Quote of the Day

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." --
Ronald Reagan

The Presidental Prick in Power

This statement applies to either a Conservative or Liberal US President.  The Federal Government does not have absolute power over the states.  The states are what comprise the Federal Government.  The power lies with the people, and state Constitutions and laws override Federal laws.  State legislators take an oath to uphold state policies and protect their citizenry.  This includes protection from an oppressive Federal Government.  It is time to start having the states legislate policies in opposition to the Federal Government in order to protect the people from the overreaching fist of control. 

Let our voices rise and be heard.  WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE GOVERNMENT; we have ultimate control.

Who can arrest Obama? Who has that power?
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 28, AD 2011 9:12 PM MST
Question: What is the most powerful law enforcement office in the United States? Who has the power and authority to arrest Obama? Who could override the Secret Service?

Answer: The County Sheriff of any county that Obama is physically inside. The single most powerful office in the United States, even more powerful than the President, is your friendly, local County Sheriff. This dynamic was built into the fabric of this nation by the Founding Fathers, and has been VERY recently affirmed by the SCOTUS.

Click here for a very detailed article on the topic with citations.

This is the principle of governance called "subsidiarity". Subsidiarity is the principle of governance taught by the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - no matter how many Marxist bishops there may be, and no matter what lying Marxist filth they may spew. Subsidiarity means that the most power lies with the sovereign individual. The next highest level of power is LOCAL (and there's your friendly county sheriff), the next most powerful level is the state, below that is the federal level, and the weakest level of governance is INTERNATIONAL (such as a body that would arbitrate trade disputes). The further away governance gets from the individual, the weaker it becomes. Golly! That kinda makes sense, huh? This principle can be applied to different governmental structures, from representative republic to parliamentary constitutional monarchy and even to hereditary monarchy. This is why Jesus didn't call out a SPECIFIC form of government - because there are multiple possibilities that can totally work SO LONG AS subsidiarity is observed. And how did Christ identify subsidiarity as the true governmental principle? He did it by dying on the Cross for us personally. The Most Powerful Ruler there is submitted Himself UNTO DEATH for the sake of, and in service to the individual.

For anyone who might be interested, this is how the Catholic Church works, too. A priest is in charge and has authority over his parish. It is his responsibility. The bishop calls the shots in his diocese, and the Pope is a suffering servant, who is tasked with the BIG PICTURE issues, such as setting down in official writing the Church's teachings on matters of faith and morals as needed. But in terms of the day-to-day stuff, the governance is definitely a matter of subsidiarity. This is why Rome had such a slow and admittedly not aggressive enough response to the sex scandals. They were trying to let the bishops assert their own power - but they didn't fully appreciate how infested the bishopric had become with Marxist homosexuals. Rome understands that now. But I do wish they would be even more aggressive. It is now a matter of wolves attacking the flock. The shepherd needs to come out swinging.

But I digress.

Isn't it interesting how this stuff is all tied together? Yep. Mighty interesting indeed.

So what we need to do is get Obama to go to Maricopa County, Arizona for a campaign fundraiser and then have Sheriff Joe Arpaio arrest his felonious, forgering, treasonous @$$. And guys, I'm not really kidding. This is a VERY viable tactic.

Hat Tip barnhardt.biz

I spent $76,000 on tickets, and all I got was this lousy banned video.......

The title sounds like a great Tea Party or GOP Tshirt slogan to me for the 2012 election.


In China you are not allowed to videotape the leadership without permission

Well, he keeps saying we need to emulate China.

This video has caused a stir:

The controversy was not the protest, but that the White House communications team threatened to suspended the reporter who took the videotape, because multimedia coverage of Obama's fundraiser was not permitted. The White House now denies the threat, but the San Francisco Chronicle calls the White House statement a "pants on fire" lie.

I wonder why he doesn't like secret taping of fundraisers?

Hat Tip Legal Insurrection and Gatway Pundit.

Christians Mocking Gays! .... Strike that. Reverse it.

Peh, I'm not impressed. Give me a call when you have the gahones to make fun of Muhammad on Eid Al-Fitr or Eid Al-Adha. From the look of the dickless losers in the crowd, they couldn't scrape up the testicular fortitude.    Nothing more than a bunch of lame religious bigots.......

Thousands of Christians gathered for an outdoor Easter Sunday service in San Francisco to
publicly mock gays and humiliate gay heroes.

Obama's Certificate of Live Birth -- UPDATES!

I've been compiling claims people have been making about the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate (pro and con).  Is it Fact or faked?  You decide.

NOTE: Hat tips are provided below each claim so that the reader can find the original source I posted.

Claim 1:

Need More Proof It's Fake? No Problem.
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 27, AD 2011 5:53 PM MST
A professional highend graphics designer weighs in here:

Click here for the objective, factual truth.

And a YouTube stepby-step here:



If you or I did this in any context, we would spend MANY YEARS in prison. Obama should spend the rest of his life in prison.

I will not allow my country to be screwed with by a low-rent Communist agitator. If law enforcement will not act, then the people must. Obama is in NYC at a campaign fundraiser. He should be arrested and should not step foot in the White House again. Send the daughters to Chicago with their grandmother, because Barack and Michelle Obama are, at this moment, fugitives from justice and should be tried for treason.

Hat Tip barnhardt.biz

Claim 2:

Claim 3:

You've GOT To Be Kidding Me (Birth Certificate)

Oh do c'mon.... oh Donald, this case is not closed.

You can't possibly by serious.

This document has been altered and whoever did it wasn't even very clever in doing so.

I downloaded the PDF from the White House Web site - the "official copy" right from the "Horse's Mouth."  Then I loaded it into Illustrator.  Look at these images I then screen-captured - first, the ENTIRE image itself:

Note the light blue border?  That's the PDF segment that was dropped in the background, which was the green "safety paper."  So far, so good - they just took the safety paper background and then dropped in a picture.  All is well, right?

Well, no.

Mother's "occupation" - the "Non" on "None" has been altered.  What was there before it was tampered with?

The "Accepted date" (bottom right) has been altered.  What was there before it was tampered with?

As has the other "Accepted" date.  What was there before it was tampered with?

There's another problem with those dates too - they're clearly altered, as is the "None"; here's a well-enhanced (at 1200%) version of one of the dates; you can clearly see the difference in saturation.  That was cut into the original picture folks.

By the way, they were dumb enough to leave the cuts in the clipboard too.  The bottom part (certification) I can see since it's clearly overlaid on a background.  But the content itself?

But that's not all!  Look at this - the document number:

Click that and look at the full size. Only one of the numbers that was printed on that page had the background not only bleed through but also aliased pixels in the background itself

Uh uh.

This document has been altered; it is not simply a photograph of the registrar's book that was dropped into a background, and it also is not simply an agglomeration of two images (the background they constructed, the "certification" and then the actual certificate.)

Now this does not prove that the alterations were actual changes in content.  They might not be.

But..... what other reason is there to alter an alleged high-resolution photograph?

Got Illustrator?  Don't believe me - check it yourself.

(To get the full list of things on the clipboard, load it and then select "Window->Actions->Links."  There they are.)

Advice to Obama: Next time you try to alter something you're presenting to the press hire someone who knows how to do it without getting caught.

PS: My original belief - which I've repeatedly pointed out on the forum and elsewhere - is that Obama was indeed born in the US, but that there's something else - perhaps in his college records, perhaps in his Passport records, perhaps somewhere else in the records - that he doesn't want released.  I also have a cogent issue with whether a person with dual citizenship at birth as a consequence of one of their parents not being a US Citizen meets the "natural born citizen" requirement in the Constitution.  Incidentally, do some research on Chester Arthur if you're interested in someone with a similar lineage who concealed it during this time in office......

Now?  Unfortunately this document doesn't prove anything because of the presence of these artifacts in the PDF file that strongly suggest it was tampered with.

Hat Tip barnhardt.biz

Claim 4:
Karl Denninger Throws Down. It isn't debateable.
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 27, AD 2011 9:30 PM MST
Claim 5:

PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate

We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that.

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

UPDATE II: For those of you who still aren’t convinced, here’s a one-page PDF that I just scanned and optimized, so you can see for yourself that an optimized PDF shows up in Illustrator as layers. (I didn’t spend hours getting the settings right.)


Hat tip NRO.

Claim 6:

Long-form pdf link.

Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics Mara Z. sent this in:
This is so maddening to listen to the media on this recent revelation… it’s such an obvious fake.

(Click on image for larger view)

Look at the attached JPG… (which shows what you will see when opening the PDF in Illustrator and how to get there)… but to recap… if you open the PDF in Illustrator (instead of Photoshop) – Select the entire document and go to the Object menu and choose Clipping Mask > Release. Repeat as necessary until all clipping masks are released. Also open the Layer and turn off the visibility of each clipping group and you can see all the numerous places in which information was added (edited) into the form.

Lastly, look at the attached 1961 sample image found on the Internet of a legitimate 1961 Hawaii Birth Certificate (which someone posted to show what a real certificate would look like from that year in Hawaii)… look at the marks on this Internet version and you can see this was the template for Obama’s BC handiwork. The handwriting is exactly the same between posted Internet image and Obama’s fake version — the placement of boxes and marks are in the exact same position, dates are where the modified clipping masks occur to adjust dates to fit for Obama, but the handwriting of dates match (except for the clipping mask changes). Even the Cert. number is only off by the last two digits (which…you guessed it… happens to be a clipping mask layer).

Finally, also wanted to make the point that regardless of where Obama is born, he’s still not a Natural Born Citizen since both parents were not born on U.S. soil but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the media to educate the public on this fact.

More doubt… Another graphics designer reported it was a fake.


UPDATE: Another expert John G. sent in these comments and this image:
(Click to Enlarge)

I have been using Adobe Illustrator since the original version (Illustrator 88) came out in 1988.
I have attached a few Illustrator files that I believe will provide evidence that I am indeed an illustrator expert. I can send out the original files if you wish.

The comments made by Mara Z are very interesting. The first question is – what was the source of this pdf file? If the pdf file came from Obama’s people, the claims that this document was “doctored” may indeed be of merit. The first question is, why are there any layers on this document at all? It was clearly created in Photoshop, which is always used for image processing.

The second question is, if you look at the file I have sent as Obama Certificate Actions 01, you can see in the actions palette that there were 24 actions performed on this file before it was made into a pdf. Many of the actions are not Illustrator functions, but are Photoshop actions. Thus, this file was created in Photoshop, and exported as Photoshop 5 (why, that’s a very old version?) and it was next saved for the web (a Photoshop action) three times.

Again, first, we need to ascertain where this file came from.

Hat tip Gateway Pundit.

Claim 7:
This just in . . .
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 28, AD 2011 8:23 PM MST
A truly excellent comment just left on my YouTube channel by "ottohoffman"

When I first read that the image of the long form certificate of live birth had layers because it was OCRed I did a find text command on it for the letter c (amongst others). It found nothing. Just in case the image had been OCRed but the OCR program had failed to recognise the c, I ran the OCR option adobe. I then repeated the find text command, and it found c. Hence it wasn't OCRed.

National Review Online, we await your retraction and correction . . . .

Hat Tip barnhardt.biz

Claim 8:

This post below is from a friend-of-a-friend of mine who has some expertise in pdf files.  Weight the comment of expertise appropriately:

Greg wrote:
"Be careful who you trust on this. Most graphic designers don't have experience with document archive and storage. Most of these people don't understand the internal structure of PDF files. PDF layers are often but not always associated with OCR but even non-OCR files will have bitmap objects that can be extracted as "layers" using Illustrator. And that's like trying to measure DC voltage with an AC meter, you may get results but they make no sense."

No Hat Tip available.  Comment received via private communication.

Claim 9:

April 27, 2011

Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?

This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.

So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity.  Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”


Hat Tip TheSmokingGun.

Claim 10, 11 and 12:  (from the same source)

Obama’s Cert: Probably Real For Now

April 28, 2011
Obama’s Cert: Probably Real For Now

Wow! Another amazing day of conspiracy theories surrounding that green piece of paper and whether its contents were authentic, doctored, or balls-out forged. But friends, we really did get it wrong. At least regarding the document as it was originally presented by Obama and the WH. Everything this blog and others brought to light yesterday regarding the pdf’s “layers” and “objects” and OCR and all of that really do not matter. At all.

All one has to do is simply look at the high resolution file available at ABC News (thanks Jamie!) to quickly discern that the green document we were shown yesterday was created from this much more authentic but boring looking blueish-tinted Certificate of Live Birth. Knowing this, we simply must stop evaluating the green document, since the contents of it are no different than what we find here. Read more »

Obama’s Birth Certificate Dissected: The Afterbirth

April 27, 2011

When I saw that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was released by the WH this morning, I was eager to check it out for myself. Maybe I’d be able to put to rest that 23.5% doubt I had regarding our president’s country of origin? As anyone can tell from looking at my blog, I don’t regularly play in the political arena. But when I saw the document wasn’t exactly pristine, I decided to submit what I found to thesmokinggun.com and let others tear it apart. Funny thing is, I wasn’t trying to debunk the thing, rather just stir things up a bit. Childish? Perhaps. Fun? Totally.

Read more »

Obama’s Birth Certificate, Dissected

April 27, 2011
Obama’s Birth Certificate, Dissected


I AM NOT A BIRTHER! But this one is too interesting to ignore. Upon hearing all the fuss about the newly released Certificate of Live Birth, I decided to open it up in Adobe Illustrator and see just what we were given by the White House. Judge for yourself.

Hat Tip for the three claims above go to Brian Keith Nixon.

Google is Lame

On Friday, April 22 which was Earth Day 2011 -- the Left's religious "holiday" -- the Google Doodle had either an animated scene of lush forest, running water and panda bears or running water and clouds.  When you clicked on it, the top three results for Earth Day's official website was shown:

On Sunday, April 24 which is Easter 2011 --  the Christian religious "holiday" -- the Google Doodle has nothing:
Fucking ass clown, Christianaphobic losers.

The Many Flavors of Liberal Trolls

In case you haven't experienced the joy of running into a liberal troll on your favorite blog, let me describe some basic varieties of the species:

  • Regular Troll -- This guy is openly 180-degrees opposed to the purpose and/or ideological orientation of the blog. Whatever you're for, he's against, and vice-versa. If you're doing a free-market blog about tax policy, he's yelling that tax cuts are evil, "globalization" is wicked, and throwing in snarky anti-Republican messages, even though the blog is expressly about policy, not politics.
  • False-Flag Troll -- This guy pretends to be on your side, but he's really not. Claiming to be a conservative, he inevitably advances messages that are anti-conservative. His purpose is to sow confusion, discord and demoralization.
  • Concern Troll -- A subspecies of false-flag troll. The Obama campaign deployed a swarm of concern trolls in fall 2008. They were recognizable by the 3-point argument that went something like this: (1) I'm a committed conservative/lifelong Republican, but (2) I'm concerned about [something the Republicans had said or done], and therefore (3) I'm thinking I might vote for Obama on Election Day. The Concern Troll often specializes his message to his audience. On a site for pro-life Catholics, he begins by vowing that he is a pro-life Catholic; on a Second Amendment site, he begins by saying that he's an avid hunter and NRA member.
  • Agent Provocateur Troll -- Another false-flag subspecies, who aims to elicit unsavory or disreputable comments from other commenters, which can then be quoted to discredit the blog. 
Hat Tip The Other McCain.

Islamophobia = Bad; Christianaphobia = Good

The hypocrisy never stops amazing me.....

By the Left’s own definition, doesn’t this make the protesters “Christianaphobes”?

Islamaphobia = Intolerance to Islam


Christianophobe = Intolerance to Christianity


Christians Tossed Out of Muslim Anti-War, Islamophobia Demonstration in NYC…

The death of free speech? Note: Leftist kooks like Cindy Sheehan and the Stalinist ANSWER Coalition were in attendance.

New York City — About 1,000 Muslims and Leftist anti-war activists met at Union Square in New York City on Sunday for a “Stop War/Terrorism/Islamophobia” rally. The rally was organized by a coalition of leftist anti-war activists and Muslim groups, including the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim Peace Coalition USA.

Most of the protesters for this well-organized event had arrived in a long line of yellow school busses. Most protest signs were professionally made and bore the stamp of the group being represented.

Iranian Press TV was on scene and filed this report. The headscarf-garbed female reporter summarized the event: “Inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East, North Africa and the United States, notably in Wisconsin and Ohio, thousands gather to call for what simply may be described as the restoration of peace and democracy.” CBS News weighed in with a similarly sympathetic report.

According to a counterprotester on the scene, “Besides the sea of them, there were two Christians peacefully preaching about how Jesus died for our sins, and the police told them to leave because they were “disturbing people.”

Keep reading…

Lefties, and Commies and Trolls, Oh MY!

The fear mongering by the left and their bloggers has been kicked into overdrive concerning the lack of budget.  Since the policy stakes of this particular drama are so low, we can only assume this showdown is about Democrats and Republicans proving their relative political manhood.


I think that Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine hit the nail on the head:

"President Barack Obama, along with most of his Democratic colleagues, are bellyaching that John Brown No Compromise Republidouches are gonna shut the government down by not compromisin' already even though they got everything they wanted, including trims variously valued at effectively 0.00 percent of this year's federal spending.

... the Dems oughta face facts. The only reason that they are in a pickle is because they utterly failed to pass a fricking budget last year even though they controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. There's no way around it, fellers: You stunk up the joint worse... This marks the only time since current budget-process rules were adopted in 1974 that a budget didn't get done. Nice going, Dems. Regardless of who voters end up blaming this time around, in your heart, you know you suck."

In fact, the "Draconian" cuts that the Left is claiming are proposed by the Republicans merely take us back to 2008-ish levels of spending. If it was good enough for the Democrats in 2008 (and people were not being thrown into the street with their can of dog food and a can opener), it should be good enough now.  Hey, to paraphrase Obama,

"Democrats have driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Republicans are trying to pull it out.... We don't mind the Democrats  joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Obama Lied, People Died! -- OR -- No War For Oil!

I don't seem to see the anit-war liberal protesters in the streets anymore.  I guess war is now fashionable.  I suppose it's different if it's  a Democrat who is lying and sending troops to die for oil.

I think it's wrong to say that Liberals are against war.  Liberals are only against a war if the goal is to protect America or her interests.


Obama's Gulf of Benghazi Incident

Something about it always struck me as a stretch, but the words of Muammar Gaddafi, repeated endlessly in the media and from the White House, seemed to portent doom in Benghazi. 

Now Steve Chapman has put the lie to the Obama claim that military intervention was needed to prevent near-genocide in Benzhazi.  As Chapman documents, the speech by Gaddafi on which Obama relied and relies not only did not state that there would be mass murder, but actually stated that there would not be mass murder (emphasis mine):
In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."
But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them" -- but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.
"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."
"He lied us into war."  Could very well be, but you will never hear it in the mainstream media.