Obama Under Oath: 5 Cases Left

From The Desk Of Gary G. Kreep Dear Friend of the Constitution, URGENT UPDATE: USJF IS INVOLVED IN EVERY CURRENTLY ACTIVE OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE With the recent dismissal of the Kerchner case in New Jersey Federal District Court, the UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION (USJF) is now involved in every case currently active challenging whether Mr. Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States. With either financial support or the direct involvement of our legal team, USJF is leading the way to force Barack Obama to tell America the truth. With now 5 separate cases, where USJF is making the difference, your financial support is more critical than ever before. Thanks to the support of 1,000's of Americans like yourself, the courts are rapidly moving forward towards our goal of getting Barack Obama under oath and forcing him to reveal the truth about the many documents that he has not provided America. The only cases that still have a chance to produce this result are the cases we are funding. We can only keep funding them with your support. HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW! Here is the current update on our most active case in California…. Barack Hussein Obama is not happy! When his taxpayer paid U. S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") attorneys walked into court on October 5, 2009, expecting United States Federal District Court Judge David Carter to immediately dismiss the birth certificate case, he did not get his way! After hearing hours of argument, Judge Carter "took the matter under submission." He has still not issued a ruling, 24 days later! If Obama has the valid birth certificate, all the lawyers would have to do is submit it to the courts, and the case would be dismissed. Has he done that? NO! According to the DOJ Attorneys: The President is above the Law and the Courts! The DOJ attorneys told the Judge that no Court in the United States had the right to rule on whether Barack Hussein Obama was eligible to serve as President of the United States! In their view, he could only be impeached and/or disqualified from the Office of President under the 25th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. THIS IS NOT TRUE! As USJF pointed out to the Court, both in our pleadings and in our oral presentation at the hearing, both the impeachment statutes, and the 25th Amendment require a sitting President. However, if Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President, he could not be, and never was, a sitting President, so those options for removal could not apply. Therefore the courts would have jurisdiction. HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW! Monday, October 5, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., in California, was a critical milestone for our entire legal and public relations effort to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate, as well as other documents, to prove whether he is eligible to serve as President of the United States. And with your support USJF was able to be there to argue the case. This case has an excellent chance to survive the Department of Justice motion to dismiss, and it has proven to be the best chance for America to have a hearing on the merits on this critical Constitutional issue. What happened that day in Court? It's very simple—the DOJ attorneys brought up every argument that they could to try to persuade the Court to dismiss this case Fortunately, USJF provided sound legal arguments against all of the DOJ legal theories, and we were the only ones to do so; otherwise the whole case could have been over right then and there! According to observers at the hearing, the USJF oral arguments may well be the difference between this case surviving or being dismissed. The Judge raised issues critical to our case: 1. Did U.S. Senators question the eligibility of Mr. Obama? (Only USJF was able to tell the Court that Senators Coburn and Shelby and a number of House of Representative members had done so.) 2. Were objections made by Members of Congress when the vote of the Electoral College was certified? (Only USJF was able to tell the Court that NO, then Vice-President Cheney had not performed his required duty of asking for objections, so there could have been none raised.) DOJ attorneys also argued that only Congress, and/or the Electoral College, could decide on the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Fortunately, the USJF legal team, and only the USJF legal team, filed pleadings pointing out that the DOJ legal arguments in this regard WERE WRONG! And, I was there to argue against those false claims. People at the hearing and those who have found out what happened there since have been contacting USJF, thanking us for standing up for the truth! But the fight is not over yet! We expect a ruling from the Court any day now. If we defeat the dismissal motion, then we're immediately filing pleadings ("discovery") seeking Mr. Obama's birth certificate, his college records, and much, much more. AND, we'll be seeking to depose Mr. Obama ASAP! And if the Court grants the motion to dismiss, we'll be immediately filing an appeal of the decision! But we can only do this if we have your financial support! Judge Carter has finally set a trial date in this case. To keep that date, we need to defeat the DOJ dismissal motion, and then, IMMEDIATELY, move right into the discovery phase discussed above. BUT THAT WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE, AS WE WILL NEED TO: Retain attorneys in Washington, D. C., to take Mr. Obama's deposition. Retain attorneys in Hawaii to take the deposition of those in control of the Obama birth records and school records. Take the deposition of Occidental, College officials to obtain Obama school records Retain attorneys in Massachusetts to take the deposition of Harvard Law School officials to obtain Mr. Obama's school records there. Pay the cost of the court reporters for all of these depositions. Plus, Pay the cost of serving the subpoenas on the various witnesses. HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW! We expect the DOJ, as well as Mr. Obama's private attorneys, to fight us every step of the way! We beleive that Mr. Obama's attorneys will file motions to block the depositions in each and every state, and in the District of Columbia, trying to prevent us from obtaining the truth at every turn ! AND, WE WILL NEED MORE HELP TO: Investigate the issue of the passport files of Mr. Obama! We're going after the records of how he traveled abroad without a United States Passport in the 1980's, as he admits doing. Investigate the issue of his alleged adoption by his step-father in Indonesia! We'll be seeking records about that also! Resolve questions about his Selective Service files! We'll be seeking records concerning that also! But, first, we have to get past the DOJ dismissal motion! The DOJ's motion to dismiss also claims that our clients have no "standing," and that the matter is "political." But, if we as citizens of the United States have no "standing" to verify the citizenship of the man occupying the White House, who does? If our Federal Courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case, who does? It's not a "political" question, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL question! Last November, people said we were crazy to pursue this issue. Now, we've been shown to be right in our pursuit of the truth. It's not just the original birth certificate that they're refusing to release. Barack Obama's legal team has spent, according to published reports, over $1.4 million dollars so far to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, and many other documents. WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove whether he is a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate? When Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, apparently, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency. Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a "natural born citizen." What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility. This Constitutional crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW! HELP US MAKE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PROVE WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: CLICK HERE NOW! And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution... and your liberty. We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are in the process of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above those already filed, if you will help us today. Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States? Our country is on the fast track to disaster... but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today. Sincerely, Gary Kreep, Executive Director United States Justice Foundation P.S. This is the biggest political cover-up in American history! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE Obama is a natural-born citizen… IF THEY HAD THE DOCUMENTS! America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate, plus the dozens of other documents that he refuses to produce. Please remember that we are also fighting in the California Appellate Court system on this same issue. And we are also working on legal strategies to challenge many of the laws that Barack Obama has signed into law. Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can get away with DUPING the American people and DESTROYING the U.S. Constitution. DON'T LET HIM DO IT! The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted.

Thought Control Passes

By Eugene Delgaudio, President, Public Advocate of the United States: Despite their best efforts, pro-family forces were not able to overcome the pro-homosexual backroom deal in the Senate, losing the vote on Thought Control 68-29 with 10 Republicans voting in favor of Thought Control. This vote is indicative of the dramatic turn Congress has taken since the last election.

In past years, Public Advocate was able to force the removal of Thought Control from the Defense Authorization Act. But with Harry Reid in full control of Congress, there is little pro-family forces can do to stop them without your strong and immediate support.

Not only does this bill create a special class of citizens, it comes attached to a bill designed to equip our soldiers. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) gave a strong speech against the morality of this bill.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Jim DeMint's speech regarding the Thought Control bill: "It is very cynical that this bill that funds our soldiers, who are fighting for our Constitution and our country, actually undermines the very principles that they are fighting for." To watch his speech against Thought Control, please click here.

"It is an outrage," said Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio, "I can't believe so many Senators -- including 10 Republicans -- bent to the underhanded tactics of the Homosexual Lobby."

Here is the list of Republican Senators who voted for Thought Control:

• Sen. Christopher Bond [R - MO]: (202) 224-5721
• Sen. Susan Collins [R - ME]: (202) 224-2523
• Sen. John Cornyn [R - TX]: (202) 224-2934
• Sen. John Ensign [R - NV]: (202) 224-6244
• Sen. Judd Gregg [R - NH]: (202) 224-3324
• Sen. Kay Hutchison [R - TX]: (202) 224-5922
• Sen. Richard Lugar [R - IN]: (202) 224-4814
• Sen. John McCain [R - AZ]: (202) 224-2235
• Sen. Olympia Snowe [R - ME]: (202) 224-5344
• Sen. George Voinovich [R - OH]: (202) 224-3353

"A special class of citizens has just been created in our own nation. Public Advocate and our supporters must redouble our efforts to prevent this from leading to the passage of the rest of the Homosexual Agenda," concluded Mr. Delgaudio.

The Defense Authorization Act will now go to Obama for his signature. Please give the White House a call at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 and leave a message asking President Obama to veto the Defense Authorization Act containing the Thought Control bill (S. 909).  It is important to remember that Thought Control is only the #2 piece of legislation on the Homosexual Lobby's radical agenda.

The Gay Bill of Special Rights is widely regarded as the most important component of their Radical Agenda.

Knowing this, Public Advocate and their pro-family supporters must increase the pressure on Congress and immediately mobilize millions more pro-family activists.

Barry and Fox News

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View: So, the President has declared war against a particular news outlet because it has a "particular point of view."

DUH! They all do. It's just that Fox doesn't share the Liberal (Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive, whatever) point-of-view but tends to be more neutral on more subjects than the other big three MSM networks actually having the chutzpah to disagree with the "Anointed One" over such things as health care, ACORN, and his Czars (advisors). I guess Foxes don't make good lap-dogs.

Maybe the reason Fox Network News viewer ratings have so rapidly overtaken the others is because the American Public is damned tired of being lied to and actually prefers to make up its own mind rather being told what to think.
Having connected the dots, we know that Mr's. Jones, Dunn, & Sunstein (Czars) et al actually were properly vetted. It's not that Obama's not familiar enough with their viewpoints; it's that he is. These people weren't chosen despite their views; they were chosen precisely because their views coincide with Obama's. If it walks like a communist, talks like a communist, and espouses state control in the name of "the people" like a communist, it's a communist. The MSM has yet to notice this fact.

However, in February of this year, Newsweek giddily proclaimed, "We are all socialists now!" Obama is no mere socialist. Socialists just want your money; communists want complete control of your life. The present Healthcare scheme will extend Federal Control over 60% of the US economy. It is funny that the MSM deny the Congressional Budget Office figures and conclusions but Fox doesn't.

Obama nationalized banks and car companies, fired the CEO of a major corporation, appointed ministers unaccountable to anyone but himself to set salaries for executives in private industry, castigated and threatened secured bondholders and ran roughshod over their contract rights in favor of political patronage, spent nearly a trillion dollars in "stimulus" legislation that was loaded with Democrap pork, proposed "cap-and-trade" legislation that will confiscate American wealth and transfer it to third world nations (many of whom are run by leftist dictators.) His 'pièce de résistance' is merely a government takeover of the entire health care industry in the United States, the legislative crowbar by which government will be forced into every aspect of our lives from birth to death.

All, BO has accomplished by deceit, trumped up indignation, and demonization of private enterprise and business leaders – classic Marxist propaganda. But that is not yet enough. Too many Americans oppose Obama's take over the American health care industry (54% according to the latest Rasmussen poll). Over 40% now "strongly disapprove" of Obama's performance as President. Hundreds of thousands have turned out at "tea parties," townhalls, and a march on Washington. Resistance is growing. And Fox News is reporting it! Of course the Marxists disapprove.

Obama knows Americans favor limited government, personal liberty, free market exchange, and individual responsibility. If we opt to get our news and commentary from outside the controlled press which cast him as "god" and pitch his statist agenda do adoringly, we might actually see what is happening to us. Every good communist knows a stranglehold on the media is required. BO has now launched a full-scale attack on Fox News and any other media refusing to toe his party line (the internet.)Obama's methodology is right out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook.

In the style of history's most talented dictators, Obama remains above the fray, having thugs, well-meaning but ignorant "social justice" Christians, leftist theorists, and political hacks make his arguments and do his dirty work for him. A good many of those constitute the MSM. Thank God at least some locally published papers are independent enough to avoid a total stranglehold.

And Thank God for such as Fox News and the Internet. I am very sure BO and his minions have secure plans to control the Internet, its contents, and any independent news or commentary sources just as quickly as they can snow the Liberal Democrats who share their agenda into allowing it.

There are still some who haven't yet reconciled Obama's admittedly leftist leanings with his reluctance to vocally support Iranian protestors, his shunning the Dalai Lama, his obsequious bow to the Saudi king, his embrace of Hugo Chavez, and his defense of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (whose disregard for the constraints of his own Honduran constitution was the reason for his ouster).
Anyone still struggling with the perceived inconsistency does not yet understand the differences between traditional liberalism and communism. Communists – like all utopian ideologues - are always, at their core, authoritarian. Professing to love and care for "the people" is a transparent cover for actual loathing of "the people" and complete disdain for individual choices, as Obama, his comrades in Congress, and his shills in the media have demonstrated toward Americans again and again. They consider representative government a farce and façade. It doesn't matter what you want; they know better than you and they should be in charge because they DO know better. Their modern moniker is "Progressive" but a commie by any other name is still a commie. A rose is a rose is a rose.

In times past, those accused of communist sympathies would deny it (because Communism was still a progenitor of the "Cold War"). Today's Marxists brazenly say, "Yes, we can!" Perhaps too many years have passed since we saw the last leftist barbarians starving, imprisoning, or slaughtering millions of their own people in fruitless pursuits of utopia. Remember, the press loved the Communist North Vietnamese and North Koreans in their days of conflict.

Perhaps Obama & Co. are being allowed to get away with this because our press views Obamunism as a "kinder, gentler" sort of progressivism than that responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in the past 90 years or so. Or perhaps people just cannot believe that a fatherless boy from a difficult background, a man willing to reveal all in heartfelt autobiographies (even if fiction), a gifted speaker inspiring such admiration – could possibly pose a threat to the (once) freest nation in the world.

This is foolhardy. The people Obama handpicked to advise him share his willful arrogance of human nature and sense of moral superiority. Those two traits, more than any others, power the "ends justify the means" ethos behind some of the very bloodiest excesses of human history. That same history is filled with examples where oppression was accompanied by inspiring tales of hardships overcome, ghost-written autobiographies, soaring rhetoric, and a population willing to enshrine their Leader as some godlike figure, witness NAZI Germany and Hitler.

Ultimately, the question should not be about Barack Obama the individual. He may be the kindest man one could hope to meet despite his Progressive Arrogance. The drafters of our Constitution understood something fundamental: the best protection against oppression lies in limited government, not the benevolent personality of whoever happens to be in office at the time. BO is no benevolent King.

Throwing away liberty simply because Obama seems like a basically decent guy is precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against. (And for the record, I personally place no confidence in a man who views our Constitution as "flawed," precisely because it limits his power.)

There were not very many who remarked with astonishment at a President whose inaugural address was themed around "remaking America" though some Fox Commentators DID! Millions wondered in breathless anticipation what this "remade" America could look like. Look at Obama's role models, and the role models of his appointees and political supporters, and you'll know. Obama's remade America would look like Cuba; North Korea; The former Soviet Union; Venezuela; Cambodia; Myanmar; China, and the Middle East.

"Communism" may be an outdated term. OK! Whatever you choose to call it – totalitarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism, progressivism, statism, libertarian paternalism – it is the same mindset. Like a virus, the change of name is merely a mutation of the same ideas threatening to destroy the body politic, even the idea of Liberty, itself. Never again vote for an incumbent Congressman.

Coulter: Natural-Born Losers

Love Ann Coulter's commentary and pointed banter. However, much of the banter was removed to highlight Coulter's important points. To enjoy the complete article with banter, her full article linked below. Photo provided by a reader. Seemed relevant to Ann's article and the present state of affairs. Thank you Ann Coulter and God Bless our troops including Commanding General Stanley McChrystal.
---------------
by Ann Coulter: The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point. . . . The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot. . . . Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. . . . By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. . . .

But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy . . . Liberals sneered at Bush's description of Iraq as the "central front of the war on terror" and a step toward the "democratization of the Middle East" . . . By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism. Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag . . . was lured across the border into Iraq ... to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. . . . Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq -- and then they stopped because of Obama's indifference. Sadly for them, America's foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a "war of choice" and Afghanistan a "war of necessity" for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals. But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: "Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention." . . .

Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare -- something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

And it was Obama's idea to treat war as if it's an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm's way. A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an "unwinnable war." I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would. [Full Article]

---

ARRA News Service

Patrick J. Michaels : Deafening Silence on Real Climate Change - Townhall.com

Having been a licensed weather observer for more than 20 years from 1975 to 2001 and having worked intimately with aviation weather, reporting, observing, and delivering that information to thousands of aviators over that time period, I am convinced Global Warming is a myth designed to allow political control of people and resources, nothing else. NASA satellite pictures and on the ground weather observations from Antarctica belie the myth. 200 years of scientific study of weather, trends and causes point to two recurring weather cycles corresponding to the minor 7 year and the major 22 (or 11) year cyclic of sunspots as being the best indicators of long term annual weather cycles. We are presently in a solar calm and those cause cooling conditions, a fact that will become increasingly apparent over the next few years. Anyone happen to notice the US has been unusually cool and moist this year; MO is about 10-12 inches over its normal annual rainfall average at present and the year is not yet over. Record rains have fallen throughout the W and Midwest for the past few years. Montana went through a considerable draught these past few years but snow has again begun to fall and accumulate just as it did in the early 80's. The Rocky Mountains have recorded record snowfalls in several areas during the past couple years and they have also been increasing. In 1978 there was a widely published study that said the US was descending into a new mini ice age that was expected to last 200-300 years or more. Add to those facts that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas (heat capturing) and it's time to rid ourselves of some dumbass politicians incapable of discerning data. FACT: CO2 is used by every green living plant in the world. Fact 2: CO2 is pumped into commercial greenhouses to improve the growing conditions. Fact 3: the byproduct of plants is O2 (oxygen) taken from the CO2 used. If we really want to affect CO2 levels, plant and grow more green plants. The hoopla about Global Warming is about political power over people and resources, mainly our monies. Full Story

Profiles in Courage II -- a Dr. Mike Adams Column

Profiles in Courage II by Mike Adams: In late October of 2004, I flew to Miami to go deer hunting for the weekend of my 40th birthday. Doug Giles picked me up at the airport. He greeted me with a Cuban cigar. When I told him I also liked Cuban food he decided to take me down to Little Havana for the evening. We decided to drop off my luggage on the way.

When we arrived at Doug's place I met his daughter Hannah. She was about 16 at the time. The first thing I noticed about her was an unusual pair of earrings she was wearing. They looked like the tusks off a wild hog. So, after we were formally introduced, I asked her the obvious question: "Umm, Hannah, are those wild hog tusks dangling from your ears?" That's when she told me she shot a hog with her 30-30, pulled his tusks, and made a pair of earrings.

Before we went to Little Havana we had to drop Hannah and her sister (not "sisters") off at their martial arts class. Doug and I probably see eye-to-eye (and hog tooth to hog tooth) on the issue of executing rapists. But it's far better to give your daughter a gun so she can kill a rapist in self-defense before a rape ever occurs. But if, heaven forbid, your daughter encounters a rapist in a gun-free zone – otherwise known as a college campus – she needs to learn how to flip him on his back and break his arm before he accomplishes his mission. And, who knows, maybe she can rip his molars out and make a nice pair of earrings.

Doug and I returned from our hunting trip mid-Saturday afternoon. I stayed over until Sunday so I could speak to his congregation. I talked about the assault on Christian values taking place on our campuses – and in our culture. I urged everyone to do something about it. And I hope I gave them some specific ideas.

There were a number of young people present. A few students came over from Miami University. And, of course, Hannah was there. I closed my speech as I often do with the story of the twelve spies of Israel and their chance to retake the Promised Land. I reminded everyone that Joshua and Caleb were surrounded by ten cowards afraid to reclaim the land. That is why the people wandered in the desert for forty years.

Whenever I'm speaking to young people I also argue that America has been wandering in the desert for about forty years (since the 1960s). And I argue that today – just as in the days of Joshua and Caleb – cowards outnumber the brave by a ratio of at least five to one. And the only way to change that is to go charging down the mountainside to reclaim the Promised Land hoping that one's example will become contagious.

Hannah Giles has certainly become one of those brave souls. She has become active in the conservative movement. And she seeks to put truth above partisan politics as she pursues a career as an investigative journalist. She first got involved in the Conservative Movement after attending the Young America's Foundation (see YAF.org) National Conservative Student Conference in Washington, D.C. in 2007. She attended that program in 2008, too. She also went to YAF's Enemies of Freedom Seminar at the incredible Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California.

From there, she decided to intern at the National Journalism Center over the summer of 2009. It was during her internship that she decided to take on an insane and courageous project. And it was definitely not YAF's idea. It wasn't even her crazy father's idea. It was pure Hannah Giles.

Hannah, while she was jogging, decided it would be interesting to dress as a hooker and go into an ACORN office seeking help in furthering a prostitution ring. She got her friend James O'Keefe to play the role of a pimp and go in with her. In the end, they went into several ACORN offices to see whether ACORN would give them money, which comes from taxpayers, to further a criminal enterprise.

The sting worked like a charm. The pair caught ACORN – on film, mind you – giving advice on how to set up a prostitution ring and funnel money into a congressional campaign fund. ACORN workers were even willing to help with the money laundering scheme after they heard of their plan to bring under-aged sex slaves into the illegal enterprise.

Hannah and James went public with the tapes. They have been on national television shows and have almost completely destroyed ACORN's credibility. ACORN is no longer working on the U.S. Census. And they are on the verge of losing all government support in the form of taxpayer funding.

But, just like a wild hog after it has been shot, the pigs that run ACORN are fighting to the death. And, for a time, they will be more dangerous than ever before. They've sued Hannah Giles arguing that their rights to privacy have been violated. Their position is simple: "We at ACORN are the real victims. We have a right to unlimited taxpayer support. Our former lawyer, Barack Obama, is the President of the United States. We have a right to spend public money without fear of public exposure. We'll even conspire to allow your taxpayer dollars to fund child prostitution. And you will say nothing about it. Or else we will sue."

In other words, ACORN is trying to turn America into a third world nation. But you can stop them by helping to defend Hannah Giles. Contribute to her cause www.DefendHannah.com and, together, we can destroy ACORN permanently. And we can toss the carcasses of these swine upon the ash heap of history. And we can forever stop them from feeding at the government trough.

Hannah Giles has decided to run down the side of the mountain and reclaim the Promised Land. And now she needs our help. Will we wander in the desert? Or will we answer the call?

Make Mine freedom

[Video]

News Busted

The Vex of Same-sex Marraige

Monday, October 12, 2009

What's the Vex of Same-sex?

by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

 

Is the fight against same-sex marriage primarily one fought between religious groups and the gay community? Are there any issues that a secular society should consider in this fight? We have found at least eight negative sociological outcomes that could occur if same-sex marriage is legalized. The first impact would most likely affect the number of marriages in the United States. Fewer people would see marriage as the ultimate covenant between two people. The proof of this lies in the state of Massachusetts where only 43 percent of same-sex couples who cohabitate have utilized the state law which grants them marriage rights. Heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are more likely to marry (91 percent) but the degree to which same-sex couples marry devalues the commitment for all couples and the number is likely to decrease. In the Netherlands, only 12 percent of gay couples have chosen marriage; this low number is consistent with countries that have legalized same-sex marriages. A second impact that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on our society would be that monogamous and sexually faithful relationships would decrease. Fidelity among same-sex couples in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is extremely low. Several studies in the Netherlands show shocking figures: homosexual men who have a steady partner have had an average of eight other sexual partners per year; lesbians were found to have more male partners over their lifetime than heterosexual women. This lack of fidelity affects the view of marriage by the society in general, no matter the sexual preference. Third, same-sex marriage would negatively impact the number of couples who would remain married throughout their lives. As the transient nature of homosexual relationships becomes a normative ingredient of a society, all marriages will be impacted. One of the studies mentioned above found that the average male homosexual partnership lasts only 1½ years. This is a direct result of the widespread promiscuity among the homosexual community. Next, the effect of same-sex marriage could be felt in the area of polygamy. Once society is afforded the opportunity to choose a spouse regardless of sex, the next step is to take the limit off the number of spouses a person may have. In case you think this is an unlikely scenario, one lawsuit has been filed in the courts using the argument we have stated above. Moving on from marriage, we can readily deduce that the next influence same-sex marriage would have would be on children. More children would grow up without both father and mother to influence their lives. The social sciences are replete with study after study that commands our attention to the positive effect married, biological parents have on their children. Children are more emotionally stable and achieve higher test scores when they are raised by a mother and a father. Creating permanent motherless or fatherless homes dares to suppress the best standards for the next generation. Allowing gay partners to adopt will deny innocent children (who are unable to choose for themselves) the benefit of a home with both a mother and a father. Another negative impact same-sex marriage would have on our families is that schools would be required to offer information about homosexuality as a choice to students. Sex education classes would purport that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. In Massachusetts, a lesbian sex education instructor told her 8th grade students how lesbians use "a sex toy" to have intercourse. Though this is shocking, more so is the fact that a kindergarten parents was jailed because he protested against a book that was distributed to his son describing same-sex partners. Next, the impact of same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the economy. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, all employers, whether they are public or private, will be forced to provide a benefits package for same-sex couples. This will broadly affect every US citizen as our consumer goods and services will increase due to the increase cost of benefits that companies (large or small) will have to bear. Finally, the conscience of each citizen and our religious liberties would come under attack if same-sex marriage became legalized. Once a law has been made, the interpretation of that law is managed by the court system, which has often seen opinion rise over the will of the people. Religious schools, colleges, and organizations might face becoming stripped of their tax-exempt status if they do not hire and admit homosexuals. Social workers, psychologists, counselors and other professionals could have their licenses revoked because they have chosen to "discriminate" against homosexuals. The types of issues we have stated above have already been found to be true in the countries and states in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. If you are as vexed as I am over this issue, make a stand for marriage. What can you do to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage? 1. Call your Congressmen 2. Send this e-mail to 5 friends 3. Consider sending a contribution to www.stand4marriagedc.com 4. Join us Sunday, October 25th at The People's Rally - "Let The People Vote." We want to let DC officials know that the constituents of the District should be allowed to vote on the issue of the definition of marriage. The Rally will be held at Freedom Plaza from 2:00-5:00pm.

Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters

From the archives: worth viewing again and again!

---

ARRA News Service

Commander-in Chief AWOL - Obama "Fiddles Around" While American Troops Lose Heart

by Dr. Bill Smith: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

Jack Cashill: Media Mum On "Dreams" Fraud

Obama is not a writer after all. Read This Article by Jack Cashill

Mike often says things I'd like to say

The Art of Marxist Revolution

by Mike Adams 10/5/09

Hi Art. My name is Mike Adams. I write a weekly column - mostly on issues in higher education. I am seeking verification that you sent the following email:

Hello Colleagues, Please consider re-joining the section, we are only eight members short of our goal!!!

For those of you who do not know me, my name is Art Jipson and I am the secretary-treasurer of the Marxist Sociology section of the American Sociological Association. I am writing to encourage you to re-join our section. The need for critical scholarship has never been more urgent! The rise of ever increasing irrational Neo-Conservatism, the rise of racist two-seed theories as well as troubling levels of acceptance of Neo-Liberal apologies for oligopolies, screaming right-wing attack squads sabotaging the health care debate and the increasing dominance of increasingly ugly sexist, racist, and classist theological worldviews demonstrate the increasing importance of critical social thought and activism!

…At present we have 392 members of the Marxist Sociology Section. We need to have 400 by the end of the day on September 30th to qualify for another session at the annual ASA meeting. Please consider encouraging students and colleagues to join the section! I have continued to contact several previous members of the section (that could be you!) with information from the association in the hopes of encouraging more critical scholars to join with us in advancing needed analysis and activism at the association. If there are any questions, please let me know.

To join the section quickly, folks can go here. If you have recruited some new members who have used the website and had any difficulties, please let me know.

If you are sponsoring graduate students or others or for those who are not yet members of the section or are sponsoring others, please follow this link.

…We recognize that the bureaucracy of the ASA is not always supportive of critical scholarship and activism, all the more reason to work to advance critical work! Those of us in the section continue to encourage the participation of all critical sociologists who believe that it is possible to remake the world with the interests of the many rather than the few. Join us and continue that fight. Thank you for your consideration.

Best, Art

Hello Mike, Yes, that was me. The Marxist Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association needed to recruit new members. The drive was successful.

Can I be of any assistance? I would love to see you [sic] column.

Best, Art

Thanks Art. I guess I'm confused by a few things. I'm getting the impression there is a conservative uprising in America. But I'm not sure there is a neo-conservative uprising as your letter suggests. What do you have in mind when you use the phrase "ever increasing irrational Neo-Conservatism"? For the record, I am not defending neo-conservatism. I'm just not sure there is much consensus on the meaning of the term.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I was referring to the configuration of theological, political, and irrational conservatism as exemplified by the "Birthers" movement, Sarah Palin, and the antics of Glenn Beck. I use Sara Diamond's research as a starting off point for that kind of labeling.

Best, Art

Art, that doesn't come close to answering my question. But let's move on. In your missive you refer to the "increasing dominance of increasingly ugly sexist, racist, and classist theological worldviews." This confuses me, too. Which theological worldviews are you referencing?

Mike

Art, I see you are not going to answer my polite inquiry concerning "sexist, racist, and classist theological worldviews." But the question is important so I will make my inquiry more specific. Does the Marxist Sociology section of the ASA concern itself more with conservative Christianity or with radical Islam? Right now there is an effort to impose Sharia law in portions of Michigan. As you may know, Sharia law allows Muslim men to freely beat their wives. It also calls for the public execution of homosexuals. Will the Marxists in your group take on these Muslim extremists?

Mike

Art, in your missive you refer to "screaming right-wing attack squads sabotaging the health care debate." I am assuming you support a government takeover of the health care system – a safe assumption since, of course, Marxists want a government takeover of everything. Are you at all concerned that a single-payer system violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? And what are your concerns about the recent polls showing Americans oppose national heath care? Are you really advocating changes everyday people want? And what will you call America if your Marxist revolution succeeds? Will you call it The People's Republic of America?

Mike

Art, I noticed that you used the term "critical scholars" in your email. The term "critical" is code for Marxist or communist. Why don't you simply call yourselves "communists" instead of using code? The people who pay the taxes that are used to send you to these sociological conventions earned that money via capitalism. Don't they deserve to know they are funding an assault on their own cherished values? Shouldn't they know their tax dollars are being spent on meetings where "critical scholars" are planning a revolution against them? Or are you not really committed Marxists who believe it may be necessary to launch a bloody revolution in order to overthrow their capitalist oppressors? In other words, do you just like to call yourselves Marxists because it is chic or cute? If you aren't serious about what you say then should you be riding to these conventions on the backs of the taxpayers – the people who do serious and meaningful work, which might not be considered chic?

Mike

Art, I am wondering whether the Marxist Sociologists will be reviewing the latest film by Michael Moore, which talks about the evils of capitalism. It would seem that Mr. Moore would love American capitalism. Do you know of any other nation where an obese college drop-out can become a millionaire without bathing regularly?

Mike

Art, you may have noticed that several hours went by between my first message to you and the last series of messages, which I sent and you ignored. I was out at the gun range with a US Air Marshall. I spent a couple of hours firing a 9mm, a .357 magnum, and a 12-gauge magnum shotgun. Then, he let me shoot his .357 sig auto and his M4 assault rifle. We talked at length about those who would attempt to take over this great nation through the use of violent force.

We suspect that you and your friends who call yourselves Marxist Sociologists are merely blowhards who (with the possible exception of some of your feminists) lack the testicular fortitude necessary for a true Marxist Revolution. But if we are wrong we are ready to turn you back. I hope you keep any violent revolutionary tendencies in check.

This is my final communication. Best of luck to you,

Mike S. Adams

Is Intelligence the Measure of Politicians?

I've seen and heard a lot of comments about how brainy our president is and the relative intelligence of quite a numbers of Pols. Mrs. Clinton used to be referred to as "the smartest woman in the world." Guess that moniker has fallen to Michelle Obama now. And there are internet sites that say VP Joe Biden's IQ is 125. Those same sites say Nancy Pelagrosi's IQ is 139. Well, though I disbelieve those figures, I'll not quibble over them. Still, such numbers are not nearly as reassuring as it might seem.

As you might recall, the policies of FDR's brilliant "brains trust" advisers are now increasingly recognized as having prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s just as those of BO's policy Czars are prolonging this downturn, while claiming credit for ending it just as are BO's. Factually, the 30's Great Depression did not end until the Second World War put an end to many of the socialistic New Deal policies. And all those people were considered really smart, too.

It was FDR himself who said that "Dr. New Deal" had been replaced by "Dr. Win-the-War." Now-a-days it's the "really smart" Dem Czar's who are for big spending and like to credit wartime caused big spending for bringing the Great Depression to an end, quite a turn-around for progressives. The question that is never asked nor answered is why previous depressions had always ended on their own (and lots quicker than the one under FDR) and without government intervention or massive government spending. Heck, stupid people everywhere are asking that question and would really like an answer to it.

Back in my college years (in the last century), my Economics teacher explained that the Great Depression ended because war caused the nation to turn on the faucets of production. Yup, we built factories, manufactured prodigious amounts of goods, invented all sorts of new stuff, greatly expanded technology, and that left us with a huge, new amount of wealth. Wait a minute, wasn't it Government that bought all that stuff? Nope. The US Government certainly did buy, use, destroy, and distribute an awful lot of weaponry and war materials but it was that huge increase of business and production within the country that turned away the Great Depression Wolves. That is a fact.

The Lyndon Johnson administration had Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's brilliant "whiz kids" which micro-managed the Vietnam war into disastrous results. We also had the willing assistance of brilliant commentators within our Media such as Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, both considered very intelligent, and both wrong headed as to what was actually happening in Viet Nam and as to the possible results of our departure. Both of those very intelligent people were sure democracy and peace would fall upon SE Asia just as soon as we were gone. The only peace that descended there was that of death brought to millions by the pathological Communists who took over.

Stupid, dull, unintelligent, normal people can only do limited amounts of damage because they just don't have the capacity to conceive of worse methodologies. To create truly monumental disasters, you need people with really high IQs capable of conceiving them.

Really highly intelligent people stand out from their fellows and are told all their lives just how brilliant they really are. Eventually, they get to feeling they aren't just smarter but need to be in control of all those lesser normal folks. They begin to not only over-estimate their own brilliance but, more fundamentally, they tend to over-estimate just how important brilliance itself is when dealing with real world problems.

Just about every crucial thing a person learns in life is learned from experience rather than from clever thoughts or words. Fact is, most people learn not to stick their hands into the fire by getting themselves burned sometime or another. As Dr. Sowell puts it, "a gift for the clever phrasing so much admired by the media can be a fatal talent, especially for someone chosen to lead a government." That is particularly so when the sycophantic media praises your every utterance proclaiming them, "Brilliant", whether they actually make any sense or not. Remember the old story about the Emperors' Clothes?

As you might recall, the very brilliant Adolf Hitler started from a position of Germany's exceptional weakness of the early 1930s, brought on by treaties from the 1^st World War which did not allow her to rebuild any military might. He not only built up Germany's military might, he managed to keep his potential victims from noticing and matching his military build-up with their own. Whatever soothing words were wanted to be heard, he uttered so that all would spare themselves the costs of military deterrence and the pain of contemplating other wars. "Peace in our time" was mantra of the West.

Hitler fooled some of the most highly educated and intelligent people of his time—not just political leaders but also members of the media and academe. Our very own Charles Lindbergh, a capable aviator and writer, came back from Germany proclaiming Hitler made "the trains run on time" and "the state of the nation (Germany) was wonderful."  

The editors of the London Times filtered out reports of their own foreign correspondents in Germany about the evils and dangers of the Nazis. In the United States, W.E.B. Du Bois—with a Ph.D. from Harvard—said that dictatorship in Germany was "absolutely necessary to get the state in order." Our schools have long taught there is no better government than a benevolent dictatorship.

Here is another fact. Hitler led Germany into a Hell which left much of the world in ruins. His evil is widely recognized today (except by the Muslim world) but then wasn't.

Politically brilliant, charismatic leaders, promoting reckless government spending—Argentina's Juan Peron was prominent—managed to create economic disasters in countries with abundance of natural resources that were spared the stresses inflicted on other nations in the 20^th century wars. Today, it is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Dr. Sowell has observed the resemblance of Barack Obama's style and strategies to those of Latin American charismatic despots—the takeover of industries by demagogues who've never run a business, the rousing rhetoric of resentment addressed to the masses and the personal cult of a leader promoted by their media. Do we want to become the world's largest banana republic? I think not. What say you?

PL Booth, www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 10/1/09 779-4676