Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - TomTomKlub

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
The World Below / Constitution Rewrite Only 2 States Away!
« on: December 12, 2008, 09:15:31 AM »
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'

Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

"The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention," the alert said. "If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution."

DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.

State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.

According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Read how today's America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I`d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here:

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.

"We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further 'modify' Article V restrictions to suit its purpose," the center warning said.

The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.

"However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution," the site said.

American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

"This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme," the policy center said. "The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. `¦ Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new 'collective' rights, awarded and enforced by government for the 'common good.'

"And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it," the center said.

A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, "our worst nightmare in an age when you've got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns `¦ all of these U.N. treaties `¦ and controls on how we raise our children."

"When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it," he said.

American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

The World Below / Obama Vs. Constitution (60 Sec. TV Ad)
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:38:52 AM »

- embedded the video

1 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Nov.10.2008 @ 7:40 am | Lasted edited: Nov.10.2008 @ 12:22 pm


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc


On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution. 

Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason.  (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.

While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama`˜s birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma.  Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.

The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd. 

Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.

Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the "natural born citizen" issue.  Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the "natural born citizen" test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President. 

The action was brought as a "Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs" (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ.  An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief.  The Appellate Division case generated the following documents:

NJ Appellate Division Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief

Judge Sabatino's initial response

Supplemental Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief

Fax letter to all parties regarding schedule for submitting briefs

Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs

Letter to Judge Sabatino re: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment, Counts 1and 2

NJ Attorney General's reply brief for Secretary of State Wells

Judge Sabatino's Opinion and Order, 5 pages

Plaintiff then submitted the case on an emergency basis to the New Jersey Supreme Court where a staff attorney reviewed it, requested 10 copies each of the Motion and 75 page appendix, and informed Plaintiff that a Supreme Court Justice would review it immediately with three possible scenarios unfolding:

- the Supreme Court Justice could grant the application on their own

- the Supreme Court Justice could deny the application on their own

- the Supreme Court Justice could call in the other Justices to review the case

Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was informed by telephone that his papers were in order and that other Justices of the Supreme Court had been brought in to discuss the case.

Regardless, later that afternoon, the application for emergency relief was denied. 

However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court's five page opinion `“ such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented `“ and relied upon "Movant's Papers" which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.

Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:

"This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied."

This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review.  Since "Movant's papers" are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.

Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the "national election".  Plaintiff's terminology is of vital importance here.  Plaintiff's use of the term "national election" includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the electoral college process. 

Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008.  However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket. 

It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as "pending" on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction.  But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application. 

Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application.  Justice Suoter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit.

But now that Justice Suoter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.

A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application.  This letter will be available at this site before it is actually submitted to the SCOTUS.

Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court.  The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay.  That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election.  The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet. 

The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the "natural born issue" determined once and for all.  He didn't create a web site or request donations.  The suit is self financed. 

However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas. 

More to follow.  Developing.

« on: November 06, 2008, 08:25:03 PM »
Lots of links within the article, go to the url


By: Devvy
November 6, 2008

© 2008 -


"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain, Notebook, 1904

I'm not going to comment on the carefully orchestrated show put on yesterday by the media; that will be my next column. What a scam. As I have covered in previous columns, between dirty voting rolls, voter registration fraud, illegals voting and corrupted electronic voting machines and scanners, we have NO idea who was legally elected yesterday. I updated the compilation of vote fraud links; see here. There are more at the bottom.

There is still the unresolved issue of Obama providing a COLB - Certification of Live Birth - to prove he is a natural born citizen. Not a "birth certificate," but the COLB. The fact that this thug from Chicago refuses to provide this document since June, 2008, says it all. The second issue is if Obama were born in the U.S., but was automatically made an Indonesian citizen by virtue of his mother's marriage to her Indonesian husband and Obama's legal name change, he is ineligible to run for the presidency. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the highest office in the land.

Contrary to the propaganda spewed last night by the pimps who work for corporate media, Obama is not the next president. We need to remember how the system actually works:

The Electoral College:
November 5, 2004
Thomas H. Neale
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress

"When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive....

"It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November....

"Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win."

Until those electors meet on December 15, 2008, cast their vote and those votes are counted on January 6, 2009, Obama is not the next president.

Phil Berg's lawsuit is still active with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Andy Martin's lawsuit: The next hearing date is November 18, 2008.

I fully realize that Americans who haven't joined the Obama cult are stunned at what happened on Tuesday, but we must remember it was all in the game plan. I have used this metaphor before to describe the illusion of fair and impartial elections: It's like a student taking driving lessons. The first time out, the student gets the fake steering wheel while the instructor is actually controlling the vehicle. But, the fake steering wheel makes the student "feel" he has control and that perception is all important when evil forces take over a country. That's what we saw yesterday. The fact that Mcain conceded around 8:30 pm CST before half the states west of the Mississippi had even counted 20% of their votes, only confirms what millions of us already knew - he was the designated loser.

America took the single largest step towards becoming a communist nation in my life time with this alleged election of a Marxist-Leninist. In April, I began describing Obama as a Marxist. My mail box filled up with angry email insisting that Obama is a "progressive," liberal Democrat. This is the ignorance of a dumbed down population who have no idea what Marxism means: The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as developed into a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to communism. Redistribution of wealth is the major tenet of communism. It is also Obama's plan. Right up to the day before the election, a few braves souls in the media were finally referring to his real political ideology. Of course, Obama's cult followers immediately attempted to ridicule or slap them down.

It's easy to get depressed over last Tuesday. Don't. That's what the shadow government wants. We are warriors, not cry babies. I know the rage is blowing out there like a hot furnace, but the fight is not over. We're entering the next phase: the electors. We're also entering the most dangerous time in this nation's history since Lexington and Concord. Now isn't the time to throw in the towel. Now is the time to fight.

In my last column, I provided a link on auditing the vote and how to do it. The Democrats made vote fraud a national issue in 2000 and 2004. The Republican Party has never made vote fraud a national issue. Oh, sure, FAUX News Network and Lou Dobbs (CNN) pounded on it the past six weeks, but it's the Democrats who mobilized, ignored the vote fraud by their party and blamed it on all the Republicans. Yes, the last three presidential elections were rigged, but it was done by the forces who control the political system in this country and have for 40 years.

The pointing the finger exercise is a distraction. Just like the bull, the cape and the matador. Technology has simply made it easier than stuffing ballot boxes and having everyone in Chicago vote twice, including residents of their local cemeteries. Of course, now that a Democrat has allegedly "won" the White House by vote fraud, helped along by legions of ignorant, uninformed voters, some racists and those who voted for skin color only, they could care less about fairness in 2008.

Right now they're basking in their arrogance, but the wrath of the American people is just warming up. If Republican and 'third party' candidates who allegedly lost on Tuesday do not pursue catching the vote fraud in their election instead of just shrugging their shoulders and walking away, the destroyers win. Here is the link. I updated it slightly. Time is of the essence due to drop dead dates for certification. If you supported a candidate by a vote and/or working for their campaign, help them prove the fraud.

This is critical for all 434 seats in the House of Representatives (excluding Ron Paul). Here is the logic-free zone:

In 1994, voters were fed up with the communists, socialists and big spenders in Congress and "swept them out of power." In came the Republicans touting the farce called a 'Contract with America,' who bloated the budget and continued down the same path under a different label. They held power until November 2006. Voters wanted change! Voters wanted change so badly, they voted back in all the long time Democrats with a few "new" faces. In past two years a Democrat controlled Congress representing 'change' has done what? NOTHING except loot this country and continue funding the immoral, unconstitutional invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Americans were outraged over the rape and pillage called 'the bail out." A colossal failure that continues to drain the life blood of Americans. Yet, with the exception of 17 seats in the House and 5 in the unlawfully seated seated U.S. Senate, voters allegedly voted them all back into office on Tuesday! With the lowest approval rating in the history of the U.S. Congress, allegedly the American people once again rewarded these crooks by rehiring them and bringing in even more Democrats to join the grand larceny stealing the fruits of our labor! Quite a difference between from what polls indicated:

3 in 5 voters: Boot every congressman. 59 percent say they'd kick out all members of House, Senate. October 5, 2008: "If given the choice, a new poll reveals, 59 percent of Americans would sweep Capitol Hill clean of the current batch of senators and representatives to elect an entirely new Congress. Only 17 percent of voters polled said they would be willing to keep the current legislature."

Yesterday I filed four Freedom of Information Act requests and sent them over night mail. One: Illinois Secretary of State to obtain all documentation, applications, forms, electronic and hard copy, including proof of citizenship for Barack Hussein Obama for his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. I filed two with the U.S. State Department (1) Stanley Ann Dunham, married name Stanley Ann Obama to obtain her passport application and all travel records; departure and entry into the U.S. during the year 1961; and (2) Barack Obama, Sr., to obtain his travel records, entry and departure records for the year 1961. Four: I filed a State Records Act request with the University of Hawaii to obtain Stanley Ann Dunham, then married, Stanley Ann Obama's enrollment applications and list of classes, and any and all documentation regarding her departure from the University for good.

I also sent another letter over night mail to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, DC. This is a follow up to my letter of October 30, 2008. I enclosed a copy of the transcripts of the interviews in Kenya (see bottom links in this column), an article from regarding hundreds of millions of dollars illegally donated:

"In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack. That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor`s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

"For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, `Donors, Unitemized.`

"Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama`s donor list to identify those who apparently aren`t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis."

I reminded Burrus of the birth certificate issue and that he must investigate this while investigating possible violation of the wire fraud statute: 18 U.S.C. §1343. I reminded him of his oath of office and that this is not about politics or party loyalty, it's about the law. We cannot have an illegitimate president in the White House.

Please don't send me email about the FOIAs. I am aware documents can be forged or altered, but the truth will come out. Those who choose to participate in such unlawful activities will eventually get caught. I'm also aware of the uphill battle. However, my last FOIA against the FAA regarding 9/11 went to a lawsuit and I won. It is better to spend your time helping candidates prove vote fraud and with the plans regarding electoral college delegates.

Phil Berg is putting together the strategy for the electoral college delegates for all the states Obama allegedly won. This involves action before and on December 15, 2008, the date all electors meet at their state capitols to cast their votes for president and vice president. Remember: They are not bound to cast their vote for the candidate presented as a result of 'election day.' Electors who stand up for what is right are called "faithless." Does it ever happen? In 1976, a Republican elector in Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. This year we intend for it to be a landslide. What's right and for the good of our republic must trump worrying about staying in the good graces of some political party. Obama is gambling he can stall the birth certificate issue until coronation day and steal the White House under the idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law. We intend to stop him legally.

As soon as Phil has drafted his plan, I will get it into a column right away. I believe there are some other groups working on this issue and I hope they will join with Phil and let him be the central point of contact for this effort. That way we're all on the same sheet of music and it's done correctly. We will not get a second chance.

Presidential selection caucuses - how secure are they?
1-4-08: Eh? Iowa Republicans STILL missing 65 precincts in results
It isn't even a skillful magic show.

The Republican caucuses usually take only half as long as the Democratic caucuses, due to simpler procedures. Yet the Republicans are lagging behind the Democrats now by over TEN HOURS in having all their results in. Results delays are a red flag.

Alert CSPAN watchers caught TV screen shots of Giuliani vote totals going down by a couple thousand votes midstream in, I believe it was, Linn County. That needs a confirm; screen shot images were posted on various blogs, but if anyone recorded the coverage and can corroborate those screen shots, please let us know.

As many of us know, vote totals that go DOWN during the middle of the count can be an error, but also can signal an election theft tactic whereby votes from a candidate finishing very low in the pack are skimmed off and given to a favored candidate higher in the pack. If corroborated, the vote total shift will be another red flag.

And with the Republican race, I wouldn't look first at fraud in the number one position. I'd look for it in the area of repositioning candidates in the second through sixth spot.

- The delay in results is a red flag.
- The vote totals going down during the count is a red flag.
- The failure to release county results in live time, as promised in a Republican Party press release on Jan. 2, is a red flag.
- The failure to release precinct totals at all is a corrupt procedure. Note that the day before the caucuses, after much pressure, the Republicans did (belatedly) promise to release the precinct results on election night. They didn't.

In addition: I'm trying to get information on whether the public was kicked out of the room during hand counting in all locations, or just some.

I will be publishing some reports by caucus attendees in the "Front Lines" section later today.

There is absolutely no reason to consider any of the Republican caucus results to be credible.

I'm not saying they are wrong, I am saying the breakdown in checks and balances was stunning enough to call it not a magic show, but a bad magic show.

The World Below / URGENT ALERT - Hate Billl Moves Forward In Senate
« on: July 17, 2007, 10:16:59 AM »

By Rev. Ted Pike
Hoping to avoid detection from opponents in the religious right, Senators Edward Kennedy and Gordon Smith have quietly moved the federal hate crimes bill into the Senate. The Senate will vote, perhaps as early as this Tuesday on whether to include it as a "rider" on the huge federal defense bill, HR 1585. Now designated SA 2067, the new Senate hate bill is about half the length of the House version which passed the House earlier this year. But it gives its primary supporters, the Anti-Defamation League and the homosexual lobby, everything they need to end free speech in America, establishing a mammoth federal "thought crimes" bureaucracy as in Canada.
Lovers of free speech may have only one day, Monday, to persuade the Senate not to include the hate bill as a rider. If you value freedom for yourself and your children you must give top priority to calling your Senator first thing Monday morning!   
Call (1-877) 851-6437 toll free or (202) 225-3121 toll and tell your Senator: "Please don't attach Sen. Kennedy's hate crimes bill SA 2067 to the arms bill S 1585. Hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and many European countries. If you do vote for the hate bill, I and my friends will do our best to defeat you in the next election!"
Call many other Senators! Come to <> for lists of Senators who might be persuaded to vote against Kennedy and Smith's hate crimes amendment.
The hate bill needs 60 votes in order to be added to the arms bill. If we can pressure only a half dozen to vote against it, we can powerfully weaken the hate bills chance of passage. Yes, if the hate bill is defeated as an amendment, Kennedy and Smith may reintroduce it as "stand alone" legislation. Yet, having already suffered one rejection it would be much more difficult to pass. These conspirators want to move it through quickly, as "stealth" legislation. They are doing so over the weekend so that the religious right will not have time to fully mobilize on Monday. Let's not let them get away with it!
Call, and call again, Monday morning. Take action as if your freedom and that of your children depended on it - as it surely does.

General / You Can Stop America's Suicide
« on: May 21, 2007, 11:02:42 AM »

By Frosty Wooldridge

"No man in the wrong can stand up against a man in the right that keeps on a comin'." Captain McDonald, Texas Rangers.

On Thursday of last week, Senators Kennedy, John McCain, Jon Kyl, Mel Martinez, Arlen Spector, Lindsey Graham and others cut a deal to kill the United States of America.  They voted to end the rule of law, make lawlessness lawful and gave amnesty to 20 to 30 million illegal aliens.

In S.B. 1348, an unknown number of illegal aliens exceeding 20 million become legalized. They didn't cut in front of the line ahead of legal immigrants; they broke every law in our U.S. Constitution to commit anarchy against our nation.

Kennedy, Graham, Kyl and McCain degraded U.S. citizenship to that of a criminal. Put another way, they upgraded 20 million criminals to U.S. citizenship.

McCain and Kennedy gave us the 1986 amnesty. Kennedy said in 1986, "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this." It turned out to be 3.4 million. He did nothing to protect our borders. Again in 2007, Kennedy and McCain commit the same treason against our country again. They represent invading criminals, corporate criminals, sex offenders, human and drug traffickers while working against U.S. citizens. McCain and Kennedy prove traitors to the U.S. Constitution

In the process, they jumped legal immigration from one million to two million annually. They continued chain migration which will bring millions of those legal and illegal aliens' families into our country. They continued anchor babies. They did nothing to protect our borders whatsoever!

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, in an interview with Todd Hartley at said, "This bill would allow an estimated 103 million people into the United States in 20 years." The population numbers will drown our nation wit

Estimates for the cost of this amnesty exceed $3 trillion loaded onto the backs of American taxpayers.

Today, Monday, May 21, you can and you must change history. I'm talking millions of phone calls, faxes and emails to your two senators and call all the senators. Go to ; ; ; ; ; and use their faxes and phone number information. It took me less than three hours to reach 90 senators' aids by phone. The other ten, I left a message.

Remember: Three of the six foreign nationals who planned blowing up Ft. Dix a week ago were illegals. How many of the millions of illegals that the Senate wants to give legal status to are: Terrorists? Murderers? Rapists? Gang members?   

Oppose any bill that gives amnesty to illegals, including the new "compromise" bill!

If this bill passes, this country commits suicide by choice, by stupidity, by apathy, by insanity. Decide to become empowered BECAUSE of this moment in history. In their time, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison pressed forward. Betsy Ross stitched and Susan B. Anthony wrote. Dr. Martin Luther King marched and spoke. If you love this country, the future and your children, this is your time to take action.

You may say to the senator's aid on the phone, "Tell Senator (name) that I am against S.B.1348. No amnesty, no citizenship, no more anchor babies. No more chain migration for any immigrants. I want a 10 year moratorium on all immigration and 'attrition through enforcement' of all illegal aliens by prosecuting employers. I demand H.R. 4437 to stop illegal alien migration. I want my senator to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and my rights as a citizen." (add your own thoughts)


#1. Call your two Senators now toll free: 1-866-340-9281 or 1 800 828 0498 or 1 800 833 6354 - any time day/night/weekend

#2. FAX: a): will fax - or you FREE -fast and free signup-

b) If you have a fax machine, fax the Senate fax numbers below:

Key Senators to hammer:

Sen. Kyl (202) 224-4521

Sen. McCain (202) 224-2235

Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-5556

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 202-224-3135

Sen. Arlen Specter: 202-224-4254

Sen. Mel Martinez: 202-224-3041

Sen. Lindsay Graham: 202-224-5972

Minority Whip Trent Lott: 202-224-2708

#3 -- Forward this message to your friends, grandmothers, grandfathers, neighbors and co-workers;

#4 -- Sign petition: We want to deliver at least 600,000 petitions next week to the Senate:

# 5 Call them all. It took me 2.5 hours to call their offices and give them a piece of my mind on S.B. 1348. First-Last-Party-Address-Telephone--FAX

AK Ted Stevens R 522 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3004; 202-224-2354

AK Lisa Murkowski R 709 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6665; 202-224-5301

AL Richard Shelby R 110 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5744; 202-224-3416

AL Jeff Sessions R 335 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4124; 202-224-3149

AR Blanche Lincoln D 355 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-4843; 202-228-1371

AR Mark Pryor D 257 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-2353; 202-228-0908

AZ John McCain R 241 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2235; 202-228-2862

AZ Jon Kyl R 730 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4521; 202-224-2207

CA Dianne Feinstein D 331 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3841; 202-228-3954

CA Barbara Boxer D 112 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3553; 415-956-6701

CO Wayne Allard R 521 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-5941; 202-224-6471

CO Ken Salazar R 702 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5852 ;202-228-5036

CT Christopher Dodd D 448 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2823 ;202-224-1083

CT Joseph Lieberman D 706 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4041; 202-224-9750

DE Joseph Biden D 201 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5042; 202-224-0139

DE Thomas Carper D 513 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2441; 202-228-2190

FL Bill Nelson D 716 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5274; 202-228-2183

FL Mel Martinez R 317 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3041; 202-228-5171

GA Saxby Chambliss R 416 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3521; 202-224-0103

GA Johnny Isakson R 120 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3643; 202-228-0724

HI Daniel Inouye D 722 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3934 ;202-224-6747

HI Daniel Akaka D 141 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6361 ;202-224-2126

IA Chuck Grassley R 135 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3744 ;202-224-6020

IA Tom Harkin D 731 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3254 ;202-224-9369

ID Larry Craig R 520 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2752 ;202-228-1067

ID Mike Crapo R 239 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-6142; 202-228-1375

IL Richard Durbin D 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-2152; 202-228-0400

IL Barack Obama D 713 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2854 ;202-228-1372

IN Richard Lugar R 306 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4814; 202-228-0360

IN Evan Bayh D 463 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5623; 202-228-1377

KS Sam Brownback R 303 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6521; 202-228-1265

KS Pat Roberts R 109 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4774 ;202-224-3514

KY Mitch McConnell R 361A Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2541; 202-224-2499

KY Jim Bunning R 316 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4343 ;202-228-1373

LA Mary Landrieu D 724 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5824 ;202-224-9735

LA David Vitter R 516 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4623 ;202-228-5061

MA Edward Kennedy D 317 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4543; 202-224-2417

MA John Kerry D 304 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2742; 202-224-8525

MD Barbara Mikulski D 503 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4654 ;202-224-8858

MD Benjamin Cardin D B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-4524 ;202-224-1651

ME Olympia Snowe R 154 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5344; 202-224-1946

ME Susan Collins R 461 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-2523; 202-224-2693

MI Carl Levin D 269 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-6221; 202-224-1388

MI Debbie Stabenow D 133 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4822 ;202-228-0325

MN Norm Coleman R 320 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5641; 202-224-1152

MN Amy Klobuchar D C4 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3244; 202-228-2186

MO Christopher Bond R 274 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5721; 202-224-8149

MO Claire McCaskill D 825A Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6154; 202-228-1518

MS Thad Cochran R 113 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-5054; 202-224-9450

MS Trent Lott R 487 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-6253; 202-224-2262

MT Max Baucus D 511 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2651; 202-224-0515

MT Jon Tester D B40E Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-2644; 202-228-6363

NC Elizabeth Dole R 555 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-6342; 202-224-1100

NC Richard Burr R 217 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3154;202-228-2981

ND Kent Conrad D 530 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2043 ;202-224-7776

ND Byron Dorgan D 322 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2551; 202-224-1193

NE Charles Hagel R 248 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4224 ;202-224-5213

NE Benjamine Nelson D 720 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6551; 202-228-0012

NH Judd Gregg R 393 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3324; 202-224-4952

NH John Sununu R 111 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2841 ;202-228-4131

NJ Frank Lautenberg D 324 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3224; 202-225-4054

NJ Robert Menendez D 502 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4744 ;202-228-2197

NM Pete Domenici R 328 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6621; 202-228-3261

NM Jeff Bingaman D 703 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5521; 202-224-2852

NV Harry Reid D 528 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3542 ;202-224-7327

NV John Ensign R 356 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-6244 ;202-228-2193

NY Charles Schumer D 313 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6542; 202-228-3027

NY Hillary Clinton D 476 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4451; 202-228-0282

OH George Voinovich R 524 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3353 ;202-228-1382

OH Sherrod Brown D C5 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2315;202-224-6519

OK Jim Inhofe R 453 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4721 ;202-228-0380

OK Tom Coburn R 172 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5754 ;202-224-6008

OR Ron Wyden D 230 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-5244; 202-228-2717

OR Gordon Smith R 404 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3753; 202-228-3997

PA Arlen Specter R 711 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4254 ;202-228-1229

PA Bob Casey D B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-6324; 202-228-0604

RI Jack Reed D 728 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-4642; 202-224-4680

RI Sheldon Whitehouse D B40D Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-2921 ;202-228-6362

SC Lindsey Graham R 290 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5972; 202-224-3808

SC Jim DeMint R 340 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-6121 ;202-228-5143

SD Tim Johnson D 136 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5842 ;202-228-5765

SD John Thune R 383 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2321 ;202-228-5429

TN Lamar Alexander R 302 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-4944; 202-228-3398

TN Bob Corker R B40A Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-3344 ;202-228-1264

TX Kay Hutchison R 284 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5922 ;202-224-0776

TX John Cornyn R 517 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-2934 ;202-228-2856

UT Orrin Hatch R 104 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5251; 202-224-6331

UT Robert Bennett R 431 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-5444 ;202-228-1168

VA John Warner R 225 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2023; 202-224-6295

VA James Webb D C1 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4024; 202-224-5432

VT Patrick Leahy D 433 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-4242; 202-224-3479

VT Sanders Bernard I C2 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-5141; 202-228-0776

WA Patty Murray D 173 Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-2621; 202-224-0238

WA Maria Cantwell D 717 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3441; 202-228-0514

WI Herb Kohl D 330 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5653;202-224-9787

WI Russell Feingold D 506 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-5323 ;202-224-2725

WV Robert Byrd D 311 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-3954 ;202-228-0002

WV John Rockefeller D 531 Hart Senate Office Building 202-224-6472 ;202-224-7665

WY Craig Thomas R 307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 202-224-6441 ;202-224-1724

WY Mike Enzi R 379A Russell Senate Office Building 202-224-3424;202-228-0359

In the darkest hour with Great Britain being bombed to death in WWII, Winston Churchil said, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty-never give in--except to convictions of honor and good sense."

If he and the citizens of Great Britain could do it, you better believe we can do it.

No men like Kennedy, McCain, Graham or Specter in the wrong can stand up against American citizens in the right that keep on comin'. Let's git 'er done for America.


What you can do for a better future for your country:

A republican form of government is not a spectator sport. It means you must jump in, roll up you sleeves and take personal and collective action. Of course, you could let a dictator take over and do everything for you, but that path would give you Cuba, China, North Korea and other unsavory examples.


To stop Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from giving an amnesty, take action.

CALL Nancy Pelosi: Washington, DC - (202) 225-4965

San Francisco, CA - (415) 556-4862 ; Email Nancy Pelosi ; Email form for Nancy Pelosi;


Senator Harry Reid: 202 224 3121 in Washington DC

775 686 5750 in Reno, NV;

George Bush

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard for live listener: 202 456 1414

Fax: 202-456-2461

We must 'sour the milk.' Bring out your points in the call:


1. America cannot support another 100 million people added to our country in 34 years, i.e., water crisis, resource depletion, air pollution, gridlock, loss of quality of life, etc.

2. America cannot support lawbreakers being given citizenship.

3. America must maintain our English language.

4. America wants only legal immigrants who play by the rules and speak English.

5. America's working poor deserve a chance at jobs taken by illegals.

6. America already has too many people and I support a 10 year moratorium on all immigration.

7. Americans must maintain our schools for our children.

8. We can no longer tolerate 350,000 birthright citizens (anchor babies) annually that subtract from our own citizens.

9. Attrition through enforcement by stopping their ability to wire money home, obtain rental housing and jobs.

10. An amnesty failed in 1986, and it will only be worse today. We're being displaced out of our jobs and out of our own country. Call with relentless and never-give-up passion.


To reduce illegal aliens in your community, you may follow the course of action by Mayor Louis Barletta of Hazelton, PA. He offers a bomb proof ordinance that takes business licenses away from those who hire illegals. He legally halts landlords from renting to illegals. Without work and without housing, illegals cannot stay in your community. Check out his website for instructions:


Visit D.A. King at the to see how Georgia created the best laws to stop illegals at the state level.


Please check out William Gheen at He's a mover and shaker. He will direct you to specific actions that make you more powerful and effective.


To stop this invasion locally and nationally: join for free and you can join and


Wooldridge presents a 45 minute program to colleges, high schools, civic clubs, church groups and political clubs across America titled: "COMING POPULATION CRISIS IN AMERICA: WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT." Go to his website for further information on booking the program.


Check out for an exciting method for creating overpopulation awareness in Third World countries. Their prime directive works with the media in order to educate and activate leaders and women worldwide.


Whether we like it or not, global warming is upon us. We can take action to correct it. Please join for up to the minute information and action items.


Awareness Campaign web site,, which is purely to help save and protect human health and environmental health globally. Diana Buckland is founder and global coordinator at or Diana makes impact all over the world by alerting everyone about chemical sensitivities caused by poisons sprayed, injected and applied to our crops and elsewhere.


From Part 5 of this series, "Destroying our oceans", if you would like to become involved please refer to <> for a first rate lesson on how to take action in order to cleanse our oceans, restock our fish population, move toward recycling and cleanup of our world's most important living resource. Watch shows on PBS that expose where we threw two million tires into the waters off the East Coast and all the damage those tires are doing to marine life. You'll find out what you can do to have them raised from the deep. Additionally, check out for actions at the national and international levels. ; ; ; ; at 1 866 329 3999; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; My book: "IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES" Call: 1 888 280 7715. ­ ;; ; for motorcyclists: and ; ; On April 1, 2007, the Paul Revere Riders will again ride to stop the illegal invasion and accompany Arizona long haul truckers and motorcyclists in a freedom border ride to block illegal aliens from crossing our borders. We invite all veterans, truckers and bikers to join us. Contact Rusty Childress at and for further information. Please write with your ideas on what to name the ride.

Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. He presents a program to colleges, conferences, high schools and civic clubs around the country: "THE COMING POPULATION CRISIS IN AMERICA: WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT". His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS" ; "STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE" ; "IMMIGRATION'S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES" ; "MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND-A TEEN NOVEL" ; "BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION" ; "AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA". His next book: "TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP". He lives in Denver, Colorado.


From Devvy Kidd

This is beyond an outrage. I hope people call talk radio this weekend and next week and really bring down the house on this one.
Much of this bill that hasn't even been read by these craven so and so's in DC was written by staffers during the night - reported on one of the cable networks last night.
Take it to church. To the VFW Hall.
To the State Houses and tell them if they would just standup to Washington, DC by challenging the 17th Amendment and get decent, real U.S. Senators to DC., we could stop this in the future or we will have no future and neither will their children.
The States of the Union have NO representation in Congress because of the fraudulent 17th Amendment, but militant an America hating organization Hell bent on sedition sits in on negotiations to stop this invasion? These people in Washington, DC have gone literally insane.
The first round of voting by these counterfeit Senators is Monday afternoon. Worst counterfeit senators who support this amnesty are:
Sen. John McCain R-AZ
Sen. Lindsey Graham R-SC
Sen. Jon Kyl R-AZ
Sen. Arlen Specter R-PA
Sen. Mel Martinez R-FL
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-AZ
Constituent in those states need to get your phone trees up and running Monday morning.
Thank you.
'La Raza' Has Virtual Veto Over Bill
Controversial group 'practically in the room' during negotiations
© 2007
Controversial Latino groups, including the National Council of La Raza, were granted virtual veto power over the immigration bill hammered out yesterday by Senate Republicans, Democrats and the White House, the Washington Post reported.
A number of prominent Republicans have rejected the bill ­ which still has not been issued in its final form ­ as "amnesty" for millions of people who came to the U.S. illegally.
The National Council of La Raza, or "The Race," was condemned last year by Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
Norwood, writing in Human Events, called on La Raza to renounce its support of the campus group MEChA ­ Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan ­ which sees "The Race" as part of a transnational ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
As WND reported, Norwood said last year the National Council of La Raza campaigned hard against a plan to provide funding, training and resources for state and local law enforcement agencies who help federal officers in capturing and detaining criminals who are illegal aliens.
"For those who haven't figured it out yet, the entire illegal immigration crisis we suffer is due 100 percent from failure to enforce existing law," Norwood said. "The other side (including La Raza) knows this very well, and knows that the continued suppression of U.S. law enforcement efforts is essential to permanently destroying our borders."
Regarding the new bill, Eric Gutierrez, lead lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, told the Post there's "a real sense that the Latino community is key to the solution in this debate, so now they are reaching out to us more than ever."
"Neither party wants to make a misstep politically," he said.
The Post said the Latino groups "were practically in the room" as Democratic and Republican senators negotiated the bill, which would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, create a temporary worker program and increase border security.
Before criticism came rolling in, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., insisted the bill is not "amnesty," but lawmakers such as Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., immediately applied that label.
King called it "a pardon and reward for lawbreakers," and DeMint declared, "I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."
Last year, Latino groups demonstrated their power by filling streets in cities across the nation when the House passed a bill that would have made illegal immigration a felony.
The Post noted La Raza, MALDEF, the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, and the National Immigration Forum are part of a broad network of immigrant rights groups that have been speaking daily with top aides in the offices of Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.
The bill promoted by Kennedy would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" that puts them on a track for permanent residency within eight to 13 years. Fees and a fine of $5,000 are required and heads of household first must return to their home countries.
The illegals would be able to obtain a probationary card right away to live and work in the U.S., but the path to citizenship cannot begin until completion of border improvements and the high-tech ID system.
The temporary worker program also would be delayed until the new security measures are in place. The workers would be required to return home after two years and would not be on a track for permanent status. The guest worker visas could be renewed twice, but the worker would be required to leave for one year between each renewal.
Democrats wanted guest workers to be allowed to stay indefinitely.
Two tough issues remain for which Kennedy's Latino "stakeholders" likely will have sway. Republicans and Democrats still are divided on whether 400,000 foreigners entering the country as temporary workers would have to leave the country after three years or be granted a chance to remain permanently, the Post reported. Also, the parties must resolve how extended family ties should be weighed in granting visas.
William Ramos, a spokesman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, told the Post his constituency would oppose elimination of "some aspects of family reunification" and also a policy that would force immigrants to return to their home countries for an extended period and to petition for reentry.
The White House held a meeting just over two weeks ago with Latino groups, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez have had contact.
"At least they are paying attention to us," MALDEF President John Trasviña told the Post.
Members of the "La Raza" movement envision reclaiming the American Southwest

2007 / Virginia Tech Shooting 'Oddities'
« on: April 20, 2007, 08:28:34 PM »

Seung-Hui Cho (left) in U.S. Marines uniform, pulled from Wikipedia

2007 / Nine Myths About Gun Control
« on: April 20, 2007, 08:26:57 PM »

Nine Myths About Gun Control

* Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2]
* Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection"
US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.
* Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"
Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control. [2]
The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities. [4]
* Myth #4 "Guns cause violence" Homicide
For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average. [6]
If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6? [7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? [7] The "guns- cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.
National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent children. [8]
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
* Myth #5 The "Friends and Family fallacy"
It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family". The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" [9]and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection." [10]
Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides, [11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends". Over three- quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives. [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence." [16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."
* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
* Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high"
The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year [20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs." [20] One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence. [21]
What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers. [22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses. [23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison. [24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.
* Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns off the street"
Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws.
Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]
Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.
If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.
What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27]
Brady I and Brady II
The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons" [28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal [29] of the "success" of the Brady Law.
The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons. [30] In transparent "governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect." [31]
Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons. [32 ] In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non retail sources. [28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.
Residential gun dealers
The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all. [33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.
Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.
* Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"
Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police. [3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.
We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.
"Treat cars like guns"
Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.
Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year.
Progressive reform
Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen. [11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon.
Fear mongering and the gun control lobby
In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self- protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed [26,27] In Florida, the anti- self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data.
Data, not histrionics
One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes. [26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. [11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower. [11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing.
As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever. [27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens. [27]
Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police [34] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed.
Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county- by-county research [27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation.
The right
Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms. [35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?
Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth, [36] Tenth, [35] and Fourteenth Amendment, [37] as well as "natural right" [38] guarantees to self-protection.
Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the "collective right only" view [39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the anti-selfdefense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.
California and Concealed Weapons
California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder. [27]
It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.
The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators.
There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.
Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative false imagery? [40]
We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it will save many lives.
[1] Leape LL. "Error in Medicine." JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57. Back to the top
[2] Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back to the top
[3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Back to the top
[4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective Solutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring 1995, forthcoming. Back to the top
[5] Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8. Back to the top
[6] Hammett M, Powell KE, O?Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992. Back to the top
[7] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1992 Back to the top
[8] National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993. Back to the top [9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9. Back to the top
[10] Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300. Back to the top
[11] Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5. Back to the top
[12] Dawson JB and Lantern PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7. Back to the top
[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993. Back to the top
[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4. Back to the top
[15] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532. Back to the top
[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide.? Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993. Back to the top
[17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.? N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. Back to the top
[18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.? N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91. Back to the top
[19] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy.? San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11. Back to the top
[20] Max W and Rice DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries.? Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85. Back to the top
[21] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in California: Incidence and Economic Costs.? Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994. Back to the top
[22] McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. "Urban Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective.? J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36.
Back to the top
[23] Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles.? N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27. Back to the top
[24] Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. July 1987. Back to the top
[25] United Press. "China seizes 120,000 guns.? October 21, 1994. Back to the top
[26] Cramer C and Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed Trained Citizens: A Policy that is Saving Lives. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper #14-93. 1993. Back to the top
[27] Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue?: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994. Back to the top
[28] Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor. Washington Post. September 30, 1994. Back to the top
[29] Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enf Back to the top
[30] Halbrook SP. "Another Look at the Brady Law." Washington Post. October 8, 1994. p A-18. Back to the top
[31] Howlett D. "Jury Still Out on Success of the Brady Law." USA Today. December 28, 1994. p A-2. Back to the top
[32] Harris J, Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice. Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, US Gouse of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms Prosecutions. September 20, 1994. Back to the top
[33] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the Treasury. ATF News.. Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. FY-93-38. 1993. Back to the top
[34] Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. Back to the top
[35] Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - A Primer for Physicians." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Spring 1995, forthcoming. Back to the top
[36] Johnson NJ. "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed through the Ninth Amendment." Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1): 1-81. Back to the top
[37] Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Back to the top
[38] Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104. Back to the top
[39] Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms." Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43: 6.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. "War and the Social Contract: The Right to Bear Arms." Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL. "Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. "The Second Amendment: A Dialogue." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay Review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay Review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment." Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. "The Right to Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts." Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution." Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. "The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment." U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. "Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear Arms." Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. "The Second Amendment, Political Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation." Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.; Morgan E "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional." American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. "Encroachments of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights." Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.; Dowlut R. "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms." Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.; Dowlut R. "The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. "The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend." Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. "To Keep and Bear 'Their Private Arms'" Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right." Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. "To Preserve Liberty -- A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. "Gun Control: Is It A Legal and Effective Means of Controlling Firearms in the United States?" Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. "The Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments." George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. "Comment: Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the Second Amendment: To What Extent is there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cottrol R and Diamond R. "Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms" in Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Cramer CE. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control"); Kates D. "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment" in E. Hickok (ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Univ. Virginia Press. 1991.; Halbrook S. "The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment." in Hickok E (editor) The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.; Young DE. The Origin of the Second Amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and Development of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. "Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global Perspective." and Halbrook S. "The Second Amendment as a Phenomenon of Classical Political Philosophy." -- both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL. "On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.; The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. "The Second Amendment in the 20th Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?" Univ. Dayton LawJReview. 1989; 15:5-58 and Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. -- both written by paid general counsel of Handgun Control, Inc.; Fields S. "Guns, Crime and the Negligent Gun Owner." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162. (article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns); and Spannaus W. "State Firearms Regulation and the Second Amendment." Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408. In addition, see: Beschle. "Reconsidering the Second Amendment: Constitutional Protection for a Right of Security." Hamline Law Review. 1986; 9:69. (conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security, but arguing that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns). Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly treatment supporting the "collective right only" view, see: Cress LD. "An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms." J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42. Back to the top
[40] Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992

The World Below / Urgent - House Will Vote On Hate Bill Soon!
« on: April 19, 2007, 02:43:22 PM »
By Rev. Ted Pike

On April 17, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime heard testimony for and against the federal anti-hate bill, H.R. 1592. Today, I was a guest on Janet Folger's radio program (<> with Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute (<> Dacus testified at length in Judiciary against this legislation. He told us he encountered "hostility" from members of the subcommittee. They argued that the federal hate bill would not erode free speech but merely empower the government to put down violent physical hate crimes.
Although, as of today, more hearings are not officially scheduled for the beginning of next week, Dacus will remain in the capitol to testify in hearings he is sure will come. He and Folger, along with a recent WorldNetDaily article, contend that the hate bill is now on fast track to a vote in the House as early as the latter part of next week.
Clearly, a double-pronged attack on freedom is in high gear in both House and Senate. Lovers of freedom must protest NOW to the Senator and House member from your district. Call 1-877-851-6437 or 202-225-3121.
No hate bill has been in the Senate until last Thursday. As a result, the Senate is undereducated concerning the hate bill threat. It is vital to call all members of the Senate, especially those who are not the most hardened liberals. Send my powerful flyer <>Anti-Hate Laws Will Make You a Criminal to your Senator and their 8-10 influential legislative aides (available at <>
Pro-hate bill forces in the Senate seem to have the necessary 60 votes to pass S. 1105. We must remember, however, that 9 Republicans have joined them -- Republicans who, under relentless pressure from their constituents this week, might come back to the Republican fold. If only 2 succumb to our protest, fearing failure to be re-elected, the hate bill will be destroyed in both House and Senate for this term of Congress.
Keep phoning and sending emails or faxes! Call repeatedly. The fate of freedom and our republic depends upon what you do before next week. 
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian /conservative watchdog organization.
Go to to watch <>Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians, Rev. Pike's expose of how the Anti-Defamation League has fomented Christian-persecuting hate laws worldwide.   
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on the threat of hate laws, both federal and state. Call (503) 631-3808.
, Effexor,

2007 / Voice of the White House/Pet Food Poisoning
« on: April 03, 2007, 10:15:55 AM »
Washington, D.C., April 2, 2007: `If you want an first class example of official lies, watch the televised conferences of the federal health officials concerning the poisoning of pets. A large number of cats and dogs have recently died from eating deliberately contaminated pet food. The first finding, by a reputable laboratory, was that the food was laced with rat poison. Our government, alarmed at the implications of this and coupled with a number of serious and disparate outbreaks of induced Ecoli at restaurants, has now released a statement bordering on the moronic, claiming that Chinese wheat glutin is responsible and that it contains a harmless plastic additive. If this were the case, there would be tens of thousands of humans, who eat wheat glutin daily, dying in the hospitals all across the world. Why the transparent and stupid lies? Two reports, one by the DoJ and the other by the  CDC indicates that the `probable suspects` are Mexican illegals who work at the restaurants where the poisonings broke out and certainly in the American pet food factories. Militant Latino groups are furious because the Republicans want to physically deport all illegals and are further outraged at the slave wages and poor working conditions the American businessmen force them to work under.  Another reason for avoiding the subject of deliberate poisoning of American food is that if it ever became commonly believed, the fearful and enraged pubic would demand action and action is something the useless, cronified Bush administration is incapable of. And it also might be of interest to note that the so-called  Mad Cow disease now had a foothold in the United States but we will hear absolutely nothing about this because the meat packing industry gives the Republicans huge money to be quiet. After all, it would cost them millions to properly test their meat sources and why spend hundreds of millions in safeguards when a briefcase full of hundred dollar bills delivered to the Oval Office (yes, dear, Bush does take personal bribes`¦it runs in the family) or the office of a key Senator or Congressman. After all, they reason, by the time Mad Cow is noticed by the public, they will be safely out of office and enjoying their bribes in Aruba.`

General / Bill O'Reilly is a Lying Son of a Whore
« on: April 03, 2007, 07:12:55 AM »
Bill O'Reilly is a Lying Son of a Whore

By Curt Maynard

This article reflects my personal opinion and as such is protected by my First Amendment right to Freedom of Expression. If Bill or anyone else doesn`t like it, they can kiss my ass. No apologies.

How do I know Bill O`Reilly is the son of a whore? Well, in truth, I am not 100% certain, but it`s hard to imagine that Bill O`Reilly has ever experienced even a moment of legitimacy in his entire life. Some people are still fooled by O`Reilly`s spin on the `No Spin Zone,` but that number is dropping every day. According to a recent survey, the `O`Reilly factor,` has experienced more than a 50% drop in the Internet traffic it once enjoyed, and that since March 2006. In a recent article published by `National Journal`s Technology Daily,` and written by Heather Greenfield, the author notes the following:

`President Bush is not the only one facing falling polling numbers. Conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly of Fox News' `The O'Reilly Factor` "is having to factor in his own losses when it comes to Internet traffic., which tracks Web traffic, shows a sharp decline in the popularity of O'Reilly's website since March 2006.[1]

Greenfield goes on to say:

Other conservative sites are losing audience this campaign season, too. Even the recent controversy over Ann Coulter's remarks about Sept. 11 victims did not boost traffic to her site. Ratings there have decreased 16 percent over the last three months. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh, who is down 14 percent, and even the revered conservative site The Drudge Report has fallen 10 percent.[2]

So does this mean everyone has converted to a left leaning democrat? Hardly, what these dropping numbers actually represent is the ever growing number of American`s that have figured out Bill O`Reilly is full of shit. Anne Coulter herself is a cumb dunt, something that real conservatives have known ever since she crawled out of whatever hole it was she crawled out of. Ole Pill`s Limbaugh is on his last legs, as is Mat Drudge the Jewish neo-conservative leftist we`ve all given far too much credit to ever since he `outted` Bill Clinton`s penchant for young Jewish interns. Their numbers aren`t dropping because America is swinging to the left, their numbers are dropping because even the most ignorant MTV watching American buffoon can`t help but see their obvious biases towards Israel and their unwillingness to admit that the mainstream media is for all intents and purposes under the stranglehold of ethnic Jews, Zionist`s for the faint of heart.

Greenfield in her article quotes David Rothstein, another Jew, who is the CEO of the IPD Group, the organization responsible for digging up the sagging numbers associated with Greenfield`s article, as saying that the decreasing Internet traffic is a `barometer,` that shows the `right wing` is struggling.[3] Rothstein suggests that the left wing is now filling the void where the right wing once dominated. Rothstein`s suggestion is in reality nothing but a joke, the left wing as represented by pro-Zionist Jews like Al Franken can`t even get enough listenership on Air America to pay the bills `“ people are leaving it in droves too `“ and for exactly the same reason that they are dropping O`Reilly `“ they are tiring of the lies [Important update, on September 14, 2006, Air America declared Bankruptcy]. They are beginning to figure out that O`Reilly and the right-wing he allegedly represents offers them a pro-war, pro-Israel point of view and that Franken and the left-wing he allegedly personifies offer them a slightly different pro-war on terrorism, and pro-Israel point of view. Either way, Israel is given center stage and listeners are told to consider the Israeli people as victims [NEVER Palestinians]. The only people that continue to listen to any of these whores, including Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Alan Combs, and Shepard Smith, are a few hopeless cretins whose life is a pointless waste of time anyway. We certainly shouldn`t be wasting our time on them, Jesus himself said, `Cast not pearls before swine.`

Dear reader, please consider sending this essay to Bill O`Reilly and telling him I think he`s a lying son of a whore and that I`d be happy to appear on The Factor anytime in order to tell him and his audience so. I`d just like to ask him a few questions, questions I know he won`t answer, and when he dodges them, I`ll call him a lying son of a whore on national television. Nope, Bill O`Reilly won`t invite me on The Factor, because he knows I`m right and because he knows I won`t apologize for the statements I`ll make. While you're at it, perhaps you could send Sean Hannity an email and tell him I said he`s a lying son of a whore too.

Now that we are on the subject of liars and propagandists, let`s look at a few `bloggers,` if you will. Most intelligent bloggers today have at least occasionally focused on the absolute and empirical fact that the American news media is monopolized by Zionists and favor Israel in their reporting. Some bloggers even identify these Zionists for what they are, ethnic Jews, others prefer not to, as they still fear the stigma attached to that all too common, overused and now tired out label of anti-Semite. In any case, it`s these bloggers and their blogsites that are now being tuned into by the now cynical former viewers of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc`¦

Unfortunately, there are a few lying son`s of whore on the blogosphere too, people like Greg Szymanski, who seek to imbed themselves into the Internet dissident movement, first by writing coherent and in some cases even important articles, they do this initially in order to acquire the legitimacy they need in order to then begin their real agenda in earnest, to mislead the public, just as their allies do in the MSM. Greg Szymanski for instance, began his career writing for the reputable American Free Press, and was then asked to leave after he began to write articles that suggested the Pope and Catholic church were behind all the world`s evil`s `“ it became obvious he wasn`t interested in telling the truth, just continuing the same old lies so common on The factor and Hannity and Combs. Szymanski isn`t interested in the fact that the Catholic Church doesn`t own a single television network in North America, and he isn`t interested in telling his reader that ethnic Jews own them all, with the possible exception of Fox, whose owner, Rupert Murdoch is said to be a gentile, but may in fact have had a Jewish mother named Elisabeth Joy Greene. The attentive reader knows that if Murdoch`s mother was in fact a Jewess, then too is Rupert, it`s not a matter of this writer`s opinion, it`s a matter of Jewish and Talmudic Law. I`m not a Catholic myself, and not particularly interested I defending Catholicism, but I can tell you with clarity and certainty, that the Catholic Church doesn`t have 1/10th of the influence worldwide as does Jewry, the Church can`t even seem to convey to Christians that circumcision at birth is not only not necessary, but that it is actually harmful in that it increases the likelihood of acquiring a venereal disease and may also result in a degraded ability to successfully breed. Of course Jews are circumcised as part of their religious traditions `“ it isn`t an accident that Jews were primarily behind all of the allegedly scientific studies in the late 1930s that `proved,` the benefits of circumcision, studies that were foisted into the mainstream via the media, which was firmly in the hands of ethnic Jewry by that time. Interestingly, at the same time, Germans were identifying Jews that denied their Jewish identity in Germany by compelling them to reveal their penises, an absolute way to identify a Jew from a non-Jew, in a society that didn`t seek to convince all it`s members to get circumcised at birth.

In any case, Szymanski recently wrote an article entitled `American`s Have Never Confronted The `˜Real Enemy`,` which was given far more circulation on the net than it deserved. In it Szymanski asserts the most unlikely idea that the Catholic Church and the Jesuit`s seek to place the blame of all the world`s evils on the hapless Jew. Szymanski states:

`Let's remember the key to the Vatican's fascist role is to deflect all negative attention to Jewish-Zionist leaders who have sold out their own people and strategically put into positions of power and wealth in order to trick Americans into believing Israel is the real enemy.`[4]

So if we are to believe Szymanski, we have to believe that the Pope has assigned certain Jews to their unbelievable positions of power `“ perhaps the Pontiff actually appointed Michael Chertoff to his position as Director of Homeland Security right here in the United States as well. Perhaps the Pope and the evil Jesuit`s actually boarded a rubber dingy in 1967 and attacked the USS Liberty too, something that has been blamed on Israel at least up to this point anyway. Perhaps all those Israeli Jews arrested just prior to 9-11 for espionage in the United States are in reality Catholics parading around as Jews, with Jewish names and all. Perhaps Asher Karni, the Israeli Jew arrested on January 2, 2004, at Denver International Airport, for having sold more than sixty nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan was set up by a few Bishops at the Vatican? Don`t be fooled dear reader, Szymanski is just as full of shit as Bill O`Reilly and Al Franken, and he, just like them, seeks to mitigate the actual crimes committed by same people, Zionist Jews and their Shabbas Goyim and blame them on someone else. Greg Szymanski also claimed at one time to live in a very small town in Idaho by the name of Spirit Lake, that is until I told him, `wow, what a coincidence, my mother lives in Spirit Lake too.`[5] Once I said that, Szymanski quit corresponding with me and eventually took the Spirit Lake PO Box off his website[6] after I started telling people he was lying about that too.

There are other sons of whores out on the blogosphere as well `“ recently a gentleman by the name of Daryl Bradford Smith has developed quite a following as a result of his Internet radio show, `I Am the Witness.` I don`t disagree with much of what Smith has to say about Zionism on his radio show, as he appears to be a vociferous critic of the Zionist state, but appearances can be deceiving, Daryl Bradford Smith is in reality an Internet agent provocateur focused almost entirely on smearing the good names of other dissidents, anti-war activists and historical revisionists. Recently he claimed that Michael Collins Piper of all people is an agent of Zionism and that the American Free Press has suppressed articles written by Christopher Bollyn, in some sort of unexplained nefarious plan to deceive the public. Smith attacked John Kaminski on his show earlier this year, he set him up, invited him on the program and then blindsided him with accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. I became highly skeptical of Smith at that time, now I am convinced the man is an agent provocateur, Mike Piper is anything but a Zionist agent, in fact he may well be one of the most insightful and prolific critics of Zionism on the Internet today, which is probably the real reason Smith is now attacking him and the American Free Press. In a recent letter, Piper challenged the fraudster Smith and his deceptive sidekick Eric Hufschmid:

"Please feel free to spread the word that I have sent an email to both Daryl Bradford Smith and Eric Hufschmid inviting them BOTH to come on air LIVE on my program and explain how I am covering up for Zionism and how I am a part of the criminal Zionist network, that I've "been with them for a longtime" or otherwise recently joined the network! (Seriously, folks!) They are also spreading the Hellish and easily refuted lie that American Free Press has---of all things---been "censoring" and "suppressing" the work of Christopher Bollyn. They even cite supposedly "suppressed" stories that WERE published in American Free Press! Amazing!"[7]

I wouldn`t hold my breath and expect Smith to appear on Piper`s radio program, for exactly the same reason Bill O`Reilly will never invite me on The Factor, Piper would tear Smith to pieces and wouldn't feel in the least bit bad for doing so

Another very interesting fact about Daryl Bradford Smith and one he has never attempted to explain is that he lives in France and his radio program is therefore headquartered in France. He has been very critical of Zionism and on occasion Jewry itself, yet he remains on the air and unmolested. In France one can find one`s self arrested for saying naughty things about Jews, just ask Professor Robert Faurrison, a noted French revisionist currently charged with holocaust denial or Jean LePen, the leader of French Nationalist Party and most popular politician in France today, who also has been brought up on charges that he said nasty things about the Jews. My question is, how is it that these two remarkable men can be charged with crimes for saying something critical about Jewry, but the mediocre and comparatively unknown Smith remains at large and on the air in the heart of France? That by itself should be enough for one to legitimately question just whom Smith works for. Smith is just slightly trickier than Szymanski, but in the end they both seek the same thing, to discredit those that honestly and seriously seek to expose the status quo. Smith has appointed himself as the spokesperson of the 9-11 movement, but fortunately he remains a relatively small personality in a large field. Hopefully now, after attacking a truly monumental individual, Michael Collins Piper, and fully exposing his divisive agenda, he`ll become nothing more than a memory.

Senate bill to give citizenship to illegals nears completion.
Tell your Senators to reject it! 
Senator Kennedy and lobbyists are putting the finishing touches on an immigration "reform" bill that includes an even easier citizenship path for illegal aliens than was in last year's Senate bill. The legislation, with weak enforcement provisions and an increased flow of foreign workers, could be introduced as early as next week. If the Senate Judiciary Committee acts quickly, the bill could move to the floor in April.

According to the Washington Times, Kennedy drafted this year's bill with help from Senator McCain, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, La Raza, and the Service Employees International Union.

With a supportive President Bush, advocates of open borders, weakened security, "guest" workers, and lax enforcement feel they have the upper hand. It is up to you to let your Senators know that you and most Americans do not share these views.


Tell your Senators that you are outraged at this massive amnesty proposal. We must first try enforcing our laws. Send a fax or e-mail by clicking "Go!" below.

2007 / Hate Crime Verdict - 9 SoCal Blacks Beat 3 White Women
« on: February 04, 2007, 08:07:11 PM »

While Southern California media weren't eager to cover the Long Beach Halloween hate-crime trial, they were more than ready for the January 26 verdict - and any subsequent violence - as requests by camera crews flooded in to Judge Gibson Lee, who denied them all.
Even as journalists and spectators crowded Lee's courtroom to hear, if not photograph, his guilty verdicts against nine of 10 black juveniles accused of beating three young white women on Halloween last year, the stereotyping that dogged the racially sensitive trial still rumbled on, just beneath the surface.
Long Beach police planned for violence in case the black teens were found guilty, setting up extra security at the courthouse, some city parks - and even at Polytechnic and Jordan high schools, where the defendants were students.
But high school kids in Long Beach did not overreact, prompting Chris Efychiou of Long Beach Unified School District to remark, chuckling, "Most of our kids were more concerned about finals than the verdict."
By coincidence, all high schools in Long Beach closed early on verdict day - at 12:30 p.m., marking the end of finals. But the Los Angeles Times gave things a much darker spin, stating: "The judge's pronouncement was deliberately set for Friday afternoon, after high schools had been dismissed for the week." In fact, the clerk's office confirmed to the L.A. Weekly, the trial began at 1 p.m. throughout the case, just as it did on the day the judge delivered the verdict, hardly a "deliberately set" hour.
But that sort of uncomfortable media stereotyping was par for the course in this trial, which illuminated not just the kids' hate crime, but the reactions of adults - officials, media, others - as they struggled to discuss whether black children should be held to standards that, if the tables were turned, would apply to any mob of 30 or 40 white kids accused of beating three black women.
Black homelessness activist Ted Hayes, sadly assessing how things turned out, told the Weekly he met with the black parents of several accused kids, whom he advised to avoid a trial and harsh sentences by admitting wrongdoing by their kids. His own street advice to "these out-of-control black kids" would be, he says, "Stop 'cutting the fool.' "
The parents refused to reach out to the district attorney, Hayes says, painting their children as innocents and enlisting "camera jockeys like Eddie Jones," and other black leaders who argued without apology that the kids had done nothing wrong.
Says Hayes, "The black community messed this up."
Kelly M. Bray, a self-described eyewitness to the mob that gathered just before the beatings, and who left a comment on the Long Beach-based Press-Telegram Web site, wrote that a crowd of girls was openly bullying passersby that night and getting away with it, "crowding the sidewalk and forcing people with strollers and small children into the street, telling them, 'I ain't movin'.'"
Hayes believes the trial was used by the establishment in Long Beach, where Halloween crowds have grown meaner each year, to send "a message to the black community: Your kids can't come over here and act out."
After the verdict, observers tried to explain what led to the attacks. Karl Rowe, an uncle of one of the convicted juveniles, wondered if hip-hop culture could have fanned cultural misunderstandings about the anti-white slurs hurled at the beaten girls.
On the other side of the fence, Joe Hicks, a black mediator with the nonprofit group Community Advocates in Los Angeles, while agreeing that hip-hop and gangsta rap often refer to "white boys" and "white bitches," nevertheless insists that "hip-hop isn't to blame for the beatings those young women got."
After Lee's ruling, a throng of TV crews focused on the defense attorneys, community activists, and friends and family members of the perpetrators, led by Eddie Jones, president of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Association, chanting, "No justice, no peace," and Tony Muhammad, regional minister for the Nation of Islam, declaring that not all of the children were guilty.
The father of one 14-year-old female perpetrator told the cameras, "Obviously, something happened. I apologize to the victims as a father, and I sympathize." A black mother, however, insisted, "To the general community, our kids did not play a part in this. They were there, but they did not fight."
If the nine convicted youths were merely swept up in the melee, why haven't they spoken up and named the real perps?
Cameron Bonner, who works in gang abatement at Common Unity Respecting Everyone, fears that an unspoken code of the streets - even in middle-class black communities - hurt the teens. Says Bonner, who believes a gang of older black boys is to blame, "The kids got caught up in a shit storm, and they know: Once you open your mouth, you gotta come home someday."
Project Islamic Hope activist Najee Ali - who was so upset by media underplaying the unusual story and so angry at the black leadership for pooh-poohing the mob behavior that he held a march for the victims - wrote in an e-mail to the Weekly, "The saddest thing was watching Eddie Jones and other South L.A. activists breaking their necks trying to get in front of the TV cameras... embarrassing the rest of the black community by saying the witnesses and victims of the beatings had lied about what happened."
Agreeing with Hayes, Ali wrote that the black parents' "public lack of remorse and contrition towards the victims helped turn public sympathy against the defendants" and scuttled a deal offered by the D.A. - probation with no jail time.
Meanwhile, Hicks, of Community Advocates, who is also a former director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission, says that while some black parents may have been out of touch when they insisted "their kids do nothing but homework, run track and go to church," other parents had "the same street-culture attitudes that their kids showed."
Adds Hicks, regardless of the light-touch media coverage, "Gang involvement is all over this case... They have the right kids. There might be more out there, there were as many as 40 kids, but these kids were involved in the beatings."
Tracy Manzer, the Press-Telegram reporter who covered the case more thoroughly than any other reporter in California, says that while the black teens were lauded as scholars and athletes, even by some media that never checked their facts, Judge Lee will see a different side in reports from probation officers who are interviewing teachers, coaches and others.
While one girl was touted as having received a USC track scholarship, USC's track coach told Manzer that her grades hadn't been good enough. Moreover, several of the kids have records of assault and threatening behavior. All of this goes to Judge Lee for sentencing consideration.
Manzer says that before the verdicts, she made an effort to avoid "[trying] the suspects in the paper," but is now researching a story on the teens and their families.
Community activists on both sides, contacted by the Weekly, were disappointed over the lack of national coverage of what was, essentially, a man-bites-dog tale. Most believed that, had it been a white-on-black crime involving a mob of 30 white kids, the media would have been all over it.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, one of the rare national columnists to write about it, argued early on that it was unprecedented to see such young girls charged with such a vicious crime, making it a national story. And on January 27, Times reporter Joe Mozingo described the case as having caused a big stir, writing, "As the case went to trial, it resonated beyond Long Beach, generating heated discussion on talk radio and drawing national media attention."
But in fact, the lack of national attention was one reason the story interested Steve Holmes, Washington Post deputy national editor for domestic affairs. He told the Weekly he saw it as a national story and was intrigued by the black-on-white aspects of the hate crime. Yet like The New York Times, the Post ran a single story.
Doug Otto, attorney for the three white victims, continually urged his clients not to follow the news, and worked "like crazy to keep them off the news." He needn't have tried so hard - few were interested.

« on: January 09, 2007, 04:57:12 PM »
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern

by Jim Kouri
January 8, 2007
© 2007

While the nation's capital and the news media celebrated the appointment of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as America's first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, no mention was made of one of her priorities in the new Democrat-controlled congress: Social Security checks for illegal aliens who live in the US or in Mexico.

The federal government attempted to keep the scheme under wraps, but a grassroots organization forced the Social Security Administration to release the document titled,` The US-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The Retired Enlisted Association or TREA forced government disclosure through lawsuits they filed through their Senior Citizens League.

Their legal action, which took over three years of fighting to resolve, was based on the Freedom of Information Act. Thanks to TREA, Americans now have an opportunity to read material that was being kept in the shadows by President Bush as well as Republican and Democrat members of both houses of the US Congress, and the news media.

According to TREA, the Totalization Agreement will allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to collect billions of Social Security dollars, whether they are living in the US or living in Mexico.

TREA points to a gaping loophole in the Social Security law that could result in millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on a Social Security Trust Fund that is nearing bankruptcy.

The plan is expected to be coupled with the Senate-sponsored guest-worker program. If an illegal worker working in the United States obtains a legitimate Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, that illegal worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met certain requirements.

The part of the agreement that is sure to disturb Americans is that workers may be able to claim credits for work performed while illegally living and working in the US. The Social Security bureaucracy has what's known as an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages paid to workers by employers that cannot be posted to the workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number.

Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number `“ whether a legal citizen or not `“ wages earned while in the US unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.

The agreement between the US and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it.

"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy `“ yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. "Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't sacrifice through difficult times so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally."

For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of US coverage.

But Mexico's retirement system is radically different from that of the United States. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the US system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.

"I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the US Government about the US-Mexican Social Security Totalization Agreement," said Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long."

According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040.

Heath Care for Illegal Immigrants

Meanwhile, Californians were celebrating the inauguration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday, but they soon may wonder why they should celebrate.

Through leaks to the press, reports claim the Governor may offer free health care for all school children in the state including the estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens attending California schools.

Schwarzenegger is scheduled to release his health care plan on January 9, but there is already speculation that it will cost taxpayers between 10 and 18 billion dollars. Taxpayers who sent Schwarzenegger to the State House to reduce already bloated government spending are being betrayed, according to conservatives.

One critic claims that besides redistributing wealth, the governor is wiping away the value of being a US citizen with this plan.

"Why should a child who is in the country illegally share in the legacy reserved for children who are citizens?" asked Mike Baker, a political analyst.

"And where are the religious leaders and pastors? Why aren't they speaking out?" asks Baker.

Church leaders and pastors have remained silent about the attacks on US sovereignty and American taxpayers. Many are afraid of jeopardizing their tax-exempt status as a result of exercising free speech. To date, not one church has sued the US government for it's unconstitutional tax-exemption policy.

A pastor at a New Jersey evangelical church sees a double standard at work. He points out that liberal-left preachers and politicians who visit their churches will discuss politics and even electioneer in those churches. But if a conservative pastor speaks out against the government, he is threatened with having his tax-exemption revoked by the federal government.


The New Jersey pastor, who requested anonymity, believes that church leaders are neglecting their responsibility to inform their congregations of government actions that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian principles espoused by the Founding Fathers.

"When the churches are silent, they are complicit in the evils destroying the United States," he said.

General / C-SPAN presses Pelosi on transparency
« on: January 01, 2007, 07:50:43 PM »
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Noting that Democrats have pledged to increase transparency and accountability in government, C-SPAN Thursday called on House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to give television viewers the same real-time access to views of the House floor as anyone sitting in the gallery would have.

In a Dec. 14 letter, C-SPAN CEO and Chairman Brian Lamb asked Pelosi to roll back the three-decade old practice that put the House Speaker in charge of the cameras. C-SPAN and the House reached the current agreement in 1979 when cameras were first introduced to the chamber. He wrote that he sought a similar agreement in 1994 when Republicans captured control of the House, but he did not get it.

Lamb wrote that the current 28-year-old arrangement is "an anachronism that does a disservice to the institution and to the public`¦Congressional technicians are limited to taking static, head-on shots of the representative who's speaking at the podium."

Rules and established practices prevent cameras from taking individual reaction shots or from panning the chamber, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of what's happening in the House," he added.

In addition, Lamb asked Pelosi to immediately post how individual lawmakers voted on a piece of legislation. Currently, the parties' totals appear on screen, but the individual tallies are not posted until hours later.

"Frequently, by the time individual voting records are released by the [House] Clerk, the House has moved on to other issues. The net effect is that this important information is rarely included in C-SPAN's live telecasts of House floor proceedings," Lamb wrote. "Members' votes are the most critical part of the public record."

Pelosi has just received the letter and will review the request, said Jennifer Crider, Pelosi's spokeswoman.

C-SPAN is pressing the House first because its initial coverage of Congress started with the lower chamber, according to a C-SPAN spokesperson.

General / This Savage Nation
« on: January 01, 2007, 07:44:11 PM »
By J. Bruce Campbell

Communists are the lowest form of life. We've been Communists since 1861. The Yankees, that is, and all who sympathize with what they did, which was wage aggressive war against people they'd already ripped off for decades. And then they ripped them off for decades after the war was over. That was Communism, American-style.
Karl Marx was a big fan of Abraham Lincoln and wrote to him in praise of his war of aggression against people seeking independence from Yankee dominance, under the terms of the Declaration of Independence. But Lincoln was our Lenin. Grant became Trotsky. Sherman, Sheridan, Custer and the other generals were their Bolshevik killers who went on to slaughter hundreds of thousands of American Indians, who also wanted independence. This was the first state-sponsored genocide and it happened here. Since then, no independence movement has been allowed by our Red government, anywhere in the world. I joined an independence movement in an African country called Rhodesia, but that movement was also crushed by the US government.
The American government is no more tolerant of independence than was the Soviet government. As I have pointed out many times, the American government created the Soviet government in 1917 and sustained it to its bitter end, and then supervised its reorganization in 1990. All Communist governments since, from China's to Cuba's, from East Germany's and all of Eastern Europe's to North Korea's, from Vietnam's to South Africa's, have been organized by the US State Department and/or the CIA.
The hallmarks of Communist power after 1917, the things that made it different, were the psychiatric prisons and forced confessions of "crimes of disloyalty" that never happened. The most loyal and die-hard Communists were frequently executed by their own colleagues after they confessed to made-up charges. Party members were expendable and formed a valuable database for the control of the general population. This was revealed also by the American Communist, Benjamin Gitlow, in his The Whole of Our Lives. He wrote that party members were occasionally murdered by other party members and their deaths blamed on "reactionaries." The purpose was mainly to radicalize even more party members, and reinforce their fanaticism and fear. It was all about mind-control, and still is. Our churches do it, too, and our schools. The only difference is the level of fear needed for control. Most people only need a little fear to be controlled.
America has lots of Communists. Bush and Cheney and their neo-cons are Communists. We all know that. But so are prison guards. Soldiers, marines and airmen, too. They just don't know it, because "they fight for freedom." Our police have become Communists, the way they lie and plant evidence and invade people's homes. IRS agents are Communists, along with just about everyone else in government - especially the FBI. The way our politicians take our money and pay themselves - at the point of a gun - qualifies them as first-class Communists. But anyone who is willing to kill for political power is what today we might call a Communist. The CIA got its original members from the wartime OSS. The OSS' membership was comprised of fifty percent members of the Communist Party USA (to gain the immediate cooperation of the French Underground).
The American-built Soviet Communist machine finally ran out of gas and our military-industry gangsters lost their valuable and lucrative "enemy," which had to be replaced quickly. 
My wife and I watched a new movie the other night - "The Road to Guantanamo." It is the true story of several British Pakistanis from Tipton, West Midlands, who accompanied their friend to Pakistan, where he was to be married. This was a few weeks following 9-11. The wedding was cancelled and the young Brits had nothing to do and so, through several misadventures, wound up across the border in Afghanistan. There, they were quickly rounded up by the Americans and our puppet hoodlums, the Northern Alliance. Falsely accused of helping the Taliban, the men were placed in appalling SRO dungeons and then in the dreaded shipping containers, in which most of those with them died of suffocation or gunshots by American soldiers. The movie did not depict that hundreds of these victims actually cooked to death in the containers, left out in the hot sun for days. This was overseen by our wonderful boys, who were fighting for freedom.
The lucky survivors, who included the British Moslems, were then processed and put into those bright orange jumpsuits with total sensory deprivation. Hearing and sight were deprived with ludicrous hoods, black-out goggles and hearing suppressors. Placed in ritualistic positions on the floor of a C-130, they were flown to Cuba, specifically Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay.
Here they were subjected to pure American sadism. That is, it was Israeli sadism administered by screaming American thugs, same as Abu Ghraib. The prisoners' entire life histories were already known by the American dictatorship, and so it was known months in advance that none of these prisoners was guilty of anything. And this was the whole point of the torture.
My wife, a medical doctor, realized that these innocent guys were the subjects of a big experiment. She had seen the same sort of thing in Veterans Administration hospitals. That is, our entire veteran population is an experimental group. They have little choice but to submit to whatever procedures the government chooses for them, because they are Communists in a Communist system. She thinks that anyone who submits to the AMA priesthood is performing in one pharmaceutical experiment or another and should be paid by the industry.
The first big American psychological experiment was the Korean War, in which our wonderful boys killed and were killed under the flag of the United Nations. That was an experiment right there, having American soldiers who'd grown up pledging allegiance to the flag, living and dying under the blue and white UN banner. No one complained that I know of. In league with our North Korean and Red Chinese puppets (they were, after all, put in business by the US government), American soldiers were experimented on in very unpleasant ways. Pavlov developed brainwashing in Russia under Lenin, doing his dog experiments on Russians and others victims of Jewish Communism but the ultimate targets are American men and "conditioned response" had to be tried out on them. 
It must have worked pretty well because the infamy of the Korean War was that no American prisoner of war ever escaped from a North Korean prison. Lots of them got away from the Nazis and even the Japanese, but not a one of them got away from the North Korean psycho-prisons. Except I knew one who did. 
Don G. was a mud engineer in the California oilfield when I met him in the late '70s. Someone said he'd been a prisoner of the North Koreans but wouldn't talk about his experience. He talked about it with me. Don and his group of forward observers were a little too close to the enemy soldiers, calling in coordinates for the artillery, when they were overrun. Most of his mates were killed but Don and a black sergeant from Houston were captured. Their ordeal became a nightmare that lasted several months. Both of them were interrogated and subjected to what became known as "brainwashing." Neither of them cooperated and both of them were beaten frequently. Other Americans who didn't cooperate were shot occasionally. Don and the sergeant were threatened with being shot and the sergeant told Don that if they didn't somehow get away they would doubtless soon be killed. Their crimes were an unwillingness to criticize their country in any way, even the Jim Crow policy the sergeant had experienced all his life. Misplaced loyalty!
Brainwashing is a fairly simple procedure, it turns out. It does require the victim to self-criticize. Once he does that, he can be switched into anything the brainwasher wants. So to get him to self-criticize the brainwasher gets him to criticize someone else, eventually a friend and finally himself. The key to avoid being brainwashed is never to criticize anyone other than the one who's trying to brainwash you. That's what Don and his friend kept doing, and that's why the Koreans were going to kill them.
Don and the other guy didn't actually escape from a prison camp but got away while in transit from one camp to another one in the dark of night. They dropped down in a depression in the path while the other prisoners trudged by. Then they headed south, for UN lines. Their first surprise was their reception by the American doctors, who were astonished that these two men escaped. They were the only ones. So the doctors interrogated them pretty heavily, trying to figure out their motivation to escape, since no one else had even tried it. Then they were sent to Letterman VA Hospital in San Francisco. Here, the psychiatrists seemed downright hostile and even offended that these two mavericks would get away from the North Koreans. Don was totally confused. His confusion soon turned to anger at his treatment by the army, which seemed to view him with suspicion. Over the next few years of hostile treatment and examination by army psychiatrists, Don became bitter, so much so that his wife divorced him and his family feared he was a brainwashed Communist. He was the exact opposite. But this is what happens to anyone who bucks the system in America - even an American.
Back to the British Moslems. And the Afghans and Pakistanis and what other Moslems were kidnapped and tortured by the army. All of them are innocent, which is the point of what we are doing to them. We torture them to find out what breaks them down, so as to devise some formula, some database, for controlling all Moslems. These British guys somehow survived the sadism and were eventually released. Hundreds are still in our gulags, interrogated daily by American morons whose knowledge of Islam comes from Jewish television programs. The same questions are asked, over and over, month after month, year after year. Confessions are demanded to non-existent crimes, just as the Soviets demanded them. All that is really wanted is a delta factor, some change in behavior or renunciation of Islam, ideally - which never happens. The Jews very much want to unplug Moslems from their religion, or figure new ways to turn Moslems against themselves and self-destruct, as they are doing in Jewish-ruled Iraq.
There are still five hundred or more Moslems in the US Naval prison at Guantanamo Bay. Ten of them have been charged with something and even those ten are totally innocent, compared with the Americans. The Brits were constantly ordered to confess to being members of "al-Qaeda," which most refused to do, even after the most revolting torture. They had no idea what al-Qaeda was or is. Only the CIA really knows what it is because "al-Qaeda" is a CIA word. We all were told years ago that "al-Qaeda" meant "base." I thought this meant base of operations, or fundamentalism or something deep. No. It means "database." Al-Qaeda is the CIA's computer list of mujahadin freedom fighters they were arming to defeat the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan back in the '80s. Osama bin Laden was a paymaster and CIA-backed organizer of the fighters. The point is that the CIA knows exactly every name in the database because it's their database. 
To force these innocent Brits, or any other Moslems, to confess that they are in al-Qaeda is CIA-Mossad brainwashing and psycho-conditioning. It is pure terrorism, as described by George Orwell in 1984. No one has described what the Moslems are up against as well as Orwell did in the final climactic scene in which Winston Smith is tortured by O'Brien. O'Brien explains that the object of torture is not to gain information but only to inflict pain. The only way to know for certain that a person is really under your control is if he is suffering. What the Jewish Bolsheviks did to the Russians, the Jewish Israelis to the Palestinians, the Judaized Americans are doing to the Iraqis and Moslems everywhere. Orwell warned us that this was our future, and it is. He was just too polite to describe it properly as Talmudic Judaism, what I call Jewish Rule. On behalf of Jewish Rule, George W. Bush is conducting a merciless war of extermination against all Moslems.
George W. Bush, as he revealed as governor of Texas, derives pleasure from torturing and murdering those under his total control. Read that 2000 Vanity Fair article in which he giggles and talks obscenely as he mimics Carla Faye Tucker as she begs for her life. This was about the time that he would cite Jesus as his inspiration. 
I must admit that the murder of Saddam Hussein, dressed up as a routine execution, left me speechless, but everything that George W. Bush does leaves me somewhat dazed and without the power to describe exactly what he has done, or why. Of course, Saddam was lynched on Bush's orders, before he could speak of his dealings with Bush's father. Saddam and GHW Bush reportedly shared billions of dollars in kickbacks from the Kuwaitis and from various oil companies engaged in the region. Saddam was reportedly a major owner of Mercedes-Benz and therefore the Chrysler Corporation, among many others. He was supported by Bush, then head of CIA under "Gerald R. Ford, Jr." (Ford's actual name was Leslie Lynch King, Jr.) Saddam became Iraq's president in '79, during Carter's reign, but worked for Bush against the Iranians throughout the Reagan-Bush years. 
GW Bush claimed he was angry with Saddam for trying to assassinate his "dad." But, as the ex-Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky has revealed, it was the Mossad that tried to assassinate Poppy Bush in '91, when he and Baker threatened to delay the ten billion dollar Israeli "loan guarantees" because of the crappy apartment houses they were greedily building on Palestinian land. I know - all of Israel is on Palestinian land. But Saddam never attempted to assassinate Bush, Sr. - it was the Jews, as usual. The little moron knows this full well but is incapable of anger at Jews so he pretended anger at Saddam, who was supposed to be murdered instead of being captured and tried. The CIA was in charge of Saddam's arrest and for some reason allowed him to live and threaten the Bush family secrets. I believe that this act was behind Bush's decision to dismantle the CIA and give its job to Rumsfeld's Pentagon. Rumsfeld - the guy who worked with Saddam and supplied him with chemical weapons against the Iranians in the '80s.
Saddam's murder was inevitable because he had to be silenced. His dignified, heroic attitude on the gallows has probably never been seen in our lifetimes, and may never be seen again - certainly on videotape. Some have claimed that we were actually seeing one of Saddam's doubles but that's not likely. But, whoever he was, he died well and showed the world the difference between a real man and an alcoholic mama's boy. As I predicted in an earlier essay, Saddam was subjected to Nuremberg-like treatment by his ski-masked enemies while the rope was put around his throat. Taunts and curses were yelled at him. Saddam's calm and manly comportment didn't give Bush anything to giggle about.
George W. Bush needs to experience the same treatment that, when he orders it, gives him sexual gratification, probably the only kind he can get. He needs to experience Jewish Rule from the other end of the rope. So does Cheney and every other war criminal under them.
Justice will be served only when Bush and his handlers are standing on the gallows in a smelly room, hard Manila ropes placed around their necks and the trap-doors let go beneath their feet. I dream of hearing the sound of their necks breaking.
Only the sound of their necks breaking will stop the nightmare they have created for the Moslem world, and the nightmare they plan for us. Bush and his gang have committed the worst war crimes in history, with the use of depleted uranium ammunition. They have consigned millions of us to very bad deaths, with four million pounds of uranium dust blowing through our lower atmosphere.
These monsters have already killed 700,000 Iraqis since Shock and Awe, plus thousands of Americans who helped kill them. The first Bush and Clinton killed over a million Iraqis with Desert Storm and their brutal starvation sanctions. The coming uranium deaths mean nothing to them. Kissinger, who is advising Bush, considers them stupid animals, pawns of foreign policymakers.
There is another group of Americans that needs to drop through the trap door: The Zionist radio talkers. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, the Savage Wiener and all the rest who have screamed and urged the destruction of Moslems. The Wiener wants millions killed now. All of them call for the nuclear bombing of Iran. These loudmouths talk and talk, knowing that their homicidal words please the Israelis. They need to be shown that their vile words have consequences.
The first thing we must do is get it in our minds that all war criminals must be hanged. We must stop acting as we have been programmed to act for generations, which is to acquiesce in every evil policy and law made up by these sadistic criminals. We, too, have been part of a huge Zionist program in mind-control. So far, we have not broken the spell cast by these masters of horror. They have millions of Americans believing that American brutality is a good thing. I believe the only way to break the spell is to call for their hanging.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9