's Global Gun Ban Treaty has nothing to do with stopping rogue nations from trafficking in illicit weapons since outlaws pay no attention to the rule of law. Criminals couldn't care less what national or international law forbids them from doing. The attempt to disarm every civilian on Earth has nothing to do with the need for a safer world. It has to do with governments, who are in the pockets of the world's wealthiest industrialists and the barons of banking and business, who fear their own citizens. When government fears its citizens, disarming them is an imperative. What it's really about is who is afraid of whom. When government fears its own citizens, disarming the People is an imperative.

That's why Hillary Clinton's signature appears on the UN Small Arms Treaty resolution on May 19, 2010. One hundred fifty-two nations—including the United States—signaled that sometime in 2012, the nations of the world would vote to strip the American people of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Sometime between now and the end of August, 2013, Barack Obama intends to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty and breach the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. While the left does not have the 66 votes they need to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, they actually won't need it because when Susan Rice voted for passage of the treaty, she signaled the intent of the Obama Administration to ratify it. So, even with the States failing to concur with Obama, the latch pin in the abrogation of the 2nd Amendment will likely be found in a 1937 Supreme Court decision over a dispute between the United States and Mexico over the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 that will topple the 2nd Amendment.

The treaty, between the United States, Canada and Mexico, divided migratory birds into three groups: game birds, insectivores (which were protected by the treaty and could not be killed), and song birds (also protected because they are generally pretty and sound nice. Conservationists, with the help of Sen. Elijah Root [D-NY] wrote the treaty, which protected insectivores and song birds from hunters, and pushed it through Congress. When the State of Missouri authorized the killing of birds native to Missouri as game birds, conservationists sued to protect those birds which migrated to Mexico in the winter. The State of Missouri argued that under the 10th Amendment, they had the right to hunt Missouri birds in Missouri. Root was the conservationists lawyer. In the Supreme Court, Root argued that Article VI of the Constitution trumped the 10th Amendment. Article VI says: "The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or what shall be made, under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. And judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

What precisely do those 61 words mean? They mean, in 1937 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Treaties supersede the Bill of Rights. The last two questions are: did the social progressives in Congress in 1916 understand the Migratory Bird Treaty could, and likely would, erase the inherent rights of American citizens if the treaty was challenged? Yes. Were the 45 liberal Senators who want to abrogate the 2nd Amendment aware that ratifying a Gun Ban or Gun Control Treaty would abrogate, or amend, the 2nd Amendment? Once again, yes. Most of the 46 US Senators listed below hold anti-2nd Amendment views and believe the country would be better off if all law-abiding citizens were barred from owning firearms.

These members of the US Senate cast their votes to prevent the White House from signing any antigun rights treaties. Those whose names are in red are up for reelection in 2014. We need to make sure that none of them are reelected.

Tammy Baldwin [D-WI], Max Baucus [D-MT], Michael Bennet [D-CO], Richard Blumenthal [D-CT], Barbara Boxer [D-CA], Sherwood Brown [D-OH], Maria Cantwell [D-WA], Benjamin Cardin [D-MD], Thomas Carper [D-DE], Bob Casey [D-PA], Chris Coons [D-DE], William "Mo" Cowan [D-MA], Richard Durbin [D-IL], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Al Franken [D-MN], Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY], Tom Harkin [D-IA], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Tim Johnson [D-SD], Kaine [D-VA], King [I-ME], Amy Klobuchar [D-MN], Mary Landrieu [D-LA], Patrick Leahy [D-VT], Carl Levin [D-MI], Clare McCaskill [D-MO], Robert Menendez [D-NJ], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Barbara Mikulski [D-MD], Christopher Murphy [D-CT], Patty Murray [D-WA], Bill Nelson [D-FL], Jack Reed [D-RI], Harry Reid [D-NV], Jay Rockefeller [D-WV], Bernie Sanders [I-VT], Brian Schatz [D-HI], Chuck Schumer [D-NY], Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Mark Udall [D-CO], Tom Udall [D-NM], Mark Warner [D-VA], Elizabeth Warren [D-MA], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], and Ron Wyden [D-OR]

Justice Dept. secretly uses FISA to access two months of phone records from AP reporters and editors—Tues., May 14, 2013>>>First it's Benghazi, then its the IRS violating Federal law by targeting conservative political action groups with punitive scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)4 tax status. Now we learn the Dept. of Justice, using a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [fisa] court-provided search warrant, seized telephone records not only of the office phones of AP reporters and editors, but their home phones and cell phone records as well. (While most Americans believe that FISA courts were created by George W. Bush, they were actually created in 1978 by Jimmy Carter.) The Patriot Act merely expanded the length of time a surveillance could be carried out, and increased the number of FISA judges from 7 to 11. The search perimeter for the AP "reach" was two months. A FISA court issued the warrant (which is like one federal agent approving an unconstitutional act that another federal agent wants to do).

While the DOJ sought the calls on more than 20 telephone lines going into AP offices in New York, Washington, DC and Hartford, Connecticut, the number of journalists who use those 20 lines total over 100 reporters and editors whose phone records—both business and residences—were targeted. Included in the numbers tapped was the main number for AP journalists in the House of Representatives. The subpoena the DOJ used? It was served on the Associated Press on Friday, May 10—long after the DOJ got the information they were looking for.

Once the Justice Department completed what likely is the most massive, unprecedented seizure of phone records between AP journalists and their news sources, they advised the AP what they had done. But they wouldn't tell the AP why they did it. The reason the DOJ didn't tell the AP what they were doing until they did it is that under constitutional law the government has to advise the subject of their investigation that they want his records—and the reason they do.

They seek a search warrant from a Grand Jury or from a federal judge. In both cases, the Associated Press would have been told the DOJ wanted the records. If the Dept. of Justice was investigating what they believed were terrorists planning a strike against the United States and by telling them what their search warrant demanded, that the suspects would destroy the evidence, the court would exempt them from "warning" the suspect that he (it or they) was being investigated. But, I think Eric Holder, who denies culpability, knew without anyone with a brain (hard to find in the Obama Administration) so advising him, knew this was not the case.

However, as Obama officials have said in previous pubic testimony, the US Attorney in Washington, DC conducted a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information to AP journalists Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman about a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen on in the spring of 2012. (It is interesting how fast Obama classifies public domain information when it contradicts his rhetoric or might cost him votes.) The CIA stopped an al-Qaeda attempt to detonate a bomb on a plane bound to the United States. But in the long run, I suspect Obama's paranoid socialist lackeys are afraid of someone breaching Obama's transparency shield and revealing information about Obama that will turn the left against him, or trigger his impeachment in the GOP controlled House and his removal from office by a Democratic-controlled Senate. What would cause his allies on the left to do that? The only thing that comes to mind is treason.

When you consider the fighting words from AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt, that what the Obama Administration did was "...an unprecedented intrusion and serious interference with AP's constitutional right to gather and report the news," it's safe to say that, at least for the moment, the camaraderie between the media and the White House has ended. The AP reiterated that no information they secured and released for print compromised national security. They said a little bit more as well. "The Obama Administration," Pruitt said, "has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information—more than all previous presidents combined."

Sperm donor for lesbian couple rewarded for meddling in God's work—Thurs.,Jan. 3, 2013>>>It's not everyday that you get to experience a little righteous social justice and it makes me feel good when it happens. It just doesn't happen enough. One expects that if he had it to do over again, William Marotta, a Topeka, Kansas all around good neighbor, would have kept his tinkler bundled up in a little rubber tinkler toy diaper instead of trying to help grow the homosexual population in Kansas through an ad on Craig's List.

Forty-six year old Marotta, who saw the ad probably thought he was going to get to make his donation the old fashioned way, answered the ad placed by a lesbian couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, in 2009. They were seeking a sperm donor because the pair wanted to jointly become the mamas and the papas to a child of their own. I suspect when he answered their ad, Marotta didn't realize he was going to share his sperm in an empty pill bottle.. Wanting to help the lesbian couple, Marotta also wanted to make sure he protected himself from any paternity issues that would obligate him to make child support payments. Bauer, Schreiner and Marotta signed an agreement designed to relieve Marotta of any financial obligations to the couple's baby. Marotta waived all paternal rights to the baby and Bauer and Schreiner jointly and separately absolved Marotta of all paternal responsibilities. So much for legal clarity. Clearly the agreement was designed as a walk-away situation. The problem is, you just can't trust the State to let you walk away from anything. The Bauer-Schreiner baby is now 3-years old. But, mommy-daddy and daddy-mommy are no longer hyphenated partners—except in the newspapers, the court and the Kansas Dept. of Children and Families who don't see the threesome baby-making deal quite as uncomplicated as Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner did in 2009 when they signed their pax-paternity agreement.

Big Brother in Kansas, Missouri or anywhere else for that matter, couldn't care less who agreed not to hold whom liable for child support when mommy-daddy and daddy-mommy split up. The State knows it didn't cohabit with mommy-daddy or daddy-mommy. Which means someone else—a male with all the right God-designed body parts and an employer-designed paycheck—gets to play daddy-daddy and write support checks even though he was only a passerby participant in the donor sperm scheme.

Angela de Rocha, a Department of Children and Families spokesperson told the Associated Press that agreements of that type between individuals are not legal. Nor are they valid which means donor-daddy is liable. For the agreement to be valid, a licensed attorney would have to draw up the legal documents, and the sperm insemination would have to have been performed by a licensed physician. The reason that sperm banks keep their donors anonymous, and why there are layers of lawyers between the sperm donor and sperm recipient. It's to prevent what happened to Marotta from happening to Marotta. I wonder if Marotta is going to include his new daughter on his Christmas list? Or does he think the thousand bucks a month he's going to be sending her for the next 15 to 19 years is enough of a gift? Wonder if Marotta still reads Craig's List?

Had William Marotta taken the time to do more than get free legal advise from Google, Bing or Yahoo, and actually paid for the advise of a real lawyer, he would have known that being a good Samaritan sperm donor not only in Kansas but in a dozen or so other States puts you at the head of the child support line if either mommy-daddy or daddy-mommy calls it quits.

State child support agencies prefer to beat men into the ground for support payments since they've been conditioned to believe that women, all by themselves, can't have babies. Maybe it's time for the 50 States to write a new chapter in their "Who Do You Blame For Impregnation?" handbook. The women, with Bauer playing the male role, used a homespun technique to achieve artificial insemination. They used a syringe filled with Marotta's sperm, which Bauer injected into Schreiner. Schreiner eventually became pregnant using this method. As much as Marotta could argue that he didn't have sexual contact with either woman, the DNA was screaming "Daddy-daddy." leaving the court to conclude that the biological evidence pointed to DNA Daddy-daddy regardless how the party-favors were distributed. The court ruled that Marotta had to repay the State of Kansas $6,000 (half of the $12,000 Kansas paid Schreiner) for child support. Somehow it doesn't seem right that Daddy-Mommy Bauer should get a pass since she's the one who impregnated Mommy-Daddy—even if she did it with Daddy-Daddy's eager little Olympic swimmers.

Who leaked the State Department secret to the Muslims in Benghazi and Cairo?—Fri., Sept. 14, 2012>>>On Tuesday, Sept. 11 radical Muslim terrorists hit the US Embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Yemen after radicals attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya where US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Consulate IT Specialist Sean Smith and two former Navy Seals, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods (who were employed by Blackwater Security, the private security firm that guarded the Consulate in Benghazi) were murdered. The attacks on American interests in the Mideast continued with the attack on US compound in Tunis, Tunisia followed by attacks on US Embassies and consulates throughout the Muslim world, including a German embassy in the Sudan. Embassies, by international accord, are construed to be the native soil of the nation whose flag flies over it. As such, the embassy and consulate guards—usually armed military or government police officers from that country guard the embassy officials and guests and, if necessary, protect the embassy or consulate personnel from an "invasion" by native radicals or extremists in the host nation. International law views the invasion of the sovereign soil of another nation to be an act of war.

The first US Embassy to be invaded by a host nation was the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran on Jimmy Carter's watch on November 4, 1979. One of the radical organizers of the "student protest" was Iran's current president, Mahmoud Abmedinajad (who has denied any participation in taking 63 American citizens hostage and holding them until 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, 1981, releasing them the moment Carter was no longer the President of the United States. The Muslim world held Carter in contempt for two reasons. First, he negotiated the peace accord between Egypt and Israel. Second, because he was a weak, indecisive man who, when he made a decision, he usually made the wrong one. The Muslim world had already sized up Carter's successor and knew Ronald Wilson Reagan would use the muscle of the United States to protect his nation. When you look at Reagan and Carter compared to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Obama is a clone of Carter and Romney is as close as this generation is going to get to another Ronald Reagan.

If you recall, when Barack Obama launched his campaign for the presidency on November 21, 2007, he told his supporters that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to America's relationship with the Muslim world because he was raised as a Muslim in an Islamic country, adding that "...the day I'm inaugurated, Muslim hostility will ease." The Islamist—Obama—was confident that his Manchurian Candidate-Islamofascist relationship with now deceased King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would provide him with a type of insider-diplomacy no US president has ever had. Maybe it's because Saudi King Abdullah is now dead, or because Obama has proved—as Washington Post columnist Matt Peterson noted in a recent op-ed column that "...years from now historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon that would cause men to wonder how...a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, and be the executive officer of the world's most consequential job?" Peterson quoted Norman Podhoretz's comment that "...Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles...In short, he's a small-minded man with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job."

Podhoretz and Peterson's opinion seems to be substantiated by what happened in Cairo, Tunis and Benghazi. Rumors surfaced before the attacks were launched that Egypt had warmed the US intelligence community that terrorist attacks against US diplomatic missions were imminent. The Jerusalem Post broke the story for the world at 4:58 p.m.—hours before any of the attacks began.

According to ABC News, the Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, the American Enterprise Institute and the anti-Obama Super Pac American Crossroads, Obama has skipped over half of his intelligence briefing from the CIA so, even though White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the White House Press Corp there were no warnings, how would he know? His boss has been too busy campaigning to learn what the intelligence community knew. The question is: did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton know? And when did she know? And when did the Obama State Department order the US Marines who guard America's embassies around the globe to unload their weapons?

Although the Pentagon has denied reports on Marine blogs that the US Embassy refused to authorize service members to carry ammunition, the Obama State Department ordered the empty weapons. (If so, this incident will parallel the Clinton Administration's folly in Somalia in 1993 when US Rangers were assigned to capture a Muslim warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, from his safehouse in Mogadishu. Defense Secretary Les Aspin took the political fallout when it was the Clinton co-presidency which decided that since the US troops in Somalia were part of a UN peacekeeping mission, they should not be there "armed to the teeth." Task Force Ranger did the drop in Mogadishu—armed only with side arms. Two Blackhawk helicopters were shot down. Eighteen American soldiers died because they were badly out-gunned, and 73 were wounded—and Islamic extremists dragged the bodies of six dead US Rangers through the streets of Mogadishu.)

A Marine Corp Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the media that there were "...[n]o restrictions on weapons or weapon status have been imposed." Another Pentagon spokesman, George Little, told Time Magazine that "...with or without a weapon, Marines are always armed," adding that he had "...heard nothing to suggest they don't have ammo." Time Magazine's "Battleland" blog said that senior US officials refused to discuss security issues at either the Cairo embassy or the Benghazi consulate.

However, it appears that "invisible voices" within the Obama bureaucracy told The Blaze and NightWatch that the US Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, complied with the State Department edict and ordered the Marines guarding the Embassy to unload their weapons to prevent an incident with what is supposed to be a "friendly Islamic neighbor" if the protests turned ugly. Logic suggests Patterson had foreknowledge there was going to be an "incident" at her embassy and made sure she was in Washington when it happened. If that supposition is true, then it's likely that Ambassador Chris Stevens knew as well. His consulate, which is not an official diplomatic mission, is used primarily to issue visas and handle perfunctory bureaucratic crippycrap for the Obama Administration. It was not guarded by the US Marines. It was guarded by very small contingency from Blackwater Security, a PMC (private military company) who served as the Ambassador's body guards and a Libyan security detachment responsible for perimeter security. Former Navy Seals Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were part of that detachment.

If the information contained in this article is officially verified, all of those who had knowledge that "incidents" against the United States of America were staged to take place at various US Embassies around the world, and ordered the US Marines or private security forces to empty their weapons and stand down, thereby allowing terrorists to invade American soil, each and every one of those official needs to be impeached, removed from office, and charged with high crimes against the United States of America. Since the buck for foreign policy decisions constitutionally stops in the Oval Office, the first articles of impeachment need to be served there.



MSNBC erased diversity from the Republican National Convention by "guest editing." And they accused the GOP of being "...devoid of diversity and probably racist"—Fri., Aug. 31, 2012>>>The Daily Caller reported that MSNBC attempted to fabricate the news by editing out speeches at the Republican presidential convention as they happened. And then, It appears, MSNBC assumed the role as the official Obama Propaganda Ministry. Writing on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC Maddow Blog on May 22, Steve Benan coined the phrase "...party of older white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist." That's why it shocked him during the GOP South Carolina primary to hear Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL], campaigning on behalf of Gov. Mitt Romney, say that the Republican Party is more diverse than the Democratic Party.

Over that same weekend GOP National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was asked by a liberal reporter if he was concerned about the nation's diversity given that his party is still viewed as largely white, largely rich, and largely male. Strangely, the left has been repeating that myth so long that a large slice of working class union voters shun GOP candidates for that reason. Even more strange, the left who created the myth, bought their own rhetoric. In reality the Jacobin princes of industry who formed the Republican Party in 1856 controlled the US government for 50 years. They jumped ship in 1896 and surreptitiously took over the Democratic Party. Today, the princes of industry fear the Grand Ol' Party which has become the Party of the Middle Class.

Priebus replied that Florida, New Mexico and Puerto Rico had prominent GOP Latino officials. Benan wrote that "...to say the elections of Marco Rubio, New Mexico governor Susana Martinez, and Puerto Rico governor Luis Fortuno was a real stretch since polls show Latino voters moving away from Republicans in droves."

Former 3rd term conservative Democratic Alabama Congressman Artur Davis seconded Barack Obama's nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 only to be renounced by the Democrats for his conservatism. This year Davis, who switched parties, became a key speaker at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this year, becoming the first African American to make a key address at sequential national conventions—one Democratic and the other Republican—as a member of that party's Party.

As MSNBC "covered" the GOP convention (and I use the term "covered" in its most baseless sense) Rachel Maddow who was controlling the spin for the left in that time slot in Tampa became editor-in-chief of maintaining the GOWMP image of the GOP as the old white guy's party. If Mitt Romney had been the whole act at the nominating convention, the left's illusion that they are the "inclusive party" that cares for everyone would remain intact.

Maddow's assigned job on Tuesday appears to have been to change the subject whenever a minority, like Davis, or Mia Love (a black woman running for a US House seat in Utah), or Ted Cruz, the Latino GOP candidate running to fill the seat of retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson [R-TX] spoke. When any minority GOP candidate or office holder was about to take the podium, Maddow changed the subject—the MSNBC cameras left the front of the convention center to the MSNBC cubicle. And MSNBC anchor Maddow filled the time with small talk from her fellow leftwing talking heads: Chris Hayes, Chris Matthews, Steve Schmidt, Ed Schultz, or Al Sharpton, to make sure their leftwing audience never lost sight of the Old White Guys' party. To MSNBC's audience, the GOP was still just as white as the driven snow.

All though the convention Chris Matthews accused the old white guys' party—and Romney—of playing the "race card" when Romney commented that he was born in Michigan and had his birth certificate. "That cheap shot about 'I don't have a problem with my birth certificate,'" Matthews said, "was awful. It's an embarrassment to your party to play that card."

Here's the reality. If Romney's Article II birth status was even remotely in question, Obama , whose only genuine birth certificate is Kenyan when Kenya was called British East Africa, would not let a minute go by without some far left talking head suggesting the governor was not eligible to serve and should step down. Obama is grasping at straws at every turn. Obama—who by Executive Order has even barred anyone from securing his Indonesian elementary school records, forget Barry Soetoro's records from Occidental College where he purportedly applied for financial aid from a Fulbright Foundation Scholarship Program that is available only for foreign students.

In desperation, the Obama Administration is still harassing Romney to surrender ten years of his tax returns so the liberals can continue their treasure hunt in a futile attempt to find some little nugget they can use to make Mitt Romney look like Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Which makes me ask: why is it okay to be a Democrat whose family wealth exceeds a million Romneys? Why is it okay for that Democratic US Senator, a member of the wealthiest family in the world, to be so rich and the family's Standard Oil fortune so protected by tax exempt trust funds, that the Senator's only visible, measurable wealth comes from his share of the interest on that wealth and, of course, his pay as a US Senator? And, why is it evil for a Republican millionaire—with a "M" and not a "Tr" before the zeros—who paid over $3 million in personal taxes after donating over $4 million to charities last year to have earned $20 million in 2011, but it's not evil for one of the richest Democrats in the world to shelter his wealth in tax exempt trust funds and foundations?

In closing, let me say that when you watch how ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and PBS spin and slant the news to fit the views and agenda of the social progressive Obama White House, its easy to understand how the Fox News Channel trounced the networks and CNN and MSNBC on RNC coverage. The left still doesn't get it. The American people are smart enough to look at the TV screen and decide for themselves what they are looking at. They don't need anyone telling them what they are looking, and what it really means. But what no American—on either side of the aisle—wants is either the left or the right editing live feed or video taped news to give the viewers a distorted and false picture of events that will influence our thinking.

Millions of Obama Twitter Followers Are Fake—Mon., Aug. 27, 2012>>>The New York Times reported that a new Web tool called Fake Follower Check by a London, England company, StatusPeople, has determined that over 70% of Barack Obama's 18.8 million (13.16 million ) Twitter followers don't exist. They were purchased. Buying fake followers, according to the New York Times "...is the worst kept secret in the Twittersphere." Very likely 70% of the 5.6 million that's left are simply made up or purchased from another source that Fake Follower Check can't identify. Rob Waller, the founder of StatusPeople," Fake accounts tend to follow a lot of people who only have few real followers. We combine that with a few other metrics to confirm the account is fake." Logic suggests that if the social media White House occupant had 5.64 million real Twitter followers he would have been be ecstatic. He has so many fans that a recent fundraiser his campaign held in Chicago was less than 50% sold out.

The Times referenced a comedian named Dan Nainan who will be appearing on this year's MDA Telethon, and who has performed at the White House. He appears to have millions of fans on Twitter and YouTube. "There's a tremendous cachet associated with having a large number," Nainan said, "When people see you have that many followers, they like (say): 'Oh, my goodness, this guy is popular. I might want to book him.' The number of Twitter followers I had in relation to how many people in the world know about me was woefully inadequate." So, for $424.15, Nainan boosted his Twitter follow count from about 700 to more than 220,000 fans on the black market. It proved to be the best four hundred bucks he'd spent. He got a gig at the White House.

Will Mitchell, founder of a marketing company called Clear Presense Media, said he has bought more than a million followers for his clients which include musicians, startup entertainers, and a well-known actress with a stalled career Or, it could be a stalled reelection campaign for a guy who's all sales pitch and no substance. Seventy-one percent of Lady Gaga's nearly 29 million followers are fake. The Obama Campaign denies that it purchased fake followers, but the reality is that an overwhelming majority of Obama's Twitter followers don't exist. That's not surprising since in 2008 most of his "common citizen donors" and, those who voted for him, don't exist, either.

Powerful Wall Street Banks Hijacked TARP and Stole the Recovery—Sat., July 28, 2012>>>Neil Barofsky, a lifetime Democrat, was picked by then-President George W. Bush (on the advise of his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) to police how the banks spent the $700 billion in TARP economic stimulus funds that should have helped the United States avert the recession that all Americans now suffer under. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20, 2010, Barofsky said: "To declare TARP a success is revisionist history. TARP was supposed to restore lending, and that didn't happen."

TARP, according to the political rhetoric, was supposed to buy up the foreclosed mortgages that were strangling credit and bankrupting both small business entrepreneurs and working class stiffs who were impacted by the lack of financial liquidity in the United States that was caused, initially, by the collapse of Indonesia's largest financial institution, Bank Century when it lost 6.7 trillion rupiah ($720 million). That bank failure came on the heels of the insolvency of Indonesia's central bank, Bank Indonesia a decade earlier. The money Bank Century lost was owed to—you guessed it—America's Wall Street banks who advanced them massive loans to modernize their infrastructure: roads and critical services to prepare them for the transnational princes of industry bringing the third world into the 21st century—with American factories and American jobs.

The exporting of US jobs to the third world that began with the never constitutionally ratified North American Free Trade Agreement enacted by the 103rd Congress (which can be repealed since it's a law and not a treaty), created the economic mechanism that, combined with another Clinton-era law orchestrated by then community-organizer Barack Obama in Chicago that forced Illinois banks to make bad mortgage loans to minorities that Fannie Mae had agreed to underwrite. In 1999, Bill Clinton's Republican-controlled 106th Congress amended Public Law 95-128, 12 USC § 2901, Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to reduce what that legislation called discriminatory credit practices against minorities in impoverished areas—a banking practice known as "red-lining." The Clinton law, actually concocted by Republicans to curry favor from minorities voters, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was officially known as The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. It forced banks to make home loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae to low income families who were not "sound financial risks" for mortgages. It should have been called "The Mortgage Industry Implosion Time Bomb Act of 1999" because the 106th Congress lit the fuse. It took six years for the economic time bomb to explode and for the American mortgage industry to implode.

TARP would have repaired the economy had the funds allocated to get the damaged mortgage assets off the books of the lenders and into the hands of the Resolution Trust Corporation been solidified by legislation and not just rhetoric. TARP should have freed up credit with local banks and averted most of the financial crisis in the United States with small mortgage lenders—many of whom were declared insolvent by the Federal Reserve System. Once declared insolvent, those banks were swallowed up by the same major Wall Street Banks who caused the problem, and who needed the cash reserves of the "declared bankrupt" banks to buffer their own liquidity as the Fed funneled the TARP money to banks they viewed as "too big to fail." Some of that money was used to buy "declared bankrupt" banks in the United States. Some of it was loaned to third world banks to keep them from going belly-up since, regardless of their size, no third world bank was viewed as "too big to fail."

In his book, Bailout: Why TARP Failed, Barofsky said that Washington used our tax dollars to abandon Main Street while rescuing Wall Street. Barofsky said when he got to Washington he "...saw that Washington had been hijacked by a small group of very powerful Wall Street Banks. They captured regulators ideology...and what I saw was TARP went from a program that was supposed to help Main Street reinvigorate the economy, restart the economy and help homeowners, turn into a program that really only served the financial elites on Wall Street."

While Barofsky admitted that, in part, TARP was supposed to plug up the leaks and prevent a gigantic financial collapse and restore confidence in the financial system, "...throwing a few billion dollars at the largest banks, plus trillions of dollars of other support, just to preserve what is essentially a broken status quo, that benefits really financial executives and institutions...that's why Congress and Treasury promised more. They promised the banks would take this money and use it to pour it into the economy and bring back the economic growth which hasn't happened because the way it was mismanaged." Congress promised. But TARP didn't get passed. The money was allocated, but the super majority Democratic Party under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007 never created the legislative tools get the allocated funds from the Treasury into the hands of the Resolution Trust Company in order to help troubled homeowners.

Barofsky, who was appointed by Bush but arrived to assume his job after Obama took office, told CBS News that once you arrive in DC, you discover the "...capture in Washington is not Republican or Democrat. It crosses political barriers—and, it's a major problem for this country." CBS defended Obama's use of TARP money—and going back for $823 billion more—noting that Obama saved the auto industry.

Barofsky nodded, saying: "I was one of the first people outside of the Treasury bubble to say that...But you can't look at a program that narrowly. This program was supposed to do a lot more for the American people. And, it wasn't an accident. It wasn't happenstance. This was a series of choices. This was the choice not to deploy TARP funds to help Main Street, and to help homeowners. That's what they were supposed to do. That's what they promised to do...The housing program was supposed to spend $50 billion (to help homeonwers). They spent three. That means (the Obama Treasury Department) chose to spend more money to bail out American Express—a credit card company—than it did to deal with the foreclosure crisis that's holding our economy back."

Barofsky emphasized that TARP failed because of "...the horrific mismanagement of the program. And, the real question of what the program's goals really were." Barofsky pointed out that Obama Administration officials complained that Congress was stopping them when they weren't. Through mediocre management by Obama appointees, hundreds of billions of TARP dollars were simply left on the table and not spent to help homeowners.

Small Businesses Are Worried: Obamacare means no jobs and layoffs on top of no jobs—Mon., July 9, 2012>>>This is a press release from Congressman Jim Jordan, head of the Republican Study Group: Economic reports over the last few months have not been good, and I've heard from a number of small business owners who are very concerned about the future. (Obama's) health care law is a big part of the problem. As many employers explained to a news station in the D.C. area, ObamaCare "will mean not hiring new workers, not growing their business, and some say they'll just pay the penalty, rather than having to cover all of their workers." The same concerns were also voiced in this article, with multiple employers saying the law will lead to fewer full-time jobs and more temp and part-time work.

This law isn't affordable, it doesn't protect patients, and it isn't good for our economy. Those are three big reasons why the House of Representatives will vote again to repeal it later this week.

ObamaCare isn't the only obstacle to a healthy economy, though. Earlier today (July 9), ...Obama publicly demanded higher taxes on families and small businesses who already pay a 33% or 35% income tax rate. In what universe can politicians impose such a high tax rate and still accuse you of "not paying your fair share?" Not to mention, the people targeted by liberals are the exact people whose private investments and risk-taking create the kind of jobs America needs. Newsflash: raising taxes on job creators makes them less likely to create jobs.

The real impediments to job creation are...Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate. Unless they move past their ideological belief that government spending, taxation, and regulation are the answers to every problem, we will all suffer the consequences. —Congressman Jim Jordan, Chairman, Republican Study Committee.

(Note: the reference to the term "President" with respect to Obama has been deleted since Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World pledged in 2008 not to address Obama by that title until he produced genuine, forensic-verifiable documents that prove he is an American citizen who is constitutionally eligible to seek and hold the office of President of the United States. With 181 days of the term of office of what should be the 44th President of the United States remaining, Mr. Obama has not yet satisfied the 1st Amendment right of the People of the United States to know who occupies the living quarters in the White House—because the federal courts of the United States have denied the American people their 1st Amendment legal voice to petition the courts for a redress of their grievances against Democrats who control the Dept. of Justice and the federal judiciary and who certified his eligibility.).

71-year old former Vice President Dick Cheney has a heart transplant—Mar. 24, 2012>>>In his book, "In My Time" former Vice President Dick Cheney noted that after much soul-searching he was not sure he would consider a heart transplant. He underwent a pacemaker, bypass surgery and even the the battery-powered heart pump that was installed in June, 2010 to help his left ventricular pump blood. But he said he was still not sure he would consent to a heart transplant, noting that when his own heart failed, he was prepared to die because he had a full, rich life. (But, these are things people who want to life say when they have given up hope of life after someone else's death.) After two years on the heart transplant list, a suitable donor heart became available and, on early Saturday, the heart transplant took place at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, VA. The former vice president, who has a history of heart diseased dating back to his first heart attack at age 37, received a new lease on life at age 71.

According the United Network for Organ Sharing, 332 people over age 65 received a heart transplant last year. Sadly, with Obamacare those statistics are going to change radically beginning next year. If there are any heart transplant recipients over 70 years of age next year they will either be politicians or their donors who are exempt from Obamacare, doctors, VIP Watermelons or other wealthy individuals. Transplants will simply not be available to the working class elderly if they have advanced cardiac disease (which is when you need cardiac surgery) according to an Ann Arbor, Michigan orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Janda in a campaign speech he made for Dr. Rob Steele who was running against Congressman John Dingell [D-MI] on Oct. 13, 2010. In his speech he mentioned the Obama Rationing Board whose job it would be to deny healthcare procedures to "double dippers."

The task the rationing board, which I more honestly (and less politically-correctly) choose to refer to as the Death Board, was charged with establishing a formula based on [a] the cost of the treatment [b] divided by the number of the years the patient will benefit from the treatment and [c] an element factored into the equation but not in the physician's calculations that was based on the amount of money the prospective donor drains from the Social Security System verses the amount of tax dollars and/or consumer dollars he or she still contributes to the economy. If you believe the rationing of healthcare is not your next medical nightmare, think back to Friday (you know, the slow news day when all the bad news is reported because no one pays attention to the media going into the weekends) when several electronic news blogs reported, starting with a report by Illinois Policy.org that is urging the Supreme Court to strike Obamacare because children diagnosed with juvenile diabetes will wait over three months just to see a endocrinologist (diabetes specialist). Your wait time to get an X-ray shot and read could amount to a few weeks to a few months. Just hope what's on the film doesn't require immediate surgery, because just like Europe and Canada, your wait for a surgeon may take a year or more—providing you are qualified (by the criteria above) for surgery.

According to Dr. David Janda, Obamacare created a multibillion dollar center to institute the decisions formulated by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research (that was buried not in Obamacare but in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a full year before Obamacare was enacted. In other words, they created the board that will deny us benefits in order to euthanize us a year before they created the healthcare system that they claimed would keep us alive. Within that multibillion dollar center Obama created the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The National Coordinator will "...determine treatment at the time and place of care." That means," according to Dr. Janda, on Jan. 1, 2013 (right after Obama hopes you are stupid enough to reelect him, or like 2008, not catch him stealing 35 million votes) "...when a physician walks into a hospital room, his nurse or physician's assistant [PA] will have a little handheld computer. And, when the doctor makes the diagnosis on that patient, she will type it into that little handheld computer and the diagnosis will go to the National Coordinator's office and, while we are still in that room, the word will come back from Washington as far as the treatment and protocol for that patient." Dr. Janda noted that hospitals and/or physicians who fail to comply with the protocols ordered by the Coordinator will face penalties.

Dr. Janda quoted these same comments to a US House Committee, and asked them what it meant—what were these penalties? He queried Congress if he received the government's protocol for a patient that he knew it was wrong, and did what he needed to do to heal or prolong the life of that patient would be punished? The unidentified Congressman said, "Yes." Dr. Janda replied, "You're telling me that I get paid twenty bucks to see that patient that you're going to fine me a hundred bucks?" Dr. Janda continued: "They looked at me and said, 'That's not going to make you hurt enough. Try a hundred grand— for your first offense." Jokingly, Janda looked at the Congressman and said, "and if I do it again, which would probably be on the next patient because I am going to do what's right for my patient, are you telling me you're going to fine me again?" Very soberly, the Congressman replied, "No, Doctor. The second time, you're going to jail."

The American people need to understand that every nation on Earth that created an old-age pension system created a companion healthcare system. Not to prolong the lives of the pensioners, but to make sure they don't live long enough to enjoy their golden years. When Social Security was enacted the life expectancy of an American male was 58.1 years. To collect any of the benefits his taxes paid for, he would have to live 7 years longer than the doctors said he would. Medical science adds 2 to 5 additional years to a man's lifespan every decade as abortion-on-demand shrinks America's future taxpayers which means those eligible to collect benefits will so greatly exceed the number of taxpayers supporting them that the economic system will collapse if the number of elderly people draining the system are not eliminated. Rather than creating a system to provide the world's best healthcare to the American people, Obamacare was developed to save Social Security by expediting the deaths of the elderly double-dippers and young work-are welfare recipients who are draining a system that can no longer them, either.

McDonald's announced it will quit putting "pink slime" in their burgers—Feb. 21, 2012>>>Have you figured out the "secret ingredient" that makes your Mickey D's Big Mac or Quarter Pounder taste so good? British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver did, and let the cat out of the bag in an episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. He derisively called that "yummy stuff" that brings customers back for a second Big Mac "pink slime." There is a non-food additive called ammonium hydroxide mixed with waste fat trimmings (which the burger industry calls "boneless lean meat trimmings." You call those meat trimmings "fat," or "suet.") The fatty beef offcuts from many different cuts of beef are ground into filler and mixed with leaner, low grade, generally tough cuts of beef to create the beef patties that Americans burger lovers know and love. That fat trimmings actually make the burger tastier. When busy Americans miss dinner, today's overweight consumer sometimes buys two of these mega-calorie treats with large fries and a diet soft drink.

But it wasn't just McDonald's who was adding boneless lean meat trimmings to the beef patties they serve their customers. This is one of those things where, in America, everyone's doing it. Seventeen percent of all meat products sold contain boneless lean meat trimmings. Even your local supermarket sells pink slime. Anyone who mixes those indigestible fat trimmings from steaks, roasts or other cuts of meet with what becomes high fat ground beef is doing it. The ammonium hydroxide, which is approved for human consumption by the USDA, is added to the waste fat to kill all sorts of bacteria (like E.coli and salmonella) that may be lurking in the fat trimmings. And, under USDA regulations, processors are not required to list ammonium hydroxide on the food label.

How many times have you brought home a bargain pound of 75/25 hamburger meat, and when you were frying up a couple of patties for a cheeseburger dinner, saw a thick pink ooze on the top of your burger? I know. You thought it was beef blood. In 94% lean meat, it is because there is virtually no fat in those burgers. (It's usually watery because supermarkets sometimes add weight to their cuts of beef by soaking them in water before packaging and weighing them. In tough times, it all about the bottom line.)

When you see a thick, pinkish ooze instead of bright red, slightly watery blood, you've been zapped with pink slime. When Oliver first revealed "pink slime" on his program, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, he asked a question: "Why would any sensible human being want to put ammonia-filled meat into their children's mouths?" that had to make executives at McDonald's quake. If that didn't, his final comment did. He said: "Basically, we've taken a product that would be sold as the cheapest form for dogs and after it's processed, give it to humans."

That raised a question in my own mind. Would I ever sit down and eat a can of Alpo dog food for dinner? I don't think so. US Department of Agriculture microbiologist Geral Zimstein agreed with Oliver that the ammonium hydroxide agent should be banned. It's been banned from human consumption in the United Kingdom and Ireland for years. While Oliver did not achieve his goal of having the USDA ban ammonium hydroxide (and through a ban, relegating "boneless lean meat trimmings" to the trash bin, or to pet food makers), he accomplished the next best thing—McDonald's announced on Feb. 12, 2012 that it will no longer use it as a filler. McDonald's action will force the entire fast food industry in the United States to do the same thing.

Is it okay for government to deceive consumers by photoshopping the ads they use to sway public opinion in order to alter "bad eating habits?" —Jan. 26, 2012>>>When is false advertising "false advertising" and when is lying to manipulate the public to achieve acceptable behavior for New York City? Answer #1: in the view of the New York City Dept. of Health, which believes government has the right to regulate how you eat, to make a point the city not only has a right to deceive the public, it has an obligation to do it if moderates the eating habits of New Yorkers. Answer #2: Advertising fraud is fraud regardless who perpetuates it.

New York City just launched a provocative advertising campaign to scare New Yorkers into cutting down on their portion sizes—or force restaurants to do so. The ad the New York City Department of Health created and is using (pictured on the right) depicted three soft drink containers—small, medium and large—with the small container labeled "Then" and the large container labeled "Now." Probably a lot of truth in that imagery. The heading of the ad says: "PORTIONS HAVE GROWN. So has Type 2 Diabetes." Again, probably a lot of truth in the statement. At that point, for several reasons, truth and reality vanish. So much for government as a credible advertiser. Clearly, as America has painfully learned over the past 50 years you can't believe a word that comes from the mouth of a social progressive when he/she is running for office. Or assuring you that he/she is working in your best interest after winning, we now know you can't trust the appointed social progressive bureaucratic hack anymore than you can trust the elected hack.

Let's look at the ad again. The revelation came from MyEverydayHealth.com on Jan. 25. Only this time, let's look at the whole poster headline. "PORTIONS HAVE GROWN. So has Type 2 Diabetes, which can lead to amputations" No one with Type 2 Diabetes, which is treated with pills—usually sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones. meglitinides, dipeptidyl peptidase or alpha-glucosidase inhibitors—is ever at risk of having limbs amputated. In fact, there is now a pill that will prevent Type 2 diabetes in a majority of high risk patients (those who are obese or have family histories of diabetes). Patients with Type 1 Diabetes (those taking one form or another of insulin by injection) are very seriously at risk of the conditions that lead to the loss of fingers and/or toes, and in extreme cases, the loss of arms or legs—or their life.

To sell that reality in an ad, it is incumbent on the New York City Department of health to find a "model" that is the victim of the tragedy they are attempting to project—that obesity almost 100% of the time leads to diabetes. If obesity is not reversed, Type 2 diabetes will become Type 1 diabetes almost 100% of the time. And, if the patient does not take care of his/her Type 1 diabetes any better than he/she took care of his/her Type 2 diabetes, it's very likely their primary care physician or endocrinologist will be talking to them about the options of using chelation therapy to try to save an arm or leg—if gangrene has not set in. You might think about that on your next visit to your favorite 2,000 calorie fast food burger joint for a quick lunch. Take a tip—don't worry abut the size of the soft drink. Buy the one patty junior burger. No mayo. No fries. Now you can have the large soft drink.

If you absolutely have to buy a triple decker burger, go ahead. Need the fries, too? Jumbo king size? Fine. Buy them even though you could have gone to a sit-down family restaurant and had a balanced, home-cooked meal for the money. Okay. Got your meal? Don't sit down. Take it outside. Somewhere around the door you're going to find a homeless waif down on his luck (or at least posing like he is). Open the burger. Give him the three all-beef patties. You get the tomato ketchup and mustard drenched bun. If you're lucky, you get a slice of tomato and lettuce. The fries you had to have? Eat one. Give the homeless guy the rest. If he really is homeless, he needs the calories. You should feel good. You just did a good deed with minimal damage to your digestive system, your cholesterol and triglycerides.

Okay—back to the New York City Department of Health. Afraid that they would be attacked by the city's restaurants by suggesting that eating hamburgers and French fries might make you fat, the city took what they thought would be the safe route—picking on watered-down fountain colas. Thomas Farley, the city's health commissioner told Reuters that they opted for "...these hard-hitting images because we really felt we needed to drive home a point that large portions are not completely benign." But, he said, the American Beverage Association which represents the soft drink manufacturers and distributors accused Farley's department of using scare tactics. When the New York Times discovered that not only was the city's "model" not an amputee, but that the agency which employed him never checked to find out if he was diabetic. In fact, according to the agency they had no idea who the model was because the photographer who shot his picture did not bother to log his identity. He was simply a "stock shot" in the photographer's portfolio.

The rules and laws that apply to the masses must apply to government. If a free market entrepreneur decided to photoshop a photograph because digital enhancement would sell his products or services better, not only would the FDA or some other agency of the federal government be after him, so would a half dozen State, county and municipal government agencies. But, in New York, John Kelly, a spokesman for Thomas Farley, pushed criticism aside, ignoring the fact that they fabricated a diabetic amputee who did not exist to sell the fear they were peddling that day, said "...sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease. Other times we use actors." I'm surprised he didn't just say, "We don't want to exploit the handicapped to make the public realize that it could be them, so we use actors"

ATF wants to regulate Chore Boy pot scrubbers—Dec. 17, 2011>>>On Dec. 14, 2011 David Codrea of the Gun Rights blog for the Examiner.com released a copy of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF} opinion letter in which the firearms regulatory agency has construed the right to regulate Chore Boy® copper cleansing pads, fiberglass insulation and, of course, 14" shoelaces—if consumers buy too much.

The ATF assumes the right under the US Code to warn consumers that "stockpiling" copper scouring pads can legally be construed as a violation of the National Firearms Act 18 USC 92[a][24] because Chore Boy® can, and with provocation will, be considered an essential component of a gun silencer. As such, the ATF believes the federal government has a right to regulate the use of Chore Boy® copper scouring pads by restricting your right to buy multiple boxes of copper scouring pads at your neighborhood supermarket and too much Fiberglas™ insulation at your local home improvement store. If you are surprised that the ATF would assume the right to regulate Chore Boy® copper scouring pads, remember this is the same agency that tried to regulate 14" shoelaces as a machine gun-making "component" on Sept. 30, 2004.

On that date the ATF responded to a Feb. 6, 2004 letter from a Brian A. Blakely. The ATF was asked about the legality of using a small piece of string to increase the cycling rate of a semiautomatic rifle. Sterling Nixon, then the Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch responded by telling Blakely that any weapon that can be retrofitted to automatically fire more than one shot without physically pulling the trigger according to the National Firearms Act, 26 USC § 5845(b) is construed to be a machine gun. In 1996, the FTB classified a 14" shoelace with a loop at each end that was used to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun as a machine gun component as defined by 26 USC § 5845(b). Modifying a weapon by any person who is not a licensed gun manufacturer is a violation of law.

The Blakely inquiry dealt with a question concerning the repairing of a legal, registered silencer, and the repairing and/or replacing of the gas/sound-absorbing material in the silencer. The silencer could be repaired with a dollar's worth of fiberglass insulation and a few scraps of a copper Chore Boy. John R. Spencer, the current head of the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF responded by saying that anyone except a licensed gun manufacturer repairing a silencer would be a violation of federal law. The proper procedure, Spencer advised, would be for the owner of the registered silencer to submit an application to the ATF and pay a $200 fee. In addition, he would also have to submit a "no marking" variance to the FTB since there would be no space on the silencer in which to apply a new serial number to the newly-added sound-absorbing material. Spencer also advised Blakely that it would not be legal for the owner of the registered silencer to "...have a stockpile of sound-absorbing materials for his own use in replacing deteriorated sound-absorbing material."

In March, 2010 a Cornelius, Oregon store owner, Brad Morgan and his son Ben discovered that a shipment of Airsoft BB pistols they ordered from Taiwan were seized by the Obama Administration's ATF agents in an Oct. 30, 2009 raid in Tacoma, Washington. The BB guns, which were worth $12,000 were slated for destruction because ATF Special Agent Kevin Crenshaw said "...[w]ith minimal work it could be converted to a machine gun." In reality, the ATF seized the BB guns because they were missing the blaze orange tips which are required on all imported toy guns. Ben Morgan disagreed with Crenshaw, saying "...[t]o say these are readily convertible to machine guns is absolutely preposterous. The round wouldn't go into the firing chamber, and even if the firing pin did strike the primer, the gun would basically blow up in your face."

Last October the Obama Administration's State Department barred the Republic of South Korea from returning tens of thousands of refurbished surplus M1 Garand rifles to the US consumer market by classifying the semi-automatic WWII and Korean War-era rifle as a threat to public safety in the United States. A Dept. of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms document uncovered by the Examiner's gun rights writer, David Codrea, revealed the ATF's alarm over the fact that the rifle that won World War II would not be regulated any more than any other firearm sold in America. Somehow that bothered the bureaucrats in the US government who are in bed with the globalists trying to impose a global ban on the private ownership of all firearms in the world in order to subdue all populations and make them serfs of the overlords of Utopia.

In May, 2009 the State Dept. approved South Korea's request to sell 87,301 M1 Garand rifles and 770,160 M1 carbine rifles to US gun distributors f or commercial resale in the United States. The Obama ATF contacted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and advised her that the White House felt that such a large stock of rifles "...poses a threat to public safety in the United States." In other words, the White House said "no."

But they actually didn't say that. What the ATF said—supposedly looking out for the profits of the retailers—is that the transfer of so many weapons would raise the number of guns available and lower the price (based on too large of a supply), making them more readily available, and cheaper. On top of that, the ATF said, the M1 rifles "...may be legitimately sold, trafficked or otherwise transferred. The only controls are the ones in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and, while these controls require federal firearms licensees to keep records, and place some restrictions on their firearms sales...very few records are required to be provided to the ATF, and ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of firearm registry." They further argued that anyone who can purchase seven separate parts for the M1—and install them correctly—could probably convert the carbine into a machine gun.

"Could," "probably." The odds of the average deer hunter doing that are about as good as the Mortons converting BB guns into a live ammo-firing weapon, or converting a carbine into a machine gun with a common, ordinary 14" shoelace. What bothers the Obama Administration, I suspect, is the thought of having about a million military-trained conservative civilians armed with military-grade weapons when Obama or some other social progressive decides to surrender the United States to the UN.

Pakistan has banned the name "Jesus Christ" as an obscenity—Nov. 19, 2011>>>Charisma News.com reported that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has just issued a new list of words that it considers to be so obscene they are construed to be pornographic in the Muslim world. The PTA ordered mobile phone companies to begin screening cell phone use and block text messages that contain any of 1,109 English words and 586 Urdu words by Nov. 21, The global eradication of the Son of God from the lips of mankind in the Muslim-friendly world begins on Monday.

In what was termed to be an "unofficial" correspondence from the PTA to those outside of the Muslim world, and what can only be construed as a very official mandate to the believers within Islam—even outside the borders of Pakistan—the letter reiterated that "...the transmission of harmful, fraudulent, misleading, illegal or unsolicited messages in bulk to any person without the express permission of the recipient can be banned. Free speech," the PTA said, "can be restricted in the interest and glory of Islam."

Charisma News noted that although many of the words on he banned list are legitimately obscene or pornographically-suggestive, including the name of Jesus Christ among the most tasteless words in the world, Charisma said, "...is leading some to question Pakistan's motives."

In Pakistan last year 29 Christians were martyred for their faith. Four others were sentenced to prison for blasphemy. In 2010 a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy. Fifty-eight Christians were kidnapped and over 100 were beaten but survived. When a tsunami hit Indonesia in August, 2010 following an 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, the world sent relief to Indonesia. The Islamic government discriminated against Christians by denying them aid..

FBI investigating strange graffiti on Southwest Airlines 737s—Sept. 22, 2011>>>Aircraft graffiti on both the outside skin and in the cargo bins is quite common in the United States. Typically aircraft graffiti is done by ground crews at one airport taking jabs at the ground crews at another airport, at other airline employees, supervisors or senior management—particularly during union negotiations when most of the graffiti is either pro-union or anti-management.

But not in the case of the strange graffiti that has been appearing on the underbellies of several of Southwest Airlines 737 aircraft that began showing up in February of this year. The markings appear to be words written in Arabic, or at least appear to be Arabic symbols which taggers have written on the exterior of the airplanes. Public statements made by a Southwest Airlines spokesperson adamantly stress the markings pose no threat to travel and that the situation appears to be an "internal one." The consensus at Southwest is that the vandalism was done by "employees joking around." In their statement to ABC15 in Phoenix, Arizona, Southwest dismissively minimized the incidents saying that they believe the problem is the result of activities of one or more employees who have access to the planes while they are parked at the gate. A Southwest internal memo say the messages or Arabic symbols were written in thick dirt and soot which, the airline added, can easily be washed off.

That assessment is at odds with a Huffington Post reports, which may be why the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration entered the investigation. While the FBI will investigate any form of graffiti if the taggers leave terrorist threats, it appears what brought the FBI into the investigation were the markings themselves. KNX 1070 Radio] in Los Angeles reported that the graffiti which concerned the FBI were not finger smudging in thick dirt or soot, but words and/or letters applied with a chemical that are apparently invisible to the eye until an auxiliary power unit is turned on and heats up the outside skin of the aircraft in flight, revealing the words or symbols. CBS Los Angeles, which owns KNX 1070 said they are not sure how many aircraft are involved.

Michelle Obama disrespects flag folding at the WTC Memorial—Sept. 11, 2011>>>When Michelle Obama officially kicked off her role in her husband's 2012 Democratic campaign in a speech to the Democratic National Committee's liberal Women's Leadership Forum on Thursday, May 21, 2011, she stood in front of a backdrop of patriotic red, white and blue. The colors of freedom. The American flag. The symbol that men and women have fought for—and died. The flag works—when she is the centerpiece of the display, since all the flag represents to her—window dressing . On Sept. 11, on the 10th Anniversary of the World Trade Center disaster, as she stood waiting impatiently for the hoopla to get over and her celeb moment to begin after the flag folding to the sound of bagpipes to honor the fallen on 9-11. Caught on video by Fox News, Michelle Obama leaned towards her husband and, according to someone who read lips, appears to say: "All of this just for a flag?" Then, she pursed her lips and shook her head as her husband nodded in agreement.

Michelle Obama, you will recall, told the world she had never had occasion to be proud of America. Her statement, made on Feb. 17, 2008 was: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." (She really wasn't then, either since her statement was merely a "pitch" for change in America—Obama's move away from free market democracy to Marxism. A couple months after expressing her contempt for America, Michelle Obama made her famous May 5, 2008 Trinity United Church of Christ audio-taped "whitey" speech, referring to the middle class White community of the United States as racist. Her husband is cut from the same cloth. If you recall during his election campaign there was a flap about American flag lapel pins, with Obama's campaign opting from wearing them because "it offended some people."

Defending his action, the far left mainstream TV media did the same. TV newscasters on ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC shunned American flag lapel pins. Obama went a step farther by designing his own "American" logo that emblazoned the tailfin on his rented campaign jet. On the tailfin is where the flag of that plane's registration is generally found (just like the flag that flies on ships-at-sea. Obama's "country-of-origin" based on his 'flag" is about the most honest statement he has made since becoming part of the public persona of America—zero. He has no "public" country of origin. The Canadian conspiracy citizenship claims notwithstanding, Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.

Barack Obama, in his role (regardless how he got there) as a chief executive, understands the pomp and circumstance that goes with the job. Michelle Obama, whose waking moments are reportedly centered only upon her own celebrirty status, doesn't understand that the official respect shown to her is not about her. It's about her role based solely on the consequence of marriage. The respect shown her is respect Americans show for the First Family of the United States (regardless how they got there). But while they are there, in the White House, they need to show respect for the American flag and for the American people.



Texas Wind Turbines Prove to Be A Joke—Aug. 26, 2011>>>The National Center for Policy Analysis noted in their Aug. 24 Policy Digest that green energy in Texas is a myth that simply does not work. Over the past week ERCOT, the State's electricity grid operator, warned of possible rolling blackouts across Texas if consumers did not reduce consumption. This even though Texas now has 10,135 megawatts of installed, operational wind generation capacity which ERCOT assured consumers when the system was installed, would either replace 15% of the power consumed by customers or add 15% more available power in times of peak demand and, it would seem from the rhetoric, reduce the chance of rolling blackouts.

The wind turbines proved to be a green flop. On the afternoon of Aug. 2, 2011, when electricity demand hit 67,919 megawatts, the maximum output ERCOT could pull from their expensive green experiment was 1,500 megawatts of electricity, or 2.2% of the demand even though the designers of the system assured Texas that it would deliver 15% of peak demand. In four days in August when demand set records in Texas, the Texas wind turbines contributed, respectively, 1%, 2%, 1% and 1% of the demand. Wind turbine advocates promise the extremely expensive technology will produce energy at a rate of 25% to 30% of capacity because as the technology was developed the turbines were always constructed in areas where wind speeds averaged 20 miles per hour or higher. Add to the reality the fact that the environmentalists who champion green science exaggerate the effectiveness of their product, and understate the cost to develop it.

The Texas wind turbine system cost federal and State taxpayers $25 billion to date ($17 billion to install the wind turbines and $8 billion for the transmission lines to carry the new energy to waiting consumers across the State during the dog days of summer). And, for $25 billion, the turbines can't keep the home air conditioners pumping cool air because the greenies failed to reveal something they learned when they developed and tested their green science secret—when power demands are highest (during the daylight hours) wind turbines are the least effective. They work best in the middle of night when electricity demand is at its lowest. Holland began experimenting with wind power a decade ago under a "green edict" to slowly begin to replace their existing carbon fuel electricity generating plants with alternative energy sources. Wind turbine energy proved to be so unreliable that what negligible amount of electricity Holland produces it sells to its neighbors.

In February of this year the London Daily Mail called England's £250 billion experiment in wind energy "the greatest scam of our age," The Mail said, "...the 350 foot monstrosity above the M4 (highway) outside Reading...performed so poorly that the £130 thousand subsidy the government gave the owners for cheap energy development was more than the £100 thousand of very expensive electricity it produced." The Mail noted that "...wind turbines are so expensive that Holland became the first country to Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target...Wind tunnels are so unpopular that our own government has just offered bribes to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electric bills."

The Mail concluded its piece by noting that "...the Most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry—and echoed by gullible politicians—is to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their 'capacity,' as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, its the total amount of power they are capable of producing..." if the wind levels are strong enough and consistent enough to let the turbines operate 100% of the time at capacity. In the real world, that does not happen. Wind, of course, blows at varying speeds, so the turbines produce only from 2% to 22% of "capacity."

Wind power, the Mail noted, is "...a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy..." since that is the only way the wind energy company would make money. "It is," the Mail reiterated again, "...one of the greatest scams of the age." Oh, and by the way, the London Daily Mail is one of England's more liberal newspapers.

TSA Threatened to stop all air flights to Texas if Groping Bill Passed Texas Legislature—May 28, 2011>>> Forbes Magazine reported on May 25 that the Transportation Security Administration [TSA] has arrogantly threatened to cancel all flights in and out of Texas by shutting down all airports in that State if a Texas bill that criminalizes TSA pat-downs that include touching the anus, sexual organs, buttocks or breasts of another person through their clothing. Under the Texas bill, these forms of "groping" will become misdemeanors under law, allowing Texas law enforcement officers to arrest TSA officials and charge them with sexual harassment. The penalty for sexual groping by "search agents" (i.e., screeners) for the government would be a fine of up to $4,000 and a year in jail—per offense.

The legislation was triggered by an intrusive TSA full-body pat-down of 2003 Miss America Susie Castillo in the Dallas-Fort Worth in a connecting flight to Austin airport from Rio de Janeiro where she hosted a red carpet premiere for the movie "Fast Five." When she refused to go through the strip search X-ray scanner—after being specifically directed to that line by TSA officials—she was told she would be required to undergo an intrusive full body pat-down if she did not go through the full body scanner. Castillo explained that as a frequent flyer she feared the constant radiation from the full body X-ray scanners. That was why she chose the line where travelers were receiving noninvasive back-of-the-hand pat-downs.

After opting out of the strip search scanner, Castillo followed a female TSA security agent to the "pat down" area. Since she had the "back-of-the-hand" pat-down at LAX when she flew to Rio, she knew she could endure it again. Only this pat-down had very personal touching contact with her breasts and vagina. Castillo noted that in the pat-down at LAX, the screener never touched any "private part." The DFW screener touched the private areas of her body four times.

When Texas responded with a law to criminalize "cheap feels" by TSA screeners, the TSA responded with a comment on the TSA Blog on May 14, 2011 with an arrogant comment that Texas needed to keep its hands off federal law. "The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) prevents States from regulating the federal government." The 9th and 10th Amendments prevent the federal government for assuming for itself authority not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The Constitution does not give Congress the right to grant power that it does not, itself, possess under its own franchise in the Constitution. Congress' right, and therefore the rights of the Executive Branch are limited to the search perimeters detailed in the 4th Amendment.

When the Texas House enacted Texas House Bill 1937, the measure introduced by State Senator Dan Patrick appeared likely to speed through the Texas Senate as well. Instead, on May 25 a letter from the Department of Justice was hand-carried to the Texas Legislature by TSA officials. The DOJ warned the State of Texas that if they enacted the law, it would send a signal to the Justice Department that the Lone Star State was not fully complying with "aviation safety standards," and the TSA would then have the authority to shut down all airports in Texas. (Keep in mind, this was not the binding legal opinion of a federal judge, this was the nonbinding, non-legal view of a DOJ bureaucrat following the orders of the Obama Administration.)

As the TSA got tough, Texas State Senator Patrick told the Texas Tribune that "...I don't cave in to heavy-handed threats by the federal government." But when the letter arrived from the DOJ, he caved in to mounting pressure from his peers and withdrew the legislation. In an editorial in the Washington Times, former US House Select Committee on Homeland Security spokesman Richard Diamond stated that "...the Texas legislature needs to grow a backbone. A State that prides itself on its independent...ought not to be easily cowed s the upper chamber was on Wednesday. When the time came for a vote to hold the TSA accountable for its despicable airport screening practices, it only took a scary letter from a Department of Justice bureaucrat to convince enough senators to hoist the white flag." I suspect that none of the ancestors of the sitting Texas Senate fought at the Alamo.

On May 25, far right Internet blogger Alex Jones led a boisterous crowd of about 100 protesters into the State Capitol Building around 3 p.m. and proceeded to the House chamber where the Jones crowd was told that the House had passed the measure and that it failed to get through the Senate. The protesters then proceeded to the third floor Senate gallery on the other side of the Capitol Building. By the time they arrived they were blocked by Texas State Troopers. They stood outside the visitors' gallery chanting "Cow-ards, cow-ards; trea-son, trea-son," and calling State senators and the Lt. Governor and Senate President, David Dewhurst, who killed the TSA Groping Bill after Patrick withdrew it, "federal pimps" and "scalawag trash," as they promised to vote them out of office in 2012.

The protesters should have circled their wagons around the White House, not the Texas legislature. It was, after all, Obama's Brown Shirts at the TSA and his appointed Black Shirts in the Department of Homeland Security under a blanket of protection from the Patriot Act, who arbitrarily decided that what can only be described as the sexual assaulting of American citizens was a prerogative they actually possess.

When government assumes power it does not constitutionally possess it is constitutionally incumbent on the people to resist that tyranny. In the Federalist Papers 28, Alexander Hamilton (writing under the pseudonym Publius) claims that the rights of the People to defend themselves against any unlawful infringement of the government is "original" (meaning it existed as a right before the formation of the State, and is a preeminent right). Hamilton said that since man's right to self-defense cannot be taken from them, that right will always be a means of controlling those by whom they are governed. In the United States if elected leaders betray their constituents, the People have an inherent right to divest those representatives of their "artificial strength of government." Also affirming the right of the People to resist and oppose a belligerent government that exceeds the authority granted it by the Founding Fathers in the Founding Document, are Federalist Papers 10, 16, 46, 54 and 60." These documents were written by Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
ted, it is Shari'a-instigated.

Netanyahu demands the UN throw out Goldstone Report—Apr. 3, 2011>>> The Washington Times reported on Saturday, April 2 that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that the United Nations reject a controversial war crimes report on the conflict between the State of Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip over a 22-day period in December, 2008 and January, 2009.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on April 2, Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who chaired the UN Fact Finding Mission to investigate the Israeli-Hamas conflict and produced the reported named after him, said "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

The Israeli government did not cooperate with the UN Fact Finding Mission solely because the UN Human Rights Council, which ordered the investigation, has a longstanding bias against Israel. The report concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes in the 22-day conflict and asked both to initiate probes into approximately 400 reported incidents. In his op-ed piece, Goldstone praised the Israeli government for investigating the allegations against them. Hamas, he noted in his op-ed piece, did nothing.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who oversaw the conflict with Hamas, said that Goldstone needed to share his newfound views with the international community, adding that "...we always said that the IDF was a moral army. Judge Goldstone needs to publish his present conclusions before all international bodies where he published his distorted report."

In this one instance it appears that had the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces cooperated with Judge Goldstone's investigation, the Goldstone Report would likely have only condemned the actions of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

.
Ecowackos call it "Ocean Fertilization." I call it just plain old fashioned "B.S."—Feb. 27, 2011>>> USA Today reported on Friday, Feb. 25 that scientists are now saying they can use geoengineering to "...put a freeze on global warming." In the front page article, USA Today quoted an environmental economist, Scott Barrett of Columbia University who noted that the scientific community should be asking if "...geoengineering could work, rather than waiting until it becomes a necessity...We're moving into a different kind of world."

I agree with Barnett's second statement. We are moving into a different kind of world. It's called global cooling. Don't expect the scholastic global warming ecowackos to acknowledge global cooling just because the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on Feb. 27, 2008, reported that global cooling was currently underway. While the environmentalists were decrying what they called "Earth's fever" to fan global warming fears as their political allies on the left on Capitol Hill pushed hard in 2008 to enact Cap & Trade legislation that would allow "friends of the left" to get rich buying and selling carbon credits.

Senator Jim Inhofe's Environment & Public Works press blogger, Marc Morano quoted a Daily Tech report which cited anecdotal evidence that the planet has entered a cooling phase. China has been experiencing its coldest winters in 100 years. Baghdad reported snow for the first time in recorded history. Temperatures lingered around freezing and the Baghdad airport was closed due to poor visibility. Baghdad residents admitted the only snow they had ever seem prior to that morning was in movies. North America had the most snowfall in 50 years, with Wisconsin recording the highest levels of snow since record-keeping began. Record cold spells occurred in Florida, Minnesota, and Texas; and in Australia, Chile, Greece, Greenland, Iran, Mexico—and the thickness of Antarctic sea ice (which the ecowackos claim is thinning so much that the Antarctica ice sheet is in danger of disappearing. The list of cooling ranges from 0.65°C up to 0.75°C—a value large enough, the Daily Tech reported, to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All of this occurred in one year, and it is the single fastest temperature change ever recorded—either up or down.

Scientists linked the cooling to reduced solar activity which they noted is the primary driver of climate change. The scientist at all four global temperature tracking outlets—Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH and RSS—affirmed that while science has not proved that carbon dioxide is responsible for warming the planet, evidence now exists to prove that reduced solar activity is now cooling it.

Dr. Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council predicted a new ice age on Feb. 9, 2008. Tapping is worried about the sun. The sunspot activity that was the hallmark of Solar Cycle 24 has all but vanished, and activity is conspicuously quiet. The last time this happened was between 400 to 700 years ago when a solar event known as a Maunder Minimum happened and the world entered into what became known as the "Little Ice Age." During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply and glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages. Norse Icelandic Vikings settled Greenland in the late 10th century. Climate change, brought on by the Little Ice Age, which began around 1300 changed the fortunes of the Vikings By 1378, almost all of the the Vikings were gone. By the 1500s the climate in Greenland was dangerously inhospitable, and only a handful of Arctic Induit Indians remained.

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted that the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. In 2008, his views were echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, who advised the world to "...stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who affirmed that man's contribution to climate change amounted to a "drop in the bucket," said that we will hit a "solar minimum" by 2040, and the icy weather would last until 2100 or beyond.

Confirming the Russian findings is Dr. Timothy Patterson, Director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University. Patterson's research has also centered on the correlations between solar fluctuations and weather and the relationship, he said, which does not exist between CO2 and climate change. Patterson's research, he noted, shows "...the sun is the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

In 1991, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlate very closely with solar cycles. A post-2004 DMI study further corroborated their 1991 study adding a key weather factor—the sun's magnetosphere which shields the Earth from more cosmic rays which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The less clouds, the warmer the planet. When the seed field weakens, cloud layers increase, reflecting more light back into space, causing the Earth to cool.

This is the type of thing geoengineering would do artificially, creating the same side effects the geoengineers and econuts are talking about to cool a planet which is already cooling too fast on its own. National Academy of Science president Ralph Cicerone, a climate advisor to former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., and a "climate realist" according to the leftwing Center for American Progress, insists—without evidence—that the world's average temperature will increase by 3° to 7° by the end of the century, making such drastic measures necessary. All of this as the world is very rapidly cooling.

Once again greedy men, in a hurry to promulgate a Cap & Trade profit center to enrich the envirosocialists are advocating Cap & Trade as necessary to save the world from itself, are really advocating for trillions of dollars in fines and taxes which will be paid by the middle classes in the industrialized nations in the form of higher energy and commodity prices as the princes of industry and barons of banking speed up their efforts to redistribute the wealth of industrialized nations to the emerging nations which they now call "home." Global warming is not only a myth, it is—and always has been—a deliberate fraud, fabricated for obscene profit by greedy men with the ability to create the punitive laws of the industrialized nations because they own the votes of the lawmakers who theoretically write the laws which are actually written by the lobbyists of the princes of industry.

.
Obama State Dept. Makes Passport Applications Gender Neutral—Jan. 8, 2011>>> In yet another politically-correct, social progressive sleight-of-hand, the Obama State Department has surreptitously degenderized parenthood in the United States. The terms "Father" and "Mother" have been removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender-neutral terminology, a State Department spokeswoman said when the bureaucracy announced the change on Friday, Jan. 7, 2011. Brenda Sprague, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services issued the statement after the media inquired about a new policy statement on the State Department's website.

The statement, buried at the end of a Dec. 22, 2010 State Dept. news release entitled "Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," said: "These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child's parents and in recognition of different types of families." In the old passport application, the form asks for the "Father's Place of Birth" and the "Mother's Place of Birth." The purpose of tagging the blurb on the politically correct terminology switch into a news report that just about no one was ever going to read was to comply with federal law which required the posting while trying hard to keep it under the public radar screen since Resident Barack Obama is now pretending he's a political moderate in a changing political landscape. If he had managed to keep the terminology change in the US passport from the 99+% of the American people who are heterosexual (statistics from the 2000 US Census), Obama could have scored points from the less than 1% of the population that admits to being homosexual—particularly after his congressional repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The new forms, which cannot yet be accessed by the public, will be available online on Feb. 1, 2011. Instead of the old verbiage, the form will ask for "Parent One's Place of Birth" and "Parent Two's Place of Birth" since "daddy" may actually be a "mommy" and "mommy" may actually be a "daddy." The Washington Post called the new policy a win for gay rights groups which were financially generous to Democrats in the Election of 2008.

It is still unclear whether similar changes will be forthcoming in all federal documents. Very likely that will depend on two things: public outcry and the adamance of Republicans to restore the passport status quo. An announcment made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009 suggests the passport terminology change is likely the opening salvo fired across the bow of the USS United States that will lead to a lethal barrage aimed at legalizing homosexual marriage by regulation. Clinton announced that "partners" of homosexual American diplomats who be eligible for spousal benefits.

If you recall, in June, 2000 Hillary Clinton became the first wife of a sitting president to march in a Gay Pride parade. In a speech she made in June, 2010, Clinton said "...the United States is elevating the [gay rights] dialogue with other governments, and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons."

Sprague said, "The words in the old form were mother and father. They are now 'parent one' and 'parent two.'" She told the media that the decision by the Obama State Department to change the language was not an act of "political correctness"—although the change was lobbied hard by the gay rights group, Family Equality Council, and they were quick to issue a statement when the announcement was made.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council blasted the Obama-Clinton policy as a reflection of "...the topsy-turvy world of leftwing policial correctness." Perkins continued, adding that only in the world of smoke and mirrors "...is it considered an improvement for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth. This is clearly designed to advance the cause of same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting without statutory authority." Perkins added that this policy decision "...violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Defense of Marriage Act," (the federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman).

Rosemary Macray of the State Department of Consular Affairs which issued to Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements," shrugged off allegations of leftwing political correctness by Perkins and others and described the terminology implant as nothing more than an "...unremarkable tweak." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Macray dismissed the terminology change by suggesting the only thing the public is concerned about is not the legitimizing of homosexuality, but the cost to transition the forms. "It's not going to really involve any expense to taxpayers," she said, ending her statement.

"Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent," Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council told Fox News, "allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn't recognize their family. Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing. The best thing that we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families."

Chrisler's world view "reality" is warped by the prism of homosexuality. With the tons of gay rights advocacy—funded by billions of dollars of taxpayer money—and the efforts by social progressive educators in the taxpayer-funded public school system promoting homosexual sex as a normal and acceptable lifestyle, as well as an intelligent alternative to abortion, Chrisler appears to be pretending that the statistics which affirm that less than 1% of the population is homosexual or lesbian are fantasies of the homophobic right when, in fact, the numbers come from the 2000 US Census. The question was inserted by the Clinton Administration's Commerce Department on the belief the statistics would verify what the left has been touting for years: that somewhere between 10% to 20% of the American population is gay. When the statistics verified what Christian groups had been saying for decades—that the homosexual-lesbian population in the United States was only around one half of one percent—the unsupported claims of the purveyors of perniciousness notwithstanding, the media chose to ignore the "hard prove" on just how many people actually were homosexuals or lesbians.