http://www.obamacrimes.com
Urgent – Write Letters to Supreme Court Justices
Case of Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences [January 9th and 16th, 2009].
The Justices of the Supreme Court will read letters sent to them. Let them know how important it is for them to hear our case; how “standing” is important on the issue of Obama’s qualifications; how we are headed for a “Constitutional crisis” if Obama’s qualifications are not resolved; how important it is to follow “our Constitution;” and how Obama’s records: his original ‘vault’ birth certificate, immigration records when he as Barry Soetoro [adopted in Indonesia] returned to Hawaii in 1971, if any, and any change of name Court records are necessary as Obama might be an illegal alien, not only not qualified to be President, but a fraud as U.S. Senator from Illinois.
Write one [1] letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court (names are listed below), make nine [9] copies and put them in nine [9] separate envelopes, addressed to each Justice, and then place them into one [1] manila envelope and mail to:
U.S. Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E
Washington, D.C. 20543
Supreme Court Justices
Chief Justice John Roberts
Associate Justices:
Samuel A. Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
David H. Souter
John Paul Stevens
Stephen G. Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Note: Any communications received by the U.S. Supreme Court via e-mail or fax are thrown away. The U.S. Supreme Court will not take telephone messages for the Justices. All communications to the U.S. Supreme Court must be done in writing and sent to them by way of U.S. mail, UPS, Federal Express, etc.
======================================================
I personally plan on writing a letter to these justices. I think anyone who thinks that justice is NOT being served in the name of our constitution, on the case of Obama's citizenship, should all write letters to these justices, saying in your own words why you think this case should be heard!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Constitutional Convention
This has been copied from a friend on another site. I think it's an important read so please read it and repostpass it on!
==============================================================
==============================================================
A Possible New Constitutional Convention NOT GOOD NEWS
Got this in an email today and I really don't like the sound of it. It is a bit unnerving to say the least. What the hell is happening in this country? I also wonder will there be states to reject anything that comes of this and declare their sovereignty. With Obama coming into power how far will this be pushed? If he gets his way I'd lay odds that there would be nothing on rights to keep and bear arms. Maybe this is the "CHANGE" he keeps talking about.
Ladybear
Act Now To Reject Con Con
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2008
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081216.html
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a
modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention
replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.
Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of
freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence
and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to
liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of
politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the
power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States
of America, and that is no hyperbole.
The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states
have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact
the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of
this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the
effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the
election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been
emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is
currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.
States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen
the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This
fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but
don't expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that
if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and
upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt,
state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings,
ready to act with "lightning speed" to seal the deal.
Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is
no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive language from
any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional]
Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the
delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention
delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."
DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle
the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its
own rules and set its own agenda."
Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government
liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders'
Constitution--which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that
protects individual liberty--would be replaced with some sort of "collective
rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good." At that point, there
is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights
protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore,
the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our
nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our
forebears would be gone forever.
Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!
In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can
RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is
currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we
know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let
their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of
Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a
Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us
who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to
contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue,
and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to
call for a Constitutional Convention.
For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go
to the American Policy Center web site at
http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/victory.htm
In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What
will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our
U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new
constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which
states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will
they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this
Twenty-First Century New World Order--a New World Order that will doubtless
incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?
It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states
that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to
declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a
modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to
resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not
number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the
East Coast.
I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and
tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both
the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention
is called--and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten--are ready
and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the
call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?
We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time
for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be
upon us.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Ladybear
Act Now To Reject Con Con
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2008
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081216.html
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a
modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention
replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.
Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of
freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence
and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to
liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of
politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the
power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States
of America, and that is no hyperbole.
The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states
have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact
the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of
this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the
effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the
election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been
emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is
currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.
States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen
the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This
fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but
don't expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that
if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and
upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt,
state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings,
ready to act with "lightning speed" to seal the deal.
Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is
no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive language from
any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional]
Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the
delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention
delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."
DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle
the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its
own rules and set its own agenda."
Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government
liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders'
Constitution--which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that
protects individual liberty--would be replaced with some sort of "collective
rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good." At that point, there
is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights
protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore,
the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our
nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our
forebears would be gone forever.
Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!
In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can
RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is
currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we
know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let
their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of
Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a
Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us
who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to
contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue,
and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to
call for a Constitutional Convention.
For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go
to the American Policy Center web site at
http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/victory.htm
In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What
will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our
U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new
constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which
states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will
they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this
Twenty-First Century New World Order--a New World Order that will doubtless
incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?
It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states
that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to
declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a
modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to
resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not
number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the
East Coast.
I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and
tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both
the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention
is called--and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten--are ready
and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the
call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?
We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time
for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be
upon us.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
FactCheck.org + Others are Not Reliable Sources of Information
Alrighty people, here I go again!
The topic for this post is:
Why FactCheck.org and Various other sources are Unreliable
Why is it unreliable? Well because it is owned and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It even says so on it's website banner. Why is the Annenberg Foundation bad? Well, because our soon-to-be President, Barack Obama, was a first chairman for the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, part of the Annenberg Foundation.
Now, that may indirectly connect him to FactCheck.org. But indirect or not, they have a motive to support and disapprove any bad stuff about Mr. soon-to-be President.
FactCheck.org is used by many people to prove information. Same as Wikipedia and Snopes. All of which I try very hard not to refer to as reliable sources of important information, because they are not real sources for information.
Wikipedia is a site run by mostly nerds. Most of their information is donated by anyone who can access the site. It's a free online encyclopedia with alot of information on it. And while it can be very useful, I would not always refer to it as the most correct source of information. I would use it to look for basic information about a certain person. But I wouldn't just go by what it has to say about whatever or whoever if I'm looking for a good solid information source.
Snopes.com has no background that I can find. I spent almost the last hour looking for a background on them, and could not find anything about who founded it, who runs it, or when it really started. If one cannot find the background info on a source for information then why would one want to use it as an informative source? So snopes.com does not pass my standards for reliable, unbias, true information on important issues.
I already listed why FactCheck.org is unreliable, because they are indirectly involved with Obama. But I'll go into detail on it, just for all you liberals reading this. ^_~*wink*
Aside from their indirect connection with Obama, they also support him. They have supported him by "trying" to clear him of all accusations regarding his citizenship and his birth records. They did an investigation on his birth records and took pictures of his Certificate of Live Birth. Now, I have said this before but I'm going to say it again, because it doesn't seem to really stick. A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT, in any way, shape or form, a Birth Certificate. Anybody can get one. Only a U.S. BORN Citizen can obtain a real, legal, Birth Certificate.
A Certificate of Live Birth does NOT have alot of information on it. It does NOT have the signatures of both parents on it. And it is NOT a Birth Certificate. An immigrant that has obtained full citizenship can obtain a Certificate of Live Birth. They won't be able to obtain a U.S. issued Birth Certificate though.
Now, FactCheck.org did an investigation on this whole conspiracy. They took photos of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, and they got statements from the officials of Hawaii stating that they have his birth records. But, if they were seriously serious about proving that Obama is in fact an actual U.S. born citizen, then why not just get proof that his actual Birth Certificate is real? Instead of his Certificate of Live Birth. (which, btw, they were only able to obtain photos of a Certification of Live Birth. So it's not even a Certificate. It's just a document that says he was born)
If they wanted to disprove all the allegations against him, they should have obtained photos of his Birth Certificate, and demanded it be shown and not locked up. Having his Birth Certificate locked up raises suspicion and why. And that is what is biting him in the ass right now. Why is he hiding them? Because he is afraid of what we will find out. That is why.
Here is a video about Obama's Birth Certificate, and how it is a forgery.
He goes into detail on how the document is a forgery. But regardless if this is true or not, I really don't care. All I care about if his Birth Certificate. If Obama can obtain and supply his Certificate of Live Birth, he can obtain and supply his Birth Certificate to the American people. That is all this is about. Show it to us and we will drop this issue.
Doesn't mean we will recognize you as our next president, respect you as our next president, or support you as our next president. But we will recognize you as an actual U.S. born citizen, instead of a con artist that is lying to his country.
The topic for this post is:
Why FactCheck.org and Various other sources are Unreliable
Why is it unreliable? Well because it is owned and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It even says so on it's website banner. Why is the Annenberg Foundation bad? Well, because our soon-to-be President, Barack Obama, was a first chairman for the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, part of the Annenberg Foundation.
Now, that may indirectly connect him to FactCheck.org. But indirect or not, they have a motive to support and disapprove any bad stuff about Mr. soon-to-be President.
FactCheck.org is used by many people to prove information. Same as Wikipedia and Snopes. All of which I try very hard not to refer to as reliable sources of important information, because they are not real sources for information.
Wikipedia is a site run by mostly nerds. Most of their information is donated by anyone who can access the site. It's a free online encyclopedia with alot of information on it. And while it can be very useful, I would not always refer to it as the most correct source of information. I would use it to look for basic information about a certain person. But I wouldn't just go by what it has to say about whatever or whoever if I'm looking for a good solid information source.
Snopes.com has no background that I can find. I spent almost the last hour looking for a background on them, and could not find anything about who founded it, who runs it, or when it really started. If one cannot find the background info on a source for information then why would one want to use it as an informative source? So snopes.com does not pass my standards for reliable, unbias, true information on important issues.
I already listed why FactCheck.org is unreliable, because they are indirectly involved with Obama. But I'll go into detail on it, just for all you liberals reading this. ^_~*wink*
Aside from their indirect connection with Obama, they also support him. They have supported him by "trying" to clear him of all accusations regarding his citizenship and his birth records. They did an investigation on his birth records and took pictures of his Certificate of Live Birth. Now, I have said this before but I'm going to say it again, because it doesn't seem to really stick. A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT, in any way, shape or form, a Birth Certificate. Anybody can get one. Only a U.S. BORN Citizen can obtain a real, legal, Birth Certificate.
A Certificate of Live Birth does NOT have alot of information on it. It does NOT have the signatures of both parents on it. And it is NOT a Birth Certificate. An immigrant that has obtained full citizenship can obtain a Certificate of Live Birth. They won't be able to obtain a U.S. issued Birth Certificate though.
Now, FactCheck.org did an investigation on this whole conspiracy. They took photos of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, and they got statements from the officials of Hawaii stating that they have his birth records. But, if they were seriously serious about proving that Obama is in fact an actual U.S. born citizen, then why not just get proof that his actual Birth Certificate is real? Instead of his Certificate of Live Birth. (which, btw, they were only able to obtain photos of a Certification of Live Birth. So it's not even a Certificate. It's just a document that says he was born)
If they wanted to disprove all the allegations against him, they should have obtained photos of his Birth Certificate, and demanded it be shown and not locked up. Having his Birth Certificate locked up raises suspicion and why. And that is what is biting him in the ass right now. Why is he hiding them? Because he is afraid of what we will find out. That is why.
Here is a video about Obama's Birth Certificate, and how it is a forgery.
He goes into detail on how the document is a forgery. But regardless if this is true or not, I really don't care. All I care about if his Birth Certificate. If Obama can obtain and supply his Certificate of Live Birth, he can obtain and supply his Birth Certificate to the American people. That is all this is about. Show it to us and we will drop this issue.
Doesn't mean we will recognize you as our next president, respect you as our next president, or support you as our next president. But we will recognize you as an actual U.S. born citizen, instead of a con artist that is lying to his country.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Movie Review -- Twilight
Another movie review! A week late, but here it is!
I'll try to keep it spoiler free and short.
Twilight
Is an action-packed, modern-day love story between a teenage girl and a vampire. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has always been a little bit different, never caring about fitting in with the trendy girls at her Phoenix high school. When her mother re-marries and sends Bella to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she doesn't expect much of anything to change. Then she meets the mysterious and dazzlingly beautiful Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a boy unlike any she's ever met. Edward is a vampire, but he doesn't have fangs and his family is unique in that they choose not to drink human blood. Intelligent and witty, Edward sees straight into Bella's soul. Soon, they are swept up in a passionate, thrilling and unorthodox romance. To Edward, Bella is what he has waited 90 years for - a soul mate. But the closer they get, the more Edward must struggle to resist the primal pull of her scent, which could send him into an uncontrollable frenzy. But what will Edward & Bella do when a clan of new vampires - James (Cam Gigandet), Laurent (Edi Gathegi) and Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) - come to town and threaten to disrupt their way of life?
My thoughts on the movie:
It was great! I saw it with my boyfriend(maybe), and it was a great first date movie. Not too much action, but it had enough depth, romance, and drama that it kept both me and my date interested. I give it 5 stars! I would recommend it to anyone who is into vampire movies, and not the mainstream kind neither. It actually reminded me of Christine Feehand's novels, he dark series particularly..
I'm totally going to see it again before it comes out on DVD. ^.~
I'll try to keep it spoiler free and short.
Twilight
Is an action-packed, modern-day love story between a teenage girl and a vampire. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has always been a little bit different, never caring about fitting in with the trendy girls at her Phoenix high school. When her mother re-marries and sends Bella to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she doesn't expect much of anything to change. Then she meets the mysterious and dazzlingly beautiful Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a boy unlike any she's ever met. Edward is a vampire, but he doesn't have fangs and his family is unique in that they choose not to drink human blood. Intelligent and witty, Edward sees straight into Bella's soul. Soon, they are swept up in a passionate, thrilling and unorthodox romance. To Edward, Bella is what he has waited 90 years for - a soul mate. But the closer they get, the more Edward must struggle to resist the primal pull of her scent, which could send him into an uncontrollable frenzy. But what will Edward & Bella do when a clan of new vampires - James (Cam Gigandet), Laurent (Edi Gathegi) and Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) - come to town and threaten to disrupt their way of life?
My thoughts on the movie:
It was great! I saw it with my boyfriend(maybe), and it was a great first date movie. Not too much action, but it had enough depth, romance, and drama that it kept both me and my date interested. I give it 5 stars! I would recommend it to anyone who is into vampire movies, and not the mainstream kind neither. It actually reminded me of Christine Feehand's novels, he dark series particularly..
I'm totally going to see it again before it comes out on DVD. ^.~
Friday, November 14, 2008
Recap - Our New President!
Okay I m back after a few weeks break from blogger. =)
I've actually joined an online community called SodaHead and I really like it alot! ^^! So many different people on there with sooo many different opinions and views on thing! I almost forgot I had this blog actually. haha
Anyway, here is my review on our new President, Barack Obama.
He's president now, woop-de-fucking- do. Now what can we look forward to? Well, alot actually! --If you're a far leftist that likes socialism and some communism mixed in there. ;D
Abortion Ban Lifts
Well, we all know that Obama is against bans on abortion. So we can all look forward to more abortions in the United States. That's right! All you pro-life people, Obama is saying Fuck You! If that baby ain't born yet you can have an abortion. So if you get pissed off at your husband, or find out he cheated on you during your pregnancy then you can have that abortion in the 9th month of your pregnancy. Isn't that great?! Of course it is! Because it's what Obama is for. RIGHT?!!
Civilian Slavery
A.K.A. Civilian force. If you don't know what it is, you abviously didn't take history in school because nearly every history class does a skit on Hitler. And as we all know, Hitler was into the whole young force of training civilians in military manners. If you still don't know what I'm talknig about I'll lable it in idiot terms. YOU WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE BOOT CAMP AND LEARN BASIC MILITARY PRACTICE SO YOU CAN SERVE OUR COUNTRY IF NEED BE. You will NOT be allowed to say no to it. You will NOT be allowed other options. You WILL be required to at least do 50 jumping jacks. I feel sorry for all you fat kids out there. LOL
(i.e. Say goodbye to the 1st amendment right)
Gun Control
Obama may not say it in so many words, but he is against guns. Even though his VP has a gun. That actually makes no sense. But his hands will stay clean. He'll just hire people to do the dirty work for him and have them put the ban on guns. He'll just have to sign the bill. Do a little research on the success of all gun control in other countries. I bet you won't find much good results come from that act. Crime rate actually increases when the general public is not able to defend itself. Don't believe me? You're an idiot. Get off my blog. ♥
Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement
Yup, that's right. Those who don't know what it is go look it up. Or refer to the above statement and get off my blog. ♥
Yes, Obama does not say he will support this doctrine. But seriously people, do you honestly think he'll go against his party, who so much want this doctrine back in power? I think not, and if you think so..well you know what I'm going to say. lol Having this back in power will restrain freedom of speech. No more conservative radio or tv. How's that for squashing the 1st amendment.
I probably could think of more things to thank Obama for, but I think I've had my fill for now.
Tune in next time! When I will share even MORE of my awesome opinions on everything under the sun. *bows*
I've actually joined an online community called SodaHead and I really like it alot! ^^! So many different people on there with sooo many different opinions and views on thing! I almost forgot I had this blog actually. haha
Anyway, here is my review on our new President, Barack Obama.
He's president now, woop-de-fucking- do. Now what can we look forward to? Well, alot actually! --If you're a far leftist that likes socialism and some communism mixed in there. ;D
Abortion Ban Lifts
Well, we all know that Obama is against bans on abortion. So we can all look forward to more abortions in the United States. That's right! All you pro-life people, Obama is saying Fuck You! If that baby ain't born yet you can have an abortion. So if you get pissed off at your husband, or find out he cheated on you during your pregnancy then you can have that abortion in the 9th month of your pregnancy. Isn't that great?! Of course it is! Because it's what Obama is for. RIGHT?!!
Civilian Slavery
A.K.A. Civilian force. If you don't know what it is, you abviously didn't take history in school because nearly every history class does a skit on Hitler. And as we all know, Hitler was into the whole young force of training civilians in military manners. If you still don't know what I'm talknig about I'll lable it in idiot terms. YOU WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE BOOT CAMP AND LEARN BASIC MILITARY PRACTICE SO YOU CAN SERVE OUR COUNTRY IF NEED BE. You will NOT be allowed to say no to it. You will NOT be allowed other options. You WILL be required to at least do 50 jumping jacks. I feel sorry for all you fat kids out there. LOL
(i.e. Say goodbye to the 1st amendment right)
Gun Control
Obama may not say it in so many words, but he is against guns. Even though his VP has a gun. That actually makes no sense. But his hands will stay clean. He'll just hire people to do the dirty work for him and have them put the ban on guns. He'll just have to sign the bill. Do a little research on the success of all gun control in other countries. I bet you won't find much good results come from that act. Crime rate actually increases when the general public is not able to defend itself. Don't believe me? You're an idiot. Get off my blog. ♥
Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement
Yup, that's right. Those who don't know what it is go look it up. Or refer to the above statement and get off my blog. ♥
Yes, Obama does not say he will support this doctrine. But seriously people, do you honestly think he'll go against his party, who so much want this doctrine back in power? I think not, and if you think so..well you know what I'm going to say. lol Having this back in power will restrain freedom of speech. No more conservative radio or tv. How's that for squashing the 1st amendment.
I probably could think of more things to thank Obama for, but I think I've had my fill for now.
Tune in next time! When I will share even MORE of my awesome opinions on everything under the sun. *bows*
Sunday, November 2, 2008
More on Obama's Birth Records
Watch this, it's something that I only found because of someone else told me about it.
There is an attorney filing a suit against Obama on the grounds that he is lying about his birth records. Here are all the videos, in order:
Why isn't this on the news?!! I have been following the news for the last few months and I haven't seen this at all. Not even Fox news has this, or is covering it. This is insane. If there was a petition to pospone the election then I would be one of the people to sign it. Obama needs to provide his Birth Certificate not a certificate of live birth, they are NOT the same.
There is an attorney filing a suit against Obama on the grounds that he is lying about his birth records. Here are all the videos, in order:
Why isn't this on the news?!! I have been following the news for the last few months and I haven't seen this at all. Not even Fox news has this, or is covering it. This is insane. If there was a petition to pospone the election then I would be one of the people to sign it. Obama needs to provide his Birth Certificate not a certificate of live birth, they are NOT the same.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The News about Obama's Birth Records
Well, I was listening the radio the other day and I heard something disturbing on it. Obama might not even be a U.S. citizen. Now, before you all go crazy on me, let me finish(and read this before you get mad at me..).
I was a bit put back by this, I never even thought that he wouldn't be a citizen, I simply thought he was a sell out. XD haha
Okay, I'm sorry that was a bit rude.
Anyway. So I decided to look online and see if there was any news about the alleged birth certificate. Boy oh boy did I find a buttload of pictures of that certificate. I tell you what!
But I don't know, they didn't really look very convincing to me. Mostly because I have taken photocopies of legal documents before. I've scanned them in and made copies of all sorts of things. Because sometimes you need to take copies of these things, like marriage certificates, auto titles, ect.. Just for you' know, certain stuff.
And they usually leave some sort of watermark when you copy them. These pictures did not.
Picture
I can see something near the bottom of the image but I think that is just the date it was printed. Not sure though..Anyway, I also didn't like the fact that the letters and print look so..I dunno, perfect. When I requested my copy of birth from Califonia, where I was born, the letters were not perfect at all. They were actually a bit choppy. And even more-so, when you scan in a document into the computer to post it online or whatever, email, ect.. The letters rarely ever look this good. They should still have a bit of a choppy look to them. Especially if there is a background image behind the letters.
Here is an article from the Free Republic website about Obama's birth certificate: Was Obama's "Certificate of birth" Manufacured?
I personally found the article very assounding, to say the least. I was about to accept that this certificate was real until I took in my own personal experience with such documents, and after reading this article into context.
So in conclusion, Obama might not even be a U.S. citizen, this man should be made to produce his original certificate to the American public before the election.(like that'll happen but it would be nice)
There is also a rumor saying that the Gov. of Hawaii is hiding said document from the public. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. All I know is that this document that I am looknig at on my screen looks very fishy. And I don't like the idea of electing a person that is not a citizen of the U.S. into office.
P.S. In case you all get confused about what I mean when I say 'citizen'.
I mean, if he was not born in the U.S. then he is not a citizen to be elected to office. Same as Arnold, who is the gov. of Califonia. He is not allowed to run for President because he was not born here, even if he's a citizen now. Does not matter.
P.S.S. Here is a picture of an actual birth certificate from the year Obama should have been born. It looks nothing like the one he has produced. I want the actual hard copy birth record, before I can be convinced. If he has nothing to hide then it should be no problem to produce.
Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!
I was a bit put back by this, I never even thought that he wouldn't be a citizen, I simply thought he was a sell out. XD haha
Okay, I'm sorry that was a bit rude.
Anyway. So I decided to look online and see if there was any news about the alleged birth certificate. Boy oh boy did I find a buttload of pictures of that certificate. I tell you what!
But I don't know, they didn't really look very convincing to me. Mostly because I have taken photocopies of legal documents before. I've scanned them in and made copies of all sorts of things. Because sometimes you need to take copies of these things, like marriage certificates, auto titles, ect.. Just for you' know, certain stuff.
And they usually leave some sort of watermark when you copy them. These pictures did not.
Picture
I can see something near the bottom of the image but I think that is just the date it was printed. Not sure though..Anyway, I also didn't like the fact that the letters and print look so..I dunno, perfect. When I requested my copy of birth from Califonia, where I was born, the letters were not perfect at all. They were actually a bit choppy. And even more-so, when you scan in a document into the computer to post it online or whatever, email, ect.. The letters rarely ever look this good. They should still have a bit of a choppy look to them. Especially if there is a background image behind the letters.
Here is an article from the Free Republic website about Obama's birth certificate: Was Obama's "Certificate of birth" Manufacured?
I personally found the article very assounding, to say the least. I was about to accept that this certificate was real until I took in my own personal experience with such documents, and after reading this article into context.
So in conclusion, Obama might not even be a U.S. citizen, this man should be made to produce his original certificate to the American public before the election.(like that'll happen but it would be nice)
There is also a rumor saying that the Gov. of Hawaii is hiding said document from the public. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. All I know is that this document that I am looknig at on my screen looks very fishy. And I don't like the idea of electing a person that is not a citizen of the U.S. into office.
P.S. In case you all get confused about what I mean when I say 'citizen'.
I mean, if he was not born in the U.S. then he is not a citizen to be elected to office. Same as Arnold, who is the gov. of Califonia. He is not allowed to run for President because he was not born here, even if he's a citizen now. Does not matter.
P.S.S. Here is a picture of an actual birth certificate from the year Obama should have been born. It looks nothing like the one he has produced. I want the actual hard copy birth record, before I can be convinced. If he has nothing to hide then it should be no problem to produce.
Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
