Obama's Defining Lie...

History will remember how often and adamantly President Barack Obama insisted that the socialized medicine law he signed last week would reduce the federal deficit. It will be his defining lie. full story

We need more of this around the country!...

Obama not an American...spread the word!...actually he is an illegal alien!...

Obama brought up the topic of his legitimacy to be president. Great opportunity to get people talking about his birth records!

Email and post this video where ever and whenever you can. Add info about the lawsuits and all his undisclosed records. I can’t believe he opened the door to controversy about his birth certificate and eligibility. Run with it!

Obama Says Tea Party Is Built Around Core Group of Birthers (Video)

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/obama-says-tea-party-is-built-around-core-group-of-birthers/

Re: Lt. Col. Lakin...don't think there is a cover-up?...read this:

Spread the word but don’t be surprised when you meet some resistance.

From one of CitizenWells’ readers:

Prairie // March 30, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Interesting FR post regarding the Lt. Col.

I posted this over at Sean Hannity Forums and it got up to ten pages real quick and over 140 posts and now they have deleted it saying it is a non issue.

This would indicate to me, it scare the chit out of them and is for real

The greatest orator of our time...we should be so privileged to have known him...

The noose is tightening...for the CLOWN OF the UNITED STATES.. COTUS...

Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham...just like his "presidency".

In fact...it's the greatest crime ever perpetrated against the American people...

The Biggest Hustle in Human History

The media chased down every Bush doc, and when they couldn't find dirt, they advanced fake docs. That was only the preview. Their masterstroke was creating and advancing a fake president.

This is beyond media corruption; it is criminal.

Big media has a garbage detail to sift through Sarah Palin's garbage. Why has there been no investigative journalism on this impostor?

The Blogging Professor has the whole dirty, hot mess here:

Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama "because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool"

The smartest genius President evah is nothing more than a carboard cutout. A fraud. Doesn't exist. We don't even know how he did in school because to this day his transcripts are sealed. Turns out now that when he was an instructor at the Chicago, his colleagues who were actual Professors didn't like him and didn't want him. Obama's position was obtained through political channels. From Doug Ross: To be (a lawyer) or not to be...

Is the President's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. ...

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Here was that video that I posted back in January: Video: Former Constitutional Law Professor Obama makes up quotes in SOTU not found in the Constitution:

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

For a constitutional senior lecturer, it's also noteworthy that Obama doesn't know what car insurance covers.

UPDATE: Doug Ross updates with this: Most Transparent President Ever Has Bar Records Redacted This Week, Leaving Only Traces of His Existence Some Betamax Videos and a Fraternity Pin

President Obama's Occidental College transcripts have never been released. His Columbia transcripts are, likewise, AWOL. And his Harvard Law transcripts also haven't been made public. Finally, it's reported, he never published any articles while at Harvard, yet somehow served as Editor of Law Review. That would make him unique among editors, according to insiders.

Even John "D Student" Kerry was guilt-tripped into releasing his transcripts.

Curiously, since I relayed a report of Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago (he was apparently never a law professor, as some have claimed), the Illinois Bar has decided to partially redact what little public information it had available on its website related to the President's legal status.

There's more.

THINK ABOUT THIS... (you too Obots...if at all possible)...

A compassionate, responsible, and patriotic commander-in-chief would NEVER allow the military to function in harm's way or for that matter in any service to this great country with any existing doubt in their mind as to the legality of ANY ORDERS they might receive from the White House. A legitimate commander-in-chief would immediately put that issue to rest! That is the honorable thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is common sense.

Furthermore, a true AMERICAN president would not allow these incredibly brave and patriotic soldiers to be tormented with doubt as to the eligibility of their commander-in-chief.

Anything less is a direct insult to the brave men and women who defend our freedoms and AKA Obama's disdain and arrogance is in essence, an attack on the security of America and her citizens. AKA Obama's failure to prove his eligibility divides and weakens America.

I think the evidence becomes more compelling with each passing day that we have a usurper in the White House and a true an enemy of America in our midst.

AKA Obama is illegitimate. That is obvious.

In fact AKA Obama has perpetrated the greatest crime ever against the American people and yet he has the audacity to tell us how to live our lives as he goes about trashing our Constitution and depriving us our freedoms, liberty and our right to pursue happiness.

All Americans should, like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, be clamoring for AKAObama to release his records and demanding that the media stop covering for this pathetic excuse of a U.S. President.

The safety and security of the American people are at stake. Lt. Col. Lakin is a patriot and is doing the right thing by trying to force AKAObama's hand. It's obvious that AKAObama is hiding something and we all have a right to know!

Lakin should be applauded and supported by all of us! We have had it with this fraud in the White House. The truth must be told. Do something today to keep up the pressure. This issue WILL NOT go away!

YOU WATCH! The Defense Dept. (at Barry Soetoro's orders) will cancel Lt. Col Lakin's orders to deploy rather than have to cough up all the fraudulent documents that would expose AKA Obama or perhaps they will even go so far as to dishonorably discharge him. What sense does that make?

Where's the birth certificate Barry? Fraud!

AKA Obama (Barry Soetoro) must go! It's time to speak out! What do you think?

4 timely articles from Canada Free Press...

A case for revolution
By Klaus Rohrich

Following the Democrats’ undemocratic passage of Obamacare, a number of Americans decided to take their anger and disappointment to the next level. Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republican, received threats, had office windows broken and one Republican even had a bullet fired through his window.

Never failing to grasp an opportunity for political gain, no matter how tenuous, Democrat functionaries blamed Republicans and their “shadowy right wing supporters” for all the violence, despite the fact that members of both sides were on the receiving end. And like a trained poodle, House Minority Leader John Boehner condemned the violence.

More...

Resign! Repeal! Renew!
By Alan Caruba

The salvation of America now depends on forcing President Barack Obama to resign, repealing the appalling healthcare bill that is now the law of the land, and renewing a full measure of financial prudence to the conduct of the nation’s public affairs and obligations.

More...

Texas Organizing Project Is Newest ACORN Spinoff Group
By Matthew Vadum

An inside ACORN source has just confirmed this to me: the Texas chapter of ACORN has pretended to break off from the national group and has incorporated itself under the name Texas Organizing Project.

You read it here first.

Here’s a helpful chart I made:

More...



‘Lights of Perverted Science:’ Positioning Israel as the Nazi of Nations
By Dr. Richard L. Cravatts

Jews have been accused of harming and murdering of non-Jews since the twelfth century in England, when Jewish convert to Catholicism, Theobald of Cambridge, perjuriously proclaimed that European Jews ritually slaughtered Christian children each year and drank their blood during Passover season.

More...

Patriot

Orly Taitz without question is the most patriotic female American figure since Clara Barton, or Betsy Ross.

She has GUL's complete support. All need to back her in her efforts to end Obama's gambit.

Steve

Born In America-by Neil Goldberg

Maj Cook Vouches for Lt Col Lakin

I received this email reply from Major Stefan Cook, regarding LtCol Lakin.

Major Cook is the valiant officer who defied Obama June 2009, one of the first in our military to speak out.

Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Subject : RE: LTC Terry Lakin

Date : Wed, Mar 31, 2010 01:05 PM

Not at all!

Terry Lakin is the real deal.

He deserves our complete support

I know Terry and he's a true patriot and a stand up guy.

A superb officer who also takes his oath seriously

V/R

Sparky

Flight Surgeon to Army's Chief of Staff General Casey Wants To Know

Hat Tip to JL a GUL reader and legislative lion.
__________________________________________________

I was remiss.

This article is dedicated to Major Stefan F. Cook, one among the bravest of the brave. He spoke out in June 2009, one of the first.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The officer questioning Obama's status is Lt Col T. Lakin, Flight Surgeon. He is on the staff of 4 star General Geo. W. Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff. I believe that is the second highest job in the U.S. Army. Gen. Casey is stationed at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. For a Pentagon Officer such as Lakin, on the staff of such a prestigious General as Gen Casey, to speak out against Obama is quite remarkable.

It's akin to treason within the highest echelons of the Palace Guard.

Perhaps this act which occurred today was the reason for Obama's earlier message this morning, about not questioning his eligibility. Obama must have heard it was coming and is trying to do damage control. It also explains Fox's Gretta Van Sustrand doing a piece with Newt Gingrich, in which she called the birther's
space cadets.

Well add one more, a highly decorated Pentagon staff officer in top standing with the Army, who happens to be a very skilled Doctor. How do I know this? They don't let dum dums handle gold plated 4 star Generals, second in line for overall command of the Army.

Welcome Aboard the Space Ship Doctor, glad to have a Flight Surgeon with us. BTW we refer to ourselves Constitutionalists, it's derived from the document we revere and cherish.

Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Army Officer Seeks Truth About Obama’s Eligibility to Serve in Oval Office, Invites Own Court-Martial

March 30th, 2010 ·

In a news release today, Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin said he is wiling to risk a court-martial in order if that’s what it takes to determine whether or not President Barack Obama is eligible to serve as president of the United States. Not your average officer, Colonel Lakin is the lead flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey’s pilots and air crew.
The video above provides an overview of his argument.
“I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said Colonel Lakin.
The news release cited (1) Article II, Sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution which explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief and (2) Mr. Obama’s continued refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate as reasons behind Colonel Lakin reaching the conclusion that his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Today, according to the news release, Colonel Lakin said he had informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit him, as a military officer, to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. In addition, he noted that his efforts have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration’s “transparency” initiative, the colonel believes many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Colonel Lakin’s numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon’s Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.

Obama to Propose More Oil Drilling in Gulf

March 31, 2010

By STEPHEN POWER And IAN TALLEY

Wall Street Journal

It another shell game Obama is trying to pull off another con job on the voting public. Great headline above, but like health care it’s all about the details. This is nothing but the typical shell game used by this administration.

If he were serious he would allow drilling to begin immediately instead having a commission to “study” how much oil exists off the Atlantic coasts. Let the law suits and environmental studies begin. Random thoughts while watching a conman manipulate the media and the minds of the voter, J.C.

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will propose allowing offshore oil and natural-gas exploration and development in a large swath of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, after months of criticism from Republicans who have made expanded offshore drilling a political rallying cry.

In addition, the administration plans to announce new steps to determine how much oil and natural gas is buried off the coasts of Middle and Southern Atlantic states, where oil-reserve estimates are decades out of date.

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s plan wouldn’t allow new oil and gas development off the coasts of Northern Atlantic states or California, whose political leaders have long opposed offshore drilling. The administration will call off a plan drafted by the administration of former President George W. Bush that would have given oil companies access to Alaska’s Bristol Bay, an area teeming with wild sockeye salmon and many commercial fishing interests concerned about the impact of drilling on their livelihoods. Complete Story

Climbing In The Ratings

One of the pre-election main topics was energy. Drill Here! Drill Now! Open up the Federal offshore lands for further exploration. Open up the North Slope of Alaska. Open the Eastern Gulf coast off the shores of Florida. Open California's offshore, where energy is more scarce than jobs.

Like a bolt out of the blue, Obama announces Virginia waters will be opened for drilling. It is a step in the right direction, but the chosen path is the narrowest possible. Does he really want to do something that will substantially benefit, or does he just want to give that appearance to the gullible masses?

The chances of striking an oil pocket are much more likely in Alaska, off Florida in the oil rich Gulf of Mexico. There is 3.5 Billion barrels waiting in North Dakota. Arco was hitting well after well along the California coast before the tree huggers shut that down.It's a true pity, especially when Caly has such high unemployment, gas currently at $3.60 a gallon, and no tax base. Those oil royalties sure would be nice to have for them. A revitalized oil industry wouldn't hurt the state's jobs outlook either. I guess $3.60 gas would have to fall as well.

Obama approves Virginia. Makes sense to me. If you want to do something without doing anything. Just like his Nuclear Power plant permit approvals in January '10 that won't see the first cubic yard of cement poured in the next 15 years.

Interesting don't you think, 15 months after the fact, Obama gets the epiphany to do some sniffing for oil. Must have bumped his head and suddenly remembered there was an energy crisis going on the summer of '08. Or was that Soros and gang manipulating the market?

Sell that Health Care Bill Obowma, Sell it baby! If he can get a majority behind him, the Supreme Court may take that into account on how they interpret the Commerce Act.

Make this a talking point, Obama is only doing the bare minimum, and it's for his ratings/agenda not America.

Steve

From The Blog Abel Danger

Attention All Bloggers—Attach Yourself Like a Leech to an Issue
Attention to all bloggers, if you have a blog or you are thinking of blogging, no matter how small the effort or how great, this is our time to speak the TRUTH to raw power which is now out in the open.

“If you bloggers self-organize and attach yourselves like leeches to specific issues, corporations, organizations, challenges, you will be the intelligence minutemen of this century. The power is in your hands. There aren't enough guns to kill us all, and Haliburton can't build the jails fast enough to keep us down.”

ABSURD!

3 Articles to start your day...

Obama, who ‘excluded lobbyists’, has appointed 50

March 31st, 2010

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
March 31, 2010

President Obama used his recess-appointment power to place four former federal lobbyists — representing defense contractors and the agri-chemical industry among others — in top policy jobs. Obama’s maneuver dodges a Senate floor debate and sweeps under the rug an inauspicious milestone: The appointment of the 50th lobbyist to a policymaking job by a president who claims he’s “excluded” them.

[Read more →]

Alex Shows Off New Barry Soetoro T-Shirt: Get Yours Today!

Posted on March 31st, 2010

As a matter of principle I normally will not advertise anything on this blog but this time around I make an exception as:

1. I want to see every American wearing this T-Shirt as it makes a real impact if millions and millions of patriots wear it wherever they go. You will get questions which in turn allows you to inform others about the usurpers true name.
2. It is a perfect way to support the tremendous work Alex Jones is doing.

- David Crockett

Alex show us his new barry soetoro t-shirt on the alex jones show.

http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.tv

[Read more →]

Flight Surgeon to Army’s Chief of Staff General Casey Wants To Know - Thanks Loni

Posted on March 31st, 2010

Give Us Liberty published:

The officer questioning Obama’s status is Lt Col T. Lakin, Flight Surgeon. He is on the staff of 4 star General Geo. W. Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff. I believe that is the second highest job in the U.S. Army. Gen. Casey is stationed at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. For a Pentagon Officer such as Lakin, on the staff of such a prestigious General as Gen Casey, to speak out against Obama is quite remarkable.

It’s akin to treason within the highest echelons of the Palace Guard.

[Read more →]

I Will Delegate, But The People In My Administration Will Answer To Me, For It Is My Vision They Will Be Working To Fulfill,

217 Days and counting until Election Day November 2, 2010.

Check Out these two videos

For those who can't stand the guy, the part that is most interesting starts at the 5:30 mark or so.





below is a link to the second video. This is a video where Fox's Gretta Van Sestren sells us out as a lunatic fringe for questioning Obama's eligibility.


http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/obama-vs-tea-parties-18900627


Rick Santelli a securities trader on the floor of the CBO, was doing a live televised interview with MSNBC Business on February 18, 2009. Santelli went into a rant about the unfairness of Government bailouts of residential mortgages. That rant spawned a movement. About 50 people who heard Santelli, although located in different parts of the country, connected via the internet and decided to do something about an out of control Government. They formed the Tea Party

February 27,2009 was the first Tea Party protest, it was widely but sparsely attended. Not to be deterred, another nation wide event was planned for April 15, 2009. Some 1.9 million patriots in about 2000 locations across the country turned out to protest, most of them protesting for the first time in their lives.

The rest is history.

Obama may have some other hair brained concept in mind, but as far as the Tea Party you and I are familiar with, these above are the historical facts of the birth of the Tea Party. Not some time prior to the election of November 4, 2008 .

And yes barackie you still are a usurper

Steve
A Natural Born US Citizen, Constitutionally eligible to be the POTUS, but does not aspire to.

Orly Taitz Files Motion to Have her Quo Warranto Lawsuit Consolidated with Multi-State Health Care Bill Lawsuit

Orly Taitz Files Motion to Have her Quo Warranto Lawsuit Consolidated with Multi-State Health Care Bill Lawsuit

Attorney Orly Taitz files motion to have her Quo Warranto lawsuit consolidated with the 13 State health care lawsuit in the District of Columbia.Orly Taitz is arguing the health care bill(law) is unconstitutional...

Monday, March 29, 2010

Obama Nobody Believes Your Lies Anymore

Another Photo From The LA Rally I Want To Reiterate---Doesn't It Send A Mixed Message

Note the price tag. This Commmunist Wannabe needs to get his priorities and his ideologies straight.


Steve

A Facebook Reply

Laura DiSimone Stephen: Thank you for your message of kindness and encouragement. We are committed to both Nevada and America. WE have seen so much injustice and cannot sit on the sidelines. We will continue to move forward to restore this country and her constitution. Gino and I both are grateful for the support we have been receiving from individuals like yourself; who are like minded. I am looking forward to reading your blogs on Give us Liberty. Many blessings on you and yours.
2 hours ago


Not many politicians or their wives would even bother to reply to the little people.
It speaks well of the DiSimone's. America is desparate for leaders such as these.

Steve

I Wanted To Reiterate This Photo From The LA Rally-It Should Contain The Slogan "Why We Fight"

------------Obama's Peep's----------

Compare and Contrast-Two Rallies Held A Week Apart, One In LA, The Other In Searchlight (click to enlarge)

Can Government Force You to Live Healthy?

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Given the fact that the Medical Marxists in charge of America have succeeded in passing a bill that allows the government to force private citizens to purchase health insurance, and levy fines, and or jail, to those who fail to comply, just how far can the nanny fascists go in deciding how you live your life?

How about a government mandate to outlaw behavior which leads to obesity and related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease?

If government can force me to buy health insurance, against my will, in the name of advancing the greater good, can those same imbeciles tell me that my weight must not exceed those absurd height-weight charts found in doctors’ offices from coast to coast?

What about a required weigh-in at the local IRS office every year in early April, say a couple of weeks before April 15?

Exceed the prescribed weight for your body frame, sex, and age, and IRS automatically adds $100 to your tab bill—for every pound of excess flab. So the guy or gal with 50 extra lbs to their name would have to cough up an extra $5,000.

Add that to the $5,000 penalty for not having insurance, and you have Ten Grand staring back at you, just for being a slobaholic.

Continue down that slippery slope for another year, and you might find yourself incarcerated and forced to unwillingly lose those 50 pounds before being allowed to live free.

Or with dim-bulbs like Nancy Pelosi in charge, the insanity might even go further: Given the chance, Nanny Nancy would outlaw Twinkies, mashed potatoes and gravy, real ice cream, Reese buttercups, sour cream, spaghetti and meatballs, beer, French bread and butter, popcorn, Frito chips, hot dogs, and any and all foods and drinks found at a typical American 4th of July celebration, Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner, and most birthday parties, where Anglo-Saxon culture and food are allowed.

In contrast, some of the most fatty, high-calorie and carbohydrate-laced foods like Tacos, Tamales, Burritos, and Enchiladas would be exempt from Nancy’s law, owing to the sensitive nature of Hispanic voters and-- their voting numbers.

What about exercise? Getting enough—at least one hour a day?

Damn your hide! You are a national security risk and a threat to the success of ObamaCare and medical fascism. This must not stand!

You will, therefore, be required by law to exercise daily according to a regime devised by a panel of health experts like Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and Louise Slaughter.

The law will be enforced by IRS agents who will be authorized to demand proof of your compliance before allowing you to withdraw funds from your government- insured bank account.

Stop bitching, Pilgrims! This is Progress, remember?

Say what? What about a law making it a felony to smoke, chew, or sniff any tobacco product? (except marijuana,GBH,Xtasy,or CRACK of course)


Sorry, mate, but that sort of intrusive interference is above the pay grade of our nicotine-addicted Commander-in-chief at this time!

Main Stream Media and Soros At It Again, This Time In California Governor's Race

Monday, March 29, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement

The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that Republican candidate Meg Whitman is getting more favorable press coverage these days than former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

For the week ending Sunday, March 28, 2010, 58% of the media mentions for Whitman were positive. while 42% were negative.

For Brown, during the same time frame, the results were the mirror opposite, 42% positive and 58% negative.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows the two candidates tied at 40% each in the governor's race.

While the coverage of Whitman has been more positive than Brown’s coverage, the Democrat has had far more coverage with nearly twice as many mentions as Whitman.

Is Obama a Muslim?...What do you think?...a GUL follower speaks out on the subject...

If you check Obama's last trip over seas. His wife left just after their visit to France as stated below.
She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. The pieces of the puzzle just keep on coming together!

I was at a Blockbusters renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called "Obama". There were two ARAB men next to me. We talked about Obama. I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband...

They told me she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq .
I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia , Turkey and Dubai ." They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his wife into countries that accept Sharia Law.

I just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at Blockbusters accept the idea that we're being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed.

They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia .. It was a signal to the Muslim world.

When I received this it made sense to me, but there were also a couple blank spots.


Thus, I sent it to a friend who is a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert, Dr. Jim Murk.


Here is his explanation that states a little clearer what the Arabs at Blockbuster were saying.
"An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices shari'ah law, which includes Saudi Arabia .


It is why Obama left Michelle in Europe , or at home, when he went to Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this included his bowing to the Saudi king.


Obama is regarded as a Muslim in these countries simply because he was born to a Muslim father. Note that he (has not attended church since becoming President.)

He also played down the fact that the USA was a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, (which is not true).


He has also publicly taken the part of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel. Finally, he ignored the National Day of Prayer.


He is bad news. He is God's judgment on America ." Jim Murk

Thus, once again, ACTIONS speak louder than words. Check out Obama's (actions). Do they appear treasonous to you, or is it just millions of us who think so?

True Christians are Overcomers!
By Dave Macy

The headlines reflect the awful truth real Christians always expected. President Barack Obama is not who he says he is. And he probably isn’t who many Americans say he is—namely the anti-Christ. However, his actions, tactics, and values are absolutely anti-Christ!

More...

An Honor

I am honored. Laura DiSimone, wife of Gino DiSimone, running as the Independent candidate for Governor of Nevada, friend requested me on facebook.

A common man, was more than happy to accept such an invitation from the wife of another common man.


Patriots are rising people. Join us.

===============================================

Information regarding the Power Of Ten Project can be had by emailing us at deliverusfromevil2009@gmail.com

==============================================
Steve

Obama's white-flight problem

March 30, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obama's white-flight problem


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Desperate Democrats and their co-conspirators in the media are busy trying to whip up a race war.

"The health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse," Frank Rich wrote in a recent New York Times column. Their line is that all those opposed to the president's radical agenda are racists who resent having a black man as president. It is a moldy, old smear, but as approval ratings for Mr. Obama sink below 50 percent, it is being revisited with increasing fervor.

According to the latest Gallup weekly data, only 38 percent of whites approve of Mr. Obama's performance, down from 63 percent when he took office. Of course, if these people were racists, they never would have given Mr. Obama their support to begin with, but the liberal howls of "white flight" are resistant to elementary logic.

Critics focus on racial data because they want to make race the center of the argument. This is a way to avoid the inconvenient truth that vast segments of the electorate are becoming disenchanted with Mr. Obama's broken promises. The American middle class is deserting him in droves.

According to Gallup, Mr. Obama is losing ground among people earning between $24,000 and $60,000 per year (currently at 50 percent approval - even lower at higher income levels); college graduates (48 percent approval); political independents (43 percent approval); older Americans, especially senior citizens (40 percent approval); and married couples (40 percent approval). These are the bedrock middle-class demographics, and represent people who increasingly recognize the existential threat Mr. Obama poses to their pocketbooks and to American core values.

Among people who attend church weekly, Mr. Obama's support has dropped from a high of 60 percent in January 2009 to 41 percent, and affinity for Mr. Obama has fallen in double digits among religious denominations across the board. An exception is the "None/Atheist/Agnostic" category, in which Mr. Obama enjoys 67 percent support. He is also highly supported by those with graduate degrees, young people, single people, poor people and blacks.

Perhaps Mr. Obama's defenders believe, as many liberals do, that the United States is a fundamentally racist nation. As Mr. Obama said during the 2008 campaign trail, "It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This contemptuous assessment of the American middle class accurately reflects the liberal worldview. When they say "red state," they mean "redneck."

Race plays a much stronger role in the liberal mindset than for most of America. Mr. Obama and many liberals of his generation grew up being taught that America is at root a deeply flawed country, and it is their mission to "fix" it. Those pushing the "racism" argument to explain the strong opposition to Mr. Obama's policies do so because they can't escape looking at issues through a racial prism. As America has become post-racial, they are intellectually and emotionally stuck in the 1960s. So they recycle images half-a-century old and wait, forlornly, for a random lynching to justify their worldview.

There is much to dislike about Mr. Obama's America: high unemployment, monstrous record debt, economic sluggishness, a terrible health care law, higher taxes, a rigged census, fast-tracking illegal aliens to the franchise, growing government at home and increasing weakness abroad. It is not mean-spirited racism to take a stand against the daily destruction of the American dream; it is simple common sense.

FNC's Hume: Value-Added Tax Passage During Congressional Lame-Duck Session a Possibility

By Jeff Poor
Mon, 03/29/2010

So we have a health care reform entitlement now, along with various unfunded liabilities, courtesy of the federal government. The next question is - how are we going to pay for all of it?

Last week following the passage of health care legislation, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted a value-added tax (or VAT) could be in the works, which is a consumption tax that is placed on a product whenever value is added at a stage of production and at final sale.

However, former Fox News "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume, now a senior political analyst for network, said there was a possibility the VAT could be pushed into law during a lame-duck session of Congress, if loss for the Democratic Party are steep enough to force them to relinquish their control following the 2008 cycle.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

"I think the projected savings, if they actually came to pass, would be in the order of 140 some billion dollars," Hume said. "That is a drop in the bucket against these levels of debt and particularly against the levels of entitlement debt, which is why I think after the news on social security and after the difficulty selling government bonds last week with lifted interest rates - you may start, as Charles Krauthammer fears, to hear about a value-added tax, a form of sales tax. You could hardly get it through the Congress right now, but you might be able to slip it through after the election, with the old Congress still seated, the new Congress not yet here during the so-called lame duck session. I don't think it is yet likely but I wouldn't rule it out."

A VAT could be detrimental for the U.S. economy and it wouldn't be a cure-all for government debt, as Chris Edwards pointed out for Cato @ Liberty last year. Instead, this would encourage more spending and higher tax rates, causing an impediment to U.S. economic growth.

"In sum, a VAT would not solve our deficit problems because Congress would simply boost its spending even higher, as happened in Europe as VAT rates increased over time," Edwards wrote. "Also, a VAT is not needed to cut the corporate income tax rate because a corporate rate cut would be self-financing over the long-term as tax avoidance fell and economic growth increased

MANNING PREDICTS REVOLUTION...Controversial...pulls no punches...

http://la-gun.com/videos/manning/

Why don't we have answers?...

Sarah Palin announces endorsements for three American heroes we here at GUL DO SUPPORT...

American Heroes Ready and Willing to Serve in Congress Sarah Palin

America, if you love your freedom, thank a vet! And if you’re looking for leaders who believe in integrity, service, and country first, look to our veterans.

Last week I campaigned for a true American hero, John McCain, and this week I’d ask you to join me in supporting a new generation of heroes who are heeding their country’s call for leadership in Washington.

There are a number of great veteran candidates running for office this year, and there are some excellent organizations dedicated to helping them, including: Iraq Vets for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress (please click on the links to visit their websites).

There are three veterans in particular I’ll be supporting this week.

The first is Major Vaughn Ward, a fourth-generation Idaho native who grew up on his family’s farm in Shoshone and is running in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District. Coming from a family with a proud military tradition, Vaughn joined the Marine Corps after college and was finishing up his service when the September 11th attacks occurred. He put his life on hold and heeded his country’s call – serving first as a CIA Operations Officer and later volunteering with the Marine Corps for a combat tour in Iraq, during which he was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat V. After returning from Iraq, Vaughn went to work for the McCain/Palin campaign. I was grateful for his support then, and I’m happy to support him now because I know that he believes in the same commonsense conservative ideals that we cherish. Vaughn knows that real job growth comes from the private sector, not government. He believes in free market reforms, tax relief for families and small businesses, and a return to a constitutionally limited government that lives within its means. He’ll carry the conservative banner to Washington and will rein in the reckless growth of government to get it back on our side. And remember, a vote for Vaughn is a vote to remove the gavel from Nancy Pelosi’s grip. Please visit Vaughn’s website here to make a donation to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

The second veteran is Captain Adam Kinzinger, a decorated special-operations pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adam is running for Illinois’ 11th Congressional District against a freshman incumbent congresswoman who seemed to pull a bait and switch on voters to get elected. She sounded like a blue dog on the campaign trail, but didn’t vote like one in Washington. Instead, she voted in lockstep with the Pelosi agenda – on Obamacare, the stimulus, cap-and-tax – and the list goes on. She’s part of the reason for Congress’ 11% approval rating. Adam is a strong fiscal conservative with a proven track record as a reformer from his years serving on his local county board. Adam started out in local office, and, like many of us, believes in making government more accountable to the people. When you serve in local office, your constituents truly are your neighbors. Adam understands this, and I know that he will listen to his constituents and work for us, not against us, in Washington. Please visit Adam’s website here to make a donation to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

The third veteran is Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, a decorated war hero who’s served with distinction in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of you may have heard of Allen from a speech he gave last year that became a viral video on YouTube with over 2 million viewers. Allen’s personal story is a testament to the commonsense conservative belief that our nation’s greatness is rooted in freedom, because with freedom comes equal opportunity, and that, coupled with hard work, leads to success. Allen is a small government fiscal conservative running against a leftwing ideologue who’s marched to the beat of Nancy Pelosi on every issue from cap-and-tax to the stimulus, TARP, and, of course, Obamacare. It’s time to send Allen to Washington in his place. Please visit Allen’s website here to donate to his campaign, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

I believe that these great veterans will fight for us in D.C. to uphold and defend our constitution as courageously in the halls of Congress as they did on the field of battle. I’m so honored to offer my support to these American heroes, and I hope you’ll join me in helping them so that they can serve us all in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

Sean Penn, New Nike Spokeman "Just Do It Already"

This Is What Hope And Change From The Marxist Left Really Looks Like

FBI charges anti-Semitic nutball with threats against GOP Rep. Cantor & family; “…you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.”

Let Orly Do It

Thirteen states are challenging the Health Care Bill for violating the Constitution.
How thorough do you expect the AG's of these states to be,considering they are paid a very nice salary, by the taxpayers.

Do you expect them to show up in court with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution highlighted in yellow as Exhibit 1, and that's about it.?

Or do you expect them, to weigh the very paper the Bill is written on, check the thickness, make sure the chain of custody, went from Speaker to Oval Office, with an unbroken and secure transfer of this document. Ensure it was secured in a vault overnight while awaiting signature. Ascertain who had the combination to the vault, if there wsas a witness when it was taken out of the vault, and who that person was? Etc.etc.,etc.

Seems like a meaningless line of questions. I agree to an extent, but how do they secure the document to avoid post passage tampering? For one-sixth of the economy I expect a to get my monies worth regarding questions to be asked by these gents.

One in particular, the signature signing the Bill into law. Is it Obama's, and by what right does he sign. Prove it. A video of the Inauguration as proof won't suffice in this instance. Not thorough enough. We're still talking 1/6th of the economy, states rights, survival of the republic, the future of our posterity.

Orly Taitz has filed a motion to join these 13 AG's to ask just such a question. Quo Warranto Obama, By What Right Do You Affix Your Signature. Show Your Documentation.

I've said here many times before, in our federal legal code the only exception to placing the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser, is under Quo Warranto. Quo Warranto even exceeds the 5th Amendment because we are talking about protection against an illegal elected representative from ascending to power by deception. It is up to Obama to provide as proof, to a diligent courts satisfaction, any relevant documentation demanded by a plaintiff. If he can, he can. If he can't, he can't be president anymore. Simple as that. We know Obama can't or else he would have done so long ago.

If the AG's get desperate enough in their case, if it looks like they could somehow lose, I hope they remember the Quo Warranto Ace in the Hole. How fitting if they would allow Orly Taitz to present the Writ to the court.

If they wanted to do it the easy way, they would already be asking for his proof. Case Closed. As a usurper, Obama's signature would make the Health Care law and all others he has signed NULL and VOID.

"Take Him Away Baliff." What a sweet sound that would be. A sound in this instance, as sweet as "Liberty".


Steve

Where Is The Supreme Court?

Has anyone wondered why Chief Justice Roberts has been silent on the issue of Natural Born Citizen?

As one of three co-equal branches of our republic, in a day of mass media opportunities to educate the populous, why hasn't the Supreme Court spoken out on this issue.

I'm not talking specifically Obama's water leaking eligibility issue. I'm talking about the concept in general, Article II, as outlined by the Constitution. Our Justices need to get off their elderly asses, and get in front of a video camera and start talking about the Constitution. What it means, what is intended, how it has evolved, why an American citizen has no standing in the Federal court system. What judicial devices have been abusively devised to circumvent the Law of the Land. You know that sort of stuff.


Steve

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW?...is that the case today?

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”—These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States . As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is “distinctly American in concept and function,” as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. “The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe ,” he remarked, “but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.” The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American “experiment in democracy” with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations. While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard

to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison . In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland , a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has “original jurisdiction” in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

[The foregoing was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States , and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.]