Past Presidents warned us about an all powerful central government and the dangers and corruption of a central banking system.
The dangers of central banking may lead to corporate fascism. If there is no accountability, then there would be more potential of corruption from within. Our monetary system becomes hijacked and the nation is controlled by a system of credit. If the central bank can create money out of thin air, then the purchasing power of the dollar decreases.
If the concept of "Savings" ceases to exist, then this can lead to an economic disaster, more government intervention, and eventually, loss of liberty.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The vacated Senate Seat controversy
When reporters asked Obama what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate after Blagojevich was arrested by federal authorities,
Obama replied, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
On Nov. 23 David Axelrod, said on Fox Chicago: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." The Obama campaign is saying this was not correct…you can watch the Nov. 23rd interview here.
Obama replied, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
Below are various sources indicating that a meeting between president-elect and Illinois Governor Blagojevish did take place:
On Nov. 23 David Axelrod, said on Fox Chicago: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." The Obama campaign is saying this was not correct…you can watch the Nov. 23rd interview here.
The report by KHQA-TV's Carol Sowers originally was posted on the website of the Quincy, Ill., station. The article said "one of Obama's first priorities" on the day after his election was a meeting with Blagojevich planned that afternoon to discuss the Senate seat. Another story by the Quincy station later that week indicated the meeting took place. The station has removed both links to the archived stories.
Also, a Press Release from the Illinois Government Community news network website provides a hint of a discussion about the Senate Seat.
Chester A. Arthur (21st President of the U.S.)
Chester Arthur concealed he was a British Subject at Birth.
The actual naturalization record for his father, William Arthur is on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
It was also recently uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.
And some of Arthur's opponents circulated the Canada rumor during the 1880 election, but they could not prove it, and no solid proof of this has emerged since.
But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Chester Arthur had something to hide. He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Source: Leo C. Donofrio
The actual naturalization record for his father, William Arthur is on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
It was also recently uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.
And some of Arthur's opponents circulated the Canada rumor during the 1880 election, but they could not prove it, and no solid proof of this has emerged since.
But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Chester Arthur had something to hide. He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Source: Leo C. Donofrio
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Source: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
U.S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Link to the full printable PDF report.
U.S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Link to the full printable PDF report.
Republic vs. Democracy
There is a great deal of reference by the mass media and sadly, even by many of our elected officials to 'our democracy' or 'this democracy' when referring to our government. The Founding Fathers of our nation wisely established a Republic, not a Democracy, and there are many important differences.
The differences can be debated and argued in many ways but the best and simplest definition was printed in The Soldiers Training Manual issued by the United States War Department, November 30, 1928. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and are accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army.
Shortly after in the 1930's, orders from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration suddenly demanded that all copies of this book (Training Manual 2000-25) be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation.
Here are two definitions included in it:
TM 2000-25: 118-120
Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the people shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation, or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguery , license, agitation, discontent, and anarch.
TM 2000-25:120-121
Republic: Authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles, and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
With this little look into the facts', re-read Romans 13 and you'll see the biggest problem in the minds of most Americans - believers and non-believers alike: The only authority above we, the people, is God. Beneath us is the Consitution which is to protect us from our public servants.
Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,
"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".
Are we a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy?
By Walter Williams
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.
The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.
The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?
- James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
- At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
- John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in
Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!
Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there.
All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, Obama was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free.
Hospitals you can check yourself:
All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, Obama was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free.
Hospitals you can check yourself:
- The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
- Kapi’ olani Medical Center - Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
- Honolulu Shriners Hospital - Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Straub Clinic & Hospital - Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
- Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
- Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
Source: Daman Conners
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)