"A Strong Warning to the Government"

- From an Outraged Patriot -

from - The Parallax Prophecies -

By Ron Ewart, President

National Association of Rural Landowners

and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.

We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.

© Copyright Sunday, October 21, 2012 - All Rights Reserved

Article also available at: http://www.narlo.org/ppcurrent.html

"Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all of the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretense -- the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammeled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, YOU ARE A SUBJECT AND NOT A CITIZEN." William E. Borah, prosecuting attorney, Boise, ID, late 1800's

---

Yes, through our weekly column we have been advocating that Americans should openly, but peacefully, resist your arrogance and rising tyranny. Yes, we have been exposing your corruption, your double dealing, your passing laws no one has read or understands and your insidious violations of the constitution with executive orders and bureaucratic edicts ..... a constitution that you swear on solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend but don't. We've watched you nationalize the car industry, businesses and the health care system with no constitutional authority whatsoever. Yes, we have been logging your propaganda, hype, distortions and lies to push your un-American agenda down our throats and we have been observing, with a critical eye, your reckless and criminally negligent foreign policy that exacerbates the Islam crisis and caused the death of a highly respected diplomat and three other Americans in Libya at the hands of terrorist ..... and an equally negligent immigration policy that allows millions of illegal aliens to flood into America to get on the "free" government gravy train for which productive Americans get to fund, at the point of a "gun." It has not escaped our probing eyes the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption that exist in every single government program, squandering billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars. And let's not forget your relentless pandering to those you have bought off with our money from the public treasury for their votes so that your power and corruption can be extended and institutionalized in perpetuity, from generation to generation.

We know you have the press in your pocket and you collude with them to filter the news so that you are presented to the public in a positive light. Even the presidential debates are rigged in favor of the Democrat candidate. If not, then how is it that the moderator, Candy Crowley, just happened to have the transcript of Obama's speech in the Rose Garden on the Bengazi attack in Libya? It was crystal clear from the video, that Obama knew that Crowley had the transcript, when he said "..... get the transcript." Blind luck? Hardly! Collusion? You bet!

We know that the truth is covered up or altered to fit a socialist, radical environmental, or one-world-order agenda. We know that there are wealthy socialists, like George Soros, that use that wealth to manipulate you, the press, academia, the people and special interests, for their own evil, anti-American ambitions. But even worse, you, the government, are aligned with these socialists.

Oh yes and we know you are watching us through your daily sweeping of our websites. We wouldn't be surprised if you have tapped our phone, or are monitoring our e-mail traffic. We expect that from a tyrannical government that uses fear, intimidation, spying and surveillance to control the population, not unlike Nazi Germany, Communist China, or a KGB dominated Russia.

But with all that stacked against us, we do not fear you and we will not bow down to you because we are on the right side of history and we are on the right side of freedom. What lies between you and absolute power over the masses is a little amendment to the Constitution. In fact, it is the second Amendment and because of the power of the second Amendment, you will not dominate us ..... ever! You will not crush us because we will rise up en masse and replace you, by force if you make it necessary. Why? Because America has the largest civilian army in the world and we have the power to do it, thanks to the Founding Fathers and our Constitution. Just the knowledge of that power is sufficient to accomplish our goal to preserve freedom and you know it. You and your anti-American actions are why militias are forming all over the country. That is why you want to disarm us. You rightly fear an armed population and Americans are the greatest armed population on the planet.

You can silence us but our voice will live on in the hundreds of articles we have written about you. You can haul us off and bury us in some dungeon but other voices of freedom will fill any gap we may have left behind.

Because you see, all you miscreants and brainwashed liberals that occupy the halls of government:

I am a free man in body and in spirit and I bow down to no one. Nor will I bow down to this government that tries to wrap us in chains against our will. I shall resist with every fiber of my being, any attempts by government to break my free spirit and the spirit of that of other free Americans as well.

I shall not bow down to the socialists who use the government to reward those that are undeserving, with the sweat of MY brow, MY blood and MY tears. I shall not bow down to the environmentalists who use the government to pass laws to rob me of my constitutional rights and cry "the-sky-is-falling" with their man-caused global warming fraud. I shall not bow down to a government that gives amnesty to illegal aliens, with the sole purpose of using my taxes to buy the votes of lawbreakers, in order to entrench their political power. I shall not bow down to laws, rules, regulations and ordinances that repeal my unalienable, God-given rights of freedom and liberty.

As a free man, I reject any laws that violate the sacred rights granted to all Americans by our God and our Constitution. I refuse to abide by federal and state supreme court rulings that fly in the face of common law, common sense and that repeal constitutional safeguards.

As a free man, hear my cry against all the laws and acts by every level of government every day of the year, that moves us ever deeper into absolute bondage ..... laws that strip us of our individuality and attempt to meld us into a mindless collective ..... laws that bind our hands and feet so that we cannot move in the cherished "light" of freedom.

I shall fight with all of my heart and soul to stop attempts by this and future governments to merge America, the one remaining shining beacon in a troubled and unstable world, into a North American Union, or the dreaded one-world-order. For without a free, prosperous, powerful and sovereign America, the world has no chance and will descend into chaos. Should America's power and our prosperity evaporate, or become irrelevant, or we sink into third-world depravity, evil will fill the vacuum and evil will rule the world. Just imagine for one minute that China or Russia became more powerful than the United States. Who or what would save us then?

As a free man, I bow down to no man or no government who would tear down the very fabric of our liberty and render us nothing more than serfs to a government fiefdom. America is the world's last remaining hope and if we do not defend the promise of its freedom and liberty, we will be complicit in its demise, to the detriment of every man, woman and child who walks this Earth and looks to America for guidance and a step closer to freedom.

The ship of America, riding on a bountiful sea of freedom and liberty, has freed over a billion people from tyranny, bondage and slavery. Our military might makes other governments with empirical designs, think twice before adventuring into war with us, or others we protect. We dare not let down our guard for one second. We dare not reduce our military power to the point that other nations might be tempted to challenge us. We dare not be detoured down the path of socialism and remove the one ingredient that makes us the most prosperous, industrious, creative, powerful and generous nation on Earth, our freedom.

If Americans bow down to government tyranny today, tomorrow or ever, all that was won by the sacrifices of our Founding Fathers and the colonials that gave everything to establish our freedom and all the brave men and women who gave their lives, their limbs and their minds thereafter to defend our freedom, will have been for naught.

We ask all who consider themselves sovereign Americans to join with us in this open, peaceful resistance against a government that has forgotten that its solemn duty is to protect individual, God-given rights and to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic, even if that domestic enemy is the government itself.

We hereby, on this day, warn government, at all levels, that you will not be successful in the slow, insidious enslavement of the American people and the consequences of your attempts to do so will be dire indeed. We need not go to war with you. We only need to peacefully unravel the corrupt institutions you have established and replace them with the original institutions of liberty that is our birthright. Be advised that it does not take a majority to accomplish this. It only takes an irate minority willing to lay it all on the line for freedom. It's been done before and it can be done again.

This November, the first order of business for all patriots is to dump the con man and snake-oil salesman that slithered his way into the oval office by promising HOPE and CHANGE, that turned out to be Obama's HOSTILITY and CONTEMPT for individual rights, freedom, liberty and American sovereignty.

HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY MUNICIPALITY LYING FOR OBAMA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

AN INSIDE JOB...REPORT: Suspecting the unemployment rate in last weeks' U.S. Labor Department jobless report had been "cooked" to favor the Obama Administration's economic performance, analysts discover that California was indeed omitted from the numbers and, in the course of their inquiry also find that California's Labor Secretary, Marty Morgenstern, is a big Obama campaign donor.

by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

 

NEW YORK, NY – The state governments in Hawaii and California rely heavily on federal tax revenue to support their municipal operations, infrastructure and public services. One relies on the federal government because it is so remote, the other because it is so big…and both because they are so liberal.    

For more than four years, many have suspected the State of Hawaii has lied to hide information about Obama’s natal history. The reason for the suspicion is rooted in Hawaii’s refusal to provide information from their Health Department files which would help prove that Obama is a Natural-Born citizen and, therefore, eligible to hold the office of President.

 
Now, California is lying for Obama too.

 
On October 11, the U.S. Labor Department reported that jobless claims had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, suggesting the first dramatic increase in economic growth and a decline in layoffs since February 2008.

 
However, speculation among business analysts and economists immediately questioned the accuracy of the report after a review of the volume of jobless claims in comparison with volumes in previous reports. As a result, they found strong evidence that the unemployment rate had been falsely reported as 7.8%, down 0.5%.

The drop in percentage of jobless claims caused analysts to then look at the comparative volumes from each state and what they found was a volume of jobless claims which indicated that one state may have failed to report its data. This was determined after it was realized the denominator of a key labor rate indicator measuring the available labor force had sharply increased.

 
Changing the denominator of the jobless rate without changing the numerator will change the percentage, without changing the volume. For example, if 3 out 12 people are unemployed, that is a 25% unemployment rate. But if you show those 3 unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same 3 people are still not working!

"...if you show those same three unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same three people are still not working!" 
 
Based on the increase of the denominator in the ratio, the analysts focused on California as the possible state which they believed had been left out because California has the largest population and largest labor force in the U.S. which, if omitted, would indeed cause about a 0.5% fluctuation based on previous report numbers.

 
In reaction to accusations of impropriety, the California Employment Development Department strongly denied that it had failed to properly document the data.

 
“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week.

“The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.”

However, it now appears the analysts were right. Early Thursday, the federal government finally revealed that California was indeed the state that had, in fact, underreported jobless claims, as suspected by many, after the weekly Labor Department job report, skewing the national jobless claims results. This week’s updated jobs report corrected the error and showed unemployment claims spiking back up by 46,000.

 
The intentional omission of California’s data promoted an artificially favorable economic report for the Obama administration because the inclusion of California’s unemployed would have cause the jobless rate to increase by 0.02%, not decrease by 0.48% to 7.8%.

 
Regardless, the pro-Obama, biased media spread the “good news” quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

 
Within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Department analysts announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims. They declined to name the state.

 
Now, it has been learned that Marty Morgenstern, the secretary of the California municipal agency that under-reported unemployment claims, contributed to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign.

 
According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama campaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.

 
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Morgenstern to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011. The state agency oversees the Employment Development Department.

 
California recent in-state report claims its unemployment rate has dropped from 10.6% to 10.2%.

 
Analysts are rightly skeptical of the report.

NO, CANDY, OBAMA DID NOT CALL BENGHAZI “TERRORISM" AND, BY THE WAY,…BUTT OUT!

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

TWO AGAINST ONE: In an unprecedented violation of presidential debate moderation protocol, CBS' Candy Crowley takes sides during a critical discussion between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama over the September 11^th terrorist attack in Benghazi further confirming the reasons why commissioners and organizers did not want her to moderate the debate.

Commentary by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

HEMPSTEAD, NY – The September 11^th tragedy in Benghazi is yet one more reason why you should never vote for an illegitimate president. The election of an ineligible candidate breeds a weakened sense of sovereignty among the people and, therefore, a diminished sense of unity as a nation which, ultimately, leads to a slackened appreciation of the need to remain diligent in the security of Americans overseas.

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is the seventh terrorist attack attempted or carried out against Americans since Obama became president.

Moreover, now we understand why the Commission on Presidential Debates should never allow a liberal member of the media to moderate a presidential debate in a liberal state.

In moderator Candy Crowley’s vigor to help the usurper, Barack Obama, she committed the cardinal sin of argument facilitation during the second of three 2012 Presidential debates. At Hofstra University on Tuesday night, in the bastion of all blue states, New York, CBS' Crowley plumed her true liberal colors and allied herself with Barack Obama.

 

 Surprise, surprise.

Crowley’s shocking intrusion into the debate between Mitt Romney and Obama occurred near the 66 minute mark of the hour and a half debate when she actually joined the discussion in defense of Obama, thereby committing and act of journalistic malpractice.

During a tense exchange, Romney questioned whether Obama had explicitly called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.

“I think this is interesting. The president just said something which is, on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”

“That's what I said.” interrupted Obama.

Romney fired back, “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?”

“Please proceed governor,” said Obama.

“I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” said Romney.

“Get the transcript,” quipped a visibly annoyed Obama.

Crowley then intervened by taking Obama’s side, “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.”

Taking Crowley’s queue, Obama turned into a five year old brat, “Say that at little louder, Candy.”

Crowley seemed to immediately acknowledge her error telling Romney, “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

 

After the debate, Crowley said, “He (Romney) was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”

“Regardless of her assessment of who was right or wrong, it is not the place of any moderator to correct what a candidate says. A debate is meant for the candidates to display their level of understanding to the people!” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson.

“Unfortunately for Crowley and Obama, Obama did not explicitly call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He merely made a broad statement about any act of terrorism, not this one specifically.”

Here is what Obama actually said:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said a day after the attack.

If you are an Obama supporter, this statement was in direct reference to the Benghazi attack, even though Obama does not explicitly say that the Benghazi attack is one of those acts of terrorism he is referring to. This lack of referential integrity is further indicated by his next sentence:

"Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

Notice he never says that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror, just that any act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation. More specifically, Obama never put the words “Benghazi” and “terrorism” in the same sentence for two weeks.

If you are not an Obama supporter, this statement was nothing more than a premeditated c.m.a. “escape hatch” intentionally put in place by a calculating politically-minded creature just in case he might be challenged on his competency on the issue of terrorism. This way, Obama knows he could, at least, stand on the word “terrorism” during his reaction to the Benghazi attack without actually calling that specific attack terrorism.

 

He made the broad sweeping statement intentionally to avoid the specific accusation which would appear unfavorable to his intellectually dishonest position that terrorism has been diminished because of his administration’s efforts in the Middle East.

People love to laud Obama’s intelligence. However, the Obotic horde fails to remember that Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list. He is a man divided among himself.

The problem with Obama’s lack of commitment to his wobbling position is that his administration said the attack was a spontaneous riot spurred by a YouTube video for almost two weeks while intelligence sources contended it was terrorism from day one.

Four days after Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.

"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.

That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."

Obama, himself, cited the video as the culprit six times in his address to the United Nations…eight days after his appearance in the Rose Garden.

Flip-Flopper or was he just for a terrorist attack before he was against it…before he was for it again?

All this ugliness and tragedy…and just think…the guy is not even eligible to hold the office.

PBS DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS FIND NO EVIDENCE OBAMA ATTENDED COLUMBIA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

“I DIDN’T CONSIDER HIM AMERICAN” – Interviewing several people from Obama’s past, producers of “The Choice” documentary about the coming 2012 election find it inexplicable that there are no Columbia classmates who can attest to Obama’s attendance there. 

By Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen
updated 9:37 a.m. 10/15/12

NEW YORK, NY - A recent documentary about the life of Barack Obama broadcast on PBS’ “Frontline” called “The Choice 2012” presents a variety of testimony from alleged classmates of Obama during their mutual attendance of Occidental College and Harvard University.

However, when the producers attempted to film a segment about Obama’s attendance at Columbia University, they were unable to locate even one of Obama’s classmates from the New York-based University and, instead, recorded an interview with an alleged “roommate” who shared a rundown New York apartment with Obama.

Because of this lack of first hand testimony about Obama’s presence at Columbia, the documentary disproportionately abbreviates its coverage of these years of Obama's life, from 1981 to 1983, when compared with its coverage of Obama’s other school attendance. The documentary focuses instead on Obama’s residence in New York and presents a soliloquy about how traveling from the west coast to the east coast changed Obama’s perspective on race but mentions nothing about his relationship with Columbia students or faculty.

By Obama’s own admission, he traveled to Pakistan, India and Indonesia in 1981, but no record or passport from his trip has ever been made public. Conspicuously, the PBS documentary makes no mention of Obama's travel outside the United States at this time.

"That's a pretty significant event for a 20 year old kid," says Karen Welch, spokesperson for the Community Television Initiative, "One would think it worthy of inclusion in a world-wide broadcast about the biography of the President."

At the 33 minute mark of the 1 hour 55 minute documentary, PBS begins a segment about Obama’s arrival in mainland America after his graduation from Hawaii’s highest ranked prep school, Punahou Academy, in 1979. The segment begins with interview cuts with Obama’s former Occidental College roommates, Eric Moore, Louis Hook, Caroline Grauman, Sohale Siddiqi and author David Maraniss describing Obama’s time at the Los Angeles college.

“I didn’t consider him American,” admits Sohale Siddiqi, “He seemed like an international individual.”

“I didn’t consider him American. He seemed like an international individual.”

"I was visiting his roommate in Los Angeles, Hasan Chandoo, who was also going to Occidental College with him. And after New Year's Eve we drove back from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and I spent a couple of weeks there," says Siddiqi.

Many questions still remain about the relationship between Chandoo and Obama. However, more suspicious is the fact that the documentary gives no biographical information about Chandoo or his relationship with Obama after the two had allegedly attended Occidental together.

"Apparently, the producers made no effort to contact Chandoo for this piece or make his account of the story a part of this documentary," says Welch, "which is strange considering the rumors and testimony about how close they were. They, apparently, traveled the world together and knew each other intimately for years, but PBS omitted him. Strange."

“'My father was Kenyan',” describes Moore, of a conversation in which Obama tells him about his origins, “he said, ’I go by the name ‘Barry’ so I don’t have to explain my name all the time.'”

“One day, he (Obama) told me he was going to transfer to Columbia,” Moore continued, “he said he needed a more expansive environment, a more urban environment where he could grow intellectually."

Full of other benign biographical allegations about Obama, the documentary also conspicuously omits how he was able to afford his move from the southwestern U.S to the northeastern U.S and the exorbitant tuition needed to attend Columbia.

The documentary provides no insight on what might have prompted to Obama to choose Columbia, whether he was provided with some unknown financial opportunity, how he qualified for admission or when he first registered and attended classes. By all accounts he had no publicly known connection to anyone in New York and no record of Obama's academic performance at Columbia has ever been made public, either.

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia," says Welch, "you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not."

Boston Globe columnist, Scott Helman wrote Obama “flew across the United States”, but does not explain how Obama paid airfare or if he took any belongings. The documentary goes on to report that Obama took residence on the “edge of Harlem”.

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia,you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not."

By all accounts, Obama was not a good student at Occidental. His easy going lifestyle, according to PBS, left him restless and wanting, so it’s difficult to imagine that Obama attended Columbia on a merit scholarship. If Obama actually registered for classes at Columbia, there remains no documented evidence that he actually attended them, or how he paid the tuition.

At the 37:20 mark, the documentary segues into an interview with an alleged New York roommate of Obama’s named Phil Boerner. According to the documentary, they lived at 339 E. 6^th, Apt. 6A.

The fact that Boerner is white having lived in Harlem with a black roommate raises questions about the nature of the living arrangement and if Boerner was a classmate of Obama’s at Columbia. However, the documentary does not publish testimony from Boerner that he attended Columbia. Boerner gives copious descriptions of the apartment, but provides no information about Obama’s attendance at Columbia.

For more than five minutes of material during the “Obama in New York” segment of the documentary, appearing immediately after the quote from Moore, there is absolutely no mention of Obama’s attendance at Columbia. Instead the story devolves into Obama’s experiences with poverty, race, social isolation and ideology. No mention of his attendance at Columbia is made.

Former Libertarian VP candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has publicly stated that he never saw Obama at Columbia from 1980 to 1983. Obama alleges that he was a classmate of Root’s enrolled in the same courses and the same major but Root says if that was true, he would remember him.

“I was a poli-sci major, apparently just like Obama, in a class of about 400 or so people,” says Root, “and I, nor anyone I know ever remember seeing, talking to or being with Barack Obama while we attended Columbia. Not one single person. We don’t remember him in any of our classes. We don’t remember him on campus. We can’t find one professor that remembers grading him on any assignment. It’s bizarre, like he was a ghost among us.”

The documentary then claims that several of Obama’s Occidental classmates joined him in New York, including Siddiqi.

“I think the first thing we experienced was complete intimidation by New York City,” says Siddiqi, “which seemed rougher and tougher and uncivilized more than any other place either of us had lived. Both of us were questioning ‘why the heck did we come to this place?’ It was scary and we had no resources.”

If Siddiqi's account is true regarding his and Obama's economic situation, then the question becomes more amplified: How did he afford Columbia's tuition and expenses?

Siddiqi also provide no supporting testimony that Obama actually attended Columbia. He never mentions Obama’s experiences as a college student while in New York.

Author, David Maraniss, expounds on the the impact living in New York had on Obama saying, “I think New York was the key to his life. He made no lasting African-American friends during those four years, in New York."

“The NY years are marked by this kind of ‘turning inward’ for Obama,” says Obama biographer, Jodi Kantor.

“He spends time reading, fasting, wandering the city. There’s this almost monk-like existence.”

If Kantor's account is correct about Obama reading, fasting and wandering, what was Obama reading if not text books from his Columbia classes. Also, if Obama spent time wandering the city, was it at night when he had no classes? Was Obama "fasting" as a voluntary religious practice, or does Kantor use the term as a way to hedge the truth that Obama was actually starving?

Strangely, Maraniss and Kantor make no allusion to Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia which is a shocking impasse to the theme of this segment considering the research Maraniss and Kantor are alleged to have done for their respective biographies about Obama.

“It’s the period of his life where he does the least,” says Maraniss, “But figures out the most.”

At the 41:21 mark, the documentary segues to Obama’s life in Chicago without so much as providing a single interview or piece of evidence from eyewitnesses or Columbia University demonstrating that Obama ever attended Columbia.

PBS’ presentation of this part of Obama’s biography further raises suspicions about Obama’s activities during the early 1980’s. Many have reason to believe that Obama was able to attend Harvard as a foreign student on a foreign student scholarship, after he returned from Pakistan sometime in 1982.

If Obama attended college as a foreign student, his natural born eligibility to be president would fall into suspicion. Renouncing or losing one's American citizenship constitutionally disqualifies them from being a presidential candidate.

Like so much of Obama's covert past, PBS' documentary, "The Choice 2012" only confirms that the American people have never been allowed to review actual documented evidence of Obama’s so-called Columbia years.

ILLEGITIMATE JOBLESS REPORT OMITTED LARGEST STATE’S LABOR STATS

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY- The state of California has the largest population of any state in America. It has an economy which, if it were an independent nation, would rank in the top 10 in the world.

It also has one of the highest rates of unemployment in America, above 10%. In some counties in the state’s central agricultural region, unemployment is around 25%.

Considering these metrics, one would think it might be necessary for a federal government report on the national labor rate to include the Golden State.

One would think this, unless you are a democrat seeking re-election by padding job numbers to make it appear like your liberal economic policies are working when they are not.

After this week’s surprisingly positive jobless claims number was released, three things happened according to Business Insider.

1. Lots of people felt better about the economy

2. Democrats cheered because they thought the number would help Obama

3. Republicans seized on confusing reports that the numbers had "excluded claims from one large state" (probably California) and blasted the number as wrong and misleading.

Since then, the argument has raged on, and there have been a variety of different reports and interpretations. Well, we're glad to say that we've finally gotten to the bottom of what happened.

We spoke to a source at the Labor Department. According to this source, who is an analyst at the Department, here's what happened:

• ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week's jobless claims. Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false.

However, dissenters are not saying California was excluded. They are saying that California did not provide its state labor statistics before the deadline required by the publisher of this particular report. Of course, California was not excluded. It was included and the number published was 0. Zero because California did not provide statistics. Here’s how economists explain:

• It is likely that some of the jobless claims in one large state--California--were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL. The source believes that this is what happened this week.

• The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week's jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week's or the following week's. In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.

• The source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totalled about 15,000-25,000. Thus, if one were to "normalize" the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.

• This week's "normalized" jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported. This compares to the 370,000 consensus expectation.

In other words, had all of California's jobless claims been processed in time to make the jobless-claims release, this jobless number would still have been better than economists were expecting--but not as much better as it appeared.

Again, the as-yet-unprocessed claims will appear in future reports. So next week's number may well be higher than expected.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

• Jobless claims were better than expected, even after adjusting for an unusual anomaly
• There was an unusual anomaly that made this week's jobless claims look better than they would otherwise have been.

Of course, there was a motive to create good news after Barack Obama's abysmal performance at the first 2012 presidential debate, just before the jobs reports came out. One way to do that is fake key economic indicators in favor of Obama.

PRESIDENTIAL ILLEGITIMACY: OBAMA'S PERISHING DILEMMA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby of the Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - It requires a truly reprobate mind that causes one to refuse the preeminent definition of natural-born citizenship as it was divinely understood by the framers. They declared the Constitutional eligibility mandate in the critical time which required it...and forever more, because, by moral convention, it was simply normal and common to them.

Willful ignorance and shame consumes the ideologue unwilling to accept that those, existing centuries before them, more favored by God, declared natural-born eligibility from a righteous perspective rooted in an eyewitness understanding of the need to disqualify tyranny born of foul parentage, primarily, not just geographic origin.

The founders saw firsthand that Monarchal inbreeding put sovereignty at risk, so they refused to allow that risk to take hold their new nation. War mongers abound, boundaries are indefensible, but blood-ransomed thrones are not. The founders foreknew borders could be created and changed and be violated, but parentage is eternally founded in the natural laws of God and, therefore, so is natural-born citizenship. Hence, Article II was born.

Only liars and reprobates remain dissonant to this universal truth because they can't let go of their fetish for a transient celebrity everyone else will soon forget.

Yet, the misguided belief that Obama's eligibility hinges only upon a geographic natal origin fails foolishly when mortally impaled by two facts: Obama, himself, voted to uphold SR 511 which declared his 2008 opponent, John McCain a Natural Born citizen explicitly because McCain was born to two citizen parents. There is simply no remedy available to Obots for this teeth-gnashing reality..

Why did Obama and so many of his esteemed degenerates not disqualify the Panamanian-born McCain? Because, the question of McCain's natural-born eligibility was resolved as a matter of natural law founded in PARENTAGE and natal identity, not his birth within transient geographic boundaries from which anyone may be removed or enter from anywhere at any time.

If the question of natural-born citizenship is merely endowed by the location upon earth one's mother is when she gives birth, where lies the contribution to the child's natural born citizenship by the father? What if the father is not present? Certainly we are all born of two parents insofar as the laws of nature dictate.

This is why it was declared that the father's citizenship defines the citizenship of his children, not the mother's. Natural law makes the absence of the mother at birth impossible but it does not prevent the absence of the father. Therefore, because God made them one flesh, this rendered her unable to pass natural-born citizenship to the child alone, based only on geographic birth place, when, in the event she gave birth in a foreign land. In such cases, the child could not be a natural born citizen, but could retain the citizenship and estate of the father.

Therefore, it was declared by the laws of man, as modeled after the laws of God, the father's citizenry is the citizenry of the child, regardless of the location of the mother at birth. But, even more importantly, full natural-born citizenship must be defined both by parentage and birth place.

Should we desire a lesser standard for our highest office of leadership? Should we decompensate the utmost expectations of our commander-in-chief? Who would dare say the President must be considered to a lesser measure? Who would dare say the blood ransom paid to fortify our sovereignty should be represented by a minimalist rendering of character in our highest office? When inferior men, though beloved by a bowing consensus, seek that office, shall we diminish the requirements to meet the man? Or should the man be made to meet the highest of the requirements for the sake of our place among nations...and God?

If Obama’s only claim to eligibility is that he was born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, then why did he vote in support of a resolution declaring the natural-born eligibility of man who was NOT born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution?

Because, he is found to be inferior when measured against the natural born citizenship mark. The law will not be deceived. It can only be violated and upheld as justice. The law has an unrelenting grip upon Obama soul and mind. His only option is to lie about who he really is while casting his own dilemma onto others. He is a deceiver, through and through.

Second, the framers of the Constitution explicitly differentiated language with regard for natural-born citizenship from mere common citizenship as an exaction of two absolutes founded in the natural laws of God, not the laws of man. Having only recently established this new nation, they were at a disadvantage, militarily, to defend it’s borders from invasion, indefinitely. However, they could defend the sovereignty of their new government and, therefore, the strength of their constitutional resolve by declaring that the President be a natural born citizen in the common sense, by citizenship of their parentage. For no parents who were citizens of the U.S. in 1787 could conspicuously bear a foreign child to raised among the "brethren" and, later, betray the blood of patriots by becoming a tyrant unopposed. His parentage was an indicator of his loyalty and intentions.

Therefore, in these two precedents, it was never in doubt (Minor v. Happ.) that 1.) God made man and woman and that 2.) they shall become one flesh in bearing children…and in their identity, the child too could be called a naturally-born citizen as well. Thus sovereignty is upheld as much as possible in this manner.

This ancient law of natural born identity precedes any case law, by millenniums. From the moment God took a rib from Adam and created woman, Obama's fate as an illegitimate president was sealed. The founders simply defeated him 250 years before he had the chance to impose his vile deceptions. The time in which we are born is another unfortunate result of natural born identity. We don't chose who, when or where our parents are. They are a product of God's natural laws.

Natural Law was in effect from the beginning of time and was merely upheld by the framers through declaring the Constitutional requirements of eligibility to be president because they understood that sovereignty by geography was tenuous and morphological whereas birth to one's parents was immutable and unchangeable. God's law, as so upheld by our Constitution, disqualifies Obama from ever being legitimate as a president regardless of any random, corporal birth place because he was the "one flesh" of foreign parentage.

Upon the foul precipice that natural born citizenship is determined ONLY by geographic birth place , a foreign enemy may circumvent the standards endowed by generations of bloodshed and sacrifice, enter the nation illegally, bear a child on our soil, take the child back to their foreign land, raise him apart from decency under all manner of foul doctrine and hate, then return him to the nation to usurp power without any verification of intention as to his interest in our welfare or by loyalty to our sovereignty.

Did we learn nothing from the scourge of Austrian-born usurper in 1930’s Germany? Only atrocity and hate can result from Obama’s violations of natural law. His natal geography is ridiculous and shallow in providing any credible evidence of his natural-born citizenry because nations will rise and fall, but the natural laws of parentage remain forever! Blood sovereignty, familial heritage and the roots of natural-born identity are defined by generations of parental consummation, not momentary residence in a remote outpost way out in the Pacific Ocean.

This law is as preeminent as it is final. Upon the laws of God, all debate in this matter comes to a dark and empty apocalypse with the losers left alone in their defense of a lie which is now exposed by divine truth...and Hell is at hand.

It is imperative that America reject Obama and all case law citations in favor of geographic-based definitions of natural born citizenship, because they have no authority over the truth.