Tag Archives: Muslim

UK Authorities Ignore 1,400 Non-Muslim Children Repeatedly Attacked By Muslim Rape Gangs

Saudi writer Abdulah Mohammad Al Dawood urges followers to sexually molest women for working at public places

A chilling report has emerged that details the atrocities that at least 1,400 non-Muslim children faced at the hands of Muslims for 16 years in Great Britain because authorities feared they would be viewed as racist.

BBC reports that children as young as 11 were beaten, trafficked and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, according to a review into child protective services. The worst part is that over a third of the cases were known by authorities, who were afraid to speak up because of the ethnic and religious backgrounds of the attackers.

“Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist,” according to the report’s author, Professor Alexis Jay.

Jay blamed the “blatant” collective failures of the council’s leadership and concluded that “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered.”

Authorities Ignore 1,400 Non-Muslim Children Repeatedly Attacked By Muslim Rape Gangs

The chilling details of Jay’s report revealed:

Victims were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, terrorized with guns, made to witness brutally-violent rapes and told they would be the next if they spoke out.

They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated.

One victim described gang rape as “a way of life”

Police “regarded many child victims with contempt”

Some fathers tried to rescue their children from abuse but were arrested themselves;
The approximate figure of 1,400 abuse victims is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of abuse.

The majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani, according to Jay’s report. Because of this, others wouldn’t report alleged abuses out of fear they’d be labeled as racist.

Follow Us On Pinterest
One of the victims said that “gang rape” became a way of life for some of the girls who grew up in Rotherham with her. Fathers would also try to track down their daughters to remove them from the homes where they were abused only to be arrested after the police were called to the scene.

According to Jay, the systematic failures within CPS happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006, that both the council and police were aware of, “which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham.”

Jay says that the first of the reports were “effectively suppressed” because senior officials denied the data was true, and the other two reports were just flat out ignored. Councillors seemed to dismiss the reports as isolated incidents even though they documented widespread abuse.

“Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to [acknowledge the reports],” according to Jay.

Many of the victims believed that the perpetrators were their boyfriends who would shower them with gifts, drugs and alcohol. Some of them still don’t even believe that they were victims of abuse and groomed for sexual pleasure.

Some of the victims had serious mental issues and others from broken homes. Almost all of them had dysfunctional families with parents that suffered from addiction, sexually abused or would beat them.

The girls were eventually rescued by police and taken out of the abusive homes after being monitored by CPS, but it was too little too late.

“I was a child and they should have stepped in,” one of the victims said.

“No matter what’s done now… it’s not going to change that it was too late, it should have been stopped and prevented.”

You can read the full report here.

Facebooktwitterrss

From Russia With Love- A Letter From Putin to All Americans

A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life they’d rather forget, such as Nixon’s reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of ‘looking good’ while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a ‘false ally’ to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obama’s domestic enemy, the N.R.A.

Read the letter below for yourself, and decide whether President Putin is on spot or not:

How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all.

You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s my son-of-a-bitch.

So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, “We will give you nothing,” well, why would I ever agree to that? That’s not negotiation, that’s dictation; it’s a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore.

Look, I’ll be the first to say that Obama’s “red line” comment was dumb. It’s obvious he hadn’t thought it through; one can see it in the words he used to express his policy. He said that the “red line” would be crossed if “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons were used. What kind of language is that? How does one quantify a “whole bunch”? This is the President of the High-and-Mighty United States, and he’s talking like a schoolboy? All for this silliness over sarin in Syria?

Do I think that Assad did it? Gassed those people? I don’t know; I’ve never asked him. He’s certainly capable of it, and yet only the Americans think that the case against Assad is a “slam dunk.” Everyone else agrees that the case is murky. Everyone else follows the first rule of intelligence-gathering: Consider the source–namely, the pro-rebel media. In this instance, the rebels were losing, and then they got “gassed”–and now Uncle Sam is rushing to their side. How convenient.

The Romans, who knew something about both imperialism and trickery, always asked, cui bono–who benefits? Well, the beneficiaries in this episode are the rebels–also known as Al Qaeda. Way to go, Americans!

So let’s check some other news items: Here’s a June 6 item from a Turkish newspaper reporting on “the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with two kilograms of sarin.” And it’s not just the Turks: Carla Del Ponte, the Swiss-born former UN Prosecutor for War Crime Tribunals, has echoed those same charges against the rebels. They’re the bad guys!

Yet could this evidence against the rebels all be Russian disinformation? Hey, we’re good, but not that good.

Meanwhile, go ahead: Look for this information in your mainstream American media–your so-called “free press.” You can barely find it. Yankee lapdog reporters will cover everything that Obama says, and everything that John McCain says, but they won’t send reporters to warzones to go and actually figure out what happened.

Nor will American “presstitutes” remind their people of their own country’s history of helping the Iraqis use poison gas, all the time, in the 80s.

Yes, American reporters are sheep. They try to figure out what Obama wants them to write, and then they write it. Or if Obama doesn’t have a clear line on some topic–which is often–they look over the shoulder of the reporter next to them and copy that. Like I said, sheep.

The result is a herd mentality, showing no understanding of what true necessity truly looks like.

Here’s an example of a real “red line”: It’s June 24, 1812, and Napoleon Bonaparte, having conquered all of continental Europe, is now leading a half-million soldiers across the Neman River, invading Russia, heading straight for Moscow. Six months later, Napoleon retreats in disastrous defeat, but only after he burns our sacred capital and leaves 200,000 Russians dead in battle. Now that’s a red-line situation.

But even the Czars, those blockheads, weren’t dumb enough to send Russian forces halfway around the world because someone wasn’t being nice to someone else.

So in my time, I can hardly get worked up over Assad using poison gas–if he did. Dead is dead, I say. In any case, Assad is adhering to the first rule of a leader: Stay in power. And so you do what it takes.

In fact, I’m not against gas warfare; I’m for gas warfare, if that’s what it takes. For example, I would love to gas the Chechens–all 1.2 million of them. They are like cockroaches, murderous Muslim cockroaches, and if the Chechens had done to Americans what they have done to Russians, maybe the US public would want to join with us. Oh wait, they have: The Boston Bombers, those Tsarnaev brothers, were Chechens. You took them in–against our advice. You put them on welfare for a decade, ignored our intelligence warnings, and then they terror-bomb you. The Chechens deserve to be fumigated. As an aside, what’s wrong with your media? They seem like “useful idiots”–to borrow Lenin’s phrase–for the terrorists. That Rolling Stone cover? Really? That would never happen in Russia.

In addition, there are another billion or more Muslims to the south of Russia–and a lot of them are trouble, too. Indeed, Russia has been fighting Muslims all across Central Asia for centuries. It’s not easy.

But the American leaders don’t seem to understand any of this. They are lost in their silly theories about liberation, human rights–all that nonsense. They don’t see that the struggle with radical Islam is a war, pure and simple. It’s a war that should unite all the civilized countries of the world. I didn’t say “democratic,” I said “civilized.”

One Western journalist who at least begins to understand where I’m coming from is The New York Times Steven Lee Myers. In his report of August 28, Myers accurately describes the Putin view of what’s been going on in the Middle East:

“In his view, the United States and its partners have unleashed the forces of extremism in country after country in the Middle East by forcing or advocating change in leadership — from Iraq to Libya, Egypt to Syria.”

That’s right. Over the last 15 years, from Clinton to Bush 43 to Obama, America has stirred up all the hornet-nests in the Middle East. For the most part, those angry hornets are far away from the US, but those insects are on Russia’s southern border–starting with those lousy Chechens.

And it’s not just the Americans stirring things up; it’s flunky-countries, too. It still kills me to think back to what British Prime Minister Tony Blair said just a few weeks after 9-11. In a speech that made the Americans swoon, Blair chose to regard all the coming wars as a great opportunity for international do-gooding.

After talking up the importance of “freedom,” Blair cited all needy peoples of the Muslim world and declared, “They, too, are our cause.” What kind of bull is that? Radical Muslims kill you, and so you want to go help them? Put them on welfare? America put its blacks on welfare, and were they grateful? Did they become less violent? Yet in Blair’s mind, these same Muslims were supposed to be grateful for all this “help.” That was the theory.

Then Blair concluded with these lines:

“This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.”

And of course, that’s what Blair and Bush did–they reordered the Muslim world. But not in a good way. They made it much worse!

Look, I’m a conservative. I have my imperial ambitions, to be sure, but the last thing I want to do is send all the pieces of the world-kaleidoscope fluxing around. We’ve had enough gratuitous messing things up in our own history, whether by Ivan the Terrible or Comrade Stalin. I want order–Russian Orthodox order.

So I’ve been predicting, all along, that the Bush-Blair crusade wouldn’t work–and I’ve been right, all along. A Reuters reporter quoted me as saying on September 1:

“We need to remember what’s happened in the last decade, the number of times the United States has initiated armed conflicts in various parts of the world. Has it solved a single problem?” 

And the answer, of course, is “no.” The US made things worse. Today, look at Syria.

Indeed, by my count, the US has led six major interventions in the Muslim Asia and Africa over the last 30 years: Reagan in Lebanon, Bush 41 and Clinton in Somalia, Bush 43 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama in Libya and Egypt. None of them have worked out well. And so now, Syria!

Needless to say, I’m happy to see the Americans make fools of themselves once again. Anything that weakens Uncle Sam helps Mother Russia.

Yet even so, after all this, I could be persuaded to make a deal with Obama on Syria. Other US presidents have done just that; they have gone over the heads of the crummy little countries they were fighting in some benighted corner of the world, and reached a war-ending agreement with us Russians.

That’s what Nixon did with Brezhnev in May 1972, as Vietnam was still raging. He said, in effect, I need to get out of this stupid war, but I must look tough so I get re-elected. So you Russians, pretty please, look the other way while I bomb the crap out of the North Vietnamese. So the US can stand tall on its way out of Vietnam, secure a “decent interval,” and not obviously lose our honor. And then we’ll owe you one. 

Brezhnev went along, Nixon bombed and then got out, and the result was “detente,” a notable warming of US-Soviet relations in the 1970s.

So that’s the kind of deal that Obama could make with me today on Syria. Coincidentally, he’s coming this week to St. Petersburg for the G-20 Summit; we could easily peel off some time and figure out how to solve the Syria question.

Yet once again, Obama would have to give me something in return. What would it be? A free rein in Chechyna? A blind eye toward the incremental reclaiming of lost Soviet territories, back into the Russian Motherland? Or just a simple bribe? Who knows. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

But that rendezvous at the bridge almost certainly won’t happen, because Obama doesn’t seem to think he needs me for anything.

Indeed, he is going out of his way to stick his finger in my eye: Just on Monday, we learned that the President is going to be meeting with “gay” groups while in Russia, as a not-so-subtle statement against recent Russia’s anti-homosexuality crackdown. He is meeting with my enemies! Right in my own country! I don’t do that to him. I don’t come to America to meet with, say, the National Rifle Association.

Yes, Obama would rather cultivate the worldwide “gay” constituency than work with me to solve Syria. The Americans still think they can have it all: They think they can clobber Assad in Damascus, snub me here in Russia, and pander to their liberal sexual constituencies.

In other words, they get everything, and we get nothing. The Americans have had it so good for so long that it just doesn’t occur to them that they might have to make some tradeoffs.

We Russians know about tradeoffs. Back during the Great Patriotic War, in ’42, the Nazis were besieging both Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Red Army had to manage its resources: Do we seek to relieve Leningrad in the north and keep a million people from starving, or do we relieve Stalingrad in the south and keep the Hitlerites from capturing our oil resources? We did the latter, of course, and not only did we save the Hero City of Stalingrad, but we wiped out the entire German Sixth Army.

So yes, it was a tough tradeoff, the kind you have to make when you need to win. Hundreds of thousands in Leningrad died–including my uncle–but the tide of the war was shifted, and the USSR was saved.

Today, of course, I will make it my business to see to it that Obama gets none of what he wants. I will help Assad, I will subdue the homosexuals here in Russia, and I will be still be in power when Obama is laughed off the world stage.

Yet while I will savor the prospect of humiliating Obama, I still lament the lost opportunity–the lost opportunity to focus on the real enemy, which is Islamic radicalism. We can deal with Saudi Arabia, that’s for sure–but even they have trouble with the crazies. They would be glad to have our help. But we should do it together, so that one party doesn’t come to dominate.

The Americans, the Europeans, the Israelis, the Christian Africans, the Chinese, and the Indians all have something in common with us: The jihadis are our collective enemy. From Nigeria to Libya, from Syria to Chechnya, we see terrorism and strife.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that we can manage this problem–again, if we work together. Let’s look at the globe. The truth is that we have Islam surrounded: east, west, south and north. So we, the civilized people, should make a deal.

For starters, let Russia reoccupy the Central Asian states–the five “Stans”–that broke away during Russia’s most recent time of troubles, in the early 90s.

In return, I will turn Assad over to his fate, and so will the Chinese. Why? Because the Chinese are cursed with 50 million or so Muslims in their westernmost province, Xinjiang, which is right next to Russia. So as part of the same deal, the Chinese get to suppress–I guess that’s the nice way of putting it–their restive Muslims.

Wait, there’s more. Under this new deal, the Israelis can do what they want with the Palestinians. My fellow ex-Soviet citizen, Avigdor Lieberman, the former foreign minister of Israel–he gets this. And he’s still close to Bibi.

And together, we can all deal with those two most troublesome nations: Iran and Pakistan.

Iran is a lot closer to Russia than it is to America–I don’t want those nuts to have nuclear weapons! But I have defended Iran to keep the Americans from filling the space instead. I’d rather have the ayatollahs in Tehran than a hostile US Army, bent on still more “liberation.”

As for Pakistan, the Americans are only beginning to figure out how badly they have been played by those guys. All along, the Pakistanis have using all their US foreign-aid money to boost the Taliban.

Those Americans–they thought they were so cool for helping to push the Red Army out of Afghanistan in the 80s. And look what they got after that–Osama Bin Laden in his new home.

Now, 25 years later, the Americans are finally giving up on their missionary work in Afghanistan. If we ever have to go back to bring order there, it will be no more Mr. Nice Guy! But Pakistan is the real problem–they make Afghanistan possible.

So those are the real evil empires: Iran and Pakistan. Bringing them to heel won’t be easy, of course, but we Russians have never shied away from strong measures. The Americans could learn a lot from us.

So that’s my vision. Let’s stop worrying about silly little niceties about the right and the wrong way to fight a war. Let’s stop trying to bring democracy to barbarians. Instead, let’s bring them the only thing they understand–force.

Let’s all of us–Moscow, Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Jerusalem, Lagos, Addis Ababa, Beijing, New Delhi–come together in a new Holy Alliance, similar to that which kept Europe safe from radicalism in the early 19th century. Let’s join one another to crush the unholy, unruly, jihadi Muslims. The good Muslims will thank us for it. And if they don’t–too bad.

Admit it: You, too, think it’s a good idea.

Read more at http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/08/russia-love-letter-putin-americans/?fb_source=pubv1#sthash.WACazy1v.dpbs

Facebooktwitterrss

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!

tom is exactly what i'm looking for in a governmet employee

Long story short: Nancy Pelosi failed to certify Obama’s eligibility. He doesn’t needs to be Impeached he needs to be nullified.

DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!

When I first became aware that the Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents for the Obama-Biden ticket in the 2008 election, I was shocked and after verifying both documents as real, I wrote about it in The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie released on September 10, 2009.

The question was obvious – Why TWO different DNC Obama certification documents, and why did one have proper certification of constitutional eligibility in it, while the other had that certification deleted?

The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.

Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.

This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?

On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.

  • Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
  • Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
  • Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
  • Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
  • Different states have different state statutes on the matter
  • But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it

More interesting however, is the news I got back from a document and handwriting expert, a graphologist, which asserted the following in a detailed analysis of both documents.

dnc failed to certify obama as eligable in most states

In short, the answer to Bob Unruh’s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.

It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.

After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama.

The Story Continues

After releasing Parts I and II of this ongoing investigative report, literally hundreds of American citizens have taken it upon themselves to call their state Election Commission office and request copies of what the DNC filed in their state. Many of those documentshave since been faxed or emailed to me.

In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certificationdocument which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

The following explanations have been offered on the subject.

  • Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language
  • Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office
  • The DNC certified Obama during the primary process
  • Certification is “implied”

Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certificationof nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?

Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.

And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account.

We are talking about the highest office in this land and the most powerful office in the world. “Implied” won’t cut it when the US Constitution itself has very specific requirements for this office, even if Snopes, FactCheck and Obama bloggers don’t care, the rest of America should.

NO DNC Certification in many States

Not only did the DNC  NOT certify eligibility in their Certification of Nomination for 49 states, they didn’t certify during the primary process in many states either. In fact, in most states, it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.

While the RNC filed the same proper certifications in all states with 100% consistency, the DNC filed a variety of improper documents which essentially certified nothing. They certainly failed to certify that Barack Hussein Obama met all legal requirements for the office.

There is NO argument about it now.

Barack Hussein Obama fails to meet Article II – Section I requirements for the office of President because he is NOT a “natural born citizen” according to the foundation for that clause, the Law of Nations based upon Natural Law, which requires that one be the natural born child of TWO US citizens, born on US soil.

Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he is NOT the natural born citizen of TWO US citizens. He is the natural born son of a father who was at all times, a citizen of Kenya. Just as he adopted by natural law, his fathers name, he also adopted by natural law, his fathers citizenship. The efforts by Obama fans to use “anchor baby” arguments, claiming Hawaii as his birth place, fall short of the actual qualification.

But even more important, we now know that the DNC never certified to the contrary, except in Hawaii. The DNC never “certified” that Obama met all legal requirements for the office of president, like the RNC did for McCain.

Even in the primary filings, Obama filed documents like this one filed in Arkansas, which certifies absolutely nothing and isn’t even dated correctly at the signature line, also received from the Election Commission in Arkansas in November 2007, but allegedly signed by Obama in November 2008.

DNC Failed to certify Obama as eligible in most states

At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.

The US Senate never passed a resolution affirming that Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen” in accordance with the same definition the Senate used to make just such an affirmation on behalf of John McCain during the 2008 election.

Everyone in America knows who John McCain is, who his parents are, where he was born and that he is a true American war hero. Still, the Senate felt it necessary to pass a resolution affirming McCain’s “natural born citizen” status on the basis that he was the son of TWO US citizens, born on American soil at a US Navy base in Panama where his father was deployed at the time of John’s birth.

But nobody knows who Obama is or where he came from, as even his family in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Kenya, and no authenticated proof to the contrary has ever been presented.

Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!

If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!

The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.

Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as “constitutionally eligible” has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?

The Final Questions

  1. Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
  2. Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
  3. Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
  4. Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
  5. Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
  6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
  7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
  8. When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

After four weeks of investigation, we certainly know a lot more than we did four weeks ago. Still, this three part report raises more questions than answers.

At the end of the day, we clearly have a political Party currently in power which gained that power by ignoring or intentionally subverting the US Constitution. At a minimum, they were very sloppy and derelict in their duty. At worst, they are complicit in a crime of monumental proportions.

Article II requirements exist, they are quite clear, the parties are obligated to vet and certify their candidates, and yet the DNC failed miserably in all categories. Still, the nation assumes that all was above board. On what basis do we now make that assumption?

This is the last in this three part report. If any more answers are to be found, the American citizens will have to demand them, the courts will have to agree to allow discovery in the matter and Obama will have to become the transparent president he promised so many Americans he would be.

Armed with this information, it is now up to the American people to decide what to do with this information. But one thing is vividly clear, nobody in the DNC wants to address any of these questions and Obama’s Department of Justice is too busy running interference for their Messiah to be bothered with such minor details as the rule of constitutional law.

It’s all in the hands of the people now! I hope you choose wisely!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American’s greatest legal battles.

Williams receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

Older articles by JB Williams

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!