from conspiracyarchive:

According to Mr. Henderson, the great psycho-wave of the past 35 years is “global salvationism.” This quasi-religious belief has two ill-fitting articles of faith: environmental alarmism, and the assertion that Third World poverty is in some way due to the West taking more than its fair share of global resources. Both problems are alleged to require top-down global political solutions, including giant corporations accepting more “social responsibility.”

The focus of this global master-plan is the bland but subversive notion of “sustainable development,” that without extensive UN-administered government controls the world is going to Hades in a handbasket …

- Peter Foster, “The Prince of Power [Maurice Strong],” Financial Post (May 19, 2005)

I can’t think of a better way to put Climategate into proper perspective than to revisit a 1998 Financial Post editorial titled “Global Warming: The Real Agenda.” Its author, Terence Corcoran, quoted from statements given to the Calgary Herald by the former Environment Minister, Christine Stewart.

As “minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,” Stewart said, “no matter if the science is phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.” 

“Environment Canada, therefore,” Corcoran commented immediately after, “is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.”

And further:

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.

Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.

Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming. . . . .

continue reading here

When I wonder why the Chicago police did such a horrific job tracking down 12-year-old Jahmeshia Conner, I look at her photograph and try to imagine where the police’s indifference comes from. The police force is and always has been predominately male and depending on the location, white. Regardless of what individual officer (black or white male, black or white female) is doing whatever case, the mentality is that of white males. And the Chicago police force is not fooling anyone by putting Police Department spokesperson Roderick Drew out there to calm the people down.

The Chicago police did not give a rats ass about Jahmeshia Conner. If the Chicago police cared about the welfare of Jahmeshia, why didn’t they immediately check to see if a media alert had went out? Drew cannot say if there was an effort to send alerts to media outlets by e-mail or not because last month the department was supposedly experiencing computer problems. Because, you know, since the invention of email, the telephones have been ripped out of every police station in Chicago, all mobiles have been commandeered, and the roads to the news stations have been opened to everyone but police officers. If there had been an investigating officer assigned to Connor’s case, wouldn’t he or she had noticed right away if there was an amber alert, or if there were fliers posted about? That is, if they were actually interested in finding Connor.

The police were not distracted from their flavored coffees until someone found Jahmeshia Connor’s dead body in an alley. She was twelve-years old. A 5th grader. Not a runaway as police assumed, as if, if she had been a runaway she would not be worthy of being sought. Since when can a child of twelve consent to anything, much less running away? Nevertheless, Jahmeshia was not a runaway.

Here is the most horrible part; Jahmeshia was alive every day of those two weeks but the last one. That’s right, every day. Her lifeless body was found just one day after she was strangled. For those long two weeks, Jahmeshia was more than likely waiting for the police to come save her, the way they do on television.

Instead of utilizing resources to search for missing children such as Jahmeshia, since November 2008, the Chicago Police have spent at least $2.2 million to safeguard Obama’s empty house. You know, the house that Obama only paid $1.65 million for along with the $104,500 he gave to the crook Tony Rezko for the adjoining piece of land.

Hours —maybe not hours but certainly numerous minutes— have been wasted mulling over poetry competitions and their validity. No doubt they have been a vehicle of discovery for the unknown  Makar — from time to time— but looking at the 2008 winners of the Bridport Poetry Prize and The Poetry Society National Poetry Competition, you begin to feel a distasteful sense of elitism. Naturally, all winners of the 2008 Bridport Prize(s) had been to University; two winners had been to Cambridge and Oxford Universities; and at least six hold postgraduate qualifications and various teaching posts. The jig is the same over at The Poetry Society, with both 2007 and 2008 winners displaying similar histories. Christopher James, winner of The Poetry Society National Poetry Competition 2008, “also won the Bridport (2002) and the Ledbury poetry prizes (2003 and 2006) and is also the recipient of an Eric Gregory from the Society of Authors.” Congratulations are certainly in order, but who is congratulating who? Welcome to the in-group bias of the poetry world.

I posted a short polemic entitled, ‘Abandon The Presses: Their Ship Has Already Sunk’ which pointed to, amongst other things, a sense of elitism in the literary presses tantamount to that seen in poetry competitions. A brief survey of certain online/offline poetry publications shows that the majority of contributors hold postgraduate qualifications and vocational qualifications of parity, and that editors deliberately hawk established, highly educated poets in order to buttress their reputation, even if the poet’s submission is below par. I have seen woeful evidence of this preferential treatment. Content therefore becomes contrary to the ‘mission statement’ supposedly encouraging new or unpublished poets to submit. Poetry competitions, evidenced in the brief example above, show a similar bias and organisers and judges should be lambasted for promoting exclusivity, even though they may try to fall back on that fallacious rule, ‘open to everyone’. They make every effort to distance themselves from the scurrilous vanity presses and publications, but it is they who seem to emerge as the main culprits. If they cannot liberate themselves from elitism, then the poetry competition becomes an unsound proposition.

Bloodaxe Books founder Neil Astley commented on this elitism in his 2006 New Statesman article, ‘Give Poetry Back to People‘ saying , “academic protectionism…is something that has also tainted poetry reviewing: the few reviews that do appear are mostly of books by the same small group of mostly male, white British poets who also judge the main poetry prizes and are often either poetry editors or academics in university departments of English or creative writing.”

Sour grapes on my part? To some extent, maybe, although I’ve never entered a poetry competition. As for submitting works to presses and publications, most certainly. Submitting work is a psychological web of desires, motivations and wants. An industry feeds off these human attributes, compelling us to toe guidelines, send cash and risk the post office. In the past, I’ve considered abandoning all submissions, but guided by ego, rescinded the decision. Oh, to see our names up in lights! But now the personal computer and the internet have changed all that. There is a power shift in effect.

Literary houses mystify literary works, they defend the mechanics of illusion, duping their authors in the process. We have the right to expression, do we really need recognition from those who have been unable to perforate a text? These soon to be outmoded -if they aren’t already and/or haven’t realised- literary entities clearly rely on monies to keep ticking, and some are noteworthy publications (the field begins to narrow), but the fact is the personal computer, for the moment anyway, is the new Gutenberg printing press. Poets (should) no longer require the patronage of a publisher nor the kudos of an imprint; recognition by peers in paper houses —or ivory towers— is one of the cogs powering the illusion, and likewise status. Some might argue that they separate the wheat from the chaff. I argue that the World Wide Web and its residents do that quite capably. If reader’s don’t like your work then they’ll go somewhere else. If you enjoy the creative arc of poetry, then you will keep writing. Let’s be outsiders and refuse to genuflect? I think we will see a dramatic shift in the way the poet is perceived, and the internet is the catalyst.

So I make a declaration: a refusal to submit, a refusal to enter competition. I’ll let my hair grow the way it pleases, the wind is my gel, the finishing touches applied by breezes.

Bewise Box:

Here be a list of supporting documents concerning elitism in poetry.

The Invitation-Only Party That Is Poetry Today by Robert Peake, 5th September 2006

Give Poetry Back to People by Neil Astley, New Statesman, 23 October 2006.

Fictionwise forced to impose geo-restrictions on ALREADY-bought book? Lit agents unwittingly promoting piracy? By David Rothman,  September 18th, 2009.   A looser but still recent,  intrinsic supporting document.

PRobinson

A recent and fantastic Op-Ed by Tony Horwitz draws some excellently eerie parallels between today’s Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and antebellum abolitionists, which should give pause to even casual observers who haven’t quite come to grips with the doubletalk inherent in our modern political dialogue.

Brown was a bearded fundamentalist who believed himself chosen by God to destroy the institution of slavery. He hoped to launch his holy war by seizing the United States armory at Harpers Ferry, Va., and arming blacks for a campaign of liberation. Brown also chose his target for shock value and symbolic impact.

Of course, it’s all too fitting that the phrase that takes its place as the epigraphical title of this post seems so tritely true that it no longer has any impact in the real world debate on how to address the problems posed by terrorism.

The problem brilliantly illustrated by this parallelism is that we no longer analyze current events through ideological or philosophical lenses.  There is a profoundly blithe and blind nationalism at work (symbolized by Sarah Palin and followers, as I alluded in an earlier post) that abhors actual inquiry into the actual content of a given position.  The Ideas underlying the Issues are only addressed with a Manichean framework: “democracy,” “freedom,” “patriot” = good; “fear,” “terror,” “fundamentalist” = evil.

I pause to note that the founding fathers themselves considered “democracy” a dirty word and endeavored to prevent America’s devolution into either oligarchy (rule by the rich) or democracy (rule by the unenlightened, factious masses).  Meanwhile, in the sometimes-dubbed “post-historical” present, the last-men that make up our polity can’t even define the basic terminology used in political philosophy; and we let these people “rule.”  I’ll assume (perhaps erroneously given breeding patterns) that the problem isn’t that we aren’t as smart or as talented as the founders; we’re just apathetic. People don’t inform themselves on large-scale issues because they either assume their random and arbitrary source of information is reliable a priori or because “my vote doesn’t count anyway.”  More to the point, people don’t even realize that they, and many many other people, are making world-changing decisions with a total lack of real knowledge.

We live in an age capable of hosting dozens of “Enlightenments” simultaneously thanks to the profusion of information and the channels of its dissemination, but nobody bothers to verify an idea or notion even though such inquiries are easier and more democratically available than ever.  There is no direct conflict on an ideological level in politics.  Nobody tries to convince people to adopt an idea; it’s about adopting a candidate, and the question examined by the media becomes which of two candidates can look and sound sleeker while grandstanding and making the real deals off-camera and outside the uncomfortable view of those who supposedly hold ultimate power.  To use another metaphor, the static is too easily capable of drowning out the signal for those who don’t bother to regulate the interference.  The fact that people do not even think to resort to reliable channels of information and education shows that doublethink and doublespeak (e.g., “Wikipedia is totally unreliable,” “if it was important, I’d hear about it,” “patriots always support the president,” etc.) have firmly taken hold of our society.  But Orwell predicted the wrong mechanism of thought-control; Huxley had it right.  When nobody is actually and honestly looking where they’re headed, the last men don’t need strong men to corral them.  They’re happy to simply go where they’re told.

Country Music and how I’m a Recovering Musical Elitist

“Country music is three chords and the truth.”  ~Harlan Howard

I was driving recently when I thought to myself, “there ain’t nothin’ like a good country song”

(I know what you’re thinking and yes, I am an English major.) I’ve spent the great majority of my life living in the South and for the longest time I hated country music with every fiber of my being. I was too into the “intellectual” and “sophisticated” indie-rock to listen to any hillbilly drinking music, or something like that. I thought that the people who listened to country music simply lacked the ability to understand the vast complexity of “educated” rock and roll. I hope you haven’t written me off as a musical narcissist just yet because I’m about to tell you how very wrong I was.

I can’t exactly pinpoint my epiphany, but I do know that it can be directly attributed to a very simple question. “Why?” I don’t know who said it or when they said it, but I distinctly remember being asked why I didn’t like country music and I was completely unable to formulate a response. This is so interesting because in the past I had been so very vocal about my dislike for country that I was positive I had an answer. However, like most of my adolescent habits, my opinions were ungrounded and extremely biased. (That said, I’m sure one day I’ll look back at this blog and say the exact same thing of my current opinions)

The first country song I ever loved belongs to Kenny Chesney. I was driving one night listening to the radio when he snuck into my late night guilty pleasure (mix 92.9). “The Good Stuff” came on and I melted. His words were so simple and his message so pure. Which is what I’ve come to discover as the most beautiful thing about country music. Country music is not about complex lyrics with hidden messages or musical extremism. It’s quite simply about the beautiful act of story telling, it’s about simplicity. As a pseudo (new favorite word) songwriter, I can tell you that trying to write lyrics that people will connect to is more than a little challenging. I’ve had my fair share of long nights where I just stare at the piano or guitar wondering how in the world I’m going to affectively communicate a feeling. As a slam poet, I’ve always used crazy sentence structures and ridiculous rhyming patterns to my advantage because In the world of slam, elaborate is almost always best. But often times, elaborate is much easier than simple. Simple can be very difficult.

So here’s my message to all of you musical elitists out there.

Joanna Branson Photography

Get over yourself. I really don’t care that you know about more bands than I do. I also don’t care that the music I listen to is what you consider to be “mainstream” which makes me a “conformist.” I think that it’s hilarious that you are all too involved with your own image to take your head out of your ass for long enough to realize that maybe, just maybe you might like coldplay. Let me guess, you like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Modest Mouse, the Flaming Lips, Bob Dylan (btw, I’d really like it if someone would take the time to explain to me exactly what he’s talking about in half his songs) Of Montreal, Wilco, but you HATE their new stuff. That new “commercial shit” is just completely contradictory to the beautiful sounds they once formulated. Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of those bands a lot, but I also think that John Mayer is one of the best song writers of our generation and that coldplay is more than just a shallow power pop boy band remake.

The thing that I find so frustrating about elitists is that it’s not really about the music at all, it’s about the image. You can’t listen to the itunes top 100 because your identity is intrinsically tied to being original, therefore not listening to the music that is popular with the masses. My personal opinion is that most of these people choose to listen to crappy music because they like to be seen as unique and trendy. If I had a PhD in psychology I would probably assume then that the reason that their identitites are so tied up in music is because they’re unable to feel confident in themselves without having some sort of scene to define themselves by. But then again, we all define ourselves by what we do on a daily basis. In a perfect world, we’d all embrace the words of the mid 90’s Disney movie “Brink” in which the father figure tells the main character that, “skating is what you do, not who you are.”

But hold on to your fixed gear bikes and cheap cigarettes because I’m not done!

Some of the best music in existence today is not on the billboard top 100 and I fully recognize that. I also believe that the culture of the independent scene is vital in the process of musical progression. I also like wearing girl jeans and plaid shirts, But that doesn’t make me unique. I am unique because there is not another person on this earth who lives like I do. The same is true for you. Don’t stop being who you are listening to the music you like, but make sure that you really like it, because “Clap Your Hands Say Yeah” really really sucks in my personal opinion. Also, give John Mayer a try because you might just like it.

This is the part where you tell me how wrong I am. If you don’t I’m just going to continue being an arrogant asshole with a blog. Please help me out and tell me what you think.

“Show me an elitist, and I’ll show you a loser.” –Tom Clancy

An artcle by Steve Pendlebury written December 4, 2009 was featured on AOL and the following poll question presented.

“”Sarah Palin is blowing the birther dog whistle. You’ll never see a better demonstration of political cynicism mixed with blinding stupidity,” Charles Johnson wrote on Little Green Footballs. Johnson recently made waves in the blogosphere by splitting from the right wing over, among other things, its support of conspiracy theories.”

“”So to Palin if one group of radicals makes bold accusations with no proof it is acceptable for her to make equally bold accusations against the other side,” Ryan Witt charged on Examiner.com.”

“On Daily Kos, Jed Lewison called Palin “a neverending fountain of crazy” and said her remarks about Obama’s birth certificate were a gift for Democrats looking ahead to the 2012 election.”

http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Clink6%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F

Everytime someone questions their Messiah, Obama, these bottom feeders crawl out from under their rocks and begin their vicious attacks. The level of some of these smear campaigns leads one to the obvious conclusion that this is not just an ideological front, but a well orchestrated effort emanating from the Obama camp and Obama Administration.

Come after me you low lifes for a battle of wits and facts. But, alas, I would be attacking unarmed opponents.

“Winston dialed “back numbers” on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of
the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay.  The messages he had received referred to articles or news items
which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify.  For
example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa.  As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North
Africa alone.  It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make
him predict the thing that had actually happened.”…George Orwell “1984″

The Citizen Wells blog has often quoted “1984″ by George Orwell and for good reason. Early in 2008 it was apparent we had entered the age of Big Brother in the sheep’s clothing of the Obama camp. It was not just the Obama campaign that was orchestrating the totalitarian control of information. The Mainstream Media, paid or obediently following, presented information that glorified Obama, Big Brother, and belittled or attacked any opposition.

Right on cue, The Huffington Post, one of the paid arms of the Obama camp, has come to Obama’s rescue. The American people are increasingly unhappy with the Obama Administration and are certainly more open to learning the truth about him. Several weeks ago Lou Dobbs asked why doesn’t Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate. Now, in a recent interview, Sarah Palin has stated that she believes Obama’s birth certificate being questioned is fair game. The Obama camp Orwellian attacks are predictable as explained in this Citizen Wells article

“Sarah Palin Goes ‘Birther’: Obama Birth Certificate ‘A Fair Question’”

“Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate is “rightfully” an issue with the American public, and that it is “fair game” for politicians to question Obama’s citizenship.”

“FactCheck.org has done the most comprehensive debunking of the various conspiracy theories related to Obama’s citizenship. Here is their bottom line:”

Read more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html

Notice that The Huffington Post has tagged Sarah Palin with birther. Then they quote the lies and misinformation from FactCheck.org. Lou Dobbs is no fool. He acknowledged that the piece of paper (alleged COLB) provided by the Obama camp is just a piece of paper referring to another piece of paper. The Huffington Post will not ask the simple question, the required jounalistic question, the question that a fifth grader can understand.

Why?

Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

Why does The Huffington Post do the bidding of the Obama camp?

Here is one of the reasons.

Remember, the monetary payments below are only from Obama For America and those reported to the FEC. Based on the services provided by The Huffington Post to the Obama camp, the actual total paid should be significantly higher.

DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE

OBAMA FOR AMERICA

2008 year end

Huffingtonpost.com   55,354.00

2009 third quarter

Huffingtonpost.com    5,000.00

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/

from The Wall Street Journal:

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate-change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU’s temperature database: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

INTERNET BILLBOARD

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

December 2, 2009

Attention: Sarah Palin

It is not a conspiracy theory. Using the term “birther” in a condescending, Orwellian manner to discredit decent, hard working Americans who believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land, will not be tolerated.

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

2. Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British citizen.  “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was explicitly written to deal with the issue of foreign allegiances at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

3. Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance was further tainted when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

4. Some combination of the above allowed Obama to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was restricted to US citizens.

5. The only document presented by the Obama camp is a Hawaii COLB. There has been no substantiation that it is authentic and it does not establish country of birth. As Lou Dobbs stated, “It is a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper.”

6. All other documentation, all school records, that would establish country of birth have been kept hidden and restricted.

7. No authentic documentation has been presented to establish that Barack Obama was born in the US.

8. The records of all hospitals in Hawaii have been searched. There is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.

9. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother in Kenya has stated on multiple occasions that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa.

10. Others have stated, including multiple family members, officials and press, that Obama was born in Kenya.

This has been presented in a manner that a fifth grader can understand. However, if you have any questions, please contact me on this blog.

Failure to learn more about and understand this critical issue and take appropriate measures can only be construed as apathy,  ignorance or having an un American agenda. This includes the Mainstream Media and the Fox network.

Sarah Palin was interviewed by RustyHumphries recently. Listen to Palin’s response to the Question about Barack Obama’s birth certificate at approx 6:45.

To: Sarah Palin

Thank you for your service, for looking out for the best interests of America and the American people. And thank you for not dismissing the Obama eligibility and birth certificate issue.

Sarah, the American people want this simple question asked:

Why?

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

Governor Palin, will you do this for America?

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Recently on the Citizen Wells blog.

“So we have the Obama camp continually broadcasting that anyone challenging Obama’s eligibility is a fringe birther, right wing extremist and as many of the so called elitists would portray as a sub human low intellect. That Orly Taitz is the leader of the birthers and that all court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been thrown out as having no merits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people questioning Obama’s eligibility are normal, hard working Americans who follow the US Constitution as their legal compass. They are people like me who are well educated, well read and non racially motivated. They are current or retired military and some high ranking officers. There are a few in the MSM, such as Lou Dobbs who asked the common sense question of why doesn’t Obama simply provide a legitimate birth certificate.”
The age of Big Brother

Rush Limbaugh has mentioned the Barack Obama eligibility issues. Lou Dobbs, several weeks ago on his CNN show, referred to the Hawaii COLB as a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper. Mr Dobbs also asked the no brainer, common sense question of why doesn’t Obama just provide a legitimate Birth Certificate. I have requested that Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity ask the simple question, the question that a fifth grader can understand and draw the obvious conclusion from.

Why?

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”

One of the cadre of Orwellian spin masters, blindly following, obeying and perhaps being remunerated by the Obama camp is Media Matters’, Eric Boehlert. In July 2009, when Lou Dobbs began devoting time to Obama’s eligibility issues, Boehlert wrote the following article on July 27, 2009.

“How Lou Dobbs scared Rush Limbaugh off the birther story”

“I can think of three (inadvertent) positives that came out of Lou Dobbs’ ill-advised embrace of the birther movement:

1) The CNN host has permanently tarnished his reputation
2) The birther movement is officially kaput (like, stick-a-fork-in-it done)
3) Rush Limbaugh is afraid to talk about birthers.

Talk about a win-win-win.

It’s true that Dobbs irresponsibly mainstreamed radical right-fringe players by championing their half-baked claims that Barack Obama isn’t a natural born citizen and is ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Dobbs, at least indirectly, lent the birther movement some fleeting credence as he dragged its misbegotten detective work into the spotlight. And it’s still vitally important to monitor Dobbs and call out CNN management for its dreadful hypocrisy on the birther issue (i.e. The story is “dead” but it’s OK for Dobbs to keep flogging it on national TV).”

Citizen Wells response

Eric Boehlert, prepare to become the “deer in the headlights.” Caution, you are about to be confused by the facts.

Eric Boehlert, I refer you to the question above. Do you have an answer? For a moment you must drop your modus operandi of attack mode and insults. This is not about plaintiff attorneys, court case merits, judge’s decisions or your elitist beliefs that anyone questioning Obama is not educated or informed.

This is about Barack Obama spending lots of somebody’s money and employing legions of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records.

Mr. Boehlert, I have read other articles you have written. You clearly have a pro Obama agenda.

Here are some more exerpts from the Boehlert article, written in typical Obama camp fashion, heavy on attacks and light on facts. Place these paragraphs in Orwell’s book “1984″ and they would seamlesly fit in. Instead of the two minute hate directed at OBrien in “1984″ Boehlert goes after Limbaugh, Dobbs and concerned Americans.

“Of course, it’s always dangerous when hateful and cuckoo conspiracy theories are ushered into the mainstream and right-wing critics are given a platform to peddle their hateful whodunits about Obama’s nationality the way Dobbs did. But, in this case, I almost think it was worth running that risk in order to watch the tidal wave of media disapproval that Dobbs’ fearmongering unleashed.

Because in retrospect, the birthers, who had spent months lurking on the sidelines, needed to be called out on national TV; they needed to be ridiculed mercilessly and have their cheerleaders thoroughly mocked. They needed to be turned into the butt of a joke, and thanks to Lou Dobbs, last week they were.”

“Think about it, without Dobbs suddenly out front leading the stragglers who make the birther parade, do you think NBC would have devoted four minutes of its Nightly News to thoroughly debunk the story? I doubt it. And that’s why I think everyone now owes Dobbs a hearty round of applause. Because let’s face it, he did in one week what nobody else had been able to do during the previous 51: put an end to the birther movement.

And while we’re patting Dobbs on the back, I’m pretty sure Dobbs scared Limbaugh off the birther story — or, more precisely, the pummeling Dobbs received scared Limbaugh off the birther story. And that’s a big deal within the Republican Noise Machine. Birthers had been courting Limbaugh for months and cheered in June when the turbo talker at least made a birther joke on the air: “Barack Obama has one thing in common with God. Do you know what it is? God does not have a birth certificate either.”"

Read more (if you can stomach it)

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200907270015

Were Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and others threatened by this “Thought Police” article?

I am not.

Once again, Eric Boehlert, I challenge you to answer the simple question above.
 
 

From Watts Up With That, December 3, 2009.

“Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch”

“It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.

Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. 

Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?

From the Washington Post:

“Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference,” notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice,” his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.

“Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.””

Read more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/

Dixon Back On The Job Despite Guilty Verdict
December 3, 2009 by Mary Bubala

BALTIMORE (WJZ/AP) ― Baltimore’s mayor has vowed to fight a misdemeanor that could lead to her removal from office, saying the verdict won’t slow down City Hall.

A jury found Sheila Dixon guilty Tuesday of a single charge of taking gift cards from a program intended for the city’s poor children and using them to buy electronics. Her attorneys said they will appeal.

The card-swipe mayor
December 3, 2009, Washington Post Editorial

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL who pilfers gift cards intended for needy children clearly puts her interests first. It should be no surprise, then, that Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon thinks she can stay in office after a jury found her guilty of misdemeanor theft. Her audacity only compounds her offense — which is why we hope that Ms. Dixon soon feels enough public pressure to reconsider and resigns her office.

Ms. Dixon, a Democrat, was convicted of appropriating about $500 in retail gift cards donated for the poor and using them to buy for herself, among other things, an Xbox. The jury acquitted her of three other charges and couldn’t decide on another charge, misusing a $120 Toys R Us card.

Democrats, abuse, children, corruption, criminal, elitism, ethics, greed, news, politics, scandal

In a casino, the odds are stacked against gamblers; the House is going to come out on top, at the end of the day, overall. There are some winners, here and there, but there are many more losers so the casino makes the most money.

Informants are hired to look and act like regular gamblers, in an effort to keep tabs on the regular folks who are gambling. If someone regularly beats the House, and amasses a considerable amount of wealth, the casino is alerted and the goon squad is dispatched to find out why–and possibly (forcibly) eject the person from the premises. Their business model is based on the idea that the House is the only one that should be making any serious money.

It’s the same with government and politics. With electronic voting machines, scare tactics, back-pocket media and an ignorant Electorate the odds are stacked against The People.

Any time a “third” option or activist group mounts a serious challenge to the Establishment Parties (RepubliCrats), the attack-dog media outlets go to work to discredit the candidate and cast doubt in the minds of voters: “It’s a wasted vote,” “People who associate with that group must be hate-filled or racist,” or “If you don’t vote for our candidate the [other "major" Party candidate] will win!” It’s all about dividing, conquering and advancing agendas through compromise and fear–and making sure no alternative can gain any type of ground to upset the balance.

And don’t get me started on the widespread ballot access laws, reporting mandates, contribution caps, etc. that seriously hinder any “third party” upstarts, but don’t really do much to hinder the “major” Parties who are already large and powerful. To me, it’s akin to the lopsided tax on the Southern states that led to the Civil War.

Infiltrating one of the other Parties– to try and win an election, based solely on the fact that some (idiots) blindly push an “R” or “D” button at the polls, without even knowing who the candidates are–will get you nowhere, either, because those Parties carefully vet their members and candidates. If you don’t play along with the Good Ol’ Boy game, you will never even make it through the nomination process. (Ron Paul is a good example of how these groups will cannibalize their own, if their agendas are threatened.)

By now, you’ve probably heard reports and seen evidence of vote tampering on electronic voting machines–everything from vote totals being switched, artificially casting votes for one candidate based upon the votes received by the opposition, etc. There is even video footage of a chimp hacking one of the machines. To put it all in perspective, Russian dictator Josef Stalin once said, “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”

With all of those things stacked against you–those who want real change and real freedom–why do you continue to try and work within the system to try and change it?

I guess it’s like playing the lottery, even though a player is more likely to be struck by lightning–twice–than win the jackpot.

And the local government council meetings, where “public input” is permitted–but usually at no more than 2 or 3 minutes per person–are just dog and pony shows, too. Listening to the citizens is just a formality to most of these people, and necessary to keep you thinking that you actually have a voice in government proceedings, so you don’t rebel.

I’ve seen too many meetings where citizens packed the house, and overwhelmingly disapproved of a certain measure that was up for a vote, only to watch their local officials completely ignore the voices of the People and approve it, anyway. It was almost comical to watch these officials pay little attention to what the People had to say, knowing how they were going to vote before the first person even stepped up to the mic.

Threats to vote them out don’t work, because they know that most people don’t even know what’s going on with their government and will vote to re-elect them–and if that fails, there’s always those wonderful, programmable, electronic voting machines…

Stop putting your faith and energy into a system that is rigged to keep outsiders from succeeding. Don’t be fooled by the illusion.

It’s time to remove all compliance and support for this corrupt, freedom-destroying Establishment. Doing so is the only way we’re ever going to get things moving back in the right direction.

That’s some real “hope and change.”

(Related article: http://anarchistpov.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/reality-check/ )

Guess who U.N. banned from Copenhagen
November 30, 2009 by World Net Daily

WND’s credentials for coverage stalled, then denied

WASHINGTON – The media coordinator for the U.N. climate-change convention in Copenhagen next week today formally denied WND and senior staff writer Jerome Corsi access to the meeting billed by some participants as a major step forward in global governance.

Axel Wuestenhagen, media coordinator for the event, admitted in his response that, after two weeks of deliberation on the matter, he consulted with U.N. officials in New York to make a decision about WND’s request.

“Having now reviewed the application and in consultation with the Media and Accreditation Unit in New York, regrettably, we are not in a position to grant accreditation in this instance,” he wrote. “As a for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit Western Journalism Center, we follow the U.N. guidelines on accreditation which specifies that advocacy publications of nongovernmental or nonprofit organizations do not qualify for media accreditation. Please note that the organization is under no obligation to accept your request if it does not meet U.N. standards and requirements for press accreditation.”

Joseph Farah, editor, founder and chief executive officer of WND, said the U.N. is grasping at straws for grounds to deny the news organization admittance to the convention – including completely bogus information about WND’s structure.

bias, bigotry, corruption, diplomacy, discrimination, elitism, environment, foreign affairs, global warming, government, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, news media, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, scandal

Matthews Calls West Point, Site of Obama Speech ‘The Enemy Camp,’ ‘Strange Venue’
December 1, 2009 by Jeff Poor

Either MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews let one slip tonight, or it was an extremely poor choice of words.

Following President Barack Obama’s Dec. 1 speech, which he announced his intentions for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, MSNBC followed with wrap-up coverage of his speech with arguably three of their most prominent on-air personalities – “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, “The Rachel Maddow Show” host Rachel Maddow and Matthews.

Matthews referred to a scene from “Gone with the Wind” about the American Civil War as an example of “excitement” going into a war. He said that was lacking in the room during Obama’s speech.

Matthews Calls Cheney an Ankle Biter, Backtracks on West Point ‘Enemy Camp’ Claim
December 2, 2009 by Jeff Poor

There’s something about these big events that cause MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews to go off script and say something seemingly ridiculous.

Matthews has publicly admitted President Barack Obama has given him a thrill up his leg after a campaign speech in Feb. 2008, and uttered “oh God,” earlier this year after an Obama address to Congress, prior to the Republican response from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal earlier this year. And on Dec. 1, he referred to West Point as “the enemy camp” in coverage following a speech from Obama announcing his intentions to increase troops in Afghanistan.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Refers To West Point As The ‘Enemy Camp’ For Obama
December 2, 2009 by Mark Memmott, NPR

Later in his show last night, Matthews said he might have used the “wrong phrase.”

You think?

Crooks and Liars calls Matthews’ “enemy state” quip “possibly the stupidest comment of the night.“

If there was something stupider said by one of the TV pundits last night, we shudder to think what it could have been.

Democrats, bias, bigotry, elitism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, philosophy, politics, propaganda, public policy, scandal, terrorism, video, war

Oh, but it is different this time, –right?

Tiger’s driveway and crash path. LOL!

Golf Digest is kicking its ass over its January cover:

With EJ never being around when Alex is, and vice versa, John is beginning to think the other two komikeros are actually (dramatic pause) THE SAME PERSON!  Keep listening to Tres Komikeros to get to the bottom of this chilling mystery.

Oh also we read some comics: Blackest Night #5, Image United #1, and New Avengers #59.  After an audience review and a round of quick shots, the boys played a healthy game of thumb warfare.

Lastly, a sensitive topic is tackled in this week’s panel discussion — Comic Book Elitism.  Yeah.

You know who you are.

Download knowledge here.

POST A COMMENT

REVEALED: ACORN, NBC Worked Together in ‘Undercover Video Sting’
November 30, 2009 by BigGovernment.com (hat tip to The Western Center for Journalism)

Since the undercover ACORN videos from James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles first broke, the grand pooh-bahs of journalism have gone into self-absorbed philosopher mode. Rather than report on the ACORN corruption playing out before our eyes, “journalists” have tsk-tsked their way through thousands of words and yards of column inches making certain that everyone understands that what James and Hannah did IS…NOT…JOURNALISM. (As if that is the existential question to make sense of the ACORN videos.) Undercover videos and assuming fake identities are things real journalists do not do…except when they do.

Below is a page from ACORN’s 2005 Annual Report. In it, they tell the story of how one of their employees teamed up with NBC Dateline to do a ‘video sting’ on tax-preparer Jackson Hewitt.

Democrats, abuse, acorn, bias, corruption, criminal, elitism, ethics, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, news media, pandering, political correctness, propaganda, scandal

Democratic war tax proponent Obey calls expected troop surge a ‘fool’s errand’
November 29, 2009 by Jim Snyder (hat tip to Lux Libertas)

The chief architect of a bill to increase taxes to pay for the Afghanistan war said he didn’t believe adding troops would yield much benefit.

“The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don’t have the tools to implement it it isn’t worth a bean bag,”
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the House Appropriations Committee chairman, told CNN on Sunday.

Democrats, budget, elitism, funding, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, political correctness, politics, spending, terrorism, war

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

This is a two part article. The first part deals with engineered and unintentinal brainwashing coming from the Orwellian Obama Camp. The second part is in response to an article produced by the London Mail Online, in the home of my ancestors. History does, indeed, repeat. I write this as a descendant of British citizens who left the tyranny of Europe, who as Americans saw through the BS of British tryanny. Now I am compelled, as my ancestors were, to sift through more BS coming from the British Isles. I quote their native son George Orwell in this endeavor.

Part 1: Obama Camp Orwellian mind control

George Orwell watched as the mind control schemes of Nazi Germany played out to insure the German people were compliant with their plans for world domination. Orwell used these techniques from Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes as a basis for “1984.” For example, from Joeseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister:

 “Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”

Next, from “1984.”

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

After watching the Obama camp early in 2008 control the Mainstream Media and attack people speaking out against Obama, including an orchestrated attack on this blog, it became apparent that we had entered the age of Big Brother written about by George Orwell. Many articles have been presented on this blog comparing the Obama camp and administration to the totalitarian regime of “1984.”

For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama. This one issue exemplifies how the Obama camp has expended enormous resources to shape public thought and masterfully divert attention away from the critical issue of Obama being a usurper, in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

One thing is crystal clear. The Obama camp has controlled the Mainstream Media from the beginning. There are many reason for this. It is a fact. This has been the principle means they have used to not cover important issues and to select the buzzwords and slogans to be used. Birther, fringe and other words have been selected to discredit and demean those speaking out against Obama. Also, another technique straight out of Nazi Germany and “1984″ was employed. In Nazi Germany, the focus of hate was the Jews. In “1984″ the “two minute hates” were directed at O’Brian, the supposed antagonist of Big Brother and the nation.

So we have the Obama camp continually broadcasting that anyone challenging Obama’s eligibility is a fringe birther, right wing extremist and as many of the so called elitists would portray as a sub human low intellect. That Orly Taitz is the leader of the birthers and that all court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been thrown out as having no merits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people questioning Obama’s eligibility are normal, hard working Americans who follow the US Constitution as their legal compass. They are people like me who are well educated, well read and non racially motivated. They are current or retired military and some high ranking officers. There are a few in the MSM, such as Lou Dobbs who asked the common sense question of why doesn’t Obama simply provide a legitimate birth certificate.

Now for the questions that transcends all of the psycho babble and mind control. I have placed it as number 1 on the Internet Billboard because it is so simple and self evident.

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”

The answer is obvious.

Part 2: What motivated the Mail Online to create or repeat lies?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”…Joseph Goebbels

First of all, I want to thank the British press for covering aspects of Barack Obama untouched by the American MSM. I am certain it did not harm your readership.

Next, what was your motivation for covering an important story about Obama’s eligibility issues and including so much misinformation and lies? Perhaps you are proving my point with the quotes from Orwell and Goebbels serving as a spotlight.

• Is this the result of pressure or remuneration from the Obama Camp ot those controlling the puppet strings?
• Are you repeating the lie that has become the “truth”?
• Or is this simply crass commercialism?
• Or possibly all three above?

I will next respond to selected exerpts from your article, “Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?”.

“To most Americans, of course, the very idea that anyone could cheat their way into the world’s most powerful post by rewriting their personal history sounds preposterous.

They dismiss the Birthers as a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists and closet racists who still cannot accept a black leader, even though Obama won the election by some 10 million votes.
Yet the number of people who believe this apparently outlandish theory is extraordinarily high, particularly in the southern states, where old racial divisions endure.

According to one recent opinion poll, an astonishing 53 per cent of southerners are either convinced their President really is a covert foreigner, or at least feel unsure about the matter. In more integrated parts of the country, the doubters remain a small minority.”

Citizen Wells response:

Life is full of ironies. I write this, a child of the British Isles, as I suppose you are. My English ancestors left the tyranny of Europe and settled in NC. They embraced their new found freedoms and easily saw through the BS being imposed on them by the British Government. My ancestor, John Wells, was a signer of the Tryon Resolves.

“The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary;”

Here is my point. We have some large cities in the south. However, passed from generation to generation, we have retained the inclination and ability to see throgh modern day BS and tyranny. Those of you in Great Britain have had 250 years to learn this. Is this clear? Except for a small percentage of the population, this is not about skin color. It is about Tyranny. Clear?

“After reading about the Birthers, he met the fringe group’s self-anointed leader, Orly Taitz, 47, a one-woman phenomenon who emigrated to America from the former Soviet Union (via Israel), speaks five languages, and is a qualified dentist with two practices, as well as being an attorney.”

Citizen Wells response:

Here we go again, “fringe group.” Orly Taitz is one of many attorneys involved in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility and she is not the leader. This is a grassroots, US Consitutional issue.

 ”Like every other such case, it was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds even before the evidence could be heard. However absurd such cases may be, Mr Sankey, who works for the group voluntarily and estimates having spent £40,000 of his own money following leads, is at pains to present himself as a level-headed former British bobby, motivated only by a determination to find the truth.”

Citizen Wells response:

Every case has not been dismissed.  “However absurd such cases may be,” leads one to believe that this article was influenced by the Obama camp.

“It is a sad irony, though, that so many Americans feel sufficiently dissatisfied by their first black President that they would rather put their trust in a British detective and his curious conspiracy theories.” 

Citizen Wells response:

The decline of the British Empire.

Times Online article:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1231542/Barack-Obama-British-detective-Neil-Sankey-claims-lied-birth-President.html

I will leave you with the following quote which perhaps conveys the message best:

“When you pick up your morning or evening newspaper and think
you are reading the news of the world, what you are reading
is a propaganda which has been selected, revised, and doctored
by some power which has a financial interest in you.” …Upton Sinclair

Last week, one of my besties (Shorty Do-Op) and I saw “Precious.” (We had to wait until then considering we don’t live in a city that’s ever on the “limited release” list.) The movie is intense, but it couldn’t be anything else, considering the subject matter. Monique, whom I’m mostly indifferent about (when she does all of that yelling for no apparent reason; in those moments, I do not like her), plays the role of Mary Jones with every fiber of her being, every millimeter of her, down to her toenails. She was a monster with humanity. Sporadically, director Lee Daniels also included in the film scenes of escape, where the protagonist, Precious, daydreams about a life that looks a lot different than her own. Escapism. We all need that. And Sapphire’s “Push” doesn’t offer the reader many opportunities to do it. But this isn’t about the film itself. It’s about the people with whom I shared the theater while watching the film.

Immediately, as the camera showed us Clarice Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe), one of the women in the small group sitting behind Shorty Do-Op and me proclaimed with disgust, “She BIG!” In that moment, I figured things weren’t going to go well. I was right.

Throughout the film, these women not only made objectively inappropriate comments but they laughed uncontrollably at parts of the flick that, no matter your sense of humor, were simply not funny. Mind you, I’m aware that some people, when faced with uncomfortable, awkward situations chuckle and smile to ease the tension. These, however, were guffaws. At some point, I leaned over to Shorty and told her some movies should require audience members have a certain score on IQ (emotional and intellectual aptitude) tests before entering. This is elitist, and I, for the most part, do not care. I know everyone isn’t the same. We all have things we appreciate and don’t. Our personal prerogatives afford us that opportunity. Aesthetics is individualism, so it’s exclusivist, imposing and slightly judgmental of me to believe everyone should laud, detest or be indifferent about the things I am. I get that. But still, I want so much more for us than to be robotic, intellectually non-threatening individuals who perpetuate the negativities about us our enemies believe. That’s exactly what the social and psychological degenerates with whom bestie and I shared the theater did. Yeah, yeah. I know that was supremely elitist, but since standards are on my brain and the proverbial table today, I think it’s time we (re)establish some. What happened to us? When did we become desensitized to humanity? When were we only looking to be entertained instead of superficially inspired? Just asking.

There is nothing we hate more in this world than a hypocrite. And there are no worse offenders than those elitist liberals in Hollywood & Washington. Next week is the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, where there will be more hot air on display than a thousand hot air ballons. Of course you will see the usual suspects at the summit: John Travolta, Leo Dicaprio, Sean Penn, Al Gore, etc. According to the Times of London, here is what we can expect from the summit:

• 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries.
• 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.
• 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet.
• More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee.

Add to this the fleet of private jets, and limos to and from the summit, and you can see why the Global Warming scam is definitely liberal hypocrisy at its finest.