Wednesday, November 30, 2011

a href='http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?deepLinkEmbedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER&embedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER">http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?deepLinkEmbedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER&embedCode=VwOXcyMzozJLgreYfRFhaC5bH4GRIoER"></script>


BO,bernanke,gold,inflation,excess money printed,us treasury

Americans can be sent to Guantanomo



civil rights,civil liberties,americans,congress,guantanomo
Muhammad Hates Diversity, by Ben Shapiro, Townhall.com


This week, in Oakland, Calif., America saw yet another stellar example of the glories of diversity. At a taping of a rap music video in that fair city, eight people, including a one-year-old child, were shot. When a classical music video goes wrong, somebody busts a string. When a rap music video goes wrong, somebody busts a cap.

Such observations, however, are now taboo. We're not supposed to suggest that the rap culture is any different from the classical music culture or that one is better than another. As white guy John Kerry put it, "I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important ... it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life."

You see, we recognize the value of diversity. And what's more, we think everyone else does, too. Hence the left's certainty that the election of President Barack Obama would win over the Muslim world -- his very ascendance would show the rest of the world that we find their cultures charming, praiseworthy and delightfully fascinating. "It's November 2008," wrote formerly-sane Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. "A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees this man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm."

There's only one problem: The Muslim world isn't hung up on skin color the way we are. Which isn't to say they're not racist -- they're busily snatching up black children for use as slaves or murdering them in Sudan, even as the BBC blithely claims, in the name of diversity, that "While Islamic law does allow slavery under certain conditions, it's almost inconceivable that those conditions could ever occur in today's world, and so slavery is effectively illegal in modern Islam." In point of fact, Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East lead the world in human trafficking.

The Muslim world just doesn't believe that skin color is all that important. Obama may be half-black, but he's still all-Western, according to them. It doesn't matter whether you're black, white or green -- if you're not a devotee of Muhammad, you don't matter. While the West tries to turn its civilization into cultural variety hour, Islam tries to turn Muslim lands into a cultural monolith. The same West that justifies the rap culture thinks that every Muslim terrorist bombing is an expression of economic angst or social alienation. Muslims recognize that terrorist bombings are expressions of a completely different worldview.

In other words, Muslims aren't stupid. They won't be wooed by a West headed by a man rich in melanin any more than a West headed by a Caucasian dude who enjoys the artistic stylings of Bjork would. When President Obama offers Iran an open hand, they slap it away, even though his hand is a different color than President Bush's was.

And the left is stumped. Obama's entire foreign policy was predicated on the notion that by existing, he would bridge all gaps and bury all hatchets. Instead, the Muslim world burns his picture even as he tells them he respects their radicalism. It turns out that diversity is a one-way street for the devotees of global Islam.

What of the West? We have been enervated by our confident feeling that if we could all just respect each other's cultures -- no matter how perverse -- we could beat missiles into plowshares. And if we could show the rest of the world just how much we respect other cultures by electing an emissary of foreign cultures, they would have to love us. We've turned into the world's Sally Field: "You like us! You really like us!" To which the Muslim world says, "No. We really don't."

But, like an obsessive, abused ex-girlfriend, we keep coming back for more. We beg for the beating. We plead for it. We are Keira Knightley's character in "A Dangerous Method" -- the beating excites us. For with every beating, we feel the open hand we seek. "At least they're reaching out to us ... with bombs! If we could only understand this unique form of communication, we'd finally be able to come to some sort of agreement!"

The Muslim world understands that it has us by the ideological throat. They will continue to preach the value of diversity from their outposts in the West, while wiping away any semblance of it across their own lands. And we will buy into it. This is how the West dies: not by being defeated in all-out civilizational battle, but by walking into the hail of bullets, arms outstretched.

islam,muslims,rights,slavery,diversity,blacks,human trafficing

climategate - again



epa,climate change,lies,liars,climategate,green silliness,scientists,weather

New discussion on 100 Million Patriots Standing - proof Feds are taking over


 
> Subject: Need Proof your Federal Government is taking over your local
> government Well here it is.
> ------
> I am a sovereign freeman, I am not a victim nor a republican nor a democrat
> nor a progressive nor a conservative. I am a man with Unalienable rights who
> sublets these rights to no man, no collection of men and no form of rule. My
> rights are expressed in the Constitution and defined by this document. Life
> Liberty and Property. No person or institution has the ability to control or
> deter me from enjoying these rights. The debate in the country demonstrates
> how far we have come as a nation. My rights are not to be legislated away for
> any reason by any agency of my system of governance. I am not a tenant on my
> land yet the dead registered in my county records says I am and that I must
> pay rent to live on and use my property, as do all of you. Read your deed. A
> tax certificate represents a lien on the property. to enforce this lien the
> deed is written as a deed in tenants or makes you a tenant on you land. This
> violates the constitution. Did you know that? Think of how unjust this is. I
> own four acres of land on a dirt road in rural Florida. my friends owns four
> acres of land in a sub division with paved roads and street lights on the
> road. The lien on his property is $2400 a year and the lien on my property is
> $456 a year. the tax or Lien is progressive and unconstitutional. Understand
> what I am saying now, It is not the tax on the land that is unconstitutional
> it is the wording of the deed that allows the government to seize your land
> without the due process in a court of law. You have no standing on this
> repossessing of the property you thought you owned. They simply bring a gun
> and throw you out. historically this Ad-Valorem Tax has been around as long
> as we have been. To understand this you can read The History of Land Tax in
> the United States here. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fishe... [1] What
> is important about this article is the last part. When I read this I
> discovered the goal of the Progressives and how they have been moving toward
> a complete takeover of the states by big government. Land taxes are becoming
> less and less important to the Federal Government, they are going down as a
> proportion of tax revenue to the states and local government. Why is this
> happening. Read this from the above article.
>
> The Property Tax as a Revenue Source during the Twentieth Century
> At the time of the 1902 Census of Government the property tax provided
> forty-five percent of the general revenue received by state governments from
> their own sources. (excluding grants from other governments). That percentage
> declined steadily, taking its most precipitous drop between 1922 and 1942 as
> states adopted sales and income taxes. Today property taxes are an
> insignificant source of state tax revenue. (See Table 2.)
> The picture at the local level is very different. The property tax as a
> percentage of own-source general revenue rose from 1902 until 1932 when it
> provided 85.2 percent of local government own-source general revenue. Since
> that time there has been a significant gradual decline in the importance of
> local property taxes.
> The decline in the revenue importance of the property tax is more dramatic
> when the increase in federal and state aid is considered. In fiscal year
> 1999, local governments received 228 billion in property tax revenue and 328
> billion in aid from state and federal governments. If current trends
> continue, the property tax will decline in importance and states and the
> federal government will take over more local functions, or expand the system
> of grants to local governments. Either way, government will become more
> centralized.
> Table 2
> Property Taxes as a Percentage of Own-Source General Revenue, Selected Years
> ______________________________
> Year State Local
> ______________________________
> 1902 45.3 78.2
> 1913 38.9 77.4
> 1922 30.9 83.9
> 1932 15.2 85.2
> 1942 6.2 80.8
> 1952 3.4 71.0
> 1962 2.7 69.0
> 1972 1.8 63.5
> 1982 1.5 48.0
> 1992 1.7 48.1
> 1999 1.8 44.6
>
>
> [1] http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
>


federal government,property taxes,private ownership,realestate,politicians

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Humor: Cutting the Budget


Humor: Cutting the Budget

Read this on the Web at http://media.patriotpost.us/humor/2011/11-29.html


Patriot Humor

To subscribe to Patriot Humor, click here.

Cutting the Budget

Legendary game show host Chuck Woolery discusses ways to cut the federal budget in this humorous fireside chat-style video: Watch Video »


Finally, Some Budget Cuts

This sad specimen is the White House's Christmas tree for 2011. In related news, Charlie Brown's Christmas tree is missing.

Meanwhile in Pakistan

Americans aren't the only ones losing their shirts these days. Pakistanis are getting in on the action, albeit in their own way. This guy thought that blindfolding himself and beating his shirtless chest was the most logical means of expressing disdain for the evils of America.
Is it just us or would he look completely at home performing rap music?



Click Here

Tennessee Whiskey Fudge

This hard-to-put-down creamy chocolate Tennessee Whiskey Fudge is made in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Makes a great gift, but we recommend you buy at least two and don't blame us if you eat it all in one sitting. We warned you that it is really, really good.



Semper Lorem Ipsum!
Ron Locke, UD
Humor Minion

To subscribe to Patriot Humor, click here.
To submit humor items for our consideration, email us at humor@patriotpost.us

If you enjoy Patriot Humor, you should check out our other online resources:

Follow The Patriot Post:
              
You have received this email because you are subscribed to Patriot Humor, a service of The Patriot Post. To subscribe to Patriot Humor and The Patriot Post, link to http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/manage/ and log in with your email address.

congress,super committee,budget cuts,common sense,comedy,stupid congressmen,BO,socialists,election time

Coil of Rage.


 The quotes herein are real, authentic, and repeatable. Why did we allow the leftist destructive elements of our nation to persuade us? 
BO must GO. And he needs to be accompanied by many Dems. 

 

 

 

Subject: Coil of Rage.

 

 

 

 

A Coil of Rage

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass .... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future .... I rest my case..

I bought and read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It was difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he used to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE". His words not mine.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT -- HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW! Is anyone out there awake?

Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him. Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams From My Father :
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams From My Father:
"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."

From Dreams From My Father:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams From My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY ........... and most scary:

From Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation! Keep your eye on him and don't blink.

I don't care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative or a liberal, be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

Spread the word!

 

 

 

 

BO,books,philosophy,democrats,sickness,socialist,black,racist

National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). . .


 
Subject: National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). . .

The U.S. Senate is about to take some law enforcement powers from the Justice Department, and give greater policing powers to the Department of Defense. These policing powers can (and will) be used on American soil. It appears that, under just two small sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). . .
1. American citizens and lawful resident aliens, could be held, INDEFINITELY, jailed.
2. Other persons can be DISAPPEARD by the military, without benefit of habeas corpus or trial. And worse...
3. These other persons can also be shipped off to a foreign judicial system that might deliver a result the Justice Department wants.

The sponsors of this bill claim that this bill contains no new powers -- that they're merely codifying the behavior of two (renegade) administrations. 
Yet two of the bill's Senate backers admit there is a new power: The ability of the military to engage in police work on American soil -- Posse Comitatus be damned.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backs the bill, indicated that the bill "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial "American citizen or not." Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because "America is part of the battlefield."
Here's a link to a copy of the two offending sections, 1031 and 1032, which must be removed by amendment.
In 1031 the Federal State gains the power of indefinite imprisonment without trial. In 1032, American citizens and lawful resident aliens must be given civilian jails for their potentially permanent stays, and cannot be shipped off for a show trial by a convenient foreign power.
The sponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and McCain, are forgetting their Article I role as a protection against an overreaching and potentially tyrannical Executive Branch, and are instead rapidly inventing powers for that branch. They're trading Liberty for Security because we've become so scared of the boogeyman.
We should stop being so cowering and fearful. We should tell Congress, loud and clear, "I Am Not Afraid."
And the debate is occurring as I write this, Monday afternoon.
Why are we getting this crucial information to you so late?
There are lots of things to monitor. DownsizeDC.org doesn't have the staff to follow all of it. Not many groups do. The Federal Leviathan is a large, unwieldy organization that moves in criminally clandestine ways. We've addressed this fact . . .
* This bill is over 600 pages long, and even according to its sponsors, covers a wide variety of issues. Something as important and unique as criminal justice should not be part of a military authorization bill, but should be the subject of its own bill, consistent with DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act."
* And these offending sections of this bill didn't come to light until the ACLU published an article about it on the day before Thanksgiving. http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/Carl%20Levin We found out about that article on Friday night. Every bill should be published online, after the entire bill has been read aloud to the Congress, for at least seven days before its final vote. These provisions of DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act" would give watchdog groups and media personalities time to digest and disseminate the information to you, with sufficient time to register your dissent. 
When we first read 1031 and 1032, we didn't understand them fully. We believe due diligence is important. We wanted to make sure that WE were telling the truth, not someone else's incomplete opinion or ill-advised version. That's one reason you read the Downsizer-Dispatch, isn't it?
But it was hard to find adequate help to understand how these sections related to each other, on a holiday weekend -- a weekend where our staff was also, "over the river and through the woods."
We didn't figure out how these sections related to each other until today.
Usually, we prepare our Dispatches the evening in advance, and sometimes even days earlier. Why? Because we want to be sure they're properly researched, accurate, and tightly written. We don't ever want to waste your time.
But you're reading something, today, that's been written in a hurry, just moments before it hit your inbox.
 
I cannot express, in polite words, how frustrated I am with the Senate Armed Services Committee, which brought this bill to the floor. Nor can I quantify how much it has bothered me, this weekend (when I should've been enjoying myself), that we might not be able to get this seemingly crucial news to you.

One sacrifice I've had to make in this hurriedly sent Dispatch is that there's insufficient time to write a sample letter. In this Dispatch, we've linked to the,
* The "I Am Not Afraid" campaign
* The "One Subject at a Time Act" campaign  
* The "Read the Bills Act" campaign

You can borrow from the points we've made in this message, and send an appropriate message from each of these campaigns. I hope you will.
But even more important, if you're logged in, you can refer to Your Downsize DC Toolbox, on the home page of the DownsizeDC.org, on the link above your state map, labeled "District Information," and you'll see the phone numbers of your two Senators.
* Make a brief note of what you want to say so that your thoughts are organized.
* Be polite but firm, and be sure to identify yourself as a constituent.
* Be especially sure to tell them to remove Sections 1031 and 1032 from S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been placed on the Senate calendar. 
* Then, call the numbers we provide on that page and give whoever answers your message. 

Thank you for your prompt action.

 

Stupid GOPers,mccain,democrats,S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act,liberty lost,freedom scorned,constitution ignored

Another Discussion of Citizenship


> Subject: Obama eligibility "natural born citizen"
> ------
> Natural Born Citizen
>
> Their has been many allegations with regard to our present president of these
> United States has to where he was born. They have been called "Birthers".
> They have questions about the birth certificate and social security number or
> numbers. Are they real or valid? There are many questions, investigations and
> opinions by experts on the subject.
> The impact of a determination that Barack Obama was not born in this country
> would be profound. Every act, every appointment he has made in every
> department, every bill he has signed into law, including spending bills,
> every executive order, any proclamations would all become null and void. For
> this very reason the evidence needed, the proof provided would have to be so
> iron clad, slam dunk, spot on and overwhelming that it would be easier to
> convict Casey Anthony of her daughter's Caylee's death. Unless we had a
> confession.
> But what if we had court rulings and not just court rulings but federal court
> rulings and not just any federal court rulings but supreme court rulings
> along with a confession that makes Barack Obama ineligible to run for and be
> elected president of the United States. That this was known and that the
> knowledge was censored, hidden, along with attempts to scrub this information
> from the public to access. Would these actions be treasonous and those who
> perpetrated these action traitors.
> We all know that Barack's farther was not born in this country because
> Barack has said as much, many times. That is the confession. Below is article
> 2 of the U.S. constitution.
>
> Article. II.
> Section. 1.
>
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
> America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and,
> together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as
> follows:
>
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
> direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
> Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
> Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit
> under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
>
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
> two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same
> State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted
> for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and
> certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United
> States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
> shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
> the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the
> greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
> of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who
> have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
> Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President;
> and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
> said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the
> President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each
> State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or
> Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
> be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
> the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the
> Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes,
> the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XII
> Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
>
> The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on
> which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
> United States.
>
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
> at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
> Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
> shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
> Years a Resident within the United States.
>
> In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
> Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
> Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
> Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
> the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
> President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
> removed, or a President shall be elected.
> This paragraph was changed with AMENDMENT XXV
> Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
>
> The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
> Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
> Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
> that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
>
> Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
> Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
> my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
>
> Eligibility to run and be elected President of the United States is contained
> in the fourth paragraph that has not been amended, it states a follows;
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
> at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
> Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
> shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
> Years a Resident within the United States.
>
> Question; What is or who is a natural born citizen? The constitution
> doesn't say, but the federal supreme court did, and affirmed that decision
> many times afterward by siting that ruling in other decisions. Setting a long
> precedent or stare decisis a Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere:
> "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." This is understood
> to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb
> settled matters.. The ruling that determined what a natural born citizen is,
> by the supreme court and every other ruling of the court where that ruling
> was sited is what some if not many have attempted to censor, hide and scrub
> from public access.
>
> U.S. Supreme Court
> MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
>
> 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
>
> MINOR
> v.
> HAPPERSETT.
>
> October Term, 1874
>
> This is the case where the federal supreme court determined what constitutes
> a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. It case involves a woman in
> the State of Missouri being denied the right to register to vote as a citizen
> of that State because she was a woman. Supreme Court of Missouri upheld that
> decision so it was then petitioned to the federal supreme court. The court
> took the case because of this part of the argument;
>
> "Mr. Francis Minor (with whom were Messrs. J. M. Krum and J. B. Henderson),
> for the plaintiff in error, went into an elaborate argument, partially based
> on what he deemed true political views, and partially resting on legal and
> constitutional grounds. These last seemed to be thus resolvable:
>
> 1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and
> all the 'privileges and immunities' that belong to such position however
> defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the
> United States."
>
> As part of the opinion given by the chief justice of the court is this, in
> quotation marks as those in quotes above.
>
> "The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the
> fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of
> the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the
> provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right
> of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other
> grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it
> was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has
> been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole
> purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident
> propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a
> decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at
> once to its determination.
>
> It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State
> of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to
> men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore
> void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United
> States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United
> States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage
> as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State
> cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
>
> There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the
> fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be
> 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in
> our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
> Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms
> prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several
> States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
> There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political
> community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of
> persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons
> associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes
> it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection
> are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation
> for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance."
>
> "For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this
> membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation
> he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,'
> and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made
> to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly
> employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the
> description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by
> nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was
> afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution
> of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying
> the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
>
> To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the
> adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons
> originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were
> afterwards admitted to membership.
>
> Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and
> established by 'the people of the United States,'3 and then going further
> back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had
> before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain,
> and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and
> that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took
> the name of 'the United States of America,' entered into a firm league of [88
> U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the
> security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding
> themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made
> upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
> other pretence whatever. 5
>
> Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the
> Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a
> member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons
> associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its
> original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have
> arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons
> were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if
> they were.
>
> Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two
> ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from
> the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a
> natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the
> adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7
> and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of
> naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by
> naturalization.
>
> The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
> Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the
> nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
> never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
> citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
> natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
> foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born
> within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88
> U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as
> to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve
> these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that
> all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
> citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used
> in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last
> they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied.
> In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
>
> Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
> early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be
> admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such
> persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under
> twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be
> considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens
> of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits
> of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These
> provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the
> naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was
> somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born
> out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers
> were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States,
> were declared to be citizens also.9
>
> As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had
> declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died
> before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be
> considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and
> privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;10 and in 1855 it was
> further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the
> existing laws, married, or [88 U.S. 162, 169] who should be married to a
> citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 11
>
> From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon
> this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by
> naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have
> been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors
> were already citizens by birth."
>
> According to this ruling and other cases siting this ruling, Barack Obama
> whose farther was not a citizen but because his mother was, he became a
> citizen by naturalization, period! As such he is not eligible to run for or
> become president of these United States.
> For more information on the courts rulings here is a link to start with.
> http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ [1]
>
> Note; When you go to this site take time to click on the posts dated December
> 08 and January 09. Very interesting!
>
>
> [1] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
>
> ------
>
> To view and reply to this discussion visit the following page:
>
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=node%2F79901%2Fdiscussions%2F427460
>
>
> If you would like to stop recieving email updates for group activity, please
> visit the notifications page in your account settings:
> http://connect.freedomworks.org/user/login?destination=user%2F120228%2Fsettings%2Fnotifications.

BO eligibility,president,socialists,democrats,dishonest,citizens,natural born

Monday, November 28, 2011

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Why does socialism continue to appeal to progressives, democrats, and those who cannot provide for themselves? Do modern socialists not recall the reeking stench of communism practiced in Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and too many other countries? Socialists claim communism and socialism are not the same thing and that socialism has never been given a fair chance. Of course, that is patented bull crap but an inordinate number of students and their college professors accept it as truth writ large. All the above countries practice SOCIALISM.

The results of such hubris are all to easy to see and demonstrate with track records of boastful belligerence, surly truculence, and outright incompetence. All socialist countries are mired in poverty, indifference, and are run by tyrants. They can't get it right because there is no right to be gotten in their political philosophies.

Indisputably, all those countries practice wholesale murder of their citizens. Today's socialists always say, "Many other countries also practice widespread killings." True enough. But none even approach the numbers of murders that communist countries do. Socialism reduces citizens to whores and lackeys; do as told or die.

Socialism is the pursuit of sheer, raw, power over other human beings. Of course, its adherents claim the moral high ground saying equality of rights, income, and labor are the goals but history and modern practices belie the claims. The triumph of evil over good, emotion over reason, and man's infinite capacity for self-delusion always wins.

No amount of malevolent empirical evidence has dissuaded new generations from the siren song of "EQUALITY." Despite all the historical evidence of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and other "Peoples Republics", socialists walk amongst us, even openly in our halls of congress. The deeply flawed "labor theory of value" positing equal intrinsic values of all labor and production captures their petty minds rather than the truth of economically established values of costs per product. A (labor) + B (materials) = product. Product + desire = sale = monetary value.

Capitalists built decent, moral, and humane societies on what socialists consider amoral approaches to economics but socialists built exploitative, inhumane, amoral societies upon inflamed approaches to humanity and economics where no equality exists. The two approaches are antithetical.

Socialism is based entirely upon a fundamental misreading of human nature, the willing suspension of belief in the nature of mankind. Fact: mankind is selfish. Self-preservation, self-interest, and personal comfort take precedence over everything else.

Capitalism wisely exploits and cares for those traits allowing for choice in self-emulation, charity, morality, and the good of society. Socialism is intellectually narrow, irrational, dependent upon self-deprecation and immolation that scarcely exists outside of religious societies (which are not allowed to exist since such societies compete with the state for allegiance). Socialism exists behind a mask of a "charitable impulse" which is forced but which capitalism openly, willingly and ably promotes. Charity forced is not charity. It is tyranny.

Christianity, with all its moral, charitable, and self-improving characteristics, cannot exist in Socialist States which demand total allegiance of mind, body, and existence or death of the non-conformist. Hence, China has an "Official Christian Church" which denies Christ.

All communist countries have "economic plans" run by the state for the benefit of the "state." Is there any difference in Obama's "plan" which promotes the "state" over individuals' benefits. Its top-down approach must inevitably fail as all other socialist plans have failed.

Fallible man cannot ever entirely understand nor tame all social economic forces as no individual has large enough an intellect nor capacity to absorb nor control all the variables of economics. The cultish fervor with which Socialists continue to believe mankind can create all-encompassing fairness is inevitably doomed equating to stupidity.

Obamacare is socialism in its intent, practice, and forced outcome. It cannot but fail. Those moronic Dem Socialists who wrote it, passed it though the house and senate, and are trying ever so hard to implement it must be removed from office if for no other reasons than they are simply too stupid to be allowed to continue. We cannot afford to accept such corrupt, failed policies. To do so is to accept our nation's utter destruction; Obama's "Change" will be complete.

pl booth, the blue eye view of mo, 9-19-11

socialism,communist,democrats,slavery,BO,congress,nation's destruction

J. Edgar Hoover

J. Edgar Hoover

 

I rarely comment upon Hollywood movies but my bride and I saw J.Edgar this last week, a character assassination of innuendo, lies, mis-information, and leftist propaganda, a waste of time and money. Hoover was controversial to the degenerate leftists of Hollywood because he successfully opposed Communism, Socialism, and degenerate sexual behavior. He was branded a closet, cross-dressing Homo who kowtowed to organized crime because of his exposure fears.

 

The internet is filled with such trash but his secretary, bosses, close associates, co-workers, employees, and many who hated him during his lifetime failed to mention these obscenities. The single source for the cross dressing rumor was a multiple perjurer who disliked Hoover published in 1983 years after his death. He provided evidence for the deportation of communists in the 20's so the Red/Liberal/ progressive/democrats who infested Hollywood and our capital offices despised and hated him (though proven correct.) "I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists..." JEH 3/26/47  

 

The FBI found proven communist ties of Martin Luther King,   the CIA, and other evidences for leftists in government (including FDR's) for McCarthy including the Rosenbergs, later supported by documents found after the fall of the USSR (the Venona transcripts). Hoover also believed his FBI was infiltrated by Communist sympathizers, confirmed with successful prosecutions of numerous agents in the past 30 years. Of course the left hates him. He successfully exposed them many times.

 

It is unfortunately true that so many living imaginary lives of luxury in Hollywood, academia, and government are fellow travelers, sympathizers, and progressive, liberal, democrats that truth becomes a precious unknown quality in our entertainment, academic, and political industries. Even worse, leftist lies are becoming the basis of foundational knowledge about history, government, and public life rather than factual history. Both major parties are complicit. A general house cleaning of our major institutions may be the only way to end our decline into socialist poverty.

 

PL Booth, The View from Blue Eye, MO 11/28/11

leftists,socialism,communism,democrats,hollywood,liars,innuendos,untruths,fbi

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Chuck Yeager and "Shifty"

IF you don't know who Chuck Yeager is. He was an ACE Pilot and the test pilot who first broke the sound barrier. This was supposedly written by him.  

'Shifty'

 




"Shifty" By Chuck Yeager


Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served

with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry

Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've

seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the

History Channel, you know Shifty.

His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is

interviewed in several of them.


I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't

know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having

trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was

at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle," the symbol of

the 101st Airborne, on his hat.

Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne

or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the

101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he

served, and how many jumps he made.

Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so,

and was in until sometime in 1945 ..." at which point my heart skipped.

At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5

training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . do

you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.
I told him "yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know

what D-Day was." At that point he said "I also made a second

jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine

war hero ... and then I realized that it was June, just after

the anniversary of D-Day.

I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he

said "Yes... And it 's real sad because, these days, so few of

the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make

the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.



I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in

coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to

get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came

forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have

it, that I'd take his in coach.


He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing

that there are still some who remember what we did and who still

care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were

filling up as he said it.

And mine are brimming up now as I write this.

Shifty died on Jan. l7 after fighting cancer.

There was no parade. No big event in Staples Center .

No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24x7 news coverage.

No weeping fans on television.

And that's not right!




Let's give Shifty his own memorial service, online, in our

own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know.

Especially to the veterans. Rest in peace, Shifty.

Chuck Yeager,

Maj. General [ret.]


P.S. I think that it is amazing how the "media" chooses our "heroes"

these days... Michael Jackson & the like!


"SHIFTY" - an incredible American hero
SHIFTY DIED JAN 17,

2011.........May God rest his soul.
Please do me a favor and pass this
on so that untold thousands can read it. We owe no less to our
REAL heroes..

 
hero,military,god rest his soul,nation's debt

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Kerby's Point of View - Economic Armageddon


 Kerby's Point of View - Economic Armageddon

Point of View
Subscribe Forward to a Friend Donate Home

November 22, 2011

Economic Armageddon
by Kerby Anderson

 

When a prominent Bible teacher writes a book warning us about an economic catastrophe that could hit our country, we should listen. What prompted David Jeremiah to write his book, The Coming Economic Armageddon? He looked at the economic facts and projected them into the future.

    One of the diagrams in his book pictures an iceberg. Above the water is the visible debt (which is more than $14 trillion). Below the water is the invisible debt (primarily Social Security and Medicare). The invisible debt is over $100 trillion.

    In order to begin to service this massive debt loan, it is likely that the U.S. government (through the Federal Reserve) will have to begin to print more money. But once it prints more money, each dollar will be worth less.

    When David Jeremiah was in my radio studio I gave him and each of the people with him a $10 trillion note from Zimbabwe. I pointed out that at one time the first Zimbabwe dollar (introduced in 1980) was actually worth more than the U.S. dollar. By the time the government redenominated the second, third, and fourth dollars there were more zeroes than you could imagine. The hyperinflation in Zimbabwe that began a decade ago made all this paper money essentially worthless. The dollars are sold on eBay or by coin dealers as collectables.

    That doesn't mean that the U.S. is headed for a similar fate, but there are ominous signs. First, there is the growing call for a New World Order. Presidents starting with George H.W. Bush and continuing on to President Barack Obama, all talk of a global world order and seem all too willing to transfer political and economic power to global organizations.

    David Jeremiah also discusses the causes and evidence of power consolidation. This includes governmental control of banking institutions, automobile companies, the stock market, and much more.

    David Jeremiah does take the time to connect the various events to a discussion of prophecy. He addresses topics raging from our coming cashless society to speculation about the mark of the beast. But you don't have to accept his view on prophecy to see what have an economic challenge we need to address immediately. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Point of View | P.O. Box 30 | Dallas, TX 75221



Click here to view this 

powered by CONVIO
Conservative,Christian,right,economics,BO,destruction,Stupidity
Home