California – Supreme courts irresponsible and dangerous prisoner release precedent

May 31, 2011

California Must Release 37,000 Inmates [FOX: 5-23-2011]

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for California Must Release 37,000 Inmates [FOX: 5-…
Follow my videos on vodpod

The below desperate man succumbing to the fallacious arguments that were initially presented by the Communists in Russia and Nazi Germany.  The people were desperate and pushed in to agreeing with whoever came along that had a positive spin.  This man, I believe, is desperate and although well intentioned, doesn’t really understand that legalizing this is only going to put the next drug (“harsh drug”) in to the status the marijuana enjoys today.   The cartels across the border don’t care what they deal in.  They care only about the profit.  Heroine is just as easy and cocaine is ready many forms.  The reality is that the geographies that HAVE legalized it have an increase in crime due to, what amounts to, institutionalized advertising.  The reason that the the government may WANT to make it legal is not to “make money” through taxes, but to make money through promulgation and increase of head count in UN “social” programs.  You see.  The drug and crimes associated with distribution aren’t really milking enough from you the tax payer, so now they have to go another rout. Conversely, the drug dealers aren’t making enough “just” from drugs alone.  They are multi tasking.  People trafficing seems to be where it’s at, along side the drugs.  They go hand in hand.  It’s a 2 for 1 stop.  Get your drug and a girl all at the same place.  No need to go to a few different “distributors.”  It’s a special type of Wal Mart.

CA Releasing 40,000 Prisoners

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for CA Releasing 40,000 Prisoners
Follow my videos on vodpod

This a particularly pointed radio exerpt from Michael Savage on Marijuana:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage on marijuana and mind altering l…, posted with vodpod

A caller to his show – an example of the brain damage associated with long term use.  To all those that say that POT isn’t dangerous, please, listen to this person that called in to the show.  I have talked to people that sound similar with moderate and even “light” usage.  To say that it’s harmless is an illusion.  Those who say that it is, please, try and understand where the core of the assertion is.  If it’s simply that it’s too hard to control, then look at HOW it’s been attempted.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage Gets Call From ‘High In The Sky’…, posted with vodpod

The drug dealers are crippling those who are their patronage.  Yet, the victims of this brain damage are so addicted that they protect their perpetrators.

Here is another – absolutely true.  But let the “government official” pot heads tell you that the only way is to legalize it.  Why not just give up our sovereignty as a nation, because it’s too hard to keep it.  Think about it.  Isn’t it just because the fed has been  inept at the punishments and deterrents?

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Michael Savage on why marijuana smokers are losers, posted with vodpod

The real reason why LAW enforcement isn’t working on drugs, is because there is no real “punishment.”  It’s more lucrative to continue the idea that the drug trade can’t be fixed, then to create a penal code with punishments and deterrents that MAKE SENSE.    Instead, the politician give politically correct lip service and g-d forbid you stand up and call them liars and inept.

MASS PRISON RELEASE IN CALIFORNIA 5-23-2011 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
MASS PRISON RELEASE IN CALIFORNIA 5-23-2011, posted with vodpod

California ‘High Risk’ Prisoners Wrongly Released Due to Computer Errors

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Published May 26, 2011

SACRAMENTO –  Computer errors resulted in some 450 inmates with “a high risk for violence” being wrongly released from California prisons, the Los Angeles Times reported in its Thursday edition.

On top of the 450, more than 1,000 prisoners, deemed to be at high risk of committing drug and property crimes, were also released into the community.

All the offenders were placed on “non-revocable parole” — a program that does not require them to report to parole officers. The program, which started in January 2010, was intended for inmates considered to be at low risk of reoffending.

Reviewing 200 case files of the 10,134 former inmates on non-revocable parole last July, investigators uncovered that 31 were not eligible for the program, while nine of the 31 were deemed likely to commit a violent crime.

It was estimated, using a 15 percent error rate found in the sample, that more than 450 violent prisoners were let go in the program’s first seven months.

However, the findings were disputed by prison officials who said that some of the computer glitches had since been corrected, making the margin of error eight percent, according to a report by the inspector general.

None of the wrongly-released offenders have since been placed on supervised parole or returned to jail, inspector general spokeswoman Renee Hansen said.

Authorities declined to name the concerned prisoners and would not say what crimes they had committed.

On Monday, a divided Supreme Court ordered California to reduce prison overcrowding, a decision that could force the release of tens of thousands of inmates.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/california-high-risk-prisoners-wrongly-released-errors/#ixzz1NfobikOm



In honor of the DEAD for their undying memory and sacrifice – Memorial Day 2011

May 28, 2011

 

 

History

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women’s groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, “Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping” by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication “To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead” (Source: Duke University’s Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it’s difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860’s tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.

General John A. Logan
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 – 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis’ birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.

In 1915, inspired by the poem “In Flanders Fields,” Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

small_1180-Patriotic-Poppies.jpg
She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children’s League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans’ organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their “Buddy” Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.

Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

There are a few notable exceptions. Since the late 50’s on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye’s Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.

MemorialDay-743090.jpg

<Some masons that I know, here in Austin, take the time to visit their local cemeteries and find the graves of soldiers and place them at those.  They use their own money to do that.  I don’t know any church or synagogue that does it.  The city and town councils sure don’t.  Shameful!>

 

 

To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the “National Moment of Remembrance” resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans “To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to ‘Taps.”

The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.

But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: “Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”

memorial_day_2

On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of “the last Monday in May”. On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.

To date, there has been no further developments on the bill. Please write your Representative and yourSenators, urging them to support these bills. You can also contact Mr. Inouye to let him know of your support.

Washington crosses Delaware - vintage art clip

Visit our Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance page for more information on this issue, and for more ways you can help.

To see what day Memorial Day falls on for the next 10 years, visit the Memorial Day Calendar page.

 

 

 

memorial-day.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 


Obama’s misstep – Israel’s ’67 borders would cripple defense and peace – Why suggest it then?

May 24, 2011

I believe that Obama’s goal is the Muslim goal primarily.  He is a Communist secondarily.  He’s an anti Colonialist, as defined by the African definition.  If one is anti – colonialist, then one is against the West and ALL that the WEST represents. This, indeed, means anti – Jewish and Christian, anti- Capitalist and anti – Socialist, this further means anti – Capitalist.  This leave Theocracy and nothing else.  THIS is OBAMA.

This also means that a Caliphate across the ME, would not be objectionable to him.  He is after all a TRUE son to Africa, not America.  Regardless of his birth place, he is African.  He’s SAID so.

Obama’s diversionary tactics

By Caroline B. Glick

What did the president wish to accomplish by purposely starting an ugly fight with the prime minister this past weekend? 

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | As the Washington Post pointed out on Friday, US President Barack Obama purposely provoked the current fight with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He knew full well that Netanyahu does not back the Palestinian formulation that negotiations with Israel must be based on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, or what are wrongly referred to as the 1967 lines. In the days leading up to Obama’s speech last Thursday, Israel registered explicit, repeated requests that he not adopt the Palestinian position that negotiations should be based on those lines.

And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared Thursday: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.

The question is why would Obama act as he did? What did he wish to accomplish by purposely starting such an ugly fight with Netanyahu?

Probably the best way to figure out what Obama wished to accomplish is to consider what he did accomplish, because the two are undoubtedly related.

ON MAY 4, two weeks before Obama gave his speech, Fatah and Hamas signed a unity agreement. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like its fellow Brotherhood satellite al-Qaida, Hamas shares the Brotherhood’s ideology of global jihad, the destruction of Western civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate. Also like al-Qaida, it is a terrorist organization which, since its establishment in 1987 has murdered more than a thousand Israelis.

In 2005, Hamas subcontracted itself out to the Iranian regime. Since then, its men have been trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and by Hezbollah. Hamas maintains operational ties with both outfits and receives most of its weapons and significant funding from Iran.

The agreement between Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also paves the way for Hamas to win the planned Palestinian legislative and presidential elections that are scheduled for September just after the UN General Assembly is scheduled to endorse Palestinian statehood. It also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the UStrained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama’s policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations’ refusal to “put light” between the US and Israel, and Israel’s unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations’ support for Israel or with Israel’s size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel’s destruction.

Forcing Israel into indefensible boundaries, (which as Netanyahu explained to Obama at the White House on Friday, “were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them,”), will not advance the cause of peace. It will advance the Palestinians’ goal of destroying Israel.

Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies.

And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal.

By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel’s size again the issue.

Political map of Israel with Westbank and Gaza, Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon

Political map of Israel with Westbank and Gaza, Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal actually demonstrates that not only is Israel’s size not the cause of the conflict, it is the main reason that Israelis and Palestinians live in relative peace.

Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem, and with them, its ability to ward off invasion and attacks on its major cities is what has prevented wars. If Israel were more vulnerable, the de facto Palestinian terror state would not be weighing whether or not to begin a new terror war as its leaders from Fatah and Hamas are doing today. It would be waging a continuous campaign of terror whose clear aim is Israel’s destruction for again, as Netanyahu said the 1949 armistice lines make war an attractive option for Israel’s enemies.

BY PICKING a fight with Netanyahu, since Thursday, no one could have possibly noted this basic truth because the false issue of Israel’s control over these areas — that is, Israel’s size — has dominated the global discourse on the Middle East.

Obama would never have been able to create his diversion from the unwelcome fact of Palestinian duplicity and rejectionism, to imaginary problem with the size of Israel without the enthusiastic support given to him by the Israeli Left.

Led by opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Left responded to Obama’s full-scale assault on Israel’s legitimacy by launching a full-scale partisan assault on Netanyahu. Rather than back Netanyahu as he fights for the country’s future, Livni called for him to resign and said that he was wrecking Israel’s ties with the US. In so doing, the Left provided crucial support for Obama’s move to maintain his phony anti- Israel paradigm for Middle East policymaking in the face of the Palestinian unity deal’s repudiation of that model.

The Left’s assault on Netanyahu is not the only way it has enabled Obama to maintain his pro-Palestinian policies in the face of the Palestinians’ embrace of terror and war. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama argued that Israel needs to surrender its defensible boundaries because the Palestinians are about to demographically challenge Israel’s Jewish majority.

As Obama put it, “The number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.”

The demographic time bomb story is a Palestinian fabrication. In 1997, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published a falsified Palestinian census that inflated Palestinian population data by 50 percent. The Israeli Left adopted this fake report as its own when Palestinian terrorism and political warfare convinced the majority of Israelis that it was unwise to give them any more land and that the peace process was a lie.

Since 2004, repeated, in-depth studies of Jewish and Arab birthrates and immigration/ emigration statistics west of the Jordan River undertaken by independent researchers have shown that the demographic time bomb is a dud. In January, the respected demographer Yaakov Faitelson published a study for the Institute of Zionist Strategies in which he definitively put to rest the tale of pending Jewish demographic doom.

As Faitelson demonstrated, Jewish and Arab birthrates are already converging west of the Jordan River at around three children per woman. And whereas the fertility rates of Israeli Arabs, Gazans and residents of Judea and Samaria are all trending downward, Jewish fertility is consistently rising. Moreover, whereas the Arabs are experiencing consistently negative net immigration rates, Jewish net immigration rates are positive and high.

Faitelson based his multiyear projections on current population numbers in which Jews comprise 58.6 percent of the population west of the Jordan River and Muslims constitute 38.7% of the overall population. Non-Jewish, non-Muslim minorities comprise the other 2.7%. Using assessment baselines for Jewish net immigration well below current averages, Faitelson showed that in the years to come, not only will Jews not lose our demographic majority. We will increase it.

Faitelson’s study, like the studies published since 2004 by the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group show that from a demographic perspective, Israel is in the same situation as many Western states today. Namely, it has to develop policies for dealing with an irredentist minority population.

There are many reasonable, liberal policies that Israel can adopt. These include applying the liberal Israeli legal code to Judea and Samaria and enforcing the laws of treason. It is hard to see why the best policy for Israel is to take some of that irredentist population off its books by establishing a terror state ruled by what Netanyahu rightly referred to as “the Israeli equivalent of al-Qaida” on its border.

ALL OF this brings us back to Hamas, terrorism, the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, and Obama’s diversionary moves to facilitate his preservation of a Middle East policy based on a wholly false and discredited assessment of reality and the Israeli Left’s facilitation of Obama’s efforts.

When we realize what Obama is up to, we recognize as well what Netanyahu must do in response.

In his address before Congress on today and in all of his appearances in the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu should have one goal: to bring the focus of debate back where it belongs — on the Palestinians.

At every opportunity, Netanyahu needs to pound the message that the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction is the sole reason that there is no peace.

As for the Israeli Left, it is high time that Netanyahu place the likes of Livni on the defensive. This involves two things. First, Netanyahu must attack the Left’s doomsday demographic projections that are without factual basis and are indeed antithetical to reality. As long as the demographic lie goes unchallenged by Netanyahu, the Left will continue to argue that by refusing to build a terror state on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, Netanyahu is endangering Israel.

Netanyahu deserves a lot of credit for standing up to Obama on Friday. He showed enormous courage in doing so. It was his finest hour to date and polls over the weekend show that the public appreciates and supports him for it. He must build on that success by putting the focus on the truth.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/glick052411.php3

Obama’s solution – Israel should give up land for peace. Obama’s knowledge of history is stunted as is his logic.

May 23, 2011

Obama’s False Choice

By Jonathan Tobin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In his address to AIPAC Sunday morning, President Obama doubled down on the points he made in his speech on Thursday. After a lengthy, and not entirely unjustified defense of his administration’s record of support for Israel’s security, he continued talking down to the Jewish state and its government as if he knew better than they about the situation in the Middle East.

Following the talking points that the administration has been furiously spinning since Thursday, Obama attempted to explain that there was nothing original or new in his attempt to lay down the 1967 lines as the starting point for future talks. It is true, as he asserted that his line bout “mutually agreed upon swaps” of territory means that the “borders will be different.” But contrary to his claim that this is what past administrations also support, the Bush 2004 letter let it be known that the United States supported Israel’s claims on Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs. Obama is neutral about Israel’s borders. That is why the Palestinians view his support of the 1967 borders as a green light for them to refuse to talk unless Israel agrees to surrender every inch of territory.

Even worse, Obama’s lecture about why Israel must make further concessions in spite of Arab intransigence was condescending and somewhat misleading. Obama said that demographics and technology mean the status quo can’t be sustained and implicitly accused Israel of “procrastination.” But Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state in virtually all of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem and Gaza and been turned down twice. Even the supposedly right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu has made its commitment to a two-state solution clear. Obama says Israel can’t wait “another decade or two or three decades” to make peace. But Israel has been trying to make peace for 63 years. The world may be “moving too fast” to wait for peace but why must he lecture the Israelis when it is the Palestinians who refuse to talk, let alone recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn?

 Road Map to Peace


Although Obama rightly declared that the United States would oppose attempts to bypass the peace process via the United Nations, his mention of the 1967 borders will be used, as it has already by the Palestinians, to buttress their attempt to get recognition for an independent state inside those lines with no recognition of Israel.

Like all Obama speeches, the president presented a false choice in which he said the “easy thing” would be to say nothing about the peace process rather than to confront it as he has done. Democratic Party donors will have the final word on how foolish his attempt to ambush Netanyahu this past week. But the real false choice is the notion that it is somehow in Israel’s power to magically create peace. That decision has always been in the hands of the Palestinians and the Arab world. So long as they ally themselves with terrorists and refuse to negotiate and to demand a “right of return” which would destroy Israel (and which Obama again failed to condemn) there will be no peace.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/tobin052311.php3


FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Borders

May 22, 2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Bo…, posted with vodpod

Trump lied – OBAMA’s new BC (Birth Certificate) is a blatant forgery

May 21, 2011

Dr. Corsi on the Alex Jones radio program:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Corsi Will Reveal Details On Media Person Who H…, posted with vodpod

Here’s another interview with Dr. Corsi:

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Jerome Corsi Smacks Down Liberal Radio Host Ove…, posted with vodpod

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 28, 2011

Our investigation of the purported Obama birth certificate released by Hawaiian authorities today reveals the document is a shoddily contrived hoax. Infowars.com computer specialists dismissed the document as a fraud soon after examining it.

Check out the document released by WhiteHouse.gov for yourself.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  obamabreakout
Upon first inspection, the document appears to be a photocopy taken from state records and printed on official green paper. However, when the government released PDF is taken into the image editing program Adobe Illustrator, we discover a number of separate elements that reveal the document is not a single scan on paper, as one might surmise. Elements are place in layers or editing boxes over the scan and green textured paper, which is to say the least unusual.

When sections of the document are enlarged significantly, we discover glaring inconsistencies. For instance, it appears the date stamped on the document has been altered. Moreover, the document contains text, numbers, and lines with suspicious white borders indicating these items were pasted from the original scan and dropped over a background image of green paper.


VIDEO: Alex Jones gives proof that Obama’s purported birth certificate is fraud.

Let’s assume the state of Hawaii scanned the original document and placed it on the green textured background. This does not explain the broken out or separate elements. There is no logical reason for this to be done unless the government planned to modify the document and make it appear to be something other than it is.

There are two elements of interest, as shown in the image to the above – both entries for the date accepted by the local registry. This appears to have been modified in an image editing program.

The media was quick to dispel the fact the document was modified. “Our analysis of the latest controversy: The original birth certificate was probably in a ‘negative’ form, and someone at the White House took it upon themselves to doctor it up so the form can be readable,” writesJoe Brooks for Wireupdate.

Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,” he writes.

Indeed, but this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was in necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

These layers are also revealed by the White House issued PDF’s hex file in freeware hex editor. Within its code are listed 8 image masks, which if changed from value “true” to “false” turn off and on to reveal the layers as demonstrated in the video and in Illustrator. Whether these represent compression artifacts or other digitizing processes, or whether these masks represent deliberate manipulation remains to be conclusively shown.

<< /Length 17 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 123 /Height 228 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 13 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 199 /Height 778 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 19 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 47 /Height 216 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 15 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 42 /Height 274 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 10 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 1454 /Height 1819
/ImageMask true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 25 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 132 /Height 142 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 23 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 243 /Height 217 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

<< /Length 21 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 34 /Height 70 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>


As Market-Ticker.org points out, it may prove to be significant that two of the boxes appear over both of the “date accepted” boxes, as well as the “Mother’s occupation box.” Was there a need to tamper with the dates on the document or other areas? The recent stamp date and issuing signature of the state registrar also contain an edited layer.

Questions have also been raised about the number at the top of the document issued by the Department of Health, number 61 10641, as one part of the number is in a separate layer when viewed in Illustrator, as demonstrated in the video above. This may prove to be significant. A long form birth certificate obtained by the Honolulu Star in 2009 from a female born one day after Obama and whose form was accepted three days after Obama’s document contains a Dept. of Health number that is lower, 61 10637. There are others subtle differences, such as the use of “Aug.” for the date rather than “August,” and the use of “Honolulu, Oahu” rather than “Honolulu, Hawaii” (seen also in the 1962 certificate below) which may or may not be significant.

More to the point, this certificate and others, like the one posted below it, have visible seals. No issuing seal can be seen on the document released today by Obama.

Negative of long form birth certificate for Aug. 5, 1961 birth in Honolulu, released in 1966 with seal and dated signatures.Published by Honolulu Star and World Net Daily in 2009.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  090728birthcert

Photo of physical copy of long form birth certificate for June 15, 1962 birth in Honolulu, also with visible seal.

New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery  13

Infowars will continue to analyze this issue as more information comes in. It is significant that the Obama Administration was pressured into responding to this controversy, whatever the final analysis of this document. However, the administration still needs to release his other records which have been sealed at great expense. Is there an issue with his being naturalized in Indonesia? Why are his college records at Columbia and Occidental sealed, and what do they contain? Did Obama travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport? These questions and many others have not been properly answered.

Aaron Dykes contributed to this report.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery.html


Obama should not be president – Israel is thrown under the bus by POTUS, AND the US is also case asunder by proxy

May 21, 2011
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Jonathan Schanzer: Hamas & Fatah, posted with vodpod

Jonathan Schanzer of the Jewish Policy Institute addressed the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group on Capitol Hill. He is the author of Hamas vs. Fatah.

Obama’s Abandonment of America

Posted by Caroline Glick on May 20th, 2011 and filed under Daily MailerFrontPage.

Reprinted from carolineglick.com.

I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today’s column for theJerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn’t want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he’ll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama’s speech represents the effective renunciation of the US’s right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region – first and foremost, the US’s interest in securing its national security.

Obama’s renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: “Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”

Then he said, “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.”

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, “a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.”

And you know what that means. If the US doesn’t end the “spiral of division,” (sounds sort of like “spiral of violence” doesn’t it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama’s plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the “spiral of division,” he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

And of course, intimations of Obama’s plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:

“There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.”

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

And he also said that the US will “support the governments that will be elected later this year” in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US’s lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn’t demand from its friends.

While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don’t distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.

P Photo/US Navy, Kurt Eischen The USS New Orleans makes its way down the Mississippi River on March 5, 2007. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet says two of its vessels -- a submarine, the USS Hartford and an amphibious ship, the USS New Orleans -- collided in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian peninsula early Friday.

Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn’t distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US’s right to have and pursue national interests. If you can’t favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.

As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US’s core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran’s openly genocidal nuclear program is, “Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known.”

Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn’t going to do anything about it.

May 11, 2011

Palestinian State in September? Hamas Says No Way

http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/05/palestinian-state-in-september-hamas-says-no-way.html

Al-zahar

Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar walks on an Israeli flag while taking part in a rally to mark the upcoming 23rd anniversary since the group's foundation, in Gaza city, Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010. The arabic text reads: "For sure will be destroyed. Israel". AP Photo.

Gaza rulers say September most likely too soon to declare Palestinian independence, as too many questions pertaining to state’s viability remain unanswered

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said Wednesday that the Islamist movement was somewhat skeptical as to the viability of Fatah’s September-bound bid for statehood.

Speaking with the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency, al-Zahar said that “all the talk of a Palestinian state is… an attempt to pacify us.”

He further wondered as to the nature of the Palestinian state, should it be declared in several months’ time: “Where is the land for this state? Are those living in the West Bank and Gaza to be its citizens? What will be the fate of the five million Palestinians in the diaspora? Are we to give up the right of return?”

He also said that anyone who thinks that a Palestinian state would be accepted by the international community without it recognizing Israel first, “does not understand the (political) landscape.”

Hamas, he said, is willing to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but will maintain its refusal to recognize Israel, since a formal recognition of Israel would “cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.”

Read more at YNet.

Palestinians never miss an opportunity.

In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US’s worst enemies.

AS FOR ISRAEL, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn’t even say that he would oppose the Palestinians’ plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.

Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”

Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.”

Irrelevant and untrue.

It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don’t want peace. That’s why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

As for being untrue, Obama’s speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.

Then of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn’t say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush’s 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley – without which it is powerless against invasion – by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words – security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it – were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”

What does that mean “with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?”

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.

All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn’t attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.

But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing by the rules that Obama is trying to set for him.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/20/obamas-abandonment-of-america/


%d bloggers like this: