Saturday, January 28, 2012

Media to Americans: 'Nothing to see here'

By Jack Minor
 The mainstream media appears to have been put under a “cone of silence” about the first court proceeding to enter into the record evidence that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president based on the Constitution’s requirement that that office be occupied only by a “natural-born citizen.”

Michael Jablonski, attorney for Obama, attempted to have the subpoena quashed, arguing that taking the time to appear would “interrupt [Obama's] duties as president of the United States.”
While Thursday’s hearing was taking place, Obama was speaking to a group of UPS workers in Las Vegas, one of the states where he hopes to gain a vote advantage in the November election.
Following the judge’s refusal to drop the subpoena, the president’s lawyers stated they would ignore the subpoena and not participate in the proceedings.

Later, appearing on the Rachel Maddow show, Mike Berlon, Georgia Democratic Party chairman, defended the president’s actions, saying the case was much ado about nothing.
“This has been thoroughly and richly litigated for a long time, and every court that has looked at it has determined that the president is a citizen,” he said.
But the facts don’t support Berlon’s statement, as this week’s hearing marks the first time that the evidence against the president’s eligibility has been entered into any court record. The dozens of previous cases that have been brought against the president have been dismissed on technicalities such as “standing.”

It is also the first time arguments have been made that the president is ineligible based on his own statements.
The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a typical citizen of the U.S.
While the Constitution does not define the term “natural-born citizen,” many constitutional experts define it as the offspring of two citizen parents. The argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett.
The ruling, which is one of the few cases addressing the issue of natural-born citizenship as opposed to a naturalized citizen, states:

The hearing Thursday produced a wide range of evidence from experts testifying that the president’s birth certificate was a forgery to issues with his Social Security number, which does not match the president’s name in e-verify.
Regardless of political persuasion, a sitting U.S. president openly defying a court subpoena for a hearing at which evidence indicating he’s a usurper is entered into the record is newsworthy.
However, a look at mainstream media websites shows an almost total blackout.
CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC did not run any coverage on Thursday’s hearing, with the exception of some local affiliates in Atlanta. The Fox News Channel’s report was a day later.
WND contacted the news organizations asking for comment on why they did not believe the story was newsworthy, considering the precedents set in the hearing. At the time of this article’s publication, none chose to respond.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution was one of the few newspapers to cover the event; however, its coverage did not discuss the ramifications if the judge were to rule Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot.
The media blackout of the Georgia case is part of a continuing pattern of covering up serious discussion of the birth certificate issue.
During the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who refused to obey orders over concerns about the president’s eligibility, the media for the most part refused to cover the issue.
Stars and Stripes,, WND and a local reporter from Lakin’s home town were at the proceedings, however there was almost no representation by major media outlets.
Many retired officers who come out against the president’s eligibility, such as Maj. Gens. Jerry Curry and Paul Vallely, have also been ignored by media.
Media have also refused to report polls showing many Americans still have doubts about the president’s eligibility.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

by Sarah Palin

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

The reason the GOP and Fox News refuses to address the Obama eligibility issue..!

It has become quite clear why Fox News and the GOP refuse to address the Obama eligibility issue..they are grooming both Marco Rubio and Gov Bobby Jindal for a future Presidential run..although I respect and like both Marco and Bobby they are not eligible as they are not 'Natural Born Citizens'...Marco was born in 1971 his parents did not become 'Naturalized Citizens' until 1975... Gov Bobby Jindal also was born before his parents became 'Naturalized Citizens'...we must adhere to the rule of law...what applies to Obama must also apply to Marco and Bobby!
If Congress has a issue with this they would have to amend the Constitution to allow 'Naturalized Citizens' to run for the Office of President...until then the rule of law must be enforced for all!

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans

By Dave Tombers
 One of the attorneys who challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the justices declared Obama constitutionally unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.
The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.
He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.
A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.
The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.
“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”
He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”
“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.
The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.
This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.
“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

read more:

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Gingrich says Allen West would be considered as his running mate

Source: Steven Nelson  – The Daily Caller
Florida Republican Rep. Allen West may be the Republican candidate for vice president in 2012.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said at a Republican Palm Beach County fundraiser that if he won the Republican presidential nomination, he would strongly consider a Floridian as his running mate.
“Allen West would certainly be someone you’d look at,” Gingrich told NBC affiliate WPTV.
West responded, “We don’t know what the future holds, but I’m always willing to serve my country.”
 “I have to pray about it and I have to clear it with my wife and two daughters,” he added. “I never thought that seven years ago when I retired here I’d be a United States Congressman.”

Judge will enter default Judgement against Obama..!

To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.
Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment.
In other words…we won. Now it’s time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort...Carl
Obama just got Punked...! 

We no longer have a President...we have a 'Czar in Charge'

President Barry Barack Hussein Sotero Obama has declared he does not have to abide by court subpeona's as the rest of us serfs have to...I suppose now we have to address Barry as 'Czar in Charge'
    In essence, Barack Hussein Obama is saying: To hell with the law... the courts... and the Congress... I AM THE LAW. That attitude does not simply make Barack Obama a dangerous man, it makes him the first American dictator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Obama Won't Show At Georgia Election Hearing Tomorrow

Great now the judge can enter a 'default' will have to go to SCOTUS...probs too late for Obama to get on the!

We just received this information from Orly Taitz, a BIN contributor.  She received a copy of a letter from the Attorney for President Barack Obama, Michael Jablonski.

The letter was written to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp and it is reproduced in full below.  However, all you need to read is the last sentence:

January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Secretary Kemp:
This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.
For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.
It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.

Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….
As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.

All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.

Very truly yours,
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
Attorney for President Barack Obama
cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal (
Orly Taitz, Esq. (
Mark Hatfield, Esq. (
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (
Darcy Coty, Esq. (
Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (

Answer These Questions Ron, Newt, Mitt, and Rick ..!

There’s saber rattling in the Middle East; Obama has shut down a job-creating pipeline that would make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil from less than friendly nations; unemployment is still high; there is no budget; spending is out of control; our elected representatives support bills they don’t read, can’t understand, or understand but play dumb (SOPA and PIPA), and Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are fighting over personal taxes, Bain Capital, and who lobbied and got paid for it.
Voters want to know what the four remaining candidates are going to do if any one of them wins in November. The way things are going, it’s going to be Obama for another four years.

In the next debate, and every debate thereafter, each candidate should come with a list of items and how they will govern based on those items. Here are a quick few that I jotted down. You can think of more. Feel free to list them in the comments section:
  • Will you work to overturn Obamacare? Yes or No
  • Do you support homosexual marriage? Yes or No
  • Will you veto all abortion funding? Yes or No
  • Will you oppose all funding to public radio and television? (I know it’s not a lot of money when we’re talking about trillions of dollars; but it’s the principle of the thing.) Yes or No
  • Will you cut taxes? Yes or No.
  • How much will you cut taxes each year for seven years?
  • What is your view on the “Fair Tax”? Explain it so we know you understand it.
  • Will you cut spending across the board? Yes or No.
  • Will you freeze all government spending? Yes or No
  • How much will you cut from the budget? We want single-year numbers not over ten years.
  • What federal agencies will you cut?
  • Present your energy policy. Be specific. Include domestic drilling, the use of coal, and nuclear energy.
  • Will you work to restructure and eventually eliminate the Federal Reserve? Yes or No
  • Will you stand up to the environmental lobby? Yes or No
  • Will you                              Add your own                                Yes or No
  • Will you sign a statement under oath to keep your campaign promises or resign from office if you renege on any of your promises?
This is the Super Bowl of politics. It’s you against Obama and everything he stands for. We want to know what you will do to save our nation. If you made stupid policy decisions in the past, admit them, and then tell us what you will do as President that will be different. We want to know NOW, not when it’s too late and we’re stuck with you for four years.

Iran preparing now for Armageddon

By Reza Kahlili
 Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has held several secret meetings with his economic and military advisers in recent days to prepare for the possibility of war with the United States.
Sources report the preparations are to include the execution of those Iranians who oppose the regime.
Khamenei has been heard to say that the coming of the last Islamic Messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam Mahdi, is near and that specific actions need to be taken to protect the Islamic regime for upcoming events.
Mahdi, according to Shiite belief, will reappear at the time of Armageddon.
Selected forces within the Revolutionary Guards and Basij reportedly have been trained under a task force called “Soldiers of Imam Mahdi” and they will bear the responsibility of security and protecting the regime against uprisings. Many in the Guards and Basij have been told that the 12th Imam is on earth, facilitated the victory of Hezbollah over Israel in the 2006 war and soon will announce publicly his presence after the needed environment is created.
 According to SepahOnline, sources within the Vali’eh Amr, the revolutionary forces in charge of the supreme leader’s protection, report that Khamenei held several meetings in recent days at which the leader instructed his advisers to tighten the grip on anyone who opposes or might oppose the regime in case of war.

 These actions include investigations of every person or group that was pro-regime but now hold opinions contrary to regime policies. Also being created is a list, to be presented to Khamenei, to decide the fate of any opponents.

It also was decided that those political prisoners who will not repent will be executed, the sources said.
This action also was taken by the founder of the Islamic regime in 1988, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
In the book, “A Time to Betray,” it is documented when Khomeini announced the campaign, he said, “If the person at any stage or at any time maintains his (or her) support for the opposing groups, the sentence is execution. Annihilate the enemies of Islam immediately.”
The fatwa led to the execution of thousands of innocent men and women of all ages in a very short period.
The list of actions by Khamenei includes investigation of private business owners. If records show that at any time in the past they have not supported the Islamic regime, their businesses and belongings could be confiscated.
Journalists, writers and publishers who are deemed to be against the regime would be arrested and punished. Even high religious authorities who do not fully support Khamenei will be put under surveillance and dealt with if they become outspoken about the direction of the country.
Continue reading:

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

There are two classifications of Pundits/ Political analysts

1)  Old School MSM and yes @foxnews included...who give their diatribes based on what their employer wants said and yes they receive the 'Big Bucks' for passing on their bosses agenda!
2) New School Pundits [You and I] who give their diatribes based on real life experience for free using the internet...well not exactly free but cheap depending on the IP...and most can afford to put it in their budget...!

Now the proverbial question becomes who do you trust to give a honest diatribe?...One who gives freely or one who earns major big bucks to pass on their employers agenda?
Hey MSM @foxnews dudes/dudett's ya wanna post your Tax returns up on the net?...I doubt it!

I crack me up...I can say freely what most are thinking...ya be the judge...:)

Stop the Rhetoric, It's Time to Act

Need we say more?

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?

End of Story...or is this a 'Never Ending Story'?

Brit Hume...Fox News: "Obama attacking Romney no one else...Whats that tell you?

Either Brit Hume is in Obama's back pocket or he really needs to give up his day a pundit and political analyst! It is quite obvious what the Obama administration is doing...they are placing attention on Mitt Romney as their so called 'target' in a vain attempt to convince the GOP electorate that they are afraid of Mitt Romney...when in fact they are scared to death that the Tea Party choice ~Newt Gingrich~ will destroy the Obama administration from the ground up!

I just shake my head every time Brit Hume or Ann Coulter goes on a rampage attacking Newt ...Ann Coulter was first pushing the New Jersey Santa Claus (Gov Christie)...when that fell apart she switched gears and became a Romney cheerleader... at this point here comes the New Jersey Santa Claus making the rounds like Ann Coulter swooning over Mitt Romney and bashing Newt Gingrich...Brit Hume and Ann Coulter always support and rave over the Good Ol' Boy... GOP Beltway machine choices...anything that looks like a RINO ~Brit and Ann  rave over like a school boy/girl in boing!

I have faith in the electorate to make their own decisions based on what they see,feel and hear from the candidates...not what so called pundits and analysts push as the only right choice!

Sorry Brit and Ann 'We the People' see a dream team!

Monday, January 23, 2012

Jeb Bush Cautions Republicans on ’Tone’ Without Endorsing Anyone

It is refreshing to see Jeb Bush is not taking George  HW Bush 's lead by endorsing a candidate premature...seems Jeb sees that the Tea Party have moved toward Newt...Jeb has shown he sees the light and will let 'We the People' decide this issue! @foxnews should follow suit and just report what is going on without making it their agenda to tell us who we showed vote for!

Quote Jeb Bush: "  Yet Bush, fielding requests for endorsements from Romney and Gingrich in recent days and from former Pennsylvania Senator Santorum longer ago, said: “It’s a big decision. Florida is going to play a big role in who the party’s nominee is. I think the voters can make up their own minds.”

Jeb Bush, the popular former Florida governor, said he will “stay neutral” in the state’s Republican presidential primary while warning his party’s candidates to leave the “circular firing squad” of their debates behind and start appealing to a broader audience.
Bush’s remarks, in an exclusive interview, establish a challenge for his party’s candidates as the contest advances to Florida, where the Jan. 31 primary will take the race into its biggest and most diverse arena yet. The winner will be awarded all of the state’s 50 presidential convention delegates.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have courted Bush’s endorsement in recent days, he says. In December, his father, former President George H. W. Bush, told the Houston Chronicle he was giving Romney an “unofficial” endorsement. John H. Sununu Sr., the senior Bush’s former White House chief of staff, is serving as a surrogate for the Romney campaign.
The younger Bush described both Romney and Gingrich as “credible” candidates in a November contest with President Barack Obama. “I intend to help whoever wins the nomination,” the former governor said in the interview yesterday.

Why the Government Must Control the Internet

It wasn’t too long ago that that we had three sources of national news: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Print media were limited to the daily newspaper and national news magazines like Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. No more.
The media gatekeepers are few and far between today. The last gate – the biggest gate – is the internet. If it can’t be controlled, the people can’t be controlled. That’s why governments around the world are working to implement ways to control it. A nation like China just does it, but here in the United States the pretense of a legitimate legal remedy must be found.
Congress got slapped down with an all-out internet frontal attack that shut down their phone lines. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen (1896–1969) explains what happens when sustained pressure is put on Congress: “When we feel the heat, we see the light.” Gary North comments:
The Good Old Boys learned that they cannot conduct business as usual any longer — not when Internet autonomy is concerned. The Internet can mobilize millions of voters in hours. The Good Old Boys had not yet figured this out on Tuesday. They are slow learners.

Ex-CIA chief: Bomb Iranian Revolutionary Guards

The United States should consider military strikes against not just Iran’s nuclear sites but the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, argued former CIA director James Woolsey in a radio interview today.

Comparing the Guards to Adolph Hitler’s blackshirts, Woolsey named several “fair game” Guard-related targets, including Iran’s space program, ballistic missile program, training facilities and the Guard’s substantial commercial interests.
The ex-CIA director said the U.S. should consider these military options if Iran blocks the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway or takes other significant aggressive action.
Woolsey also recommended that President Obama immediately send four to five aircraft carriers to the Indian Ocean to demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of Iranian threats to blockade the strait.
“We went to war in 1812 over something just about like what Iran says it is going to do – close the straits,” said Woolsey, referring to the British naval blockade of the Atlantic coast of the U.S.
Woolsey was speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New York’s WABC Radio.
Listen to the interview at Klein Online. 
While applauding the recent round of tougher sanctions against Tehran, Woolsey contended such economic initiatives combined with continued dialogue are not enough to deter Iran from seeking nuclear weapons or halt the country’s threats to blockade the strait.

Florida GOP Primary Poll: Gingrich 41% Romney 32%

Well it appears as if the Good ol' Boy GOP machine is losing to the wishes of the Tea Party!

Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney had a 22-point lead in Florida, but that’s ancient history in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Following his big win in South Carolina on Saturday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now is on top in Florida by nine.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters, taken Sunday evening, finds Gingrich earning 41% of the vote with Romney in second at 32%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum runs third with 11%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts support from eight percent (8%). Nine percent (9%) remain undecided.(To see survey question wording, click here).
Florida allows early voting, and Romney leads among those voters by 11 points. Gingrich leads by 12 among those who have not yet voted. Fourteen percent (14%) have already cast their vote.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The time has come put Obama out of Office!

Put The Secretaries Of State In ALL 50 States On Notice: Make Obama Prove That He Is Eligible To Hold The Office He Usurped Or Take Him Off The Ballot!
     They thought they could get away with it. The elites in Washington and the media hoped and prayed that this issue would go away.

     They must have been thinking: Surely, with an election close at hand, these pesky "birthers" will finally give up, go away, and let the man who never proved he was eligible to run for the office of President of the United States in the first place attempt to usurp the office a second time.

     But that's not going to happen. We can't let it happen. And now that a judge in Georgia FINALLY had the guts NOT to dismiss a case demanding that Barack Hussein Obama prove he is eligible to run for President, our cause has new life.

     When Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama's motion to dismiss the case, Attorney Orly Taitz exclaimed: "Thank you God! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battles, for the first time a judge has ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment."

     And now that our cause has new life, we must strike while the iron is hot. We need an avalanche of faxes to the Secretaries of State of ALL 50 States. We must demand that they make Barack Hussein Obama PROVE that he is eligible to run for President of the United States or STRIKE HIS NAME FROM THE BALLOT

Send your faxes now>

The Obamas Feast on $81 Steaks

President Barack Obama and wife Michelle celebrated the first lady’s 48th birthday Tuesday night by dining at a Washington, D.C., restaurant featuring a hamburger named “The Obama.”
But they passed on the burger and instead both enjoyed a 10-ounce American Wagyu steak with an $81 price tag.
“The Obama” is one of five burgers on BLT Steak’s “Political Burger Board.” It’s an 8-ounce American Kobe burger with bacon, cheddar cheese, burnt tomato ketchup, and scallion mustard. American Kobe beef is from a line of Japanese Wagyu cattle prized for its fat marbling. The burger sells for $28.
The “Bi Partisan” burger, $32, is an 8-ounce burger with Maine lobster, white cheddar cheese, and black truffle buttermilk dressing.
Other burgers include the “Pork Barrel,” “Cuban Missile,” and “BLT Monument.”
The Obamas enjoyed their meal in a private dining room, CNS News reported.
The restaurant's assistant general manager told the Foodorama blog that Michelle Obama "dines with us quite regularly."
Other items on the menu include a dozen oysters for $34, a bone-in rib eye steak ($47), sautéed Dover sole ($49), or french fries on the side for $8
No word if the Obamas washed down the birthday night dinner with a bottle of Chateau Petrus 1984 Pomerol, at $1,200. 

Must be nice...$81.00 is a weeks worth of food for me!

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America

Saudi-funded textbooks being used in America’s K-12 classrooms.
Teaching, among other things, that Jesus was a “Palestinian,” the state of Israel never existed, and that the Muslims discovered America before Columbus. At this rate, perhaps even Saudi grade-school textbooks, complete with jihadi and dhimmi declarations, will come to instruct American school-children.
“Public Schools Teach the ABCs of Islam,” by Erick Stakelbeck for CBN News, October 9, 2008: – Several recent studies have shown that American students are alarmingly ignorant about U.S. history and world events.
Experts have attributed the problem to everything from failing schools to substandard teachers.
But what about content?
For instance, did you know that Muslims discovered America? Or that Jerusalem is an Arab city? That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years–with the help of taxpayer money.

A new report by the non-profit Institute for Jewish and Community Research finds that American high school and elementary textbooks contain countless inaccuracies about Christianity, Judaism, Israel and the Middle East.
The Institute examined 28 of the most widely-used history, geography and social studies textbooks in America. It found at least 500 errors.

Mitt Romney Hoof n' Mouth Disease...?

Even Romney Agrees That Obama Is Turning The Economy Around?

 “It is true that Mitt Romney is the default nominee,” Maddow admitted, but noted that, while “yesterday [Thursday] was a disastrous day for Mitt Romney, today was worse,” because he actually admitted, in an interview with Laura Ingraham, that President Obama had improved the economy. His entire claim to being worthy of the nomination in stump speeches, Maddow noted, was that President Obama didn’t start the problem, but he made it worse. “The economy had essentially been thrown out a 30-story building and was lying dead on the ground when Obama assumed the presidency,” Maddow argued, and the “state of Mitt Romney’s core argument” was him admitting that things are somewhat better, while questions circulate about his time at Bain Capital. To chime in the disastrous admission, Maddow simply played the clip over photos of Romney: “Even Mitt Romney agrees that President Obama is turning the economy and things are getting better… so vote for Mitt Romney despite that?” Maddow noted. The campaign ad writes itself.

 “Mitt Romney winning in New Hampshire was a foregone conclusion,” Maddow explained, because “the guy from Massachusetts always wins New Hampshire.” The more damning evidence against Romney was not that he one, but the only two exceptions to the “guy from Massachusetts always wins” rule: Ted Kennedy losing to President Carter in 1980, and… Mitt Romney losing to Sen. John McCain in 2008. Kennedy had the incumbency excuse. What was Romney’s?

“It is true that Mitt Romney is the default nominee,” Maddow admitted, but noted that, while “yesterday [Thursday] was a disastrous day for Mitt Romney, today was worse,” because he actually admitted, in an interview with Laura Ingraham, that President Obama had improved the economy. His entire claim to being worthy of the nomination in stump speeches, Maddow noted, was that President Obama didn’t start the problem, but he made it worse. “The economy had essentially been thrown out a 30-story building and was lying dead on the ground when Obama assumed the presidency,” Maddow argued, and the “state of Mitt Romney’s core argument” was him admitting that things are somewhat better, while questions circulate about his time at Bain Capital. To chime in the disastrous admission, Maddow simply played the clip over photos of Romney: “Even Mitt Romney agrees that President Obama is turning the economy and things are getting better… so vote for Mitt Romney despite that?” Maddow noted. The campaign ad writes itself.