It is with deep regret that we inform the readers of the blog that Mark Yannone died on 17 July 2009. Pursuant to his wishes, there will be no memorial or service. Anyone wishing to send letters to the family may send them via email to email@example.com. All notes to the family will be delivered directly.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Orly Taitz is taking Obama down
by Mark Yannone
Former Congressman and KFYI host JD Hayworth (R-AZ) interviews attorney Orly Taitz on July 15 about a couple of the many cases and the mountain of evidence against Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president. Listen: [MP3] 18:47
One Sick Son of a Bitch
by Mark Yannone
- Barack Obama appointee
- Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
- Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
- Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- United States Science Czar
- Women could be forced to abort
- The population could be chemically sterilized by contaminating water or food supplies
- Babies of single mothers and teen mothers should be seized and given to couples
- Those who "contribute to social deterioration" can be sterilized or forced to have abortions
- A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the world's economy and dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives, using an armed international police force
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Allen v. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA claim
by Linda Bentley
FOIA's basic purpose -- opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny
TUCSON -- On July 6, Kenneth Allen, a Tucson resident, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack H. Obama, aka Barry Obama; Attorney General Eric Holder; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano; and Does 1-49.
The action was filed pursuant to Allen's February 9, 2009, Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking immediate processing and release of agency records with regard to Barry Soetoro, Stanley Ann Soetoro, and Lolo Soetoro and all known and unknown aliases.
Allen brought the complaint on his own behalf after defendants blatantly refused to produce the yet-to-be-released documents in a timely manner.
According to the complaint, on Monday, January 26, 2009, his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13490-Ethics Commitments, which stated only the Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Counsel to the President (Gregory Craig) are able to review presidential records requests and determine whether or not they can be made public.
On his Illinois State Bar application where it asked for other names used by the applicant, Obama stated, "none."
Allen states, "Because … Barack Obama denies he was ever called Barry Soetoro it shouldn't be a problem with transparency when it comes to producing the requested records … And because Barry Soetoro is not a citizen, as defined by the law, he isn't protected by the FOIA."
According to Allen, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship since 1945, and, therefore, Soetoro's mother Stanley Ann Soetoro would have been required to relinquish her son's American citizenship and any other citizenship he might have held, in order for him to become an Indonesian citizen, which school records confirm he became.
So, Allen modified his request to ask for an original copy of the immigration records pertaining to Barry Soetoro, circa 1971, when he returned to Hawaii, along with documents indicating whether or not Soetoro is still an Indonesian citizen. If not, Allen asked for documentation as to when he became a naturalized citizen.
Allen requested copies of Soetoro's passports for the years 1979 through 1982, including his Indonesian passport for the years 1979 through 1982, a copy of his passport and documented history of travel to Pakistan and nationality contained therein for the years 1981 and 1982.
He also requested a copy of Stanley Ann Soetoro's (Dunham and Obama) passport and travel history for the years 1959 through 1987 along with the same for Lolo Soetoro, citing the requests were not subject to 6 CFR § 5.21(f), which requires permission from the individual, because both subjects are deceased.
Citing the Privacy Act's laudable goals of protecting sensitive information, Allen said it only protects U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens and "does not apply not foreigners, unions, collective associations or corporations."
Allen asserts Barry Soetoro is neither a citizen of the United States nor an alien with permanent residence and said "… we know Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian citizen at the age of 7 and that he had ties in Hawaii," noting Soetoro would have had to have gone through immigration and customs at some point between 1961 and 2009."
The information requested by Allen could prove Soetoro is in violation of a number of laws under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including falsely claiming citizenship.
Allen said the information sought would undeniably shed light on the DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conduct concerning its Indonesian and foreign repatriation policy.
Considering the fact Napolitano believes veterans and Second Amendment and pro-life supporters should be considered terrorists, Allen said she shouldn't have any problem with the release of information revealing the source of the facts underlying an aspect of the nation's immigration policy as it pertains to Barry Soetoro, Stanley Ann Soetoro, and Lolo Soetoro.
He said it would further the FOIA's basic purpose of opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny by informing the public against whom the government enforced its policy of repatriation and upon whom the DHS relied in evaluating and deciding to continue that policy, rather than denying Allen's request for records concerning Barry Soetoro and his connection to Barack H. Obama.
Allen believes any information that may exist with respect to Barry Soetoro should be released in the interest of national security and, because his complaint is over a FOIA request, there can be no question of standing.
For requested relief, Allen is asking the court to order defendants to immediately process his FOIA requests, disclose the requested records in an expedited manner, and find the defendants' action in violation of the FOIA.
Copyright © 2009 Sonoran News
Time to show what you're made of
by Rob Lamb
July 15, 2009
Admiral Michael Mullen, CJCS
General James E Cartwright USMC, VCJCS
General George W. Casey, Jr. USA
Admiral Gary Roughead, USN
General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF
General James T. Conway, USMC
We are now in a situation where those who desire to extricate themselves from the War On Terror, or any other military obligation, may do so by challenging their orders. All one needs to do is question the legitimacy of the alleged president, Soetoro, and they are immediately released. What will you do if all the military want to know the truth? What will you do then? Should not they expect their orders to be legal? Every person in the military should resist, barring absolute proof. If only our military had hundreds of thousands of others with Major Stefan Frederick Cook's bravery.
Show us, gentlemen, that you, too, have that bravery. Show the American People that you are not just armchair generals, fat and incompetent, happy to collect your paychecks, waiting to retire. Show us that you indeed have some testicular fortitude and the "guts" for which our military is known. Show us you give a damn.
You cannot allow this wound to fester. It is Soetoro, at the top, who must prove himself. Not the other way around. With every damn "i" dotted, and "t" crossed; all the way back to August 4, 1961, from Kenya, to Hawaii, to Indonesia, the passports, the Selective Service application, through school. All of it. ALL OF IT.
The American People cannot depend on Robert Gates. He has licked every boot he ever encountered, for administrations reaching back to when he first joined the CIA. Suckling at the government teat for one's entire adult life tends to alter the ego, mettle, and judgment. He is worthless.
At one time, there were hopes for Colin Powell. I cannot believe I wrote, begging McCain to put him on the ticket, as V.P., last fall. It turns out he is merely a sycophantic racist; one who now has regrets, or "concerns." As if that will help this country now. That moron helped put the U.S. on the road to hell.
Congress, for the most part, is nothing but a miserable pathetic collection of spineless, weak political slugs of the lowest order. They thrive only in their own sewage, secreting their vile mucus in every direction, politically apophallating each other. Possibly you can discern my measurement of Congress' usefulness.
To keep this drip from becoming a torrent, you must demand that Soetoro prove his legitimacy, once and for all. First, he should be a citizen of the United States, incredibly, even that is questionable. But, to be president, he must have two citizen parents. He can be given the benefit of the doubt on the other two requirements. World leaders and intelligence agencies know he is a fraud. Foreign populations have been informed by their media, and know him to be a fraud. Our own CIA and FBI know he is a fraud. Millions of Americans know he is a fraud. Major Cook knows he is a fraud. I'm of the opinion you gentlemen also know he is a fraud.
Honduras. Could this tiny, poor, third world DEMOCRACY be a model for the United States of America? I can't believe I just wrote that down. Yet that country was not going to allow a president usurp power he did not constitutionally possess, as we have. The Honduran Army was forced to step in and correct the situation, and immediately turn over the reins of power to legitimate officeholders. Their military were true leaders. A coups? No. A correction.
You could achieve the same thing by demanding honesty, truth, and transparency of Soetoro. Demand his bona fides. Prove to the American People that you are leaders. Prove to the American People that you are patriots worthy of the medals on your chests. Or return them as undeserved.
We learn, today, that DOD's Defense Security Services Agency has demanded that Simtech CEO, Larry Grice, terminate Major Stefan Frederick Cook, and that his security clearances have been revoked. Despicable mistreatment of a true hero. What about the very idea that the military must follow legal orders? How the hell do they know the orders are legal if they don't ask? Doesn't this violate the whistle blower protections afforded anybody who works for the government? Yes, soldiers who work for the military, work for the government.
This hero, Major Cook, swore to uphold the Constitution, not a phony president. For doing his job, for protecting the Constitution, he is felled, as if by an enemy bullet, but it turns out to be friendly fire. The despicable coward who ordered this treatment of him should be hanged. By destroying Cook, an illegal order is executed; exactly what Cook was trying to avoid.
He is the hero, the patriot, you gentlemen will never be.
Yours very truly,
cc: Major Stefan Frederick Cook, Dr. Orly Taitz, the press, Pelosi, Reid, McCain, McConnell, Gates, Powell, Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Soetoro.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
by Mark Yannone
Like Judge Andrew Napolitano, Keith Olbermann has been able to snooker a large segment of the population into believing that he is a patriot, a fiercely dedicated freedom fighter. So many of their words sound good, but their messages are profoundly corrupt. Yesterday Keith Olbermann showed us very clearly that he is part of the rotten status quo. Granted, some still won't get it, but a great many will.
Keith Olbermann on Major Stefan Cook and Orly Taitz
Ghana apparently didn't get the memo
by Linda Bentley
Joseph Farrah, founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily, continues his billboard campaign to ask,
"Where’s the Birth Certificate?" To contribute to have more billboards erected, such as this
one in Pennsylvania along Highway 78, visit wnd.com and click on the picture of the billboard.
Snopes, UPI, Wikipedia, Factcheck, Kapi'olani Medical Center attempt to sync Obama's birthplace
HONOLULU – Since January 24, 2009, the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children has apparently had a letter posted on its website to share congratulations on its centennial celebration from President [sic] Barack Obama.
In it Obama states, "As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi'olani Medical Center -- the place of my birth -- I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of supporters."
Within an hour of WorldNetDaily posting an article questioning the letter's authenticity, noting it was used by the hospital for its fundraising efforts, a host of Internet scrubbing bubbles went to work.
The letter, an HTML-created document with no White House logo, posted on the hospital's website since January and touted by U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie, D-HI, who is captured on video reading the letter with embellishments, as possibly the first official letter written by Obama as President, was yanked off the Internet as WND investigated conflicting reports and articles on Snopes.com asserting Obama's birthplace in Honolulu was Kapi'olani Medical Center as well as Queen's Medical Center.
According to WND, Kapi'olani Medical Center has refused to address the letter's authenticity.
In light of the letter's exposure, Snopes.com went to work scrubbing away all references to Obama being born at Queen's Medical Center, changing them to say Kapi'olani Medical Center, adding, "(News accounts have also variously reported his birth as having occurred at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu)," which included a hyperlink to the United Press International article stating Obama was born at Queen's Medical Center.
No sooner did Snopes change its website than did UPI get out scrubbing bubbles to change the linked article, which said, "Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii …" to say Kapi'olani Medical Center.
Snopes then responded by removing the link to the UPI article.
During a White House press briefing on Monday, WND's White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if he could confirm the authenticity of the letter.
Gibbs, without addressing whether or not the letter was from the President [sic], said, "Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital."
FightTheSmears.com, the website initiated by the Obama for America Political Action Committee to combat all potentially negative information about Obama, including eligibility questions, has recently been taken down.
After all remaining websites appeared to have their Obama birth places in synchronized harmony by eradicating references to Queen's Hospital, on July 9, in anticipation of Obama's arrival in Ghana, ModernGhana.com posted an article titled, "History Beckons - As Prez Obama Arrives Tomorrow," stating, "For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth."
That statement has been corroborated by Obama's paternal grandmother in Kenya, who insists she was there in the delivery room when Obama was born at Coast Medical Center in Mombasa, Kenya.
Phil from TheRightSideofLife.com quipped, "It appears that ModernGhana.com didn't get the memo …"
Over the weekend, WND began tracking changes made to Wikipedia regarding Obama's birthplace. At around 4:45 p.m. on Sunday, Wikipedia stated, "Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, was born on August 4, 1961 in either Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii, or Mombasa, Kenya to Barack Obama, Sr. …"
Several changes later it said, "Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, was born on August 4, 1961 in either Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii, or somewhere in Kenya (the refusal of Obama to release his long-form birth certificate has left this important detail without any confirmation) ..."
At least six changes were made regarding his birthplace up until 1:35 a.m. on Monday, which left it with Obama being born in either Honolulu or Kenya.
However, as of 6 p.m. on Monday Wikipedia was changed again to say, "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu …"
WND's current billboard campaign asking, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" appears quite timely.
Copyright © 2009 Sonoran News
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
by Mark Yannone
Have you been accused of a crime in the United States? If so, there are a few things you need to know before you can walk out of the courtroom a free man or woman:
1. Governments were established to protect and maintain individual rights.
2. Crime requires unlawful injury, loss, or harm, and unlawful behavior that caused the unlawful injury, loss, or harm (see corpus delicti).
corpus delicti: the substance of a crime that the prosecutor must prove and that consists of an injury or loss (as death of a victim or disappearance of property) and the criminal act that resulted in itMarc Stevens, who will be the first to tell you he is not an attorney, explains two elements that are required of every crime. Consider these required elements when serving on a jury or defending yourself against prosecution by the state.
See also: Adventures in Legal Land
See also: The Arizona County Grand Jury
Monday, July 13, 2009
Nationalized pizza three years later
by Craig J. Cantoni
(Washington - 2013) The Obama administration's promises about the benefits of nationalizing the pizza industry have not materialized. Since the industry was nationalized three years ago, Americans are facing pizza shortages, pizzas in only one size and topping, and pizzas that taste like the cardboard box they come in.
When announcing the pizza program in 2010, President [sic] Obama had promised that pizza prices would fall, pizza quality would rise, and there would be universal access to pizza. "After all," he had said in his typical all-knowing manner that Americans have come to hate, "the pizza industry is much simpler than the medical industry, which we completely nationalized last year."
Before pizza was nationalized, virtually every American, whether rural or urban, rich or poor, white or black, or a race somewhere in between, could order a pizza customized to his liking and have it delivered hot to his door in about 45 minutes. Now, in the rare cases where someone actually answers the phone at one of the government's regional pizza kitchens, it takes six hours on average for a pizza to be delivered.
The cost of the standard 12-inch pizza is $140, or a 20-fold increase in three years. Half of the increase is due to the skyrocketing inflation caused by the president's stimulus spending in 2009. A dollar now buys only half as much as it did back then.
Moreover, pizzas are now being delivered by bicycle in rural areas and by mass transit in urban areas, due to the president's climate laws, which have made gasoline unaffordable for the typical delivery person. Although delivery personnel in Minnesota replace the front tires of their bikes with skis in winter and put snow chains on the rear tires, pizzas still arrive at customers' doors frozen solid. In the summer in Arizona, pizzas leave the government pizza kitchen uncooked and cook along the way.
The Federal Department of Pizza is now bigger than the Department of Agriculture. Thousands of central planners have discovered that without the magic of market price signals, it's impossible to coordinate all of the variables involved in getting a pizza to someone's door.
Hundreds of Pizza Department employees try to determine months ahead who will order a pizza, at what time, on what day, and for what address. Hundreds of other employees then calculate how much flour, cheese, tomato sauce, and cardboard should be delivered to the regional pizza kitchens. Once this is determined, the information is sent to the Department of Labor, so that the kitchens have enough employees when they need them. Due to ongoing computer glitches, the pizza kitchens are fully staffed on Monday mornings but have a skeleton staff on Friday nights. During the last Super Bowl, the kitchens were shut down because no employees showed up for work.
The pizza forecasts are also sent to the Department of Agriculture, which has to tell farmers how much wheat and tomatoes to grow, cheese makers how much cheese to produce, and box makers how many boxes to make. The Department of Transportation also has to be notified to have 18-wheel trucks available to deliver the goods to the pizza kitchens. It's to no avail, however, because the Department of Energy is still trying to develop battery-powered trucks to replace the trucks that were banned by the EPA for having internal combustion engines.
Clandestine pizza operations have sprung up across the land, and anchovies are even being snuck into the country from Portugal in travelers' suitcases. Customs personnel at New York's JFK Airport recently walked off the job after one Customs agent opened a suitcase and cracked open his head on the counter when he passed out from the stench.
The Justice Department has started a War on Pizza to shut down the clandestine operations, but this has just shifted the problem to Mexico. The Mexican government is on the verge of collapsing, due to the violence and corruption of Mexican pizza lords who sneak contraband pizzas into the United States. Vinnie Rodriguez is said to be the kingpin of pizza in Mexico. Someone in Cleveland can order a pizza from Vinnie in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and have it delivered piping hot with the toppings of his choice in a tenth of the time it takes a government pizza kitchen to fill an order for a cardboard pizza.
President [sic] Obama's popularity has dropped to five percent, showing that Americans can tolerate having their medical care screwed up by the government but not their pizza.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Baez, Coyne, and Reed
All the Answers You'll Ever Need
by Fred Reed
Last night Vi and I watched for the first time a documentary, shot by my friend Jim Coyne, on Joan Baez and the movement against a war no one any longer remembers, far away, on another planet. It was lovely filmwork. Jim is a genius. I may have to stop having friends. I feel inferior to all of them. It gets depressing.
Of no interest to anyone but me, perhaps, it completely changed my understanding of Baez, whom I had regarded for forty years as just another pretty voice. No. Smart, tough, principled in a world that isn't. I hereby apologize.
In that war -- I forget what planet it was on -- the freaks and professors and mothers and the simply decent finally managed stop the carnage, though only after the Pentagon had killed 60,000 American kids and a million or so Vietnamese, not to mention devastating Laos and bringing Pol Pot to power. God I'm proud. We're such a force for democracy.
When the GIs left Asia in '73, the commie peaceniks thought they had won. And they had, for ten minutes. The grip of the military on the country loosened briefly.
Unfortunately the soldiers learned. Not how to win wars, which they do poorly if at all, but how to keep a war going. Winning a war isn't all it's cracked up to be. The promotions and contracts stop. When you are paid to do something, it is in your interest not to finish doing it.
The Pentagon's first lesson learned was to avoid conscription, as the conscripted and their families will take to the streets. By using an army of volunteer suckers about whom nobody of importance cares, the military severs its wars from most of the country, which loses interest. The brass are then free to do as they choose.
The second lesson learned was that while defeating the enemy is not necessary, and perhaps not desirable, controlling the press is everything. And they did it.
So forty or so years after all the love-ins, the marches, the righteous dope (all of which may seem silly, but in my view preferable to watching a Cambodian mother screaming over the opened bleeding guts of her child) the Pentagon is at it again. Once more the jets howl over remote primitive countries, countries that did nothing to the US and couldn't have, and promotions flow, and contracts, and generals demand more troops and more money to stop communism. Excuse me, terrorism. Soon, the Chinese, a better threat, coming to a theater near you. With the passing of years, one demon fades into another. Switching enemies is much easier now, what with search-and-replace.
But it's all about democracy and freedom and patriotism and Saving America from … from something. The hoopla changes little, and how well it works. Patriotic friends sometimes say to me of the military ardent things like, "When your country says go, you go!" I seldom point out that no one in their families is in the slightest danger of having to go, nor that "the country" is recruiting hard and they aren't urging their children to enlist; nor do I ask, "What is your attitude toward having your daughter drafted onto the streets of Baghdad for five tours, perhaps coming back drooling and gurbling for life after having her brains scrambled by a roadside bomb?" Patriotism is important to patriots. They are full of it, and I'm about a quart low. I shut up. I don't want to lose friends.
Yet … I think I must be a communist. It seems to me that when your country says "go," you should ask, "Why?" Do you have a reason to kill whoever you are being sent to kill? Then go. Otherwise, don't. If I told you to go to Ottawa and kill Canadians, you would think me mad, and think it correctly. Why then should you obediently kill them because a politician in Washington tells you to do it? I do not understand.
And of course "your country" doesn't tell you anything at all. Countries are abstractions. Men tell you to go, and for their own purposes: Dick Cheney or George Bush, Nixon or Nitze, or the men who run the petroleum industry, or people in the Israeli lobby, or men in the military companies who want contracts, or officers who want to give war a try.
Why are these people "my country"? And why isn't Joan Baez my country instead of David Petraeus? I will choose who is my country, thank you. Ledbelly, Benny Goodman, Carl Perkins, and Miss Emily Anne will come before Lemay, McNamara, Lyndon Johnson, and Obama. Long before.
Soldiers talk much of honor. I do not understand how military service can possibly be thought honorable. If the Wehrmacht were landing in North Carolina, yes, but I do not believe that it is. Where is the honor in bombing from the air lightly armed peasants who can't fight back? It is cowardly, yes, and obscene, but do not talk of honor. Murder for hire is murder for hire.
We now have men who sit at screens, drinking coffee and firing missiles from remote robotic aircraft at people on the ground whom they cannot identify. Brave men, they. I could burst into a kindergarten and kill the children with a ball bat. The one is as honorable as the other.
Recently I saw on television a black sergeant in Afghanistan, probably chosen by his commander for photogenicity, standing in front of a tank or mobile gun, I forget which. He said something scripted like "This is a such-and-such unit, the most powerful fighting force in the world." This sort of ritual cockiness is carefully ingrained. Near my barracks in Parris Island was a sign, "The most dangerous thing in the world is a Marine rifleman." If it had said "an ambitious colonel" it would have come closer to truth.
But one may wonder (unless one already knows) how good the Pentagon's military really is. A pissed-off peasant with an RPG would seem on the evidence more effective than the pricey zoom-kapows arrayed against him.
I cannot endorse the politics of the Taliban. If one of them told me that my daughter couldn't go to school, one of us would leave the room on a stretcher. Yet as fighting men, are they not magnificent? They have only rifles, explosives, RPGs, and balls. Their enemies have unlimited air support, helicopters, armor, artillery, sophisticated communications, night-vision gear, good food, and excellent medical care. The Taliban take heavy casualties, their enemies almost none. The ragheads do not even have PX privileges. Yet they have not been defeated. A fight on even terms would last perhaps five minutes.
This, for a trillion dollars.
What the hell. Plus ça change, plus ça doesn't. Next year in Beijing. Tell you what, though. I never liked Kum Ba Yah, and "We Shall Overcome" is probably the sappiest song every written. But those people had nothing to be ashamed of.
On a pleasanter note: I have decided to become a famous song-writer and make millions. The following is a beginning, copyright Fred Reed, all rights reserved. Major recording studios can send large checks.
A Song for Our Times
by Fred Reed
Way up North, 'round a mile from Niagara
Pfizer built a plant, makin' Viagra
The old-folks home was a mile to the West
Some call it cursed, though I'd say blessed
About a year later disaster struck
The main flow pipe got hit by a truck
That love stuff got where it shouldn't oughter
It all leaked into the drinkin' water
Lots of it
Bringing resurrection to a pinnacle of perfection
In Paducah, Chatanooga, DC, and Mian'
A laudable inflation that grows the population
And a king-hell motherlode of spam
Granpa took a drink from outta the spout
The look on his face said, "Granny look out."
A devilish glint came into his eye
Granny took a look and said "My oh my."
It's what she said
Grandpa leaped to his feet and he said,
"I'm not tired but I'm goin' to bed.
You still strike me as a purty gal
But I've had a little trouble getting vertical.
Granny hollered "Pa, now don't you fret
There's a dance left in the old girl yet.
I don't see how but somethin's givin'
Us a hell of a rush toward better livin'
The seismic lab down at Memphis State
Said, "There's trouble up North, we think it's a quake."
A reporter for the Post reported back
"Yeah there's a tremor but it ain't exack
-Ly an earthquake."
Lawyers like roaches thought they smelled some loot
They wanted to have a class-action suit
Pfizer had to do a lot of explaining
But Granny and Grandpa weren't complaining
But things got stranger
Springtime rains washed it into the ocean
Where it got spread around by the waves in motion
The Navy reported that to its surprise
The old Titanic had started to rise!
When the stuff reached bottom the seabed rose
Pushed to the surface by volcanoes
Scientists said upon reflection
They had never seen such a massive erection
Geologically speaking, of course
Viagra fumes leaked into outer space
From lava that was flying all over the place
Such was the power of the drug to excite
That the sun came up in the middle of the night!
What we've learned from these events is
Everything you do has consequences
If chemical bliss is what you seek
You gotta make sure the pipes don't leak
You gotta make sure
You gotta make sure
You gotta make sure the pipes don't leeeeeeeeeeak …
Fred Reed says he takes full blame for Curmudgeing Through Paradise: Reports from a Fractal Dung Beetle.
What the critics are saying about this collection of sedition and outrage:
"Fred, be discriminate!" -Al Sharpton
"Fred deserves his own entry in the DSM V." -Psychology Today
"Despicable. Without redeeming features." -New York Preview of Books
"Fred--that ugh! man--is the ideological equivalent of the Hillside Strangler." -The American Feminist
Copyright 2009 Fred Reed
Dear President Obama: Should we sell our house?
by Craig J. Cantoni
This is your humble servant. I'm writing from my home in the Sonoran desert of Arizona, where it's 113 degrees outside and 82 degrees inside. I'm sitting here half-naked with the ceiling fan whirring so fast that papers are flying off my desk.
It gives me solace, though, to know that you and Michelle probably have the thermostat set at a comfortable 72 degrees in that big white house in Washington. I hope it's just as comfortable in the big home you own in Chicago, whether it's empty or being rented by someone.
If King Louis XIV of France deserved to live in Versailles while preaching to his lords about the living conditions of the serfs, then you deserve to live in luxury while preaching to plebeians like me about global warming. After all, Louie believed in the Divine Right of Kings, just as you believe in the Divine Right of Presidents. And like you, Louie was able to centralize power and raise taxes because his subjects were fed up with the wars of his predecessors. Were they ever surprised, however, when he would later engulf France in war. Still, Louie was able to stay on the throne and build monuments to his narcissism, thanks to having the undying loyalty of the propagandists at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, K-12 schools, and universities.
Oh, sorry, I got him confused with you.
I'm turning to you for advice, your majesty, because you learned everything about everything at Harvard Law, including everything there is to know about real estate and climate change. Accordingly, I'd be honored if you'd give me your opinion on whether my wife and I should sell our house and move to a townhouse half the size, which, because of the peculiarities of the local market, is priced the same as our house. We'll be empty-nesters next month and, because of your unwavering belief that humans are causing the Earth to warm, we'll be facing rising costs for heating and air-conditioning.
As an aside, people I know who are the most learned in science and the scientific method have the most doubts about the unproven hypothesis about global warming and CO2. Obviously, their opinions are worthless, because they didn't attend Harvard Law, which is renowned for its expertise in meteorology and climatology.
Currently, the electricity for our all-electric home comes from one of the largest nuclear power plants in the country. Last year, our total utility bill was $3,368.70 for a 3,860 sq. ft. home. To save electricity, I sometimes shower outside during the summer under a homemade shower that is hooked up to 50 feet of garden hose, which is heated by the sun. I think I'm violating a rule of the homeowner's association, so please don't tell them.
It's a mystery to me why customers of Arizona Public Service should face rising energy costs from your climate legislation when our electricity isn't generated by burning fossil fuels. Could you explain that?
My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that many of your adoring constituents are Northeastern bluebloods and Brahmins who live in big, old, drafty, and energy-inefficient frame houses, many of which are heated with oil. Surely, they're going to expect you to bail them out with hidden energy subsidies at the expense of red-state people like me.
Normally, I'd make such an important decision as selling a house without coming to you, but real estate values have historically been whipsawed by the arbitrary and contradictory decisions of politicians. (Arbitrary political decisions have caused similar distortions in the markets for medical care, education, and energy.)
For example, when we bought our current home in 1992, we had to buy a larger and more expensive house than we needed in order to avoid the IRS's capital gains rule in effect at the time. Now your central planners, who drive around Washington in government-issued Chevy Suburbans, want to get people out of suburban homes and into high-density housing along mass transit lines.
Another example: Because you and your Democrat party have always been opposed to education vouchers, home buyers with the means have selected neighborhoods based on the quality of the local public school. This has led to an exodus from central cities and has caused neighborhoods to be segregated by race and socioeconomic status. With vouchers, parents could live anywhere and send their kids to good schools, wherever they might be located.
Still another example: Because of the government's easy money policies, its backing of the Congressional playpens of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its longstanding loony belief that housing is a good investment, its tax deduction for mortgage interest, its tax dodges for investor-owned real estate -- because of all these reasons, the housing market expanded into a bubble and then burst, with the fragments landing in the toilet. Thankfully, we have a federally-approved toilet that doesn't use much water per flush, although we have to flush several times per visit and keep a plunger handy.
I hate to break this to you, your highness, but even a plunger won't unclog the blockage in the housing market caused by your economic policies, which have made things worse and protracted the inevitable correction. Now, uncertainty over what you might do next has caused other markets to become clogged.
Home prices have plummeted about 40 percent on average in Phoenix. Three of the seven homes for sale in our neighborhood were bought by investors during the bubble, in the hope of flipping them for a profit. To illustrate, an investor bought one of the houses two years ago for $850,000, made cosmetic changes to it to fool buyers who are easily fooled by cosmetics, and put it back on the market for $1.2 million. He since has reduced the asking price several times to the current price of $799,000, which is probably $150,000 too high. Idiots like him, responding to government incentives, tax deductions, and easy money, have hurt everyone else.
In his defense, no one in the government or media warned the public that a bubble was forming, although the data were readily available and indisputable. For example, Yale professor Robert Shiller published data showing that home prices had skyrocketed 99 percent above the historic mean. Unfortunately, he is an economist and not a Harvard lawyer, so his insights and predictions were ignored.
Well, those are the facts. Please tell me what my wife and I should do, based on whatever diktats you and your apparatchiks are hatching. Should we:
a. Stay put and start going naked in the house in the summer? (For some reason, my wife is less keen about this idea than I am.)
b. Sell our house for peanuts, get rid of most of our possessions, and move into a tiny townhouse? (Not to be nosy, but will you and Michelle be doing the same?)
c. Wait until Americans come to their senses and vote you out of office?
Thank you for your answer.
With all due deference,
Your hot and obedient servant,
Craig J. Cantoni
An author and columnist, the sweltering Mr. Cantoni can be reached poolside at email@example.com.
Lessons from the Horsemiddle
by Mark Yannone
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Hazards in food cause an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year, most of which are never reported to public health officials. These illnesses cost American taxpayers approximately $6.9 billion annually in medical costs, hospitalizations, and lost work time according to the Economic Research Service (USDA)."
A large part of the estimated cost is the lost productivity due to premature death.
To illustrate, as of 2008 the total cost of getting sick from food-borne salmonellosis goes like this (per case):
If you do nothing and survive: $52
If you go to a doctor and survive: $536
If you go to a hospital and survive: $11,072
If you go to a hospital and die: $5,633,181
The productivity component of the cost varies with the treatment:
If you do nothing and survive: 100%
If you go to a doctor and survive: 32.4%
If you go to a hospital and survive: 4.2%
If you go to a hospital and die: 99.8%
So, the medical cost of getting sick looks like this (per case):
If you do nothing and survive: $0
If you go to a doctor and survive: $362
If you go to a hospital and survive: $10,602
If you go to a hospital and die: $9,609
Find a cheap doctor who will give you a cash discount.
If you go to a hospital, you'd better hope you die there; you'll save $1,000.
Food hazard statistics
Saturday, July 11, 2009
by Mark Yannone
Attorney Leo Donofrio explains the authority, the options, and the preferred application of quo warranto to the removal of a federal usurper, namely Barack Hussein Obama, also known as Barry Soetoro. (Toggle Full Screen view, then zoom in for easy reading.)
Quo Warranto Legal Brief
Does that mean the quo warranto could end up before this moron [Judge James Robertson] in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who said in his order dismissing Hollister v. Soetoro, "The issue of the President's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency ..."?
Hopefully not. That US District Court has a chief justice and three other senior judges, not to mention a slew of associate justices who could hear the case. I don't think there's a statutory requirement that a quo warranto case must be heard by a moron, but I could be wrong. ~ mjy
Chief Justice Royce Lamberth, senior judges Louis Oberdorfer, Thomas Hogan, Gladys Kessler, James Robertson
See also: Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Update: US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns (May 28, 2009)
See also: Natural Born Citizen
Thursday, July 09, 2009
by Mark Yannone
As you watch your life disintegrate before your eyes, you might wonder whether the worthlessness of the American dollar -- that currency that is backed only by paper, ink, and deadly force -- is responsible for America's greatest economic depression. To a large extent it is, but the story is bigger than that. Walter Burien explains by revealing what he found.
The Biggest Game in Town
Should I be ashamed for not defending my mom from the Angel of Death?
by Craig J. Cantoni
The following is a fictional but realistic scenario of things to come.
My 88-year-old mom needs surgery to extend her life and not live in pain. However, she is worried about spending part of her savings on the surgery instead of leaving the money for her grandson as part of her small estate. In a family meeting on the issue, I tell her to go ahead with the procedure, because, after all, she had scrimped and saved money for all the years of working as a secretary and clerk in order to have money for the infirmities of old age.
Then, something frightening happens: A man in an expensive suit and a toothy grin barges into the house and exclaims, "You're not spending your money, Mrs. Cantoni, for surgery at your age. Instead, I'm taking your money and giving it to someone more deserving."
Confused and scared, my mom responds, "Are … uh … are you giving it to my grandson?"
"No! I'm giving it to your neighbor for his medical expenses. He's younger and will get a longer payoff for the money."
Seeing my mother trembling and crying, I become more enraged than I've ever been in my life.
"You bastard!" I yell to the intruder. "You can't be serious that you're going to take my mom's money and give it to that ne'er-do-well fat-ass next door, the same guy who has sired four kids out of wedlock with three different women, and who has spent every penny he's ever made on cars, ATV's, big-screen TVs, gambling, cigarettes, and big buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken."
"Yeah, that's the guy," says the intruder. "The Medical Rationing Board has determined that he needs the money more than your mother does. In fact, he needs triple-bypass surgery from years of eating finger-licking-good chicken."
"Who the f**k is the Medical Rationing Board?" I ask incredulously.
"They are esteemed physicians who have been selected by me to make these decisions."
"What about their Hippocratic oath?" I ask rhetorically. Then I say, "This is right out of the Third Reich. I suppose that the chairman of the Medical Rationing Board is Dr. Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death of concentration camp fame."
The intruder smiles and smugly says, "That's really over the top, and I'll use your words to demonize you as a right-wing extremist."
With that, I reach into my desk drawer, grab my .38 pistol, point it at the intruder, and say, "Leave this house immediately."
Laughing, the intruder tells me to look out the front window. "There are thousands of armed agents waiting outside to take that gun away from you and put you in jail for the rest of your life for being against the common good."
Not only do I realize that the situation is hopeless, but I also know that I never had any intention of shooting the thief. After all, the United States is a nation of laws, most of which are moral laws but some of which are immoral ones, such as the new nationalized health care law. Still, I say to myself in clichés, the law is the law, and violence begets violence.
Throwing the gun down, I say, "Okay, you win. But could you at least tell me your name?"
"Yes, I am the god who determines who lives and dies. My name is Barack Obama."
An author and columnist with an 88-year-old mother, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Obama's 'natural born' problem persists
by Linda Bentley
Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial
CAMDEN, NJ – Charles F. Kerchner Jr., CDR USNR Retired, the lead plaintiff in a pending lawsuit against President Barack Hussein Obama and Congress in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, placed a full-page educational ad in the Monday, June 6 edition of the The Washington Times calling Obama a usurper and containing an explanation by his Attorney Mario Apuzzo why Obama is not an Article II "natural born" citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.
If Obama's father was who Obama claims he was in his book Dreams from my Father, then Obama was a British subject at birth, as he has also admitted.
Because Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, an immigrant, or a permanent resident alien but a citizen of Kenya, which was under British rule at the time of Obama's birth, depending upon where Obama was born, he was either a British citizen or a dual national at birth. In either event, he does not qualify under the "natural born" citizen requirement to be President.
According to The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, Section 212, "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
Apuzzo states, "Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship from birth only for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group."
He said, "It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences, which, because of conflict of conscience, can most certainly taint his critical decisions made while leading the nation."
Apuzzo says it's also important to understand naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and, by law, changes that alien's birth status.
Naturalization, by legal definition, requires sole allegiance to the United States, recreates the individual as though he were born a citizen but only does it by law and not by nature.
"This is the reason the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a 'citizen' of the United States and not a 'natural born citizen' of the United States," said Apuzzo.
In conclusion, he stated, "The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of survival of the Constitutional Republic, the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free from foreign influence and intrigue. It is the 'natural born citizen' clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come.
American people do not have the constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military."
The defendants in Kerchner's case filed a motion to dismiss, citing the plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction and standing while claiming the congressional defendants are immune from suit via sovereign immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity.
Apuzzo noted in his blog update, "The defendants took over four months to file their motion. I was only given two weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a two-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss," adding, "I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks."
The issue of sovereign immunity, which was also asserted by the Department of Justice in its motion to dismiss the warrantless wiretapping case Jewel v. NSA, should prove to be interesting.
Sovereign immunity is apparently an unwritten carryover from early English law and has been used in an array of situations with rulings that vary widely. However, as some legal sources note, federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial.
In granting defendants additional time to respond, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider stated, "Plaintiffs' complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests," leaving an impression his court may actually get to the merits of the case.
Kerchner is requesting financial assistance for this lawsuit, asking interested parties to contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Ave
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Copyright © 2009 Sonoran News
Finally, a reader who doesn't think I'm excrement
by Craig J. Cantoni
After writing two books and at least a thousand political essays and newspaper columns in favor of individual rights and in opposition to statism, collectivism, and militarism, I've learned from readers on the Left and Right that I'm a simpleton, a jerk, an ideologue, a peacenik, a warmonger, a utopian, an anarchist, and various kinds of excrement. Unfortunately, I haven't learned anything of substance from 99 percent of readers who have disagreed with me. That's why I'm sharing the email below with you. It's from a left-liberal who actually didn't resort to name-calling and wanted to begin an intelligent dialogue.
My response follows her email. And following my response is a link to the original newspaper editorial that triggered her email.
I haven't looked into your bio or your location, but I've been reading your editorial letters in the Sonoran News pretty steadily. The Sonoran News is a local paper that is published by Don Sorchych and covers the earth trembling news that occurs in Cave Creek and Carefree, Arizona.
I was raised Irish Catholic on Chicago's South Side, became a left-wing radical during the 60s, and now consider myself a left-Libertarian. I even took a test online a few months ago, sent to me by my brother in Portland who is a center/right Republican [we agree to disagree] and the test confirmed that I am a LL.
I just read your latest editorial column about Obama's statement that a government should represent the "will of the people." You made some dynamic points, arguing that the ultimate "will" should be that of the individual, using slavery in the South as a stunning example. In theory I agree. This can get into some hairy concepts, however.
Take a manufacturing enterprise. The owner pays the workers the least he can get away with. He knows he has to pay them enough for them to stay, but also as minimally as possible to make his profit. The worker wants to make enough to feed his family and have a little bit left for some pleasures.
The owner is an individual. But each worker is also an individual. Is the right of the company owner more or less or equal to the rights of the worker? Not "the workers." The worker. I've always been offended by the term "masses." The working class "masses." The word suggests some faceless collection of morons which labors mindlessly and lives mindlessly.
This idea, the right, or autonomy, of the individual [which I agree with!] in my opinion, presents more conflicts than solutions. Each of us human beings looks out from our own eyes at the rest of the universe. The universe, in our own perception, revolves around each of us. I am "me," an entity. You are "you," an entity. My individuality is precious to me, as each of our individualities is precious to each of us. The starving child in Namibia is seeing the universe through his eyes, and that is all he knows. He must survive. It's an imperative of living things.
I smoke. I hate it that now I can't smoke in restaurants or bars. Soon I may be given a ticket for smoking in a car with children. This is how I feel as an individual. My freedom to smoke is being diminished every day. But there are people who are sickened by the smell of smoke. They are also individuals. They have, for years, avoided places where smoking was allowed because it made them nauseous. So they fought back. And now we have more laws. What is right and what is wrong? Whose "right" is right?
And here is the ultimate problem. How do the smoker and the non-smoker resolve their differences without laws? How do the worker and the owner resolve their conflicts about pay and benefits without rules? The days of a "handshake" are over. My stepfather, an old-time plumber [and he taught me the trade which I've been doing for 26 years] made all his "deals" with a handshake. Now there are lawyers with contracts to sign. How do we get back to the old ways?
I don't have any solutions. I truly respect your ideas. I love reading what you write! I ponder all these questions every day. About six months ago our local publisher, Sorchych, was using the term "anarchist" as a slam against all the people he disagreed with. This person, that person, they were all "anarchists."
I finally wrote a letter to the editor one week, the same week he printed an article by you explaining the philosophy of Libertarianism. I pointed out, in my letter, that anarchism is just one step away from Libertarianism. I told him that he was misusing the term. He never used it again.
You don't need to reply to this if you don't have time. I only wanted to express some thoughts to you. Your columns are very thought-provoking.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for writing. I enjoy philosophical discussions with intelligent people. Let me address the points in your email, starting with the things we have in common.
We've both lived in Chicago, we both believe in civil liberties, we both care about the poor, and we both are Catholic.
Regarding Catholicism, my son just finished 12 years of Catholic education and is the third generation of the Cantoni clan to do so. Like me and my parents, he learned moral values and service to others from his Catholic education. On the negative side, his teachers tried to indoctrinate him in Catholic notions of social justice, but he is too versed in economics to fall for communitarian ideas that keep people in poverty. Of course, there also is the staggering hypocrisy of the Pope and College of Cardinals, who preach about the poor and live in splendor. Hmm, reminds me of Nancy Pelosi and other members of our House of Lords.
Here's where we'll probably part company: Private school taught my son and me how socialism, or collectivism, stops people from thinking or caring about fairness to the individual. This is especially true for public education. To wit, even the most diehard conservatives and free marketers send their kids to public schools and don't stop to think that they are being subsidized by childless taxpayers, by homeschoolers, and by parents who send their kids to private school. The subsidy is huge: In the case of my wife and me, about $190,000 in public education taxes will be taken from us over our adult lives. It's one thing to subsidize the poor, but it's an entirely different matter to subsidize middle- and upper-class parents who can afford to pay the full cost of their children's education. (We support an orphan at a Catholic orphanage and school in southern Mexico.) By going to Catholic school, my son realized on his own that our neighbors could afford big SUVs and we couldn't, because their kids went to public school. In a very real sense, we were buying their SUVs. More important, it goes against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion for people to have to pay twice for education, once in public school taxes and once in private tuition, in order to have their children escape secular schools for religious ones.
Now with the advent of nationalized health care, people will have to pay twice if they want medical care that isn't authorized by the state system. Perhaps the aforementioned diehard conservatives and free marketers will come to understand what it's like to pay twice. Again, it's one thing to subsidize the health care of the poor; it's another matter to subsidize the health care of those who have bought fancy cars and lived high off the credit hog all of their lives instead of saving for the infirmities of old age. Socialized medicine will make no distinctions between the two, just like socialized education makes no distinction between the two.
Regarding anarchism and libertarianism, the two are not synonymous. Anarchism is the absence of government. Libertarianism is a belief that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Libertarians want a government that is strong enough to do that.
I was particularly intrigued by your comments about employers wanting to set wages as low as possible. Why was I intrigued? Not only because of my philosophical interest in the subject, but also because I have 30 years of experience in setting wages in industry.
Wages are ultimately determined by productivity at the level of the individual, the firm, and the nation -- the higher the productivity of the individual, the higher his wage; the higher the productivity of the firm, the higher the wages in the firm; the higher the productivity of the nation, the higher the per-capita income of its citizens. Henry Ford paid his workers double the prevailing factory wage, not for altruistic reasons, but for the practical reason that it reduced employee turnover and increased productivity.
Karl Marx has been proven wrong about capitalism leading to subsistence wages. Even in communist countries, wages are ultimately set by productivity. Of course, productivity stinks in communist countries.
I've probably worked for, and consulted with, over 50 companies. Not one of them exploited employees or wanted to pay as little as possible. To the contrary, they wanted to pay as much as productivity would allow -- and also what the consumer would allow. Of course, the owners expected a return, or profit, for risking their capital; otherwise, they wouldn't have started the business in the first place.
Incidentally, the average profit for all businesses is 5-6 percent, which is a small price to pay for the benefits of a market economy. That's much less than the cost of government apparatchiks in a planned economy.
I'd be interested in how you think pay should be determined.
Regarding smoking, two principles come into play: First, you should be free to do anything you want as long as it doesn't harm others who have no choice in the matter. Second, you should be free to do anything you want on your property as long as it doesn't harm others who have no choice in the matter. Clearly, allowing smoking on such private property as a restaurant or bar doesn't harm people who have no choice in the matter [because everyone chose to be there]. To be harmed by smoke in a restaurant or bar (assuming that second-hand smoke is harmful) someone has to voluntarily walk into the establishment. He has a choice: patronize the smoking establishment or patronize a non-smoking establishment. Somehow, Americans have come to believe that freedom is synonymous with convenience -- that they shouldn't have to make choices and be inconvenienced. They've also become busybodies domestically and internationally, wanting to tell others how to live -- namely in their own narcissistic image.
Read Craig J. Cantoni's newspaper editorial that prompted the exchange.
An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at email@example.com.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Natural Born Citizen, explained
by Mark Yannone
On Monday, July 6, The Washington Times carried a full-page "advertorial" written by Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Paid for by Charles F. Kerchner Jr., lead plaintiff in the active case of Kerchner et al v. Obama and Congress et al, the 1100-word document reveals the law that prohibits an Obama presidency.
"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."
"Natural born Citizen status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization."
The explanation and logic are clear and unmistakable, even to those who have difficulty setting aside their irrational emotions and manias. Only the ability to read English with moderate comprehension, and the willingness to do so, are required. Click the advertorial to read it.
Obama is ineligible to be president by his own admissions
See also: Kenneth Allen's FOIA request for passports
See also: The voiding and removal of Barack Obama
See also: Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Monday, July 06, 2009
You're Not the Boss of Me!
July 4 version
by Larken Rose
Delivered to a crowd of July 4 celebrants before Philadelphia's Independence Hall
Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, in Philadelphia, a bunch of guys got together and wrote a letter to their king. The letter was very eloquent and well thought out, but it basically boiled down to this:
Dear King George,That's essentially what the Declaration of Independence was: a bunch of radicals declaring that they would no longer recognize the right of their king to rule them, at all, ever again. They went on to create a new boss, which turned into a new oppressor, but we'll get to that in a moment. First, let's consider the essence of that attitude: "You're not the boss of me!"
You're not the boss of us!
A Bunch of Troublemakers
This July 4, like every year, millions of Americans are celebrating Independence Day with various parades, picnics, fireworks, and so on. But how many of those people celebrating have ever actually considered what the Declaration was actually about and what the colonists actually did? The colonists did not merely beg the king to change his ways. In fact, the Declaration explains how they had tried that, to no avail. Instead, the colonists were doing something far more drastic.
In short, they committed treason. They broke the law. They disobeyed their government. They were traitors, criminals, and tax cheats. The Boston Tea Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness. Furthermore, truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers. At Lexington, when King George's "law enforcers" told the colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, "No, you're not the boss of us!" (Well, that was the meaning, if not the exact verbiage.) And so we had "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.
Looking back now, we know the outcome. We know who eventually won, and we don't mind cheering for the rebels. But make no mistake: when you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for law-breakers and traitors. As well you should. But, for all the flag-waving and celebrating that goes on every July 4, do Americans actually believe in what the colonists did? Do they really believe in the attitude expressed in the Declaration of Independence? Are they really still capable of supporting a mantra of "You're not the boss of me!"?
In, short, no. Imagine the equivalent of what the colonists did so many years ago being done today. Imagine a group of people writing a letter to the United States government, sending a letter to Congress and to the President, saying that they would no longer pay federal taxes, that they would no longer obey federal laws, and that they would resist -- by force, if necessary -- any attempt by federal agents to enforce those laws. How would a group that did such things be viewed today by most Americans?
They would be viewed as nut cases, scofflaws, and terrorists, despicable criminals and malcontents. They would be scorned as the scum of the earth, despised by just about everyone who today celebrates Independence Day.
So why the double standard? Why would the American public today condemn the very same attitudes and behaviors that they glorify and praise in the context of the American Revolution? Quite simply, it's because, for all the proud talk of "land of the free and home of the brave," the spirit of resistance -- the courage to say "You're not the boss of us!" -- has been trained out of the American people.
We have become a nation of wimps.
For years and years in the churches and schools, on the news, in the media, and from everywhere around us, we have been taught one thing above all else: that obedience to authority is the highest virtue, and that disobedience is the worst sin. As a result, even most of those who now claim to be zealous advocates for individual rights and personal liberty will almost always couch their "demands" with disclaimers that, of course, their efforts for justice will be done "within the system," and that they would never advocate anything "illegal." They claim to be devout proponents of freedom, and yet all they ever do is seek a political solution, whether through lobbying of politicians, elections, or other government-approved means.
Of course, government never approves of anything that might actually endanger government power. As the bumper sticker says, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." And why should civilized people assume that change must be done "legally" and "within the system"? That is obviously not what the Declaration of Independence was about. In fact, the Declaration states quite plainly that when a government ceases to be a protector of individual liberty, it is not only the right, but the duty of the people to alter or abolish that form of government. In other words, when the government becomes an oppressor, instead of a protector -- as is obviously the case today -- the people are morally obligated to adopt an attitude of, "You're not the boss of us!"
So how many Americans are doing that? Almost none. Instead, even the most vocal critics of corruption and injustice usually do little more than bang their heads against a brick wall, begging, in half a dozen different ways, for the tyrants to please be nicer to us. Meanwhile, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from people like me, for fear of what the general public might think of them. As a result, I believe the general public and those in government view them pretty much as I view them: as harmless and irrelevant conformists, destined to forever beg for freedom and never achieve it.
Make no mistake, begging and whining is not what the Declaration of Independence was about. It was about breaking the law when the law is unjust. It was about committing treason when the rulers became oppressive. It was about disobedience -- civil disobedience when effective, and not-so-civil disobedience when necessary. It was about open resistance, including violent resistance when called for.
So where is that attitude today? Where is the candidate advocating such a thing? Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams -- where are the modern equivalents? For all the whining about extremists, where are those willing to openly resist injustice? Not only don't most Americans believe in resisting tyranny, they feel extremely uncomfortable just hearing others talk about it, even in abstract terms -- like this.
Maybe it's just that we're not quite at the level of oppression to justify resistance. Is that it? Hardly. If two or three percent taxation justified rebellion in 1776, why doesn't 50 percent taxation justify it now? If a few puny excise taxes on tea and pieces of paper justified it then, why don't the myriad of unavoidable, crushing taxes at all levels, and the hordes of callous, vindictive tax collectors justify it now? If the relatively unusual cases of Redcoats abusing colonists justified it then, why doesn't it justify it when American police see no problem with randomly stopping, detaining, interrogating, and searching anyone they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all?
Does anyone think Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would quietly allow himself to be strip-searched, and allow his belongings to be rummaged through, by some brain-dead TSA thug? Read the Fourth Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing.
Does anyone think that Patrick Henry would take kindly to being robbed blind to pay for whatever war-mongering the politicians wanted to engage in this week? Read what the Founders said about standing armies. They had a revolution over that sort of thing.
Do you think James Madison would go along with being disarmed by the various state and federal control freaks? Read the Second Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing.
Do you think George Washington would be happy to have both his earnings and savings constantly looted by a parasite class, to pay for all manner of wealth redistribution, political handouts, and other socialist garbage? Do you think Thomas Paine would gladly be extorted to give all his money to some giant, failed corporation or some huge international bank? Do you think the founders would have quietly gone along with what this country has become today? Do you think they would have done nothing more than vote or whine?
Well, the founders are dead. And, unfortunately, so is their spirit of resistance. In short, just about all of the flag-waving and celebrating that happens every July 4 is nothing but empty hypocrisy. How many Americans today can say, loudly and proudly, like they mean it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or, at least, in the modern vernacular, "You're not the boss of me!"?
In this nation that imagines itself to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where are those who dare to resist or even dare to talk about it? And I don't mean voting, or whining to your congressman, or begging your masters to not whip you so hard. I'm talking about resisting, refusing to obey.
America, where is your Independence Day pride now? Exactly what are you proud of?
I have a message for you, from a guy named Sam -- Samuel Adams, that is. Yeah, the beer guy. But he did a little more for this country than make beer. Here is his message:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."When's the last time you heard a modern so-called "statesman" say something like that?
So what happened? When did Americans lose their ability to say, "You're not the boss of me," and why? Yes, most people are scared, and for good reason. With the capacity for violence of the current police state, and the willingness of the politicians and their thugs to crush anyone who threatens their power, everyone has to choose his battles carefully and decide for himself what he's willing to risk, what is worth fighting for and what isn't.
That makes sense, but there is more to it than just fear. Because not only won't most Americans resist, but they will condemn anyone who does. If you do what the founders did, most people in this country would call you a tax cheat, a malcontent, a criminal, a traitor, even a terrorist. Why? Why do Americans now vehemently condemn those who say and do exactly what the Founders did a couple hundred years ago? When did our priorities and view of the world change so drastically, and why?
I'll tell you why. Gradually, and very systematically, we have been trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term "law-abiding taxpayer." How many people wear that label as a badge of honor? "I am a law-abiding taxpayer!" When they say that, they mean "I'm a good person." But is that what it really means?
Well, "law-abiding" just means that you do whatever the politicians tell you to do. We speak with great reverence of this thing called "the law," as if it is the decree of the gods, which no decent human being would dare to disobey. But what is it really? It's whatever the politicians decide to command you to do. Why on earth would anyone think that obedience to a bunch of liars and crooks is some profound moral obligation? Is there any reason for us to treat with reverence such commands and demands? No rational reason, no. The only reason we do it is because we have been trained to do it.
Some might point out that obeying the laws against theft and murder is a good thing to do. Well, yes and no. It is good to refrain from committing theft and murder, but it is not because "the law" says so. It is because theft and murder are inherently wrong, as they infringe upon the rights of others. And that was true before any politician passed a "law" about it, and will be true even if they "legalize" theft and murder (as every government has done, in the name of "taxation" and "war"). What is right and wrong does not at all depend upon what is "legal" or "illegal." And if you need politicians to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you need your head examined. Instead, you should judge the validity of so-called "laws" by whether they match what is inherently right and wrong. Thomas Jefferson put it this way:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
So why should anyone be proud of being "law-abiding," when all it means is blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the parasite class spews out this week? And pride in being a "taxpayer" is no better, since all that phrase means is that you give the politicians lots of money. When, exactly, did obeying politicians and giving them money become the measure of whether you're a good person?
Consider Nazi Germany. Were the law-abiding taxpayers in Nazi Germany the good guys? No. By obeying the so-called "laws" of that time, the majority allowed, or even assisted in, a nearly incomprehensible level of evil. And by being "taxpayers," they provided the funding for it. No, the good people in Germany were the criminals and tax cheats, who refused to assist, even passively, in the oppressions done in the name of "government."
The same is true under the regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro -- you can go right down the list (and it's a very long list). Under every nasty regime in history, the obedient subjects who quietly did as they were told, the law-abiding taxpayers, were not the good guys. The law-breakers and rebels, the so-called traitors and terrorists, those were the good guys. How about in this country, when slavery was legal? The cowards were the ones obeying the law, while the good guys broke it.
How about here, today? Is it good to fund what the government is doing? Do you have some moral obligation to give your "fair share" of however many thousands of dollars, so Obama can give it to his banker buddies? Is it noble to fund whatever war the politicians decide to engage in this week? Do you like paying for the detention and torture of people who haven't been convicted, or even charged with any crime? (By the way, instead of doing away with that, Obama just gave it a new name: preventative detention.) Is it some great virtue to have helped to finance the police state growing up all around you, on both the federal and state levels? In short, is being a "law-abiding taxpayer" really something you should be proud of, or is it something you should be ashamed of?
Over time we have forgotten a very important secret -- a secret the control freaks don't want you to know -- a secret some of the Founders hinted at, though even most of them didn't seem to fully grasp it. Ready for it?
You own yourself.
You are not the property of the politicians, or anyone else. I own me, and you own you. Each of you owns himself. Sounds simple enough, right? And most people respond with, "Well duh, of course. That's no secret. We knew that." But in reality most people don't know that.
If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your consent, the fruits of your labor -- what you earn, with your time and effort? Does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of course not, most will answer.
Really? And what if they call it "taxation"?
"Oh, well, that's different."
No, it isn't.
If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to force you to pay rent for a house you already paid for, under threat of taking your house away? Of course not.
What if they call it "property taxes"?
"Oh, that's different."
No, it isn't.
And you can go right down the list: if you truly own yourself, the vast majority of so-called "laws," at all levels, are absolutely illegitimate. As Jefferson put it, any so-called "law" that infringes upon individual liberty -- which is dang near all of them -- is inherently bogus.
But let's take it one step further. If you own yourself -- your life, liberty, and property -- doesn't that imply that you have the right to defend those things from any and all aggressors? Yes. What if the aggressors call themselves "government" and call their attacks and robberies "law" and "taxes"? You still have the right. Changing the name of an act cannot make something bad into something good. And if you have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property from all aggressors, it stands to reason that you have the right to equip yourself to do so. In other words, you have the right to be armed -- the right to possess the equipment to exert whatever force is necessary to repel any attempts to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty, and property.
I know it makes people uncomfortable (especially people who work for the government) when I say the following: I want every sane, adult American to have the ability to use force, including deadly force, against government agents. I don't want people randomly gunning down cops, but I do want the people to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government. The very concept bothers a lot of people, but what is the alternative? The alternative is something a lot scarier: that the people should not have the means to resist their own government.
But, once again, even most people who claim to be vehemently pro-freedom, don't like to talk about what that really means. Many "gun rights" organizations, for example, go to great lengths to beg the politicians to let them remain armed. Why? At Lexington, when the British troops told the colonists to lay down their weapons, what was the response? Did the colonists say, "Aw, can't we keep them, pretty please?" No, they had a very different attitude, something along the lines of, "You're not the boss of us!"
If you own yourself -- and this is a big one -- it is not only your right but your most profound obligation as a human being to judge for yourself what is right and wrong and to act accordingly. But what if people claiming to be "authority" want to force you to do something contrary to what you deem to be right? Do you have an obligation to obey them and ignore your own conscience? No. What if their threats are called "legislation"? It makes no difference.
You are always, at all times, in every situation, obligated to do what you deem right, no matter what so-called "government" and "authority" and "law" have to say about it. And when the tyrants and control freaks, authoritarian thugs and megalomaniacs, try to tell you that you are an evil, nasty, despicable criminal and traitor for daring to think for yourself, you have a right and duty to stand firm and say with confidence, "You are not the boss of me!"