Friday, April 29, 2011

I’m Convinced: Obama’s Long-form Birth Certificate Is A Photo-Shopped Fake

Something really strange is going on. This new-released birth certificate is a result of photo shop. If this is a fake [and it appears to be], the government is behind one of the biggest lies and scandals in U.S. history: the endorsement of a President who is not eligible to hold office. And if that is true, what’s the reason?

by Larry Simons
April 29, 2011

I have never been a “birther” [if “birther” refers to one that does not believe Obama was not born in America]. I have always held that Obama’s birthplace has nothing to do with why I believe he is not eligible. Obama’s father being a British subject under a British law that states that offspring of British subjects are also British citizens is the kicker for me. If Barack Obama has dual citizenship, that makes him ineligible to me. This issue has never been discussed or brought up in the media.

The video below is fascinating because it clearly shows that parts of Obama’s birth certificate appear to be unmatched to other parts.

A few anomalies of the birth certificate [click pictures to enlarge]

Notice how the first 4 digits of his birth number [1064] are dark black and very clear but the fifth number [1] is grayish and blurry. It appears to be photoshopped.

Notice how the edges of the birth certificate do not blend in with the green design in the background, as if it has been inserted onto another page with the green/white design

Notice the two dates on the birth certificate [Date accepted by Reg. General and Date accepted by Local Reg.] Some numbers and the abbreviation “AUG” appears to be photoshopped in with other numbers more dark and clearer. Notice the grayish-looking "AUG-8" and "6" in the picture below and grayish-looking "AUG-8 196" in the second picture below.

Alex Jones talks to one of his photoshop expert staff about the forgery

Also, where is the original State Registrar's stamped signature on Obama's birth certificate? The newly released one has the current State Registrar's stamped signature, shown here:

Where is the original registrar's name, as this Hawaiian birth certificate from 1981 has [below]?

Friday, April 15, 2011

The Life and Times of ObamaBush: It IS About Regime Change After All

Obama Changes Rationale for Libyan War Once Again And Demands Libyans Change Their Government As A Condition For Ending Combat Operations

by Jonathan Turley
April 15, 2011

Well, it now appears we are at war for regime change after all. President Barack Obama joined British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a rare article appearing in International Herald Tribune, Le Figaro, and Times of London to say that they will not accept anything less than changing the government in Libya. We are now officially parties in a civil war to overthrow a government — without a declaration of war from Congress.

The leaders stated that “it would be an unconscionable betrayal” not to force an outcome in the Libyan civil war. The betrayal for civil libertarians is Obama’s entering a third war in violation of the U.S. Constitution and adding to our already crushing debt to dictate who will lead another country.

We have now gone from preventing a massacre to enforcing a no fly zone to close combat support to regime change. Yet, the silence is deafening from Democratic leaders and most of the liberal base. It appears that an undeclared war by Bush is a intolerable outrage while an undeclared war by Obama is a pragmatic necessity.

Ron Paul's New Book "Liberty Defined" Due April 19

Ron Paul
April 15, 2011

The following is the Introduction to Liberty Defined, Ron Paul’s newest book, to be released on April 19, 2011

America’s history and political ethos are all about liberty. The Declaration of Independence declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, but notice how both life and the pursuit of happiness also depend on liberty as a fundamental bedrock of our country. We use the word almost as a cliche. But do we know what it means? Can we recognize it when we see it? More importantly, can we recognize the opposite of liberty when it is sold to us as a form of freedom?

Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilization, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations. In this sense, only liberty can truly ward off tyranny, the great and eternal foe of mankind.

The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704). I use the term “liberal” without irony or contempt, for the liberal tradition in the true sense, dating from the late Middle Ages until the early part of the twentieth century,1 was devoted to freeing society from the shackles of the state. This is an agenda I embrace, and one that I believe all Americans should embrace.

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.

Do our leaders in Washington believe in liberty? They sometimes say they do. I don’t think they are telling the truth. The existence of the wealth- extracting leviathan state in Washington, DC, a cartoonishly massive machinery that no one can control and yet few ever seriously challenge, a monster that is a constant presence in every aspect of our lives, is proof enough that our leaders do not believe. Neither party is truly dedicated to the classical, fundamental ideals that gave rise to the American Revolution.

Of course, the costs of this leviathan are incalculably large. The twentieth century endured two world wars, a worldwide depression, and a forty- five- year “Cold War” with two superpowers facing off with tens of thousands of intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear warheads. And yet the threat of government today, all over the world, may well present a greater danger than anything that occurred in the twentieth century. We are policed everywhere we go: work, shopping, home, and church. Nothing is private anymore: not property, not family, not even our houses of worship. We are encouraged to spy on each other and to stand passively as government agents scan us, harass us, and put us in our place day after day. If you object, you are put on a hit list. If you fight to reveal the truth, as WikiLeaks or other websites have done, you are targeted and can be crushed. Sometimes it seems like we are living in a dystopian novel like 1984 or Brave New World, complete with ever less economic freedom. Some will say that this is hyperbole; others will understand exactly what I’m talking about.

What is at stake is the American dream itself, which in turn is wrapped up with our standard of living. Too often, we underestimate what the phrase “standard of living” really means. In my mind, it deals directly with all issues that affect our material well-being, and therefore affects our outlook on life itself: whether we are hopeful or despairing, whether we expect progression or regression, whether we think our children will be better off or worse off than we are. All of these considerations go to the heart of the idea of happiness. The phrase “standard of living” comprises nearly all we expect out of life on this earth. It is, simply, how we are able to define our lives.

Our standards of living are made possible by the blessed institution of liberty. When liberty is under attack, everything we hold dear is under attack. Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.

Take the United States, for example. Our country was established with the greatest ideals and respect for individual freedom ever known. Yet look at where we are today: runaway spending and uncontrollable debt; a monstrous bureaucracy regulating our every move; total disregard for private property, free markets, sound money, and personal privacy; and a foreign policy of military expansionism. The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work. Powerful special interests rule, and there seems to be no way to fight against them. While the middle class is being destroyed, the poor suffer, the justly rich are being looted, and the unjustly rich are getting richer. The wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Some say this is because of a lack of regulations on Wall Street, but that is not right. The root of this issue reaches far deeper than that.

The threat to liberty is not limited to the United States. Dollar hegemony has globalized the crisis. Nothing like this has ever happened before. All economies are interrelated and dependent on the dollar’s maintaining its value while at the same time the endless expansion of the dollar money supply is expected to bail out everyone.

This dollar globalization is made more dangerous by nearly all governments acting irresponsibly by expanding their powers and living beyond their means. Worldwide debt is a problem that will continue to grow if we continue on this path. Yet all governments, and especially ours, do not hesitate to further expand their powers at the expense of liberty in a futile effort to force an outcome of their design on us. They simply expand and plummet further into debt.

Understanding how governments always compete with liberty and destroy progress, creativity, and prosperity is crucial to our effort to reverse the course on which we find ourselves. The contest between abusive government power and individual freedom is an age- old problem. The concept of liberty, recognized as a natural right, has required thousands of years to be understood by the masses in reaction to the tyranny imposed by those whose only desire is to rule over others and live off their enslavement.

This conflict was understood by the defenders of the Roman Republic, the Israelites of the Old Testament, the rebellious barons of 1215 who demanded the right of habeas corpus, and certainly by the Founders of this country, who imagined the possibility of a society without kings and despots and thereby established a framework that has inspired liberation movements ever since. It is understood by growing numbers of Americans who are crying out for answers and demanding an end to Washington’s hegemony over the country and the world.

And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time.

Over the centuries, progress has been made in understanding the concept of individual liberty and the need to constantly remain vigilant in order to limit government’s abuse of its powers. Though steady progress has been made, periodic setbacks and stagnations have occurred. For the past one hundred years, the United States and most of the world have witnessed a setback for the cause of liberty. Despite all the advances in technology, despite a more refined understanding of the rights of minorities, despite all the economic advances, the individual has far less protection against the state than a century ago.

Since the beginning of the last century, many seeds of destruction have been planted that are now maturing into a systematic assault on our freedoms. With a horrendous financial and currency crisis both upon us and looming into the future as far as the eye can see, it has become quite apparent that the national debt is unsustainable, liberty is threatened, and the people’s anger and fears are growing. Most importantly, it is now clear that government promises and panaceas are worthless. Government has once again failed and the demand for change is growing louder by the day. Just witness the dramatic back- and- forth swings of the parties in power.

The only thing that the promises of government did was to delude the people into a false sense of security. Complacency and mistrust generated a tremendous moral hazard, causing dangerous behavior by a large number of people. Self-reliance and individual responsibility were replaced by organized thugs who weaseled their way into achieving control over the process whereby the looted wealth of the country was distributed.

The choice we now face: further steps toward authoritarianism or a renewed effort in promoting the cause of liberty. There is no third option. This course must incorporate a modern and more sophisticated understanding of the magnificence of the market economy, especially the moral and practical urgency of monetary reform. The abysmal shortcomings of a government power that undermines the creative genius of free minds and private property must be fully understood.

This conflict between government and liberty, brought to a boiling point by the world’s biggest bankruptcy in history, has generated the angry protests that have spontaneously broken out around the country — and the world. The producers are rebelling and the recipients of largess are angry and restless.

The crisis demands an intellectual revolution. Fortunately, this revolution is under way, and if one earnestly looks for it, it can be found. Participation in it is open to everyone. Not only have our ideas of liberty developed over centuries, they are currently being eagerly debated, and a modern, advanced understanding of the concept is on the horizon. The Revolution is alive and well.

The idea of this book is not to provide a blueprint for the future or an all-encompassing defense of a libertarian program. What I offer here are thoughts on a series of controversial topics that tend to confuse people, and these are interpreted in light of my own experience and my thinking. I present not final answers but rather guideposts for thinking seriously about these topics. I certainly do not expect every reader to agree with my beliefs, but I do hope that I can inspire serious, fundamental, and independent- minded thinking and debate on them.

Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty. The results of liberty are all the things we love, none of which can be finally provided by government. We must have the opportunity to provide them for ourselves, as individuals, as families, as a society, and as a country.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Jesse Ventura Despises Government Secrecy, But Still Won’t Disclose His Top Secret Navy SEAL Missions

Ventura tells Piers Morgan disclosing top secret information is OK after the covert operation is long past, but 40 years later still will not talk about his Navy SEAL days

by Larry Simons
April 6, 2011

For the record, let me say that I like Jesse Ventura. I love his outspoken nature and his fearless pursuit of the truth, but sometimes he says things that are just plain bizarre and contradictory. A few examples of these contradictory and just outright false statements are:

1. When he said Al Gore had been an “inspiration” in the fight against global warming at the end of his global warming episode of "Conspiracy Theory". The entire episode was about how global warming is a massive hoax and even during the episode stated that Al Gore was possibly behind the hoax as a way to make millions from it. That did not deter Ventura from stating that Gore was his “inspiration” in the global warming fight.

2. When he said, “Let’s start by getting some honesty into our school textbooks about the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of our greatest president” at the end of his chapter about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in his book "American Conspiracies". Calling Lincoln “our greatest president” is one clear indication that Ventura has done practically zero research of the actual presidency of Lincoln. If he had, he would easily come to the conclusion that Abraham Lincoln just might be the worst president that has ever lived because of his complete dismantling of the Constitution, his contempt for states rights, state sovereignty and personal freedom.

Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of over a half million American citizens. Roughly 300,000 of them [southerners] had fought get America to resemble the very same America the founding fathers established 85 years prior to their secession to form a new government, a right granted to them by our founders.

Last night, Ventura was a guest on Piers Morgan Tonight for the entire hour. About seven minutes into the interview, Ventura said something very interesting in response to a question asked by Morgan about Ventura’s military service.

Morgan asks: “When you served in Vietnam, you didn’t [unintelligible] actually have live combat, that were serving, is that correct?”

Ventura replies: “I don’t talk...when I got back…I’m a Navy SEAL. When I got back from my service overseas of my first deployment, the My Lai Massacre had just happened or was just in the headlines. I was brought in by my commanding officer, my entire team, and we were ordered we were to discuss nothing of anything we did or any ops we were on, because normally the SEALS are all part of a top secret operation. So I do not discuss anything I did in the military other than to say I served honorably and received an honorable discharge, and I showed up, which is more than what George Bush can say.”

Later, roughly 22 minutes into the interview, Morgan and Ventura begin talking about Wikileaks. Morgan asks Ventura if he thinks anyone had the right to release the stolen information and post it on Wikileaks. Ventura correctly tells Morgan that the American citizens have the right as taxpayers to know about secretive information. Morgan then reverts back to the beginning of the interview where Ventura made his statement [above] concerning his military service with the SEALS being top secret.

Morgan asks Ventura if he would have been happy if every document and private memo concerning the SEALS would have been released to the public. Ventura says “no” and insists there is a difference. Ventura states the difference between leaked SEALS documents and the documents posted on Wikileaks is that the SEALS missions could have been jeopardized if info were leaked. Ventura then says, "Once the mission’s over, you’re not jeopardizing it.” Yet, in his statement above, Ventura still refuses to discuss what he did in his SEALS days, and those missions ended how long ago? At least 40 years?

Morgan appeared to have Ventura’s balls in a sling. Morgan flat out asks Ventura roughly a minute later if he believed that a number of private reports should have stayed private when he was a SEAL, and Morgan stated that Ventura said “yes”, then Ventura interrupts and says, "Only until after the op’s over. When the op’s over, you can go public with all that you want.”

Morgan then says, “Really? You think it’s good for the world to know exactly how Navy SEALS conduct their covert operations, do you, around the world?”

Ventura’s response, “They already know”.

How do we “already” know Jesse? You won’t tell us! It’s a big secret that you “don’t discuss”……still, after 40 years. Ventura committed the very act of secrecy that he condemns in others. I agree with Ventura that there should be next to no secrecy [with the exception being if our country was in immediate imminent danger if information were leaked] in government, but Ventura’s hypocrisy of condemning government agencies for being secretive and then turning right around and being equally secretive about events that happened 40 years ago in his Navy SEAL days is nothing short of unbelievable.

As much as I like Ventura, I have to admit, Piers wins this one.

watch the video here [but YouTube will pull it soon, naturally]