Monday, 30 March 2009

Madeleine McCann: Posters torn and lives destroyed


The author of this text is not a journalist, but with her sincere and objective words, she has captured much better than most journalists, the spirit of the folk of the Algarve and the Portuguese people in general.
More than a cry of revolt against Madeleine's parents' new campaign, the words their author brings to us here, are for all of us a true lesson, which only a mother's heart and reason can express.

Astro's text (Courtesy of Joana Morais)

"Torn posters and shredded lives"

Earlier today, 'Correio da Manhã' reported on the alleged removal of posters belonging to the most recent campaign that the McCanns have launched in the greater Luz/Lagos area; posters that apparently were torn off by less than cooperative residents of Praia da Luz. A few hours later, the ‘Evening Standard’ was reporting this situation as acts of vandalism, and discussions about the subject on message boards have been lively and intense.

I personally find the subject sad, yet interesting at the same time, but it really would take a very long post to fully paint the picture of what Luz has been going through, since that fateful evening of the 3rd of May 2007.

The fact that there are people who actually trace ANY sort of connection/comparison between the locals' worry about their only source of income - tourism - and respect or consideration for Madeleine, is offensive, to say the least. Are these people supposed to sacrifice the survival of their entire families, in the name of some sort of curse that befell the village, on the 3rd of May 2007? Are these people expected to lay down their lives, because it would look indecorous to try to preserve one’s salary?

These people have done EVERYTHING that they could do, without anyone even asking them to do it; they took time off work, they gave their best efforts, their money, their hearts and souls to help find Madeleine. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either been fed a lot of misinformation by certain media, or is simply cruel beyond comprehension. People walked their feet until they were sore, searching a radius of 15 kms around the village. Those who couldn't physically help, offered food and drink to those who could, and to the policemen and fire fighters who were on location, day and night. Policemen slept in cars, when they slept at all; some were offered a few hours of sleep on a sofa in the locals' homes. The people in Luz cried, prayed and worried themselves sick over a little girl that they didn’t even know, as if it was their own daughter, niece or granddaughter.

Meanwhile, all over the country, people despaired. During those first days, there was criticism of the parents, it would be false to deny it, but the general sentiment was 'we have to find the little girl before anything else'. Finding Madeleine was the only thing that was on everyone's mind, not only in Luz, but all over the Algarve - all over Portugal, really, as many of the early 'sightings' across the country attest.

I think most of you are aware that I live in Portimão, some 30 kms away from Luz. I remember the helicopters flying over our house, on their way to Luz or returning from a day of searches. I remember the posters that were put up on every shop window, every bus stop, every train station, hospital waiting room, supermarket entrance… Thankfully, we never had to endure what Luz suffered, with the invasion of journalists from all over the world, in search for yet another ‘human angle’ story, for that special scope. We didn’t have to endure their raucous parties night after night, either – but that’s another story entirely.

But even 30 kms away from Luz, the worry was palpable, omnipresent, inescapable. Madeleine was the subject of every conversation, everywhere, at all times. This may seem somewhat surreal now, with the benefit of time distancing us from those times, even a bit exaggerated. But in May 2007, it seemed there was nothing that we weren’t prepared to do, even if that implied behaving in an exaggerated manner.

It was precisely this enormous nationwide effort, this extraordinarily intense commitment of people all over the country - an effort that had never been made for 'our' (fortunately few) missing children... – that made what followed that much harder to swallow.

It’s easy to blame the shift in people’s perspective about the case, on the leaks from the PJ, that were only too happily published by the Portuguese media. It’s easy to blame the McCanns’ fall from grace on Mr Amaral and his team (a team that included British policemen and British experts), or on human nature, because the ‘populace’ was envious of the McCanns’ money, fame, good looks.

But look again, please.

You will see a very different picture.

You will see the supposedly devastated, desperate parents, jogging, playing tennis, entertaining guests, posing for photographs, jetting all over Europe. You will see them smiling at the locals when the cameras were rolling – and not even saying ‘good morning’ when the employee from the Batista supermarket delivered their shopping at their apartment. You will see the British media, under the command of the McCanns’ spokespeople, ridiculing, insulting and humiliating the very same people who cried their eyes out for Madeleine.

And when the going got tough, instead of answering the police’s questions, they left Luz without a word. They turned their backs on those who had treated them like family, who had offered everything that they had, and then more.

Some will say that nobody asked the locals to do what they did. Others will say that the McCanns owed these people nothing, that they had to think about their missing daughter, about their remaining children. The McCanns had to protect their family.

Fair enough. God knows I’d protect my family with my life, if necessary; anyone can relate to such arguments.

But there cannot be two different standards just because it suits us.

The people of Luz are protecting their families as well. They have to earn a living, they have no fund to pay their mortgage when times are tough. They have no wealthy supporters, no famous sponsors. All that they have is their arms and legs to do their work, day in and day out, and that work just happens to be, for the vast majority at least, the tourist trade.

Even if for a moment, they put aside the insult, the arrogance, the humiliation that they suffered, they’d still be left with a very basic choice: a campaign of highly dubious success – or the need to restore the shattered image of their village as a safe, family friendly holiday destination.

Finally, just a thought about the proclaimed purpose of this campaign: the McCanns announce that they want to enlist the help of the people of Luz, to jog their memories, to collect any information they may have about the little girl, and the night that she disappeared – in the belief that a member of the population of Luz could have deliberately held information back from the police.

I think in English this is called 'adding to the insult'.

I’m sorry if this offends anyone, I definitely don’t condone the shredding of posters in this case; but if I ever come across one, I’ll quietly, calmly remove it and place it in the paper recycling bin. I don’t need posters to remind me of a little missing girl that didn’t deserve the destiny that befell her.

And neither do the people of Luz."

Translated in Portuguese here, in Spanish here. Reproduced here, here, and here"

Saturday, 28 March 2009

History In The Making: The first Common Law, Citizens Grand Jury has indicted Barack Obama.

At approx. 4:15 p.m. March 28th in the city of Stockbridge Ga. the people of Georgia returned an Indictment against Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!
25 Jurists, duly sworn in, heard tesitmony and in a unanimous vote,
Indicted the usurper

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

Common Law Grand Jury



The government must accept the Magna Carta as common law if pleaded as such.
Source: Confirmatio Cartarum, Article 1

Basic requirements and procedures for a common law grand jury:
Source: Magna Carta, Articles 52 & 61


Grand jury members must be elected by the people (not citizens) of the jurisdiction in which they are operating.

There are no rules defining a procedure for how they are elected. The people, without the influence of government, decide for themselves how the grand jury members are elected.

There must be 25 members.


The members must be "people" of the jurisdiction and not "citizens" of the jurisdiction.

For example, they must be "People of the United States," or "People of California," or "People of the State of California"; not "citizen of the United States," nor "citizen of California," nor "citizen of the State of California."

Each member must be sworn in and promise to observe all of these rules and, so far as within his power, cause all the rules to be observed.


When the grand jury meets, if any are absent after being summoned, then those present constitute a quorum.

All decisions of grand jury are decided by majority vote of members present.

If any member dies or leaves the country, or in any other way is prevented from carrying out the grand jury's decisions, the remaining grand jurors shall choose another to fill his place and he shall likewise be sworn in.


No decision of a grand jury is reviewable in any court of the government.


Any government transgression against anyone in any respect.

Any government breaking of articles of peace or security.

Any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed, by the government without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right.

Dispute Settlement

If the grand jury is informed of any dispute regarding anyone who has been disseized or removed (by the government without a legal sentence of his peers) from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, then the dispute shall be settled by the grand jury.


Four of the members must be shown that because of the government,
A. A transgression has occurred against any one in any respect, or
B. Some one of the articles of peace or security has been broken

The four members must show to the government the government's error.

The four members must ask the government to amend that error without delay.

If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury.

The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.


The grand jury may not imprison or execute any government personnel or their children.


Anyone (people or citizen) who chooses to help enforce the grand jury decision must first swear that he will obey the mandates of the grand jury, and that with them to the extent of his power he will impose the grand jury's decisions upon the government.

The authority to support the grand jury is pre-authorized by the government.

If anyone refuses to support a grand jury decision, the government will force him to swear his support of the grand jury.


The government is prohibited from doing anything to diminish the effect of the grand jury.

If the government does prohibit or diminish the effectiveness of the grand jury, it shall be vain and invalid and may not be used in any later proceeding by the government or anyone else.


When all issues are settled to the satisfaction of the grand jury, things shall return to normal as they were before. No grudges.

Reactivating the Common Law Grand Jury

A Brief Strategy Suggestion


When the colonies separated from England, King John retaliated by revoking the charters. Technically, the colonies were without any legal authority to operate. However, civics (the branch of political philosophy concerned with individual rights) was generally taught and known by the people who asserted their rights and maintained order by applying the common law. The people united in the form of common law grand juries and continued the functioning of government.

As the legislatures matured they slowly increased governmental power while simultaneously reducing personal sovereign power. This was done through a combination of passing pro-government legislation and reducing or eliminating education about civics. Today, two and a quarter centuries later, hardly anyone even knows the meaning of the word, "civics."

Despite the fact that the state and federal constitutions still acknowledge the common law as the ultimate law system, people everywhere are conditioned to believe that the statutory law and codes are the only source of law. The only remaining common law term generally known among the public is "common law marriage."

The common law grand jury is now dormant only because of the public ignorance of its powers that supercede all other government entities, including the modern statutorily defined grand jury. Awakening the grand jury will not be graciously accepted by the government. A strategy is needed to reintroduce this fundamental protection against tyranny and injustice.


The first step is to get public acceptance. Every dictator in history understood the power of the people and cultivated their support either through enticements or threats. Reactivating the grand jury concept will go through four traditional stages: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then self-evident acceptance.

Theoretically, the grand jury can meet anywhere, anytime. But that is hardly good image. One way to get public acceptance and minimize denial, ridicule, and violent opposition, is to hold the grand jury sessions in the public court house. The foreman could apply to a court administrator for use of one of the rooms in the public courthouse. If it is refused, then the court administrator should, under common law procedures, be sued for his dereliction of duty.


The second step is to start small. The grand jury could take on issues which anyone can easily see should be prosecuted. As public acceptance increases, the grand jury can enlarge its field of inquiry. The grand jury should have a strong public relations program for this step.


The third step is to take on grander objectives. If the first two steps are well executed, then this step will be the easiest. With both legitimacy
and acceptance established the grand jury can make itself felt.

Turkey must not be allowed to accede to the European Union.

If Turkey is allowed to join the EU, its citizens will be allowed free movement within the countries of the Union. Turkey is a Muslim country, where there are possibly hundreds of honour killings every year. If people with this kind of philosophy are allowed to freely move to the UK, they will bring their tribal customs of violence towards women with them. This must not happen. The government of Turkey should be told that as long as women are being killed in the name of honour, they are not welcome as part of the Union. I know we have problems with honour killings in the UK already, but it is probably much easier in this country for women to find help and refuge. We do not need the tribal mentality of the men shown in this video.

On this second video we see a man who shot his step-mother and her lover, apparently on the orders of his family, for the sake of honour. The step-mother survived, but her lover died. The man was given a two and a half year sentence for murder. Until quite recently honour killing received a reduced sentence on the grounds of provocation (hard to believe, but true!) but the law has changed and honour killing now carries a mandatory life sentence. This has led to an alarming new development, which has seen women being forced to commit suicide. Istanbul has one of the highest rates of honour killing in the country, with an average of one every week, but the number of young women committing suicide is growing at an alarming rate. The high number of deaths by honour killing and suicide is thought to be a result of migration of people from villages into the towns, bringing their tribal customs with them. Villages to towns to the rest of the EU. No! It must not happen.

Truth is the new hate speech: Helsinki City Councilman, Jussi Halla-aho, on blasphemy charge.

From the Vasarahammer blog and posted in translation by Atlas Shrugs

Here is Helsinki City Councilman, Jussi Halla-aho's post that the Finnish state wants him prosecuted for. It is addressed to Mika Illman, the Finnish state prosecuting attorney, in response of the Finnish state's prosecution of Seppo Lehto last year.

State prosecutor Mika Illman’s winning streak continued a few days ago, when a specialist of rude humor Seppo Lehto was sentenced for two years and four months imprisonment and to pay tens of thousands of euros in damages for several accounts of gross defamation, incitement against an ethnic group and for religious worship (TT: blasphemy). The issue has been discussed around the internet so much that I probably don’t have to repeat the self-evident facts:

a) Filth blogs created by Lehto fulfill all possible criteria for “gross defamation” but

b) Nobody has ever been sentenced for two years and four months for these kind of crimes. I don’t blame Mika Illman, he is obviously a man worthy of his last name, who does what he thinks he is supposed to do, but those district courts that have lamely given Mika everything he dares to ask have a reason to be ashamed of themselves.

c) Illman’s selection of plaintiffs and recipients of damages consisted only of his fellow prosecutors and members of parliament, and not, for example, Teemu Lahtinen, to whom Lehto’s filth blogs possibly caused real damage during the last parliamentary election. The thinking in which public figures deserve more protection than regular citizens has so far been alien to the democratic state and rule of law.

Let’s stop talking about defamations. Lehto was also convicted of disturbing religious worship. According to the district court Lehto violated muslims’ religious worship by defaming the prophet Muhammad. Professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila has confirmed the interpretation according to which Muhammad is a revered figure in Islamic faith.

According to state prosecutor Mika Illman and Tampere district court insulting the prophet Muhammad is illegal, because Muhammad is revered by muslims.

(On the other hand professor Hämeen-Anttila could certainly confirm that in Christianity Jesus and God are holy figures. Of course, this doesn’t prevent anybody to defame Jesus or God freely in the way he or she chooses.)

Next I intend to throw Mika a bait:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

Are these statements illegal? They certainly insult muslim’s religious feelings. Let’s approach the issue logically:

As a 50 year-old man Muhammad was engaged to six or seven year old Aisha. Their marriage was “consummated” when Aisha was nine years old. It is possible to think that they were living in another age and Muhammad’s deeds must not be judged according to today’s standards, but as we have learned during the last few years, schoolbooks from the 50’s were racist when they spoke about ”negroes” (even if ”negro” was not a racist term at the time by anybody’s standards), it’s equally justified to call a child rapist who lived 1400 years ago a child rapist .´

What has to be done so that the bolded statements were not true? You must insist that

a) ... Quran is not literally true (i.e Muhammad did not have sexual relations with a nine year old girl). This will not do, since according to Islamic doctrine and muslims’ opinion Quran is a literal word of Allah. Consummation and Aisha’s age cannot be denied without insulting muslims.

b) ...Muhammad’s actions were not always acceptable. This will not do either, since according to muslims (and Tampere district court) criticizing Muhammad is the same as criticizing Allah and therefore blasphemy. The penalty is death. Muslim’s believe that Muhammad’s actions were the will of Allah. Because Muhammad had sexual relations with a child, that was Allah’s will as well.

As we see, all the argumentative ways to disprove the bolded statements have been theologically exhausted. The fact that Muhammad was a pedophile and Allah supported pedophilia can only be denied either by denying the literal truthfulness of Quran or Muhammad’s status as a messenger of Allah whose actions are according to the will of Allah.

Therefore I repeat my claim:

Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and islam revers pedophilia as a religion. Islam is a religion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is Allah’s will.

The next bait reads:

Robbing bypassers and living at taxpayers’ expense as a parasite is a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Somalis.

Is this claim inappropriate? My fellow blogger Kekke filed a complaint to the Media Council for the editorial that appeared in newspaper Kaleva, in which killing people while intoxicated was described as a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Finns. Media Council dismissed the complaint. According to Council secretary Nina Porra:

”The writer probably refers to studies, in which heavy drinking has been observed to be a specific feature in Finnish drinking culture. It has also been observed that there is a correlation between intoxication and violence. The genetic backround of the problem is not handled as a fact, but the writer gives his own opinion.”

Naturally, the decisions made by Media Council are not legally binding so inquisitor Illman doesn’t have to take notice. But on the other hand, “incitement against ethnic group” is a felony and because Illman (whom the matter belongs to) has not reacted to the Kaleva article, it can be concluded that negative ethnic and genetic stereotypes can be published as long as they are not handled as facts.

We can’t think that there are different rules for different people in Finland, can we?
Naturally, not all Somalis commit robberies or live at taxpayers’ expense, but not all Finns kill while intoxicated either.

Somalis who constitute 0.2 per cent of Finland’s total population commit 12 per cent of robberies reported to the Police. One in ten Somalis living in Finland has a job. Committing robberies and living at taxpayers’ expense are a lot more common among Somalis related to their share of the population than killing while intoxicated among the ethnic Finns. Therefore, I present my assumption (that I do not regard as fact):

Robbing bypassers and living at taxpayers’ expense as a parasite is a national, possibly genetic characteristic of Somalis.

With this, I wish Mika a nice day.

With thanks to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

Urgent FEMA update with a timeline

Alex Jones TV: Is Obama the next Hitler?

July 25th, 2001: Alex Jones predicts 9/11

Yes, America! You've been sold a pup!!!

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

The McCanns launch a new campaign in the Algarve for the second anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.


A little over a month from the second anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, arguing that they neglected contact with the local people, Kate and Gerry McCann have now announced the launch of a new campaign that targets the residents of Lagos and Burgau, the areas closest to the tourist complex of Praia da Luz, from where their daughter allegedly disappeared.

According to information from their spokesman, Kate and Gerry now believe that their daughter Maddie is still alive and that they have neglected contacts with the local people, who will now receive in their letter boxes, a leaflet asking for help, while posters will be put up in the region.

According to the information now made available by the couple, in the days following Maddie's disappearance, "the collaboration of the Portuguese residents of Praia da Luz and surrounding areas was never properly requested," because their attention was only focused on international appeals.

The announcement of this campaign has surprised the residents of the Algarve region, who regard the McCanns' initiative with suspicion.

For months, until Gonçalo Amaral's exit, the PJ explored all lines of enquiry, both in Portugal - in the Algarve in particular - and abroad, but each time the Portuguese and British investigators were obliged to turn their attention to those surrounding Maddie and the nine British people who were there in Praia da Luz at the time of her disappearance.

In addition to the official investigation, the couple had private Spanish detectives and British henchmen in the Algarve, but all the information obtained turned out to be false or of no relevance to the case, which ended up accentuating suspicions about them.

"Experience shows that important answers are to be found in the immediate vicinity. Someone in the area must almost certainly have essential information that would help bring Madeleine back to her family," the McCanns say, suggesting that, in spite of the two years which have elapsed, someone could still have received information that leads to the mystery being solved, the reason for which they are asking that information be given to them anonymously by telephone, by text message, by email of by post.

Duarte Levy (Faro)


Comment: Dear God in Heaven! Are these people really as stooopid as they appear to be? Two years after their child was allegedly abducted from the holiday resort, they come up with this novel idea! Duh! Why not ask the local people? They flew to Rome. Nope! She wasn't with the Pope. They trotted off round Europe and then to Morocco. Nope! Not in any of those places. And now they have made this stunning discovery! Wow! Experience shows that important answers are to be found in the immediate vicinity. Jeez! If they had just asked the police why they always do door-to-door enquiries, or why many of the local people of Praia da Luz stayed off work for a week to search!

And while those local people were searching the surrounding area, both through the night of Maddie's disappearance and for a whole week afterward, what was Kate McCann doing? Well, she wasn't searching! I would have been running around like a wild thing, calling my child's name, banging on doors asking people if they had seen her, only giving up when I was on the point of collapse, but not Kate McCann.

Maddie was nearly four years old when she disappeared and at that time, the McCanns used photos of Maddie, which were at least a few months old. They are still using the same photos in the supposed search for a child who would be nearly six years old in May. If Maddie were still alive, she would look dramatically different from the child shown in those photos. So, like the people of the Algarve, I think the rest of us should regard this initiative with suspicion.

Joana Morais has a video on her blog (
Source: SIC, Jornal da Noite, 24.03.2009) which includes interviews with local people in the Algarve.

Brief summary of video report:

The first part mentions facts that are now widely known by the public – the campaign’s purpose, scope, the means involved.

It is mentioned that the subject is distressing for those who live in the village, and the few persons who agreed to speak to the reporter, stated that they find the initiative strange.

First interviewed person: “I think it’s not going to advance anything. While they were here, they weren’t that worried. The family, they were welcomed here like family. Meanwhile, they ran away, I don’t know why."

Second interviewed person: “There was nothing that I, my husband, everyone here in Praia da Luz didn’t do, looking, searching, to see if we could find the little girl. So I think if anyone knew anything, me, if I knew anything, I would try to give the information right away."

Third interviewed person: "They asked a lot of questions. There were many Portuguese persons speaking about the issue. The rest, I don’t know. There’s nothing more that I can say."

In a closing comment, the reporter mentions that almost two years ago, the entire village population was involved, with the police, in intensive searches, and that it could be precisely the reason why this appeal from the McCanns is causing such discomfort among the residents.

By Astro

The second person quoted above said that she would try to give information right away, which seems logical. The police did extensive local enquiries, they searched hundreds of properties and interviewed hundreds of people. So, why this new campaign? Strange!

Monday, 23 March 2009

Madeleine McCann: Does the new DNA test bring new hope of a solution?


"New DNA test gives cold case hope

Forensic scientists say they are excited about the new technique

A new technique which can decipher previously unintelligible DNA samples has been made available to all police forces in England and Wales.

The Forensic Science Service (FSS) said the DNAboost method might shed light on "many thousands" of unsolved cases.

It allows scientists to obtain individual DNA profiles from crime scenes which contain a mix of genetic material from several people.

But some experts have warned that it could lead to miscarriages of justice.

During the pilot, DNAboost was used on about 2,000 samples in four police forces - Humberside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire.

The FSS said it helped police to identify suspects and build evidence for cases, and was now "fit for purpose" to be used by all forces."

Now "fit for purpose? Well, if the FSS has managed to hang onto the samples from the vehicle the McCanns rented over three weeks after their daughter disappeared, perhaps the scientists could not revisit those samples and using this new technique, separate the DNA of individuals in the mix they said contained the DNA of at least three people.

From an article posted on Enfants Kidnappés, August 5th, 2008:

My Big Desk Archives August 2008

"That confirmation arrives with the first report of analyses which states that 15 out of 19 DNA markers belong to Madeleine. That's all the police need. The evidence is there. Obvious. The first report of the analyses proves the parents' guilt in the eyes of the investigators. This report would be considered as irrefutable proof by, I believe, all the police. From then on the parents were placed, logically, under the specific status of, "arguidos." Of course, an error rate of 1 in a billion is not a 100% profile, in that Clarence Mitchell is right. Then, afterwards, comes a thunderbolt.* A second report from FSS arrives and totally contradicts the first. Also ruining the evidence the police thought they had. According to this report, the harvested samples would have been contaminated, making them very unreliable in the end. Several DNAs would have been mixed, creating the DNA of anyone!"

Come on FSS, dig out those samples and use this technique, which you are claiming is reliable enough to be used by police forces, now being, as I repeat, "fit for purpose."

If you read the post from Enfants Kidnappés, you will see that there were two conflicting reports from FSS: the first report appeared to state that Madeleine McCann's DNA had definitely been identified in the samples from the hired car; the second report stated that the samples were contaminated with the DNA of several people, thus making the results unreliable. Perhaps this new technique can now be used to render the results more reliable and thus add weight to the alerts given by the "Advanced Human Remains Recovery Dog," Eddie, who signalled the presence of cadaverine, the odour given off by a human corpse, in the McCanns' hired car.

I do recall reading that the samples could not be sent to another lab for testing, though, because they had been lost or destroyed by the FSS. This is the same organisation which mislaid samples which kept an innocent man in prison for ten years longer than he needed to be there. So, I don't hold out much hope here. Perhaps the police should go in there with a search warrant if FSS can't locate those samples. Send in the cops! That lab in Birmingham is hardly fit for purpose if it keeps losing samples in important criminal cases.

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Dr Orly Taitz confronts Chief Justice John Roberts.

Citizen Wells 21/03/09

Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia, the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as plaintiffs in her lawsuits.

Defend Our Freedoms 14/03/09

"I Did It. Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents

Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.

It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Spokane, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question.

For Dr Orly Taitz, Dr Alan Keyes, Phillip Berg, Dr David Manning and all American people trying to find the truth about Barack Hussein Obama.

Ewe'll Never Walk Alone!!

Friday, 20 March 2009

Obama: now he insults disabled people. What a nerd!!

On the Jay Leno show, Barack Obama's joke about the "Special Olympics." This is totally ignorant and absolutely unacceptable behaviour from someone who is not only a qualified lawyer, but someone who has worked as a community organiser and a man who should know, therefore, about human rights and dignity. What a nerd! And this is the president of the United States. How low can he go? Rhetorical question, folks!

And as a contrast, which should make Obonkers cringe with shame, and which probably won't, this video shows Sarah Palin with her child who has Down's Syndrome, talking about her hopes for him, in an address to the 2009 Special Olympics in Boise, Idaho. I am lost for anything else to say here. I am so furious about President Hussein's remarks about the Special Olympics. He has brought his crass Chicago "wide boy," ways to Washington.

Sarah Palin, you're a star, a national treasure for the United States and a champion for disabled children everywhere. You recognise the potential to excel in every child and I salute you with admiration from the bottom of my heart.

Thursday, 19 March 2009

The McCann Million Dollar Challenge

Tom Franks is a Texan millionaire, who has issued a challenge to the McCanns: show the evidence that could prove that the man in the police sketches could have abducted Madeleine, and he will give 1 million dollars to the Find Madeleine Fund.

McCann Million Dollar Challenge

"A case that needs to be answered

I first became aware of the case of Madeleine McCann in September 2007. I saw a report on CNN that the parents were suspected of killing their child. That was not a surprise, because in most cases where a very young child disappears the parents or guardians are involved. I cannot say I took a lot of interest in this case until very recently. In my business (Real Estate) I have one or two contacts in England. Last week one of these contacts sent me a copy of a letter and a book What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann that showed that Mr. and Mrs. McCann were never charged with any crime, not even child neglect, despite overwhelming evidence. Many believe this situation was a direct result of interference by the British media and political machine."

Read more.

My million dollar challenge to Gerry McCann

A reminder of some facts:

1/ A woman called Gail Cooper was on vacation in Portugal before you even arrived there. She says she saw a man collecting money for charity. Does that make him a child abductor? No. She says she saw a man on the beach when it was raining. Does that make him a child abductor? No. She says the man gave her the "creeps" because of the way he looked. Does that make him a child abductor? No. It means she might need to get out more, but no reason to believe he had anything to do with Madeleine.

2/ One of your vacation chums, Jane Tanner, states she did not see the face of the man she conveniently claims she saw, so I am not going to have you tell me she saw the same man Gail Cooper saw. She plainly would not know if it was the same man, if she had seen the face.

3/ On your website you display two pictures of the man your pal conveniently claims she saw and two pictures of the other man Mrs. Cooper says she saw.

You clearly want all of us to think the man Mrs. Cooper saw is the same as the one your vacation pal claims she saw and you want us to believe he is "Madeleine's probable abductor."

My Challenge

I challenge you to produce compelling evidence that shows Mrs. Cooper's man probably abducted Madeleine. I need either forensic evidence, very strong circumstantial evidence or witness evidence. I don't think you have evidence to prove that Mrs. Cooper's man probably abducted your daughter. You also have no evidence the man your vacation buddy conveniently claims she saw probably abducted Madeleine.

I think it is something you invented and you knowingly had a lie published on your website. Don't pretend you are unaware it is on your website. What parent with a lost child would not look at their own website designed to find their child? I think you are a liar. A controlling man like yourself would know fully well what is on your website.

If I am wrong and you can provide the forensic, strong circumstantial or witness evidence to substantiate your claim that the man probably abducted Madeleine, I will donate $1,000,000 to your fund. You can use that to pay your mortgage in full and take another vacation. Hopefully you will come back this time with as many children and you leave with.

You can either accept my challenge and publish the evidence on your website or decline my challenge and remove your lies from your website. The choice is yours, but the longer your lies remain on your website the more people will become aware you are a liar.

If you cannot accept my challenge, others will ask why not. Others will ask why you have lied. Why have you pretended to the public a man probably abducted Madeleine when you have no evidence to support that claim?

Others will know you are a liar. Others will wonder why you lied. I can only think of one reason why you would lie, because you want to create a smokescreen, a diversion from what really happened.

You are collecting money from the public on your website based on the claim that Mrs. Cooper's man probably abducted Madeleine. If you cannot substantiate that claim and it transpires you have lied, you had better pay every cent back to those you have taken money from, because that would make you both a thief and a liar.

Tom Franks 03/18//09

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

We The People Stimulus Package

A brilliant video from "We The People."

ACORN: charged with voter fraud but helping with the next US census!

John Lott Blog


"The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers." . . .

ACORN = The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

From the, "Who is ACORN," page on the ACORN web site:

Service delivery: ACORN and its allied organizations provide extensive services to our members and constituency. These include free tax preparation focusing on the Earned Income Tax Credit; screening for eligibility for federal and state benefit programs; and, through the ACORN Housing Corporation, first time homeowner mortgage counseling and foreclosure prevention assistance, and low income housing development.

Ballot initiatives: ACORN-backed ballot-initiative campaigns in 2006 helped raise the minimum wage in Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Colorado, working with community-faith-labor coalitions on successful campaigns in each state.

Voter participation: Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote."

It is this last item, Voter participation, which is under scrutiny. Across the USA, ACORN registered thousands upon thousands of new voters during the Obama election campaign. In the past, ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud. In the most recent presidential election campaign, ACORN has apparently registered dead people to vote, submitted thousands of obviously fraudulent registration forms, many with the same handwriting, and it seems that from the zip code, there are people living in take-away food places and even, somehow, in the middle of rivers.

So, that's what ACORN is. In addition to voter fraud, ACORN has also been accused of fraud and embezzlement. Yet, this organisation has been enlisted by the Federal government of the USA to help with the 2010 census.

This is a CNN video about ACORN from October 2008.

So, how come this organisation, which claims to be independent, receiving funding from donations and memberships, but which was actually receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Obama campaign, and is accused of voter fraud, is now signed up as a partner organisation for the next census? The results of the census are very important in deciding on representation in Congress and on allocation of Federal funds. So, it seems like a rather risky business to enlist ACORN while it is under investigation for voter fraud. Should such an organisation be helping to recruit the workers who will be responsible for distributing and collecting census forms and for assisting some elements of the community to complete their forms?

In the UK, these census officers are called, "enumerators," and part of the job is to help people, who for one reason or another, have difficulty with the forms: language, literacy, sight problems and other disabilities. I think we can assume that the job is similar in the US, the intention being that no one is left out because of barriers to communication. However, this is, as is probably obvious, open to fraud and manipulation by those officers helping to complete the forms. Is this a risk worth taking and why has the Obama administration opted to enlist the help of ACORN, while ACORN is suspected of illegal activity?

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Anjem Choudary: When we say 'innocent people,' we mean Muslims

Above: Anjem Choudary in his student days; soft porn mags and a table laden with alcoholic drinks.


Anjem, aka Andy Choudary, knocking back the cheap cider.

"One former friend said: 'I can't keep a straight face when I see "fundamentalist Muslim Anjem Choudary" in the papers attacking the British for drinking or having girlfriends.

'When I knew him, he liked to be called Andy, would often smoke cannabis spliffs all day, and was proud of his ability to down a pint of cider in a couple of seconds." ( Daily Mail)

"And he was ruthless with girls. When he briefly worked as an English teacher for foreign students in London, he'd pull one of them every few days, sleep with her, then move on to another.

'If Sharia law was introduced, he would have been whipped and stoned to death many times over.'

Choudary, who was born in South-East London to a market stall-holder of Pakistani descent, has become one of the faces of extremist Islam."


And Choudary now! "Anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public." I guess you wouldn't want to make that retrospective, Mr Choudary!

Above: Anjem Choudary leading the hateful protest that insulted UK troops parading through the streets of Luton.

Anjem Choudary being interviewed in January 2007 about the 7/7 bombings. He said, "When we say 'innocent people,' we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God."

So, remember, folks, when a Muslim says they would never kill innocent civilians, they mean Muslims. They don't mean the rest of us because by their definition we are not innocent, because we have not accepted Islam. Forked tongue?

And here, below, is Mr Choudary's religion of peace, his fellow Muslims getting worked up and aggressive after a police officer asks to speak to someone who is chanting hatred from a megaphone in a moving vehicle. The police are there to keep order on our streets. They have every right to ask someone to be quiet, when that person appears to be inciting a riot, as the person in the vehicle appeared to be doing. Yet, there on our streets, a Muslim horde cornered a group of police officers, with shouts of, "How dare you." How dare they? They are doing their job, keeping law and order, preventing a breach of the peace, which they have every right to do, a right which is given to them under the law of our land.

UK Muslims outside London's Westminster (Catholic) Cathedral, shouting hatred, shouting threats against Pope Benedict, saying those who insulted Islam should be subject to capital punishment, and there is Anjem Choudary on the megaphone yet again. July 2007. In the interview, which is included in this video, Choudary is asked if he doesn't believe in democracy. His answer, "No, I don't at all. I believe we must live according to the Sharia." Yet, Choudary and his fellow preachers of hate seem to be forgetting that they only have the right to say those things because they are living in a democracy.

Isn't it time to say enough is enough. The Australian Prime Minister was brave enough to tell Muslims that they were living in a country based on the Christian faith and on democracy and if the Muslims didn't like that, if they couldn't accept the ways of the country, they should take advantage of that other great freedom afforded by Australian democracy, the freedom to leave and find a country that better suited their expectations. Let's get these preachers of hate and violence off our streets. It's high time our government took a firm stand and imposed the law on people who incite hatred and violence. Clean our streets of this vile horde. We've had enough.

Saturday, 14 March 2009

Obama: 48 years without releasing any documents.

December 7th, 2008

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none!

There is no Obama documentation — no records — no paper trail — None.

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released

Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit

Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro adoption records — Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

Punahou School records — Not released

Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit

Occidental College records — Not released

Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

Columbia College records — Not released

Columbia thesis — Not released

Harvard College records — Not released

Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)

Baptism certificate — None

Medical records — Not released

Illinois State Senate records — None

Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost

Law practice client list — Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

Binyan Mohamed was traveling on a false passport, and he wondered why the British authorities needed to be involved in investigating his background!

"In the first interview since his release, Mohamed, an Ethiopian refugee who worked as a cleaner at a West London mosque, released memos which reveal MI5 fed questions to his interrogators."

Daily Telegraph 10/03/09

So, MI5 fed questions to his interrogators. Let's think about why they might have done that.

"He said he wanted to go to Chechenya as an aid worker but was told he would need "basic training" and and joined an Afghan camp for six weeks."

"He was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002 as he tried to fly back to London on a false passport and said he was chained to the top of the door of his cell by his wrists for 22 hours, beaten with a wooden stick, and a gun was put to his head."

He needed basic training as an aid worker, so he went to Afghanistan for six weeks? Doesn't seem like an obvious place for training as an aid worker.

And let's see: he was trying to fly back to London on a false passport. Now, it seems to me that if he was holding a false passport, the authorities would want to investigate his background, hence the questions, as quoted on the Today programme, that he said MI5 fed to the interrogators, questions like, his address, his job, his associates. Someone who had just come from Afghanistan, trying to fly out of Pakistan on a false passport and he thinks it's somehow highly irregular for the British authorities to become involved to try to establish his true identity and background?

Binyam Mohamed appears to contradict himself quite a lot here on significant details. He needed basic training as an aid worker and joined an Afghan camp for six weeks or he "he left Britain for Afghanistan in May 2001 to learn more about his religion," or were these different trips? One where he went to be trained as an aid worker and one where he went to learn about his religion?

In the interview aired by the Today programme Mohamed was asked why he had gone to Afghanistan. He said that people had told him that Afghanistan was where the "real Islam," was to be found. Really? What people? Well, he was quite vague about who these people were, but I would have thought that "real Islam," could be found elsewhere, like Pakistan, maybe, and in studying his religion there, he might have avoided the ongoing problems in Afghanistan, but then he was arrested because of his false passport, I believe. I think this was what drew the attention of the authorities. So, I would ask again: why the need for a false passport if he was just trying to find out about his religion and this was just a totally innocent trip?

Those who have nothing to hide don't need to travel on false passports. The Today programme did not air the full interview and if the question of the passport was raised, it wasn't in the extracts we heard this morning. I would hope that the judicial enquiry would focus on this issue and also on the issue of Mohamed's remaining in the UK. He has not been tried and so he has not been found guilty of any offence, but then neither has he been found innocent.

Eligibility bill hits Congress while court in California decides that the Secretary of State has no ministerial duty to check candidates' eligibility

World Net Daily 13/03/09

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

A freshman representative has introduced a bill to the U.S. Congress that would require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate and other documents to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which increased required campaign fund disclosure and was later amended to establish the Federal Elections Commission.

According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

George Cecala, a spokesperson for Rep. Posey's office, told WND that constituents had been calling, questioning whether Barack Obama – who has publicized a Certificate of Live Birth, but not his official birth certificate – has demonstrated that he meets the Constitution's requirement to be a natural-born citizen.

"Those are legitimate constitutional concerns," Cecala said. "Folks have brought the issue up, and the court really hasn't clarified. And I think American citizens have a right to have answers from their government."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"When seven-year-olds play soccer in Brevard County, to be in Little League they have to prove their residency," Cecala said. "To be president there are three requirements: one is citizenship, two is the age of 35, and three, you have to have been a resident for 14 years. We're simply saying when you file your statement of candidacy with the FEC, you should also file documentation that you fulfill the three requirements to be president.

"There's two standards here," Cecala told WND, "one for Little League and one for president."

"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as president," explained Rep. Posey in an official statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations is healthy for our republic. This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."

Cecala further told WND that there's no political motivation in proposing the bill, and the Congressman hopes passing the bill will help clear the air for the president, enabling the government to get beyond the election controversy to dealing with the nation's other important issues.

"Once we pass this bill, we can be assured that future elections won't have this problem," Cecala said. "It's not an attack on President Obama; it's just clarifying for future elections."

Cecala also explained that if passed, the amendment to election law would require Obama, just like any other candidate, to provide a birth certificate in any future presidential elections.

H.R. 1503 has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

  • 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 attorney 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.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Alan Keyes

A California court has ruled that apparently anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates," said Judge Michael P. Kenny. "The court finds this argument persuasive."

(Read the whole article on the WND web site.)

If Rep Posey's bill is passed through Congress, in four years time, if Barack Obama is still president, if none of the current lawsuits has succeeded in requiring Obama to produce proof of eligibility, he would be required, at that time, to produce the appropriate documentation were he to stand for re-election.