Where's The Birth Certificate?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again bring up the absence of an acceptable certificate of birth for Barak Hussein Obama. The following actions have been initiated, and most also resolved in some fashion, regarding this situation. The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (Taken at face value, a candidate would have to be at least 222 years old to satisfy this particular requirement.)

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.


• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


• Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

As you can see, the only actions taken by federal courts thus far is to deny the plaintiffs their "day in court". This does not necessarily mean that these suits are groundless, it means that the federal court system, and the Congress of the United States, have "circled the wagons" in order to protect His Holiness the Democratic Socialist Messiah. The corrupt court system could easily be bypassed if Congress simply demanded irrefutable proof of citizenship. However, corruption runs both wide and deep in our government, and the likelihood of such an action being taken by our Democratically-controlled Congress is somewhere up there with pigs flying.

Monsanto Chemical: Buys Government, Scares Press, and Sells Out Public!

Where is the hue and cry from all the government agencies that "protect" us, or from the so-called independent press, that supposedly is "looking out" for us.  Monsanto (previously Monsanto Chemical) - the folks that brought us the unforgettable Agent Orange, among others - like the relatively innocuous Roundup weed killer.  However, what happens when you start manipulating the market to eliminate the competition?  How do they do that?

First you start by genetically modifying produce - like corn, soybeans, or wheat - to make them resistant to Roundup and similar products.  Next you back-engineer one of your other products - like fertilizer - to include Roundup in it.  Something like Monsanto's "Asgrow Roundup Ready" or "Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  From the Monsanto website: "This is a new proprietary seed treatment from Monsanto which will be commercialized in conjunction with the launch of Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  Monsanto offers "Simple, flexible and dependable weed control you expect from the Roundup Ready system.", and "Powerful genetic trait combinations created through our advanced breeding process deliver higher yield potential than other brands."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about is Frankenfood!  And it's not just soybeans ... Monsanto has genetically modified corn, wheat, and God only knows what else to resist Roundup.  Can you see where this is going?  Modify the seeds to resist a weed poison, then include the poison in either the pod or the fertilizer, to kill those pesky weeds.  So far, so good!

But, there's an unanswered question here too - How does the Roundup not get absorbed into the produce it's protecting from weeds?  It doesn't!  We are unknowingly and trustingly ingesting toxic materials with almost every item we are being sold as food!  Have you eaten a nice steak, or enjoyed a good hamburger recently?  If so, then you should familiarize yourself with the acronym BGH - Bovine Growth Hormone.  Have you wondered why your 10 year old daughter is sprouting breasts already?  There's your answer - BGH!  Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.  BST can be produced synthetically, using recombinant DNA technology. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. It is administered to the cow by injection and used to increase milk production. Currently Monsanto is the only company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the trade name Posilac.  According to Monsanto, approximately one-third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with Posilac; approximately 8,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top-selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.  Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is used in the United States (though not without reaction), it is banned in Canada, parts of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Is there a reason for this ban?  Are they perhaps more concerned with the welfare of their citizens, than our government is for OUR personal well-being?

Monsanto's lawyers scared Fox television affiliate, WTVT/Fox-13 in Tampa, Florida so badly, the station manager fired two staff members who had done an investigative reporting piece after they refused to modify the story to appease Monsanto.

Monsanto is running roughshod over our citizenry in their (thus-far successful) attempt to bribe, intimidate, threaten and otherwise leverage those who would question the negative human health factors of Monsanto-produced  Frankenfoods.  Our complacency as a nation will be our undoing.  I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

Terror Suspects Can Challenge U.S. Detention: Court

The 4th U.S. Court o f Appeals , in Richmond, VA, today ruled that the President can order the imprisonment of an al Queda suspect in the United States, but the detainee must be able to challenge his status as an "enemy combatant." This has some interesting implications:

1. Are people engaged in combat against U.S. Military forces not de facto enemy combatants?

2. If not, then why were they carrying AK-47 assault rifles, and shooting at our soldiers? Did they confuse the 1st Infantry Division with a very large, noisy mob of rabbits?

3. If their capture was not the product of direct combat (i.e. not shooting or involved in obvious guerrilla activities, such as storing weapons, making/planting IEDs, etc.), but rather captured on reliable intelligence information indicating that they were enemy agents, should they be tried by a military tribunal, or in the civilian court system?

Let's assume that conditions 1 & 2 are both met, and the people we're talking about are genuine 'enemy combatants.' Historically, and in keeping with established U.S. military tradition and regulations, Prisoners of War (POW's) have been incarcerated without further legal proceedings for the duration of the conflict, whether it was 6 days or 10 years.

Suddenly somebody wants to change 200+ years of legal precedent to accommodate the uniqueness of the ongoing Iraq War. They want these terrorist hairballs to be tried in civilian U.S. courts! Could it be that shyster attorneys see an opportunity to make a lot of taxpayer money by defending these POS? Oh - my error - POWs! Another historical precedent is that anybody engaging in actions against the military, who was not wearing the uniform of the opposing military, was considered a spy and summarily executed - post haste! None of these cowardly, bottom-feeding scumbags wears a uniform of any kind (but if you're a left-wing, bleeding-heart, commie pinko, 'blame America first', Jane Fonda liberal, you've probably convinced yourself that the consistent lack of a uniform is their uniform, and should therefore be accepted as such).

Absurd actions, such as trying these bozos in civilian courts, will not only clog our Federal Court System, but will burn up tens of millions of our tax dollars that could otherwise be put to much better use. If they were involved in any manner working against our forces, then they are not 'civilians', but enemy combatants, and should be dealt with as such according to military law! But that's just my thoughts on the matter ... KILL 'EM ALL, and let their mythical Allah sort 'em out!