¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



by Neil Turner

    Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” was published in 1758
(Apr. 30, 2011) — Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the ‘silliness’ of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Constitution:

    1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations;
   3. The Law of Nations says that:

1.‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’;
2.‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’;
3.‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’;
4.‘To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’
     Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stu...pid as to not know – see ‘Something Stupid This Way Comes’), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously – or especially now that they and the whole world knows – makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.

       An article written by JB Williams, Managing Editor of www.PatriotsUnion.org, discusses this public confirmation by Obama that he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Check the links at the end (you can contact your Senators and Representative directly without going through their website), and take the appropriate actions to help right this foundering ship of State and restore our Constitution.

*1. See Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth here.
2. Left click to draw a box around the text part of the Certificate. Right click mouse. Choose “Copy Image.”

3. Paste into any standard Word processing document. The fraud is now exposed to everyone with a computer and an internet connection.


Washington Times: Congress & FBI Need To Investigate Obama's New Forged Birth Certificate
Birther Report ^ | April 29, 2011 | Birther Report

Video: In an exclusive April 29, 2011 interview on ExopoliticsTV with Alfred Lambremont Webre, Robert Stanley, weekly correspondent for the Washington Times investigative radio, has stated after a clear on-camera demonstration that purported certificate of live birth released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery.

    Mr. Stanley had earlier on April 29, 2011 reported this breaking news on Washington Times investigative radio while being interviewed by reporters John McCaslin and Amy Holmes, also a correspondent for CNN. -Text via 68Truthseeker. Hat tip to Commander Kerchner.



contribuido por sting 


The Birth Certificate Trees Obscuring the Forest
Dean C. Haskins | 4/30/2011 | Dean C. Haskins

     On April 27, 2011, after the White House had claimed for more than two years that the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) Barack Obama had released during his presidential campaign was the only available government-issued proof of his birthplace (which, of course, was a mantra echoed by the media—both liberal and “conservative”), a new, and different, image was released to the world. So, regarding those claims, were they lying then or are they lying now? The answer is, “yes.”

     The first image (COLB) has been thoroughly debunked by professional forensic document examiners as being a poorly forged image. It has also been disparaged by most thinking people, who readily observe its lack of typical information supplied on every form of birth certificate or certification in the United States. So, yes, they were lying then.

      Within minutes of the release of this second image, there began a barrage of internet offerings pointing out the visual and technical discrepancies in it. The issue that has probably gained the most traction is that the PDF file released by the White House was comprised of nine individual layers (while the one the AP released had been “flattened”). I have read the competing arguments on the matter, and both sides seem to have some compelling evidence to support their respective cases.

      Next, there has been much scrutiny over the textual images it contains, as it appears some characters don't match the general appearance of other characters within specific strings (e.g., the “1” at the end of the certificate number 61 10641). For those, the quest for the truth will likely continue for quite awhile.

       Unfortunately, there have also been easily explained “problems,” which are actually the types of claims that make us look like lunatics. In that category would be the purported “issue” that, where the time is entered, the upper-case “M” is smaller than the “P,” and that a 1961 typewriter would not have been able to accomplish that. Of course, those making that claim must not be familiar with the universe of forms, for with many forms, data that is constant (such as the “P” in either AM or PM) is fixed within the design of the form so that whoever is entering the information needs to enter either the “A” or the “P” only. Obviously, the appearance of the font used to design the form will be vastly different from what is entered manually—especially when that entry is done by a typewriter.

       I'm quite certain that elemental problems will continue to be found on the image as it is further scrutinized, and for that reason alone, I think we all need to have our heads examined!

     Here's my point: Look at the image! Let me repeat: LOOK AT THE IMAGE! I'm not speaking of what the image contains, but the image itself. There is no possible way that image is an actual scan of a decades-old document that was still in a bound volume (as suggested by the skewing on its left side). The image is simply too perfect to be what it is purported to be.

     Think about it. Have you ever tried to scan a page from a book? First, how many times has such a scan been perfect, horizontally and vertically? I'm guessing the answer to that would be, “Never.” Next, where the page is bound (the spine side of the page), what kind of shading is always there? Look at that shading on this document. Additionally, have you ever been able to scan a page from a book and have a bizarre matching border around the page, with the page itself sloping unnaturally within that border? That alone is proof that the image was computer-generated, for it is not as if Hawaii has a standardized way it provides scans of such images, as no other document has ever been released that looks like this one.

     We have already spent far too much time and effort looking at the trees, when the forest is sitting there right under our noses. The White House is claiming that it received an exemption from Hawaiian officials (who have been nothing but forthright with us all along) to have the bound version of the long form birth certificate copied and released—something that, just the week before, Hawaii stated could not be done—not even for the messiah himself. And, obviously, they still have not done that. This image is unquestionably a computer-generated abstract of information either Hawaii or the White House has supplied. It is still not a scan, copy, or photograph of any paper document that was created in 1961, or even in 2011, for that matter.

     While it would completely confound me for anyone to state honestly that they believe this is, as the White House claims, a scan of Barack Obama's long form birth certificate, I suppose I have witnessed enough of his faithful followers' illogical and bizarre blanket beliefs to expect at least a little of that in response to this.

     So, I have a challenge for you—any of you: scan a page out of a book or some other bound volume, and show me that it is possible to arrive at something that looks even remotely similar to the latest blatant lie the White House has released. I'll gladly post it everywhere I can to prove myself wrong.

       Yes, this forest vs. the trees issue has continually kept us scrambling and looking like the id..iots those in the media repeatedly and arrogantly report us to be. Obama openly told us during his campaign that his father was never a US citizen, which sufficiently disqualifies him under the Article II “natural born citizen” requirement (according to the historic definition of the term—“born on US soil to citizen parents”), and we brought out the flashlights and decoder rings trying to find his birth certificate—just as he wanted us to do.

We MUST be nuts.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Townhall.com ^ | May 7, 2011 | Bill O'Reilly

   "It is ironic that many on the far left openly celebrated the death of bin Laden. So, guys, let me get this straight: It's OK for U.S. forces to shoot a terrorist in the head, but it's not OK to waterboard him if lives are in danger? Good grief."

  Frustrating! That's the appropriate word for what is happening in the wake of the Osama bin Laden raid. Besides the precision of the Navy SEALs, the big story to emerge from the action is that coerced interrogation gave the CIA vital information used to track bin Laden to his lair. Current CIA Chief Leon Panetta has confirmed that.

     Of course, that exposition is embarrassing to the left, including President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, who are all on record as saying coerced interrogation does not work. Apparently, they were wrong in a big way.

     The nails-on-the-blackboard part of this story is that some liberal pundits are trying to deny the undeniable. The spin they are using is that a "mosaic" of intelligence led the CIA to bin Laden. It was not just waterboarding or whatever. To paraphrase Panetta: We'll never know if we could have gotten the same intel without the water.

    That's true, but who cares? It is the duty of the federal government to protect Americans from harm. And that's what the Bush administration did when it signed off on coercive questioning.

   The record shows that just three men were waterboarded: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Rahim al-Nashiri, all al-Qaida big shots. Under duress, KSM gave up vital information that crippled his terror group and ultimately led U.S. authorities to watch bin Laden's top Pakistani courier. Eventually, that man led the CIA to the compound outside Islamabad.

   But still, the far left won't budge. No matter what the facts are about the effectiveness of coerced interrogation, they will deny them. Infuriating.

    The sane policy going forward is this: The president and only the president should have the power to order coerced interrogation, including waterboarding, if national security is endangered or American lives are on the line. One man makes the decision, and his orders are carried out by an elite intelligence team answerable directly to him.

    So if Obama doesn't want to order waterboarding, fine. That's on him. But the elected leader of the nation should have the power to make the decision.

    It is ironic that many on the far left openly celebrated the death of bin Laden. So, guys, let me get this straight: It's OK for U.S. forces to shoot a terrorist in the head, but it's not OK to waterboard him if lives are in danger? Good grief.

    It is long past time for Americans to reject ideology that endangers human beings. We live in a dangerous world chock full of doomsday weapons. Common sense should dictate how the federal government defines strategies to protect us. How many times have you heard ideologues say that coerced interrogation does not work?

    Well, it does. Ask bin Laden. Wait, we can't.




Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


SUCCESS! President Obama Achieves $4.00 a Gallon Gas!
Caffeinated Thoughts ^ | 5-9-2011 | Terry Tesar


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

According to the nationwide Lundberg Survey, the national average cost to American drivers was $4 per gallon on May 6. That's 11.98 cents more than on April 22. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the average gas price was $1.87 a gallon.

   A tremendous congratulations must be given by one and all to Barack Obama for successfully achieving one of his major goals as President of the United States...crippling high gas prices!

High fuel costs are necessary to save the Country as well as the World. Americans are not willing to give Green Energy alternatives a chance if they do not have to, so President Obama is acting like a true, devoted, benevolent leader; assault the way of life of your fellow American's for their own good!

   This was not an easy achievement. It took great “laser beam” focus and perseverance to cause this mammoth milestone in the Obama Presidency to occur. As Sarah Palin stated in her March 15 Facebook message, Obama and his Administration “were not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels.”

   It is obvious he wanted higher prices in his interview in 2008 when he said he was for a “gradual adjustment” of higher gas prices. In the same interview he also said that a fast rise would be a “shock to American pocketbooks”. That is the depth of this man's understanding, he knows if gas prices rise to quickly, our pocketbooks would be unable to handle it. But, if the fuel prices rise slowly, this will give our pocketbooks the time to stretch and grow, thus allowing the pocketbooks more room for money. This is simple “pocketbook physics” (closely related to the logic of “Keynesian Economics”).

   The drilling moratorium was ingenious! President Obama's post-BP oil spill strategy of turning a “tragedy” into “MORE tragedy” by denying jobs to oil drillers worked well in starving the US of oil and, at the same time , telling the world “We will stop oil drilling to save Planet Earth, and you are free to drill us with higher oil costs”!

   He also eliminated “several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives,” and denied oil companies the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. Let's face it, if you allow oil companies to find even MORE oil, this will only encourage them to stay in business.

   Oil is obviously an addiction for the American people. The President seems to be using a Nancy Reaganesque “Just Say No to Oil” Campaign, because, let's face it, Oil is just like a gateway drug to things like “Freedom” and “Self- Responsibility”.  Also, think of the lives being saved with less cars on the road, leading to less people dying of car accidents and pollution! And the respective inflation caused by high fuel costs will cause food and clothing costs to rise, making Americans skinnier, and with a cool tattered-clothed “Grunge” look! Where's the down side here?

    So thank you President Obama, Americans don't understand, but you do.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama Rapper Invitation Defies Decency 


Former presidential adviser Karl Rove says inviting a controversial rapper — whose songs have called for the death of President George W. Bush, praised killing of police officers, and contain misogynistic lyrics — to the White House for a poetry event is not exactly conducive to President Barack Obama’s recent calls for reviving national unity.
   “Yes, let’s invite a misogynist to the White House, a guy who’s called for violence against police officers, and called for killing the former president of the United States George W. Bush —  
this will set a good tone for the country,” Rove sarcastically told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday.
“President Obama last week said he wanted to recapture that special moment we had after 9/11 — and here a week later, we have an example of how this White House can recapture that moment by inviting a thug to the White House — a man who calls for the death of Mr. Obama’s predecessor in office,” Rove said.
Rove noted that if  someone inside the White House who “had an ounce of sense” had vetted the lyrics of Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr. — who goes by the name “Common” — they would have realized  “this is going to be offensive to the American people.”
“It’s going to be offensive in the moment that the president is trying to establish here — maybe we ought to think about somebody else to invite,” Rove said. “But no, they are inviting a guy who called — I repeat — for the previous president to be assassinated, for violence to be committed against police officers, and whose lyrics are sexually explicit and misogynist.
“This guy is a thug — and why they are inviting him to poetry night at the White House, speaks volumes about President Obama and this White House staff. Who is asleep at the vetting desk?” Rove continued. “What is . . . amazing is, literally, last week the president in a very eloquent moment, President Obama said, we need us a country to come together and, you know, reestablish the moment that we had after 9/11.
“Now, I was a little dubious about it because, first of all, he invited President [Bill] Clinton and President Bush to go with him to New York in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden and both of them demurred — and the White House leaked that they’ve invited them,” Rove said. “I mean, like they were trying to embarrass both President Clinton and President Bush. And then to do this, it is like rubbing salt in the wound.”
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Dem calls Dems' oil-tax bill ‘laughable’
The Hill ^

Dem calls Dems' oil-tax bill ‘laughable’ By Josiah Ryan - 05/11/11

     Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) called the Democratic plan to scrap tax breaks for the big five oil producers to pay down the deficit “laughable” and derided states that complain about gas prices while producing no energy themselves.

    “I see what our states produce and these people produce nothing, or virtually nothing — and you ask me can I vote for a bill like this?" asked Landrieu from Senate the floor on Wednesday, comparing the major energy-producing states with non-energy producing states.

   “No,” said Landrieu, answering her own question. “Not only can I not vote for it. It’s laughable.”

   The Democrats' plan, which may come to the floor this week, was authored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). It would require oil companies to pay taxes for drilling on federal land and remove tax deductions for companies that drill in foreign countries. In all, it would raise about $20 billion, which would be directed toward deficit reduction.

    Louisiana is one of the highest energy-producing states in the nation and Landrieu argued that the Gulf's oil industry would be adversely affected by the scrapping of the tax incentives.

    Landrieu said she knew her pposition — as well as the pposition  of Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who also opposes the bill — would be unpopular among their fellow Democrats.

    “I know we are going to be the skunks at the garden party, to be the two Democrats against his bill,” she acknowledged.

    Landrieu also blasted states that consume more energy than they produce and complain about gas prices.

    “There are a lot of states up here that don't produce, don't conserve, aren’t efficient, and all they want to do is yell about high gas prices,” said Landrieu, raising her voice. “Well why don’t you do something about it?”

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obama Chic: Inside the White House Cocktail Parties

By Allison McGevna

Published March 19, 2009 


     Note: It is absolutely obscene to give parties in the White House every Wednesday while our soldiers are dying in wars and the country is in middle of a recession with the index of misery skyrocketing.

   It’s a cold evening in the nation's capital, but the guests at a local cocktail party hardly feel the winter chill. Amid the low symphony of glasses clinking and a dull hum of chatter, men and women mill about, likely dining on the finest finger foods that catering has to offer.

   It’s Wednesday night at the White House, and the era of the cocktail party has returned.

Only eight weeks into the Obama administration, the president and first lady have already hosted their fair share of social events. Indeed, White House social secretary Desiree Rogers has announced that the Obama administration plans to make Wednesday night events a tradition.

   “It’s not so much a cocktail party necessarily,” Katie McCormick Lelyveld, press secretary to first lady Michelle Obama, told FOXNews.com. “It’s a gathering that takes on the shape of the week’s agenda. The driving force is to reserve time Wednesday evenings to have at hand to use for whatever is at the top of the list of priorities that week.”

    The announcement seemed to be a departure from the past several years, as the parties had all but fallen out of fashion since the Reagan era. President George W. Bush was rumored to dislike cocktail parties, and had given up drinking years before he was sworn in. As former press secretary Dee Dee Myers told Politico.com, the Clintons did not have a wide circle of friends in Washington and were "not as social" as the Obamas have shown themselves to be. The Reagans reportedly cultivated relationships with Washington society and Hollywood alike, while Carter instead enjoyed a more quiet social life.

But the Obamas, known to be active in their community, have already hosted several events that have taken on different forms: from a bipartisan meeting of Democrats and Republicans before voting on the stimulus bill, to a concert in honor of Obama’s favorite musician, Stevie Wonder, to a Super Bowl party (on a Sunday, of course), to a black history event hosted by the first lady

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Part 2

   But not everyone is lifting a glass to toast the host and hostess.

The political watchdog group Freedom Watch has sought information from the federal government as to how much taxpayer money is being used for the events, according to a report in World Net Daily.

   Others have pointed out that the extra socializing isn’t necessarily doing all that much for negotiation purposes.

  As Letitia Baldrige, former social secretary to first ladies Jacqueline Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson, told FOXNews.com, “no real, substantial conversation takes place” at White House cocktail parties. "But cocktail parties need a herd mentality. You go with the herd mentality and talk about what the herd is talking about. It’s nothing more, really, than going there to see and be seen.”  “It’s a way of taking care of social obligations," she said. "It’s just a way of making people feel good.”

  In fact, Baldrige says it is an unspoken rule not to argue or protest at a cocktail party. “It would be grossly inappropriate to do so,” she said.

   And with the tremendous pressure on budgets, Baldrige said many of the Obamas’ parties will likely be short and to the point.

  “Lots of groups probably won’t get to eat or drink at all. They can chat in the room and will then be ushered out. That saves on food prices, as well as the big deal of a food cleanup. That saves a great deal of money, especially when the memories of the night are priceles

   Still, in spite of accusations of lavish spending or charges that the parties are not necessary, they will likely remain in place, much as they have for most of the history of the American presidency.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

White House Says They'll Stop Faking Photos.

White House Says They'll Stop Faking Photos

The Obama White House promised they would stop faking photos of the president.






If only....



The media...

Would join them.


More... Big Kahuna added:

Now if we can get them to stop faking: Polls, Unemployment stats, Presidents intelligence, experience, love of America, town hall meetings, questions from reporters, answers from the President, spending numbers, recoveries, benefits from Obamacare, foreclosure help, jobs numbers, grassroots (bussed in union hacks) support at rallies, illegal immigrant numbers, new border patrol agents, Seabuiscuit Meechelle’s diet, Obama’s smoking habit, Obama’s hair color, his understanding the Constitution, etc , etc, etc

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obama's Hypocritical Rhetoric on Immigration Reform


Barack Obama's immigration speech in El Paso May 10 was an exercise in electioneering and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy because while Obama complained about "politicians" blocking comprehensive immigration bills, he was one of them himself.
In 2007, when such a bill was backed by a lame duck Republican president and had bipartisan backing from Senate heavyweights Edward Kennedy and Jon Kyl, Sen. Obama voted for union-backed amendments that Kennedy and Kyl opposed as bill-killers.
In 2009 and 2010, President Obama acquiesced in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to pass cap-and-trade and bypass immigration and in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to bring an immigration bill to the floor.
Both times the votes were probably there to pass a bill. Obama did not lift a finger to help.
But that did not stop the president who is constantly calling for civility to heap scorn on those who seek stronger enforcement. "They'll want a higher fence. Maybe they'll need a moat," he said to laughter from the largely Latino audience. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat. They'll never be satisfied."
Was that on the teleprompter, or was it ad-libbed? In either case, Obama was showing his contempt for those who bitterly cling to the idea that the law should be enforced.
That's no way to assemble the bipartisan coalition necessary to pass an immigration bill.
It's obvious that nothing like the legalization (opponents say "amnesty") provisions considered in 2007 can pass in this Congress. They can never pass the Republican House, where Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is a longstanding opponent and Speaker John Boehner will not schedule a bill not approved in committee.


Nor will this Congress pass the most attractive proposal Obama mentioned, the Dream Act, providing a path to legalization for those brought in illegally as children who enroll in college or serve in the military. That failed last December in a more Democratic Senate and won't pass now.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Part 2

Some new approach is needed, and Obama did little to point the way. One idea, advanced by a bipartisan Brookings Institution panel, is a bill that would strengthen enforcement and would shift the U.S. away from low-skill and toward high-skill immigration.
Canada and Australia have done this to their great benefit. And with a sluggish economy it makes little sense, as current law does, to give preference to low-skill siblings of minimum wage workers rather than to engineering and science Ph.D.s. We need more job creators, not more job seekers.
The problem here is that the lobbying forces backing comprehensive legislation don't favor such an approach. Latino groups and lobbies representing employers of low-skill workers are interested in legalizing the low-skill Latinos who make up the majority of the 11 million illegal immigrants.
High-tech firms seek more H-1B visas for high-skill graduates, but these tie immigrants to particular employers. They don't have an interest in provisions allowing these people to work for anyone they don't like or to start their own businesses, as they can in Canada and Australia.
In the absence of significant lobbying support, the only way to provide support for Brookings-sstyle legislation is a bold presidential initiative advertising it as a clean break from past proposals.
Obama didn't come close to doing that in El Paso. He included a few words about letting in more high-skill folks, but didn't suggest any reduction in low-skill immigration.
And he said only a few words about workplace enforcement on which his administration has developed a valuable new tool.
That's a refinement of the E-Verify electronic system now available in which employers can verify the Social Security numbers of new employees.
The Department of Homeland Security has been ironing out glitches in E-Verify and, as former National Security Agency general counsel Stewart Baker reports, DHS now allows job-seekers in some states to use E-Verify before applying for a job not only to check their status but also to protect against identity theft.


The administration has been attacking state laws requiring employers to use E-Verify. If Obama were serious about enforcement, he would be calling for mandatory E-Verify. That would be a more effective tool against illegal immigration than even the strongest border enforcement.
But as Obama's record makes clear, he's not really interested in passing a law. He knows his support has been slipping among Latino voters, and he wants to goose it back up. El Paso was all about election 2012, not serious immigration reform.



GALLUP: Obama slips back to 48/45...

Obama ha podido engañar una parte de los hispanos todo el tiempo, incluso algunos hispanos se han dejado engañar por un tiempo... pero no podra obama engañar a todos los hispanos todo el tiempo.