Serial Killer Linked to Rubidoux Slayings (Press Enterprise) Nov. 16, 2010

Serial killer linked to Rubidoux slayings

		Download story podcast

04:24 PM PST on Tuesday, November 16, 2010

By JOHN ASBURY
The Press-Enterprise

Riverside County sheriff's homicide detectives have linked a convicted serial killer to the execution-style killing of an Ontario man and a Rubidoux woman, authorities announced.

Cold case detectives linked Alfredo Rolando Prieto, 44, as a suspect in the two Inland killings. The connection follows a death sentence Prieto received last week for two other murders in Fairfax, Virginia. In all, Prieto has been convicted of or is believed to be responsible for nine slayings prior to his arrest in 1990.

Prieto has been on California's Death Row since 1992 for the rape and shooting of a 15-year-old Yvonne Woodruff in Ontario. He was extradited to Virginia in 2005 following a DNA match to the murder of a couple in that state.

Story continues below

Alfredo Rolando Prieto

Homicide detectives delayed announcing the arrest in the Rubidoux case for six weeks to avoid influencing the Virginia jury hearing testimony in his penalty phase.

A DNA hit led detectives to Prieto as the suspect in the May 1990 killing of Stacey Siegrist, 19, and Tony Gianuzzi, 21 whose bodies were discovered shot and dumped along a dirt powerline road off Canal and Alta streets.

Detectives recently notified family members of both victims about the match last month, 20 years after they were killed.

Sheriff's deputies said Siegrist was sexually assaulted and shot twice, once in the temple and one in the back of her head. Gianuzzi was bound at his wrists and ankles and shot twice in the back of the head and his neck.

The couple were dating and last seen May 3, 1990.

Earlier this year, Riverside County homicide detectives submitted DNA evidence found at the scene to Orchid Cellmark, a private lab in Texas. The testing was done through a 2009 National Institute of Justice grant awarded to the Sheriff's Department.

On Oct. 4, Prieto's DNA was matched to the 1990 crime scene, according to central homicide Sgt. Scott Brown. Detectives believe Prieto may have been working with up to two or three other suspects who have not been identified.

Homicide detectives plan to forward the case to the Riverside County district attorney to review if new charges will be filed.

Story continues below

Tony Gianuzzi, left, and Stacey Siegrist were shot and killed in May 1990. They were dating and last seen May 3, 1990.

Prieto is already facing three death sentences for crimes in California and Virginia.

Beginning May 10, 1988, Prieto was suspected of sexually assaulting and shooting an Arlington, Virginia woman on May 10, 1988. He was linked to the death of Tina Jefferson through DNA, but has not been charged.

Then in December 1988, he raped and murdered 22-year-old Rachael Raver and killed Warren Fulton III, in Reston, VA. A jury recommended death in the killings last week, but Prieto has not been sentenced.

Prieto was later accused of shooting Manuel F. Sermeno, 27, in September 1989, leaving Sermeno's body in a burning car near Interstate 95 in Prince William, Virginia. He was linked to the case by gun ballistics, but has not been charged. Prosecutors said they are not likely to seek charges.

By May of 1990, detectives believe Prieto had come to California where he was accused of killing Siegrist and Gianuzzi in Rubidoux.

Prieto was suspected of shooting and killing Lula Farley, 71, in Ontario in June 1990. Her husband, Herbert Farley, was abducted and found shot two weeks later in Rubidoux. Prieto was matched to the case through ballistics but has not been charged.

Prieto's final murder came Sept. 2, 1990, when he and two other suspects kidnapped three women in Ontario during a home burglary. There, Prieto raped and shot Yvette Woodruff. The other two men raped the other two women and stabbed them repeatedly. The women survived, and later identified Prieto and the other two men. All three men were sentenced to death. Prieto's case is going through appeals in California.

The Rubidoux case is the fourth cold case homicide matched by the sheriff's Cold Case Unit since the grant was awarded. Detectives are reviewing 84 unsolved homicides with possible DNA evidence. So far, two cases have come back with suspect DNA.

Detectives are asking anyone with information to call investigator John Powers at 951-955-2777.

Reach John Asbury at 951-763-3451 or jasbury@PE.com

Comment on this story

Guidelines: We welcome your thoughts, but for the sake of all readers, please refrain from the use of obscenities, personal attacks or racial slurs. All comments are subject to our terms of service and may be removed. Repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges.

Lewis bill would return $12 Billion in Unspent Stimulus Money to Treasury (Press Enterprise By Ben Goad) Nov. 15, 2010

Lewis bill would return $12 billion in unspent stimulus money to Treasury



10:00 PM PST on Monday, November 15, 2010

By BEN GOAD
The Press-Enterprise
Ratcheting up his calls for reduced spending -- and his bid for a key position in the next Congress -- Inland Rep. Jerry Lewis introduced legislation Monday that would return all yet-to-be obligated federal stimulus money to the U.S. Treasury.

Roughly $12 billion of the $787 billion stimulus bill has not been obligated to any programs, said Lewis, R-Redlands, citing estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"We must stop the spending of any of these funds now, before the Obama administration rushes to spend what's left before Republicans return to the majority in January," Lewis said.

Lewis and other Republicans have called for a return to 2008 spending levels as part of the "Pledge to America," the national campaign platform they unveiled in the months leading to their landslide Election Day victory.

Since Democrats will have control in the House until the current Congress ends next month, Lewis' bill is unlikely to move forward. But it might help sway Republican colleagues who will decide whether to give him the chairmanship of the House Appropriation Committee in the next Congress.

Lewis has served as the top GOP member of the panel, which oversees government spending, for the last six years. Due to term limits Republicans place on certain positions, he'll need a waiver from the party's steering committee to serve as chairman.

Some conservative-leaning groups and media outlets have come out in opposition to Lewis' bid for the chairmanship, questioning whether he is a true fiscal hawk.

The bill introduced Monday, and a letter he sent to the White House calling on President Barack Obama to halt stimulus spending, reflect the latest in a series of actions Lewis has taken in recent months to show he is serious about working to cut the deficit.

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com

How Congress was Prepped to Dismiss 'Birthers' (World Net Daily News, Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010) By Jerome R. Corsi

Sunday, November 14, 2010

---

BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
How Congress was prepped to dismiss 'birthers'
Research office memo includes FactCheck.org attack

---

Posted: November 11, 2010
10:15 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

---

WorldNetDaily

The Congressional Research Service issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Barack Obama's presidential eligibility under the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution.

CRS staff member Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group, confirmed to WND that he authored the June 5, 2009, CRS memo entitled "Qualifications of Barack Obama to Be President of the United States."

WND has posted the CRS memo on Scribd.com for download.

Attached to the memo was an attack piece published by FactCheck.org to dismiss claims that Obama's short-form Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, originally published during the 2008 presidential campaign by DailyKos.com, was a forgery.

The memo was addressed to Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and sent to Jeffrey Post, a staff member in the congressman's office.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

Attached to the memo were copies of four articles from the Internet aimed at debunking and dismissing arguments questioning Obama's eligibility.

(Story continues below)

The CRS memo surfaced with a fax cover sheet sent by staffer Jeffrey Post from Bilbray's Washington, D.C., office June 8, 2009, three days after Mansfield authored the memo and compiled the Internet attachments.

The CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress. It works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.

Bilbray's office did not respond to repeated WND requests for comment. Jeffrey Post in Bilbray's office told WND he was not authorized to speak with the press.

In the CRS memo, Mansfield writes: "Per your request we are enclosing several articles that address concerns about the birth certificate of President Obama, his place of birth and how questions surrounding it were ultimately resolved."

In the second sentence, Mansfield suggests that questions raised about Obama's eligibility have been conclusively dismissed as Internet falsehoods that are taking on mythical proportions: "Also included are a lengthy piece prepared by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania [http://www.factcheck.org] and an article that points out that the Internet includes falsehoods and they can live forever."

Mansfield told WND that he had written the memo to provide responses Bilbray could give to constituents who were peppering his congressional office for a response to eligibility challenges.

WND has reported that Bilbray is on the record saying there is no need for the president to have been born in the United States – or to have two parents who are U.S. citizens – to be a "natural born citizen" and be eligible for the Oval Office.

The controversy over Bilbray's comments developed when a YouTube.com video was posted. In the video of a television interview on MSNBC's "The Ed Show," Bilbray said, "It's just like people thinking that you gotta be born in the United States to be president. You don't have to be. That's a legend. We got to clarify that."

Mansfield said he "did not conduct any investigation."

"I merely responded to a request from a congressional office to answer a constituent," he said.

Asked why he did not balance his memo with published articles questioning Obama's eligibility, Mansfield responded, "I reported what Hawaii Department of Health officials said because they were official statements made by government employees. There has been nothing official said by any official of government, so far as I know, supporting questions raised about Obama's eligibility. So, there is no issue here."

When WND asked Mansfield if it was his job, in writing the memo, to draw a conclusion for Bilbray, he objected.

"The attachments were articles in print," he said. "I was simply trying to pass on what is in the press."

Mansfield was reluctant to talk to the press, and he ended the call abruptly saying, "I am getting contacted by irate people over this memo. It was meant as an advisory to a member of Congress. It was never meant to be released to the public"

The attachment from FactCheck.org was a posting on Aug. 21, 2008, entitled "The truth about Obama's birth certificate."

The first paragraph makes clear the piece was aimed at refuting the claim that the COLB was "fake."

To refute the claim, FactCheck.org cited a statement by Hawaii Department of Health official Chiyome Fukino asserting she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had verified that the health department holds "Obama's original birth certificate."

Fukino issued a carefully worded statement on Hawaii DOH stationary Oct. 31, 2008, giving the impression that the agency possessed Obama's "original birth certificate," even though that is not precisely what she said.

Here is the press release in question:

What Fukino said was that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

The key phrase was the qualification "in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Fukino did not explicitly say she had seen Obama's original birth certificate or his long-form hospital-generated birth certificate.

WND has reported that the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 would issue a Certification of Live Birth on the basis of family testimony, without any additional proof the child was actually born in Hawaii.

WND has also reported that the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to substantiate the claim made by FactCheck.org and other Obama supporters that the short-form COLB is an authentic document issued by the Hawaii DOH.

The FactCheck.org article, updated Nov. 1, 2008, included a mention of Fukino's carefully worded statement issued Oct. 31, 2008, claiming the statement "confirmed … Obama was born in Honolulu," even though Fukino made no such direct claim.

Nor did Mansfield point out in his CRS memo to Bilbray that the Annenberg Public Policy Center that finances FactCheck.org also financed Barack Obama who served as the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995. At that time the CAC made a $482,662 grant to a workshop project headed by Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who is an associate of former Weather Underground terrorist leader William Ayers, as documented by WND reporter Aaron Klein.

The three other Internet pieces Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray were:

• A story from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Nov. 1, 2008, entitled "Officials verify birth certificate of Obama," reporting on Fukino's Oct. 31, 2008, press release;
  
  
• An editorial published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 9, 2008, entitled "Obama birth certificate gets a pass from the Supreme Court," in which the litigation brought by Leo Donofrio in the case Donofrio v. Wells was described by the newspaper as "wacky" and "specious";
  
  
• A story by Tim Jones published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 8, 2008, entitled "Internet drives Barack Obama birth-certificate battle: Web allows opinions to 'live forever,' expert says," in which WND was characterized as "a popular, political right-leaning site" that has chronicled "the campaign challenging the legitimacy of Obama's 1961 birth certificate or the legality of his taking office."

Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray no articles published on the Internet by WND or any other source examining critically the Obama eligibility issue.

As WND reported a CRS memorandum authored by Jack Maskell, the Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division, April 3, 2008, admits openly that no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – ever bothered to check Obama's eligibility to be president.

But WND has reported statements from members of Congress that are based on arguments presented in the material provided by CRS.

Among the statements from members of Congress that have appeared:

• Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."
  
  
• Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."
  
  
• Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."
  
  
• U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
  
  
• Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."
  
  
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
  
  
• Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: "I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president."
  
  
• U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: "As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office."
  
  
• U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama's birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the website http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate."
  
  
• "Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, "The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama's case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an "application for emergency stay" filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution."
  
  
• "Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."
  
  
• U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: "According to State of Hawai'i officials, the Hawai'i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state's policies and procedures.

 

Angles and Angel Dust Child endangerment is a sad by product of drug-infested gang neighborhoods. Oct. 12, 2010 (by Richard Valdemar)

October 12, 2010

Angels and Angel Dust

Child endangerment is a sad byproduct of drug-infested gang neighborhoods.

by Richard Valdemar - Also by this author

Among the uncounted casualties of criminal street gangs, and the drug culture they perpetuate, are the non-gang family members who become the collateral victims of their lifestyles. Drug abuse, child abuse and child neglect are part of almost every gang family.

When these gang members drive by a residence and spray it with bullets they never stop to think that uninvolved children and the elderly are just as likely to be killed as any intended gang target. Rarely does the gang member consider that the gang retaliation, which might follow his shooting, might also endanger the residents of his own house who aren't gang affiliated.

This wanton disregard for others including the innocent children who must live in a gang household is like the twisted sickness that causes arsonists it start uncontrolled fires even when their own home and family might be consumed.    

The city of Compton (Calif.) is a dangerous place, and the most dangerous area is called Willowbrook. This unincorporated county area of Compton is patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. This section of Los Angeles spawned many infamous gangs. One of the worst, the Fruit Town Piru gang, derived its name from the streets in this section of Willowbrook. Streets called Plum, Peach and Cherry cross this tough gang neighborhood. Just north of this area is claimed by the Mob Piru gang where Death Row Records' former CEO Marion "Suge" Knight grew up.

I grew up in these neighborhoods too and volunteered to work patrol there. On one PM shift I was with my partner, Deputy Chuck Cortez, a seasoned veteran of Firestone Station and a man whose handcuffs never needed much lubrication because they were in constant use. We were following our usual pattern of stopping everything moving that looked like a gang member.

The trick was to go 10-15 (code for prisoner in custody) before we got swamped chasing the radio calls for domestic disturbances, loud parties, and burglar alarms. At the end of each deployment period, we compared our statistics with the other Compton units to see who made the most felony arrests, who took the most dope and guns. Losers bought the beer.

Suddenly, our radio interrupted our routine with a call of a nearly naked, drunk young man in the middle of the street in the Fruit Town gang area. This was usually a hint that we would encounter an individual high on Phencyclidine, known in this neighborhood as Angel Dust, Sherm or PCP.

Phencyclidine was commonly found in this area in an oily liquid form with a strong chemical smell and was consumed by smoking it on a Sherman Cigarette dipped in this oily liquid. This method often produced PCP overdoses. The user would shed his outer clothing, since the drug raised his temperature to 106 degrees or more and sent his heart rate up.

The user would then become delirious and combative and seemed to posses superhuman strength. I've seen PCP users break handcuffs, withstand numerous police baton strikes, and even absorb gunshot wounds with seeming immunity. As we rolled to the call, we got ready to fight that kind of PCP monster. 

Anticipating this confrontation, the dispatcher also sent paramedics and fire units. The paramedics arrived first and were immediately attacked by the nearly naked young man. They requested police units to assist and two other sheriff's units arrived before we did. As we pulled up to the curb, both sheriff's units and the firemen were fighting the African-American version of the Incredible Hulk. Since I had originally been assigned the call, I tried to enter the fray but my partner held me back. He said, "Let them handle it."

Now this was not what I expected from my partner. With even a hint of probable cause, Chuck would have arrested the Pope without hesitation or remorse. I could see that a wicked plan was forming in his hook-and-book brain. Besides I'd been injured before in fights when too many deputies were trying to subdue the same wild suspect. So I watched and waited.

Soon the suspect was strapped to a gurney and on his way to Martin Luther King hospital. There goes a perfectly good misdemeanor arrest I thought, as the paramedics and sheriff's units drove away with my statistic. Why did we let him go? I asked Chuck.

"Think about it," he said. "Why take a misdemeanor when we have probable cause to look for the source of his intoxication, a felony?" He then pointed to the residence adjacent to the street where the Hulk had made his superhuman stand. He directed my attention to the front door which was standing open. This had to be where the Hulk had come from, and where we might find his PCP.

The sun was still up, but it was dark inside the house. We entered with flashlights and guns drawn and yelled, "Deputy sheriffs. Anybody home?"

It was a filthy place, smelling of must and mold. The living-room floor was littered with baby's toys, cups and dirty dishes. Trash and dirty diapers overflowed from the large plastic trash can in the kitchen and black mold had spread from the trash over the top of the refrigerator.  

Although no one answered the continuous announcements of our presence, I could feel that someone was near. Meticulously, we cleared room by room to the rear of the house but found no one. We were so sure someone was there that we re-checked closets and under the beds but found only more trash and garbage. I was upset and angry as I walked back toward the front door. I cocked my leg back to kick the small baby doll lying on the living room floor. Something stopped me.

With the flashlight, I illuminated the doll's face. Unsure of what I saw I went to my knees and stared at the six-month-old baby's face. She was real. Frozen on her tiny face was the look of horror — her unblinking eyes frozen wide open. Her little body was stiff and rigid as I checked her for a pulse and breathing. Her tiny heart was racing at an impossible rate and clutched in her tiny fist was a partially smoked Sherm cigarette.

Without moving or making a noise, she was pleading for help, and I felt powerless to help her. I yelled to Deputy Cortez to get the paramedics back here! But thinking that they might arrive too late I swooped up the tiny rigid baby and ran for the radio car. We made a frantic Code 3 race all the way to Martin Luther King. 

As I ran into the familiar MLK emergency room, I was relieved to see the ER staff running out to take the tiny PCP overdose victim from me. I watched as they strapped the baby down on the huge gurney and checked for vital signs. The baby's body remained rigid and her face was still unresponsive.

"Give her the antidote, doc," I pleaded.

"There is no antidote, deputy," he answered.

Over the next hour, we learned that the tiny angel had ingested some of the PCP and was in the most severe stages of extreme overdose. God only knows what hallucinations and nightmares she was experiencing. She was in a coma and could stop breathing or lapse into seizures that might kill her at any time. She would remain in this coma with her life hanging in the balance for many days and there were no known antidotes or remedies. The ER staff felt as helpless as I did.

Chuck and I returned to the Fruit Town residence, and I wrote the best child endangering and abandonment report I ever wrote. I photographed the squalor and filth and the mold growing on the refrigerator. I photographed the empty inside of the fridge as well. I vowed that the mother of this angel who had abandoned her to the Hulk would never again have custody of this child. After a long struggle, baby angel was released from the hospital.

California is a reunification state. That means the courts tend to return children to their biological parents whenever possible. For more than a year, I attended custody hearings in which the mother attempted to regain custody of my little angel. I made sure she did not succeed. Sometimes the court would not notify me of the upcoming custody hearings, but I had befriended the court clerk who called me to make sure I would be there. Angel's mama finally abandoned these reunification attempts when she was arrested on unrelated charges and sent on a long sentence to state prison.

Angel went to a foster home and was eventually adopted by a good family. Most of the children of these gang neighborhoods are not that lucky.

Remember Angel next time somebody says drug use is a victimless crime.

Officer to Obama, "See you in court!"

The Doctor, The President & the birth certificate by David Kupelian (World Net Daily News) Oct. 5, 2010

---

---

The doctor, the president and the birth certificate

---

Posted: October 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What's wrong with the following picture?

A decorated Army flight surgeon, after 18 years of service including year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan, now risks his career and faces almost certain court-martial and imprisonment.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin claims there's a serious conflict between adhering to his military oath and obeying deployment orders coming down the existing chain of command with Barack Obama at the top – since the president's constitutionaleligibility to be commander in chief has never been documented.

Although some scoff, Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates," confirms retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst who served as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe. Likewise, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, agrees Lakin "has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief."

Moreover, just like Lakin, 3 out of 5 Americans – 58 percent according to a recent CNN poll and 61 percent according to a"60 Minutes/Vanity Fair" poll – are not convinced Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he has long claimed. The Constitution requires in Article 2 Section 1 that every president be a "natural born citizen."

So, now this veteran Army doctor, who would much rather continue serving his country than go to prison, is respectfully telling the military tribunal judging him that he needs for Obama or his representatives to prove that the president is occupying his office constitutionally.

In simple terms, Col. Lakin wants to see Obama's birth certificate.

A special report with evidence galore: "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"

Not the computer-generated summary document that almost everyone in the media mindlessly and ignorantly refers to as "Obama's birth certificate," but the actual document that virtually everyone reading these words possesses – showing the hospital of birth (to date, no hospital on earth officially claims Obama was born there), the attending physician or midwife and similar information that actually proves where and when he was born.

For Obama, at long last, to produce the documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to Lakin's defense, said McInerney, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

Indeed, in an extraordinary affidavit he filed with the court in Lakin's defense, McInerney, who also served as assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, made this bold statement:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

Adds McInerney: "Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution."

So, what does the officer presiding over Lakin's court-martial say in response to all this?

Army Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as judge in the case, has so far ruled that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as testimony from any who may have access to his records. Her reason for what amounts to denying Lakin the right to defend himself is, according to Lind, that producing such evidence about Obama in a military tribunal could be – and I'll quote her exact word – an "embarrassment" to the president.

Let's make this crystal clear: Lakin's whole argument is that the sacrosanct chain of command may well have been corrupted by a usurper – and millions of Americans agree he has valid reason to suspect this is the case. Yet the presiding officer in the hearing has ruled that neither Lakin nor his defense team may present any evidence bearing on Obama's eligibility to be president – because it might be embarrassing.

Instead, the only "defense" Lakin is being allowed, by Lind's order, revolves around whether a deployment order was given (no one contests this) and whether he refused to obey it (no one contests this either). In other words, this is shaping up as a sham proceeding in which Lakin cannot defend himself, reminiscent of the kind of justice the old Soviet Union used to mete out in kangaroo courts, followed by imprisonment.

Since when does "embarrassment" – especially since the embarrassment in question wouldn't even occur unless Obama actually were indeed lying and usurping the office of the presidency – have anything to do with administering justice?

Truly an amazing and consequential case, both for Lakin and for the nation.

Why, then, have you not heard anything about it from the rest of the media?

Because it's the "mainstream media" – which Rush Limbaugh calls the "state-run media" – that gave us Obama as president in the first place, and which continues to run interference for him to this day. (Who can forget the "thrill going up" Chris Matthews' leg and Newsweek's Evan Thomas rhapsodizing that Obama was "sort of God"?)

Moreover, when it comes to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility, the media, including much of the "conservative" or "alternative" media, remain in denial – with the exception of WorldNetDaily, which has endured constant ridicule and marginalization for daring to cover what the CEO of a major radio syndicator recently told me was "the story of the decade."

Fortunately, most conservative talkers – with the notable exception of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck – admit this is an important, albeit radioactive, story. Beck and O'Reilly, both immensely talented commentators whom I enjoy watching, live in a "birthers-are-crazy" bubble in which they reassure each other there's just nothing to this "conspiracy theory" – you know, the one 3 out of 5 Americans now suspect is true, according to repeated polling. Meanwhile, virtually the entire rest of the talk-radio world acknowledges the issue's legitimacy – from Rush Limbaugh ("All [Obama] has to do is show a birth certificate") and Sean Hannity ("What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'") to Lou Dobbs ("I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate") and Michael Savage ("the presidency may have been usurped by a foreign power"). Not to mention politicians, from U.S. congressmen ("Those are legitimate constitutional concerns")to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ("I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue").

Although most of these good folks are still somewhat afraid of the issue – nobody likes to be mocked and attacked mercilessly – at least they acknowledge occasionally that it's a valid and important issue.

Maybe things are starting to change. I increasingly see conscientious pundits threading this scary needle – first engaging in the obligatory distancing of themselves from the "birthers," and then agreeing with them. A typical "non-birther birther" would be National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and highly respected analyst, who after making clear he doesn't give credence to conspiracy theories, nevertheless argues that Obama seriously owes it to the American public to come clean with the major documentation of his past, including his birth certificate.

For the record, this is exactly what I – and Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi and Aaron Klein and pretty much every other journalist at WND – believe. After exhaustive research, we don't know where he was born, and neither do you. Not only does he continue to conceal his birth records, but also the rest of his life's documentation – his school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, and on and on. All the documents that are a routine matter of public record for all other presidents are, for Obama, hidden. And if you try to access them to find out what he's hiding, you're called a conspiracy nut.

Meanwhile, we're about to witness the spectacle of a true patriot, a decorated military physician who wants nothing more than to save more lives and continue to serve his country, a man of admirable conscience and backbone, being court-martialed and sent to Fort Leavenworth prison as a sacrificial lamb because the "judge" – just like the establishment press and so many others for whom Obama is "too big to fail" – is fearful of "embarrassing" the president.

If this isn't an outrage, then we have lost our capacity for moral indignation in America.

Barack Obama, if he indeed has been lying about his constitutional qualification to serve as president, should be more than embarrassed – he should be impeached. But that's for next year.

Right now, dear reader, help Col. Lakin. Later will be too late. His court-martial is scheduled for Nov. 3-5.

1. Send a contribution, whatever you can manage, to Col. Lakin's Legal Defense Fund.
   
   
2. Write, call and e-mail your congressmen and senators about this case. Call talk radio shows. Forward this column to your friends. Do what you can and make your voice heard!

---

David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, editor of Whistleblower magazine and author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." His newest book is "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America."

Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Are the Real Extremists (Newsmax) By David Limbaugh Tuesday Sept. 21, 2010...

BS Ranch Perspective:

This story is so true, Look at the Aug 28 Rally that was held in the Mall of America, Washington D.C. There was not a drop of trash, there was three times as many people and the Tea Party, cleaned up after themselves, all because of the respect that they have for the United States of America.

Now you look at the rally that was held and sponsored by the Union's and the Democratic Party, there was mountains of trash left all over the Mall of America!! I could not believe that two thirds less people could leave such a mess!! Where was their respect for our Country?

BS Ranch

Newsmax

Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Are the Real Extremists

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:43 AM

By: David Limbaugh

My immediate response to liberals who emerge from their Ouija boards to denounce Christine O'Donnell as a one-time dabbler in witchcraft is: At this point in our history, I'd vote for Elmira Gulch before I'd vote for another statist masquerading as a Republican.

The fact that O'Donnell might have done some things in her past she's not particularly proud of would make her fairly normal. I'm more concerned with where she is now, and she seems like a reliable Christian conservative with her head on straight about both religion and politics. In her television appearances, she's been quite impressive — energetic, articulate, and right on the issues.

But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her — along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement — as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party; 2) the liberals' efforts to fabricate a major schism in the GOP when, in fact, the real dissension of consequence is occurring in their own Democratic Party; and 3) establishment Republicans disgruntled over their inability to control the selection of candidates going forward, their apparent anxiety about the entire tea party phenomenon as rocking their world, and their resulting collusion with the liberal establishment to discredit the upstarts, who are beyond their power to manage and manipulate.

The mentally sedentary and complacent establishment types haven't figured it out yet; our nation is under a formidable assault that differs in kind, rather than degree, from the gradual liberal march toward statism we've witnessed for the past 50-plus years.

If there has been one upside to the Democrats' firm control over the two political branches these past 20 months, it has been to reveal to America the extreme liberalism of the Democratic Party's governing class. That should be the overarching headline of the day, not the falsely alleged extremism of grass-roots conservatives peaceably protesting the destruction of their beloved America and not this trumped-up anxiety over Republican candidates who don't fit the establishment template yet are resonating with grass-roots voters.

Conservatives are coming together in a way that I haven't seen since the Reagan years, and it's none too soon. I once feared that baby boomers were in jeopardy of forfeiting our liberty because it was mostly handed to us with no requirement of sacrifice in return, but I no longer do. If many did take it for granted, they don't anymore. The flip side of complacency about liberty for having been born into it is that you cherish and will fight for it, especially when someone is trying to take it away.

Liberals have made the mistake of going too far too fast with this bunch of statists currently in power. They would have had a better chance to continue to advance their Utopian schemes had they remained patient in their gradual march. But with their in-your-face excesses, their outright dictatorial abuses of power, their displays of utter contempt for the will of the people, and their recklessly destructive policy agenda, they've awakened another slumbering giant: mainstream, grass-roots America.

Two times more people identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals, so liberals, as usual, are resorting to stridency and vociferousness to characterize the majority as extremists. This time it's not working, because the majority now realizes that it is in fact the majority and, more importantly, that liberals are the ones wreaking disaster on this nation with careless abandon.

So obvious is the public mood against the liberal extremism of Obama's Democrats that even entrenched members of that party are beginning to jump ship. That's where the real dissension is. Some 34 Democratic congressmen are running ads against Obamacare. Where are the mainstream media on that one?

Let the MSM and the Democrats continue to press the fantasy storyline that Republicans are in disarray with splits and tea party defectors, but the fact is that the Democrats are the ones who are imploding with absolutely no coherent agenda around which to rally and no excuse for the manifest recklessness of their disgraceful agenda.

The tea partyers are not splintering or otherwise threatening the Republican Party; they are making it more accountable, more conservative and more effective. It can no longer be said that incumbents in either party are shoo-ins. We're witnessing the healthiest paradigm shift in modern politics, and it is an extremely positive development.

Power entrenchment is unhealthy for the republic because it militates against responsive republican government. As the future unfolds, perhaps we'll see candidates succeeding more because of their positions on issues rather than their connection to power and wealth. I happen to believe that's the way the Framers intended it.


David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," which reached No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks, remains high atop the list.







© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years (by Dan Weil)

BS Ranch Perspective:

If there is an official from President Obama's office that is for the Bush Tax Cuts, then why shouldn't they be extended, or better yet made permanent!! This will be the only way that our Economy will grow! The Government Needs to Stop Spending so much, and they need to cut out a few things, starting with the Obama Health Care Bill!!

I agree that there needs to be some reform in the health care industry, but to take the whole thing over, is a mighty Big Mistake!! The Insurance Companies are marked for failure, and then since the Health Care Bill has passed the Government will simply step in and take over the whole Industry, then there will not be any choices, and the medical care will be metered to those that are considered to be the haves and the have not's will be placed on the back burner only to receive help if there is enough time to taken them in!! Many will simply die waiting for their procedure to come around for approval by the Medical Panel to approve the Operation or Procedure!!

BS Ranch

Moneynews

Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 12:18 PM

By: Dan Weil

The Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for all Americans to help spur the economy, but even the middle-class cuts should end in two years, former U.S. budget director Peter Orszag says.

That's the best way to solve the country's twin deficits: the near-term jobs deficit and the long-term budget deficit, the recently departed head of the White House Office of Management and Budget writes in a New York Times opinion piece.

"In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether," argues Orszag, whose views differ from those of his old boss, President Barack Obama.

"Ideally, only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it."

Obama supports a permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts. But Orszag said extending the cuts permanently is not affordable.

"Let's continue the tax cuts for two years but end them for good in 2013," he said.

Without action by Congress, tax rates will revert back to those in place before the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003.

"No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned," Orszag writes.

The Obama administration has advocated maintaining the tax cuts for most Americans, but letting them rise for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

But longer term, "the tax cuts are simply not affordable," Orszag maintains.

John Taylor, Treasury undersecretary during the (George W.) Bush administration, also thinks the tax cuts should be continued.

"A statement that taxes will not increase on Jan. 1 would be a good stimulus," Taylor, now an economics professor at Stanford University, told Bloomberg.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage, responding to Orszag's article, told Reuters that Obama has been "clear about his support for extending tax cuts for the middle class and about ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."

Ahead of the congressional elections on Nov. 2, Republicans are criticizing Obama's Democrats for opposing an extension to the cuts on wealthier Americans, saying doing so would end up hurting small businesses, whose earnings are often taxed through the income-tax code rather than under the corporate rate, Reuters reported.






© Moneynews. All rights reserved.

Global Currency Crisis (Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert) by Craig R. Smith

Global Currency Crisis:
Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert
By Craig R. Smith
Chairman, Swiss America
Aug. 10, 2010

If the Fed is telling the truth, gold prices must be lying. The Federal Reserve Board is claiming deflation is the new boogeyman to fear. Yet, if we have such strong deflationary forces at work, the price of gold should have dropped to $800, not run back up near $1200. The sane, thinking world sees inflation ahead.

Since the Fed is notorious for spreading disinformation to achieve its goals, I say ignore the Fed and look instead at the facts from a disinterested third party, the Congressional Budget Office. Its July 27, 2010 report titled, "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis" warns that another fiscal crisis is coming because of entitlements and excessive federal government spending. It is no longer a question of if, but when.

"Sometimes a chart is worth a thousand editorials. The one we reproduce here, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, is one of those. It shows the federal debt throughout U.S. history and the daunting slope of what is likely to happen in the next few decades. The federal debt held by the public -- and, increasingly, 'the public' means foreign governments and investors -- has mushroomed from 36% of gross domestic product at the end of the 2007 fiscal year to a projected 62% of GDP at the end of fiscal 2010. 'Policy options for responding to it would be limited and unattractive.' Debt could be restructured, the currency inflated or an austerity program (tax increases plus spending cuts) implemented," reports The Washington Post.

According to the CBO we will have few favorable options when the crisis hits because the Fed has shot most of the bullets in its financial gun. These options would be as follows:

Option 1) The federal government could renegotiate the terms of the $13.5 trillion debt by offering longer maturity times, changing the rates or by defaulting outright. Default may seem impossible, but tell that to the investors who lost billions in the Asian currency crisis, the crushed LTCM hedge fund or the folks in Argentina after Juan Perón's socialist reign.

Option 2) The federal government could initiate massive austerity programs by slashing spending and lowering entitlement payments on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security as well as extending age requirements on these programs, currently 65-70, to 70-75. The magic number for slashing would be 15% of all government services to achieve the effect necessary to avoid fiscal crisis. We would also require tax increases on all Americans, not just the rich. While an increase on the top 2% would generate $700-800 billion, middle class tax increases (back to pre-Bush tax cut rates) would generate around $2.3 trillion.

Option 3) The federal government could increase the money supply (inflate) and monetize the debt, making the debt far easier to pay off with devalued dollars. Deflation would make paying off the debt much more onerous as wages and prices fall, as opposed to inflation, which causes the value of the debt to decline.

I see no political will to reduce spending or, more importantly, to address the long-term crippling liability of entitlements. It is the third rail of politics. If we were even to suggest default or attempt to renegotiate the debt, bonds would collapse and the dollar would plummet. So the only politically expedient option is to increase the money supply dramatically - causing severe inflation. Inflation will steal the value of earnings and savings from the average citizen, but monetizing the debt would help inflate government's debt away.

Germany and France both employed this approach after WWI. While difficult for the citizenry, it kept both countries at virtually full employment. Inflation also provided an ever-expanding economy as their products became very attractive to other countries due to lower prices; a result of their weaker currency. Inflation ultimately allowed central banks to eliminate the war debt and, in the case of Germany, also allowed them to renegotiate war reparations.

In our current crisis, the Europeans are decreasing spending and want America to mirror their austerity plan. In my opinion President Barack Obama has looked to history to determine a way out of this crisis and has concluded that the United States will take its chances on the German model. His policies will severely inflate our currency. Congress and the Obama Administration have both certainly shown that they have no interest in taming government spending or decreasing the debt.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke knows inflation is much easier to start, stop and control than deflation. Deflation is very unpredictable and virtually impossible to stop, especially with the limited tools currently in the Fed's arsenal. Congress would need to enact new powers to fight deflation.

Over the last 4 years, we've doubled the money supply! Bernanke is $3 Trillion behind, with 0% interest rates. Our immediate debt is $13 Trillion. Our long-term debt is over $100 Trillion. We are so out of balance right now, that if we inflate the currency and create inflation in the 12% range, annual U.S. revenue wouldn't be sufficient to allow us to pay off the principal alone on our debt! "Central banks may now need to talk about the necessity of inflation...before it is too late." (CNBC.com 7/16/10)

Fed. Chair Bernanke is shocked that we haven't seen inflation yet. It is a phenomenon nobody understands. In fact, we can't even determine if we're inflating or deflating right now. However, eventually, inflation will win out. You can be assured that the slingshot is loaded and the tension on the band is severe. At the first sign of rising prices, millions will rush to spend the backlog of dollars they have been saving because of uncertainty. When that happens, inflation could explode.

The tremendous increase in the quantity of currency caused by the printing of money benefits the economic status of the country printing it, but it decreases the standard of living of a large proportion of citizens. In effect, the massive printing of money hurts the people, but conversely helps the economy.

But this has a cost. According to the CBO, each 1% increase in projected inflation would increase the debt by $ .7 Trillion! In other words, if inflation is projected at 2%, and its actual rate is 12%, the additional debt that would be created is $7 Trillion!

I see no other viable choice except for the federal government to monetize the massive debt we now have, which is increasing at a yearly rate of $1.4 trillion. It is expected to continue doing so over at least the next five years unless major policy changes come out of Congress. This analysis is why now is the time to convert your soon-to-be-inflated dollars into gold.

What do we know for certain?

On July 21, Fed Chairman Bernanke said the U.S. economy faces "unusually uncertain" prospects. Six days later, the CBO stated that, absent a change in policy, further increases in federal debt "almost certainly lie ahead," and, without spending restraint, will cause debt to rise to "unsupportable….unsustainable levels."

The CBO projects that federal debt "will stand at 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010, having risen from 36 percent at the end of fiscal year 2007." (Only once has the figure exceeded 50 percent - shortly after WW II.)

With the aging of the population and rising health care costs, it is hardly a stretch to assume with very high likelihood that government spending will not significantly decrease, and that government revenues will not significantly increase. So what are our available options and the likely outcomes of those implemented options?

A fiscal crisis in the United States is imminent. We've seen significant fiscal hemorrhaging at the state level for the past two years. Bonds, as a reflection of investor confidence, are returning well below 3%.

Prior to the start of the market meltdown in 2008, total U.S. wealth was $100T. Although not ideal, our debts at that time were around $100T. We could have continued to live that way. Although our lifestyles would have eventually eroded, we were not in danger of a complete collapse.

Today the current value of our combined wealth is only $50T. We still have over $100T in debt. Good luck getting a loan from your local bank with that scenario, I don't care how brilliant your business model looks!

To put such amounts in perspective, let's say you started a business on the day Jesus was born 2000 years ago. Business wasn't very good for your start-up, so you lost $1 Million that first day. In fact, business did not improve at all. Your company continued to lose that same $1M every day -- 365 days each year -- until the present day. If that were the case, it would take ANOTHER 700 YEARS before you would have lost $1 Trillion. Still think we're going to "grow our way out" of this mess?

___________________________________________________

BS Ranch Perspective:

This is very serious, the Federal Bank needs to make changes along with Congress, as they are the ones that seem to not know the problems that they are creating for the United States Government. Not just the government, but the Citizens in the republic, as they are not properly representing us, since they are not doing the proper book keeping to make sure that the Government will be around for the next three hundred years!!

We need to Elect Members of the House and Senate that will CUT SPENDING!! and LOWER TAXES for the American Taxpayer! Not only that but a straight flat tax would be most beneficial to the government, they would get more money, and we would have less paper work to manage each year!!

The FLAT TAX NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED!!

BS Ranch

State Department Confirms Obama DUAL Citizen!! by Caleb

State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen

Posted by Caleb on August 26, 2010

The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk aconspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believingspace aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.

However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.

In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.

The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter- Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.

Texas Resisting Obama Power Grab (Personal Liberty Digest) by Bog Livingston

Texas Resisting Obama Power Grab | Personal Liberty Digest

Sensing the political failure of the Left's environmental whacko

agenda of raising energy costs to cap emissions of a gas we all exhale

and that plants need to thrive — carbon dioxide — President Barack

Obama has instructed his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

rewrite its Clean Air Act and give itself authority it doesn't have.

Thankfully, one state is resisting: Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot and Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw call the EPA's

actions an illegal power grab and in a letter to the EPA they wrote:

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized

control of industrial development through the issuance of

permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each

state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental

Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to

U.S. laws… To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state

enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty

to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that

Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to

compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

In an Op-Ed piece in today's The Washington Times, Texas state director of Americans for Prosperity Peggy Venable

writes that:

Federalist principles have allowed Texas to become the strongest state in the union. The Lone Star State

leads the nation in job creation, is the top state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500

companies than any other state and is the top state for wind generation. President Obama said he wants to

double U.S. exports in five years; he could look to Texas, as we are the top exporting state in the country.

The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.

Instead, it is attempting to ride roughshod over Texas, and it goes beyond the greenhouse-gas issue.

After 16 years of allowing Texas to run its own permitting program to meet Federal air-quality standards, in May the

EPA announced the state was not in compliance with Federal regulations. This despite the fact that Texas had met or exceeded its clean air obligations the entire time.

The Obama administration's agenda is simple: Grab more and more power from the States and consolidate it under

the Federal government. Thankfully, Texas will have no part of it.

If only the other 49 States will follow Texas' lead.

Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 41 years. Bob has devoted

much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as

nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset

protection and the preservation of freedom.

BS Ranch Perspective:

It looks that the "Right" State is taking on the President on all his take over of the local Government Control of their Jurisdiction!! I would say that President Obama might win, but with all the friends that he has made in the Supreme Court, especially after his State of the Union Speech where he called out the Judges in the Supreme Court!! The Justice was seen in the audience stating that what Obama was saying in his Speech was not a true statement!!

Looks like Texas just might set presidents and win against the West Wing!!

BS Ranch