Friday, July 30, 2010


“I know I am part of the Jewish state’s army and therefore when we speak about that, I listen and learn. I got used to it and I respect it''.

Cpl. Elinor Joseph, the first female Arab combat soldier in the IDF:“This will always be my home”

by Rotem Caro Weizman

“Look at the beret,” says Elinor, smiling from ear to ear, showing off the bright green beret that she earned after completing the trek which is part of her combat training in the Karakal Battalion. Her excitement is accompanied by a new historical precedent, since Elinor is the first Arab female combat soldier in IDF history.

Cpl. Elinor Joseph was born and raised in an integrated neighborhood of Jews and Arabs in Haifa, but attended a school in which all her classmates were Arab. She later moved to Wadi Nisnas, an Arab neighborhood where she currently lives. Despite the fact that she would always wear her father’s IDF dog-tag around her neck from when he served in the Paratrooper’s Unit, she never thought she would enlist. “I wanted to go abroad to study medicine and never come back,” she said. To her father it was clear that she would enlist in the IDF, as most citizens in Israel do. This was something that worried her very much. “I was scared to lose my friends because they objected to it. They told me they wouldn’t speak to me. I was left alone.”

Despite their opposition, she decided to move forward and enlist. She explained her motive: “I decided to go head-to-head, to check who my true friends are, to do something in life that I have never done before. I understood that it was most important to defend my friends, family, and country. I was born here.” At the end of the day, she says she realized it was the right thing to do, “With time, when you do things from the heart, you begin to understand their importance.”

“I might as well go the whole way”

Unlike most teenagers in Israel, Elinor did not undergo any kind of special preparations for her recruitment. Other than listening to some of her father’s combat stories and speaking to an IDF officer who helps minorities with enlistment, she didn’t know what she was getting herself into. She came to the Reception and Placement Base, known in IDF slang as the Bakum, and requested to be a combat medic because she decided, “If I enlist, I might as well go the whole way. I thought my father would absolve me from it, but it didn’t happen.” Despite her will to be in combat service, the response to Elinor was otherwise. “The placement officer laughed in my face and said I was too delicate. I started to cry,” she remembers.

After fighting to receive a high enough medical categorization in order to be placed in a combat position, and following many attempts to persuade the placement officer, Elinor was informed she would be a combat soldier. She remembers that upon arrival to the Reception and Placement Base, “It was the first time I saw my father cry. But then they told me I wouldn’t be a combat soldier, so I cried again.” She says she came to Basic Training not understanding what was going on around her, “I had no preparation so I really didn’t understand what it meant to stand at attention, or to salute my commander or even stand in formation.”

Despite initial shock and disappointment that she wouldn’t be in a combat unit, she decided to take a positive perspective and be the best soldier that she could be. “I didn’t want to disappoint those that supported me. I decided that if I am volunteering, I would need to prove myself and be an exemplary soldier, and I succeeded. In the end, I ended up enjoying it."

The fact that Elinor is a Christian Arab did not escape the attention of the girls around her. Her accent was the first thing that gave her away. “In the beginning everyone thought I was Argentinean. When they found out the truth, they were surprised,” she says.

“I treated all the people in the same manner, because we are all human”

After her basic training, Elinor went to a training base for a medic’s training course, where she was selected as the outstanding soldier of the course and received her commander’s personal pin. After the course, she was assigned to be a medic within the military police at the Qalqilya crossing. “I enjoyed it there. I liked the people and thanks to my blue beret (that of military police) nobody wanted to sit next to me in the bus so I always had a large place to sleep”, she laughs.

The difficult dilemma she felt in serving at a border crossing was not easy for her but she said during moments of difficulty and misgiving she would remember, “there was a Katyusha [rocket] that fell near my house and also hurt Arabs. If someone would tell me that serving in the IDF means killing Arabs, I remind them that Arabs also kill Arabs.”

“I treated all the people at the checkpoints in the same manner, because we are all human. For this reason, no one reacted to me in a negative manner, and to tell the truth, that surprised me.” Elinor’s presence also helped change people’s perceptions, “People knew I was there and that I wouldn’t hold my tongue if need be, so they had a constant reminder to treat the Palestinians well. But really, their treatment was always full of respect.”

Despite enjoying her service, the amount of responsibility given to her did not satisfy her, and she wanted to contribute more. After many discussions with a colonel in the Northern Command and with a senior officer in the Human Resources Branch who warned her that a military promotion would not be transferable to a combat role, Elinor was not convinced and tried out to be selected to serve in the Karakal Battalion. “When I said to my commander that I was accepted, he just turned around and walked away because he had wanted me to stay.”

Identity issues

Elinor returned to the Intake and Sorting Base, but this time she received the red combat boots that she had been dreaming of. The beginning wasn’t easy for her. “In the beginning I missed being in the military police. The relations with people there were very different because I knew them not only in a personal but also in a medical way, and this creates a very intimate connection with people, this is a different relationship. But then I realized I was now in a new place. I got to know people little by little and now I really love them all”.

Within the frameworks of her military service in general and of her combat training in particular, emphasis was always laid on the Jewish identity of the country in many ethical activities and in the general message that was passed on to the soldiers. This did not deter her. “I know I am part of the Jewish state’s army and therefore when we speak about that I listen and learn. I got used to it and I respect it, although I do not delve too much into the country’s identity – I have my own identity and I will respect that of the country”.

Right now, after finishing her training, she says wholeheartedly that she does not regret any of her choices. “I sometimes wondered what would have happened if I had studied abroad as planned, but I understand that I was not as experienced and responsible then as I am now. It is a satisfaction to complete challenging things.

I feel that in the army I matured a lot and became more responsible than I used to be”. She also feels satisfied from the respect she gained from the others. “Although everybody is surprised in the beginning I have always been respected, not just me but also my customs and my religion. Nobody ever disturbed me. I feel a lot of serenity and support and somebody even opened a group about me on Facebook. My parents also are very proud of me, maybe a little bit too much.”

“I believe in what I am doing”

Elinor did not only create a change within the army but also among her friends. “I was surprised to find out that even the ones who refused to talk to me accepted my choice in the end. I know that some parents of young men are not so enthusiastic if they go out with me because of my military service, probably because of the fact that I am a combat soldier.

There were also people who read things about me and reacted in a very hurtful manner, but I have learnt not to pay attention to it. I believe in what I am doing. In my eyes, I am here for a mission”.

Elinor belives that being a combat soldier means that she is granting all Israeli citizens, including Israeli Arabs like her parents, a better and quieter life. “At the end of the day, this will always be my home too”, she says before expressing her thought that despite the conflict and difficulties, the hope for peace still exists. “I still believe that peace will come and faith creates reality”.


The Missing 13th Amendment
Date 08/01/91
David Dodge, Researcher
Alfred Adask, Editor


In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.

In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.

MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Emphasis added.}

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so.

Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution.

We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks. DON'T BANK ON IT

(Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away form them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in... But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit." The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)

The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.

When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks.

Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist.

Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's unbridled growth.)


If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.

It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.

"Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."


A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States:

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government.

Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That's subversion.

The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) wonout in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 -- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United States Bank.)

The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

That's destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.' There is no public record that this book exists."

That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.


In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility".

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).


In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility".

"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.


The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant.

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant.

For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy.

As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).


(Implications if Restored)

If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.


A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people!

Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people!

It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story.

Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came?

One vote. One state's vote.

The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support.

One vote.

David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010


By Fred Dardick

Last week Rep. Michelle Bachmann was asked what Republicans had in mind should they retake the House of Representatives this November, she replied “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that is going on.”

Considering the sheer volume of illegal and impeachable offences committed by Obama and his cohorts over the past couple of years, the House will be very busy indeed.

Putting aside Obama’s inept leadership, weakening of our national defenses and transparent attempt to socialize our great nation, there are a number of more practical crimes that once investigated could lead to Obama’s impeachment and perhaps even his well deserved imprisonment.

25 Obama Crimes the House Should Investigate in 2011

Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama’s house in Hyde Park, IL. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

The provision of Obama campaign donor lists to ACORN in 2007 and 2008, more complete than the ones he provided to the FEC. ACORN used the lists to raise money for Obama’s election from donors who had already maxed out their legally allowable contributions.

Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. For more information see my CFP article How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.

Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Obama’s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.

Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.

Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.

Unsubstantiated firing of Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing Sacramento Mayor and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson’s misuse of an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant.

Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.

Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.

Attempted bribery of Rep. Joe Sestak with job offers to get him to drop out of the Senate primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.

The Obama administration’s statement that a panel of experts had agreed with their plan for a 6 month Gulf Coast drilling moratorium, when in actuality none of them had supported the measure.

Bullying BP to set up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the oil spill, to be administered by an Obama political appointee without any judicial or congressional oversight.

Implementing a third oil-drilling moratorium after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast offshore drilling ban in opposition to two judge’s rulings.

Establishment of a commission to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill that contains not one oil industry expert and whose transparent purpose is to push a partisan political agenda rather than investigate the cause of the disaster.

Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.

Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.

Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.

Recess appointment of Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without even a token attempt to put him through the Congressional nomination process, signaling that Congress’s constitutional obligation to vet presidential appointees means nothing to Obama. The same can be said of the 30+ Obama administration czars.

Spending $23 million of taxpayer money through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support a constitutional referendum in Kenya in spite of the Siljander Amendment, which makes it illegal for the U.S. to lobby for abortion in other countries. The Kenyan referendum was partially written by Planned Parenthood and is designed to legalize abortion in that nation.

The participation of the Obama administration in the firing of Sherry Sherrod from the USDA without due process because of publicized out of context remarks she made at a NAACP meeting in March 2010.
The White House sham investigation of BP’s involvement in the release of the mass murdering Lockerbie bomber from prison.

The Obama administration not only knew beforehand of the Scottish government’s plan to set Abdel Baset al-Megrahi free on “compassionate” grounds, they even sent a letter to Scottish authorities stating their preference for his remaining in Scotland over his transfer to a Libyan prison.

The canceling of 77 properly filed oil field development contracts approved by the Bush administration by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, preventing the extraction of up to 3 trillion gallons of oil buried under Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and North Dakota, more than enough to end our dependence on foreign oil and supply the U.S. with its energy needs for hundreds of years at current consumption rates.

Investigations by the Department of Homeland Security to determine the political affiliation of people making Freedom of Information Act requests and the subsequent delay and even altogether ignoring of requests made by Republican affiliated individuals.

The hardest to prosecute in court, but worst crime of all that Obama has perpetrated against the American people is the economic tyranny that his socialist policies have wrecked upon our nation.

While Obama has been living the life of a king, including frequent 5 star vacations, dozens of concerts at the White House and endless rounds of golf, all paid for by taxpayer money—the increased transportation and security costs alone are in the millions of dollars—he has called for the rest of us to endure economic sacrifice. The annual trillion dollar deficits and borrowing of 41 cents of every dollar of government spending by Obama is leading to unsustainable and potentially catastrophic debt.

Something to Look Forward to

These 25 crimes are just what I’ve been able to dig up over the past couple of weeks. No doubt there are many more that I have missed or still as yet undiscovered. While any one may be sufficient to impeach Obama, taken as a whole it demonstrates that Obama has little to no regard for the rule of law.

I look forward to a Republican controlled House of Representatives uncovering Obama’s corrupt dealings and exposing this man as unworthy of the office of President.


Monday, July 26, 2010


We have started moderating (reviewing) comments at this site and deleting any that are not in English, French or German and in a FONT or alphabet we cannot read.

We have nothing against the Asian fonts but cannot understand them and what they are saying. Just putting a title in English does not help us as these can be misleading so we need to be able to read the whole text.

Best wishes to the posters who have been coming here but please use a language we can read. You may find they get posted once we know what they are, even if they are off-subject.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010


“The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

Cornerstone Address, Supreme Court Building
July 14, 2010

Dear Honorable Chief Justice Roberts:

Perhaps you and the rest of the justices have not noticed, but there is a war going on here. We the people are having a pretty hard time trying to understand just what it is the Supreme Court is doing these days. Would you care to fill us in?

Maybe you should consider a press conference where you could not only clarify the matter in which Mr. Obama attempted to discredit the Supreme Court but also maybe even rein in this rogue government.

Speaking for most of the people in the United States, we would sure appreciate a fine demonstration of how the separation of powers protects all of us from an overly abusive regime. We would welcome such a demonstration at any time you can arrange for it to happen. Like now.

By the way, Justice Roberts, the complaints we raise are not political in nature. The usurper who is currently being illegally entertained as our president and his cohorts have conveniently managed to blur the line between politics and subversion so effectively that it appears even members of your illustrious judicial body have also fallen for this ruse.

Based on my daily monitoring of events to insure the safety of the Constitution, I can only imagine you might have noticed that our government has been seized by Communists and other progressives, The Constitution has been totally ignored, Congress and the everyone in the regime are violating their oaths of office, and, from what I can tell, bouncing off the walls with bribes and illegal deals that are being funded by “we” the taxpayers. It would seem that conflicts of interest abound and are the rule as opposed to the exception.

This rogue “administration” is being run by what I believe is an Islamic fundamentalist…you know, we used to call those guys “terrorists,” that is, until the main terrorist himself, “with the help of his friends,” seized control and dumbed up the terms used to describe our enemies.

He is now acting illegally as the president because the Congress and you have turned your back on the Constitution. Now perhaps you all are too embarrassed to admit the nature of your folly and maybe I am totally off-base here, but this is how I see the matter. If I am incorrect in my opinion as expressed, I would greatly appreciate your setting the record straight.

While I wait for your response, let me comment that Americans have always been characterized by our generosity, but, geeze, Justice Roberts, I am sure even the members of the Supreme Court could appreciate the bizarre circumstances of actually having invited a domestic enemy dedicated to destroying our country to assume command of our economy, our resources and the most powerful military in the world. So am I right about this, or is it my imagination?

OK, so let’s get down to brass tacks! The information below clarifies the issue about which we as citizens have been agonizing for the last 18 or so months. This one sentence says it all:

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.

So let’s knock off this foot-dragging to settle this issue of Obama’s eligibility. The responsibility is yours and yours alone. All of these divisive “No Standing” roadblocks are instruments of your doing. As I see it, your deliberate judicial shenanigans serve to delay the resolution of this Constitutional crisis and are aiding and abetting our enemy. We are losing thousands of productive man-days due to your failure to act.

As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, in my view, you have failed your responsibility miserably. You have permitted this problem to persist in violation of your oath of office. Justice Roberts, just what part of the following is not clear?

The Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of 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.

As I see it, when a person runs for public office, he is no longer a private citizen. He has an obligation and a compelling duty to provide any reasonable background information. How can you possibly deny the public access to this information without incriminating yourself?

The purpose of the constitutional requirement for eligibility is perfectly clear. What is not clear is if indeed the founding documents must be applied in whole, how is it possible for any one or any entity to circumvent satisfying the requirements as it may become convenient? Certainly this practice comes under the purview of the courts and is not negotiable. So tell me, Justice Roberts, on what basis have you permitted this constitutional violation to occur?

Considering your oath of office, your responsibility is ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice. Your responsibility does not permit you the luxury to decide to what degree you will comply with this responsibility. As I see it, Justice Roberts, you and the rest of the Supreme Court have failed the American people.

We as a people are respectful of the rule of law and we honor the principles laid out in the Constitution. As you are well aware, every day we find new abuses aimed at further destruction of the Republic that has been built over the last 200 years. Many of us resent the treatment we have received and warn of limitations to our patience. The anger of the people is palpable. If you do not feel it, you had better work at it harder.

Additionally, recent evidence has emerged and many are led to believe this whole conspiracy has been orchestrated by puppet masters behind the politicians who are so powerful that they can arbitrarily change the course of history based on a handshake. So tell me, Justice Roberts, is the Supreme Court in a position to go along with this type of an “election deal?” A deal between two potential candidates, neither of whom were and still are not qualified to hold the office of the president? And even though they still might not be qualified, how is it that one of them was capable of fraudulently distorting the outcome of an election and disenfranchising the citizens of the United States?

The most damming part, Justice Roberts…all of this on your watch!

Maybe a few pages out of the Foreign Affairs Manual ”7 FAM 1131.6-2” might explain things. Let’s face it: neither candidate could possibly have qualified, so why the games? Are all of those engaged in this conspiracy so unpatriotic and lacking in ethics and morality as to permit the wholesale slaughter of the American republic for the sake of a power grab or some individual profiteering?

How could such a devious plan by a group of government/private officials be permitted? How could it be possible that such a conspiracy of this magnitude be carried out by such a broad group of people and entities and yet be kept secret from the American people?

My point here, Justice Roberts, is that your duty to assume an active role as the guardian of the Constitution is long overdue. On many occasions you have been invited to participate. However, at each occurrence, you chose to ignore the opportunity to join.

Just when do we the people see the application of the safety net so ingeniously devised by the founding fathers to stop just this type of abusive tyranny?

When does the Supreme Court assert its responsibility to nullify this gross and arrogant abuse of executive power?

Just when do we see the rule of law enforced and the separation of powers by the three branches invoked?

What is the key here, Justice Roberts? What is the trigger?



The quote at the top of this article from the website of the U.S. Supreme Court was taken from Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, who served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1930-1941. In 1916, he ran for president against the incumbent, Woodrow Wilson, but did not meet the Framers’ definition of “natural born Citizen,” according to Democrat attorney and ambassador to Italy under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Breckinridge Long.

Sunday, July 04, 2010


ALAN NOTE: If you find what you read below difficult ot believe or imagine, KNOW THIS:

Because of the national Obama financial disaster, States are finding it impossible to provide services like California's Medical (Medic-aid) and as of July  1st, 2010 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued an order that 240,000 State Employees will henceforth be paid MINIMUM WAGE! Lucky ones will be paid $435 a week, while Doctors and  Lawyers will receive NO PAY AT ALL!

As a housewife commented to a highly credentialed State employee: " come and clean my house, I pay my maid better than that!"

Obama's policies are creating a massive underclass...

June's unemployment numbers came out today and it stands at 9.5%. At the first blush, this looks like an improvement over May's 9.7% number.

However, the reason the percentage has improved, is due to 652,000 people that have dropped off, and are no longer seeking employment.

Add to this the job LOSS of 125,000 in June, then you realize that the actual unemployment is probably at around 17%.

Just wait till the Census workers are laid off in July and August, the unemployment numbers will see double digits.
And these dismal numbers are after a trillion dollar stimulus program ??! And Biden and his
boss where in Wisconsin yesterday, telling the people that the economy is improving ?!
He keeps giving the same speech....No action, just talk. talk talk...And you are a "smartass" if you think you are overburdened with excessive taxes.
Why are the Libs/Progressives that advise Obama, so stubborn in the economic policies they espouse ? Their idea of Social Justice is to make everyone poor, creating a permanent underclass, hence Obamaville...

Obamaville: Springs Tent Community Has Sign Tying President To ...

A tent community in Colorado Springs became the subject of controversy last week when an unknown person had a sign created that read 'Welcome To Obamaville: Colorado's Fastest ...  · Cached pageObamaville

H/t to Bostonboomer for the neologism. Sacramento’s tent city grows by the week, and as BB points out, in Elkhart, Indiana, more than 1,600 people lined up for food provided by the ...  · Cached pageSign at homeless camp : 'Welcome to Obamaville'

Sign constructed in Colorado Springs homeless camp Residents of Colorado Springs, Colo., have a mystery on their hands: who came up with the idea to erect a sign reading Welcome ...  · Cached pageNews: obamaville

America in 2010: Obamaville

RUSH: It's the summer of recovery. How's that working out for you? Thirteen thousand, 13,000 private sector jobs added in June. If you…   · 3 days ago