The Selective Service System has declined Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request to see the original copy of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration form.

Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigating Obama’s eligibility announced at a March 1 press conference that it believes there is probable cause that the registration is fraudulent.

A three-sentence March 22 letter written on behalf of Selective Service Director Lawrence G. Romo, however, dismissed the request.

“This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic,” wrote Richard S. Flahavan, associate director of public & intergovernmental affairs

Apparently refusing to take seriously Arpaio’s investigation, Flahavan referred the sheriff to the FBI.

“However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue,” Flahavan said.

In response, Arpaio yesterday sent a second letter to Romo, requesting clarification.

“If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1980, please indicate whether or not you are in possession of this document,” Arpaio wrote.

“If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff’s Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.”

Apraio gave Romo 10 days to respond.

“Given the clarity and brevity of these requests, we would appreciate your direct response within ten business days of your receipt of this letter, since we are continuing our investigation,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio charges forgery

In his March 1 press conference in Phoenix, Arpaio, together with lead investigator Mike Zullo, charged that in addition to the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, Obama’s Selective Service registration form is also a forged document.

Arpaio and Zullo came to the conclusion after comparing a copy of Obama’s form to copies of several others known to be authentic. Some were submitted from the same Post Office as Obama’s, Makiki Station in Honolulu, and in the same month and year, July 1980.

Click on image for larger view

As WND reported, Obama’s Selective Service registration has a two-digit year stamp, specifying only “80″ instead of “1980,” as specified by Post Office regulations and operating practice.

In his original letter to Romo, dated March 19, Arpaio had asked the Selective Service System to produce and provide to his investigators the original Selective Service registration form purportedly filled out by Obama.

Arpaio’s letter also asked the Selective Service System to give court-approved, forensic experts selected by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office the opportunity to examine Obama’s originally submitted form as well as any microfilm or computer copies that may exist.

MCSO investigators said they could not understand why Obama’s original Selective Service registration was being withheld from examination by duly empowered law enforcement officers and by court-approved, forensic experts when the Selective Service System had previously released at least two copies of Obama’s form to the public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

With the three-sentence written response, the Selective Service System appears to be taking a similar position to that taken by Hawaii’s Department of Health in regard to Obama’s birth certificate.

While both agencies claim to have authentic original documents in their vaults, neither is willing to allow public inspection of them.

Click the image for larger view

Please click the title headline of this post, to view the original article.

It appears there is a huge cover up going on. The agency's that supposedly holds these documents have apparently been ordered to not allow examination of them. They most likely were ordered to do this, because the documents either don't exist or are indeed fraudulent. Sheriff Joe may have to take each agency to court to force them to release the documents or admit they don't have them.

It may be a long journey, but we commend Joe for having the courage to dig the truth from behind liberal lies.

Next Step for ObamaCare is for Supreme Court Justices to Vote Tomorrow

March 29, 2012

Now that the three days of oral argument are finished, the next step for ObamaCare is the private conference of the Justices scheduled for Friday, during which they will discuss the case. Their written opinion is expected in June.

No one can be absolutely sure which way the Justices will vote, but based on oral argument, it appears that a narrow majority (5-4) are inclined to strike down the individual mandate.

It also appears a majority will find that the individual mandate is so intertwined with the “Guaranteed Issue” (preexisting coverage) and the “Community Rating” (removing the insurance companies’ ability to manage and spread risks) that those core provisions will also be struck down.

It remains unclear whether a majority will strike the entire law, although, as Justice Scalia said, it would be judicial activism for them to determine which parts are good and which parts are bad. The entire law should be stricken and Congress should begin again.

Keep praying! Even after tomorrow’s vote, it is not over.




After a visit to Phoenix to get a first-hand look at evidence collected by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his investigative team, former Margaret Thatcher policy adviser Lord Christopher Monckton says he is convinced that the document presented by the White House as Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.

Monckton, known internationally for his climate-change skepticism, told WND he didn’t pay much attention to the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate until he watched Arpaio and his team present their preliminary findings at a March 1 news conference. The sheriff’s Cold Case Posse has concluded there is probable cause that Obama’s birth document and his Selective Service registration are forgeries.

Monckton’s interest in Arpaio’s investigation came out in an interview last week on Dennis Miller’s nationally syndicated radio show.

At the invitation of a mutual friend with Arpaio, Monckton came to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on Monday to examine the evidence gathered by the team of retired law-enforcement investigators.

“My assessment is that they are right to be worried,” Monckton said in a video interview at the end of the day with WND’s Jerome Corsi. “That document is not genuine.”

The Obama birth certificate case appealed to Monckton’s instincts as a fraud detector. In his role as a policy adviser to Thatcher in the 1980s, Monckton reviewed fraud cases and developed single-page briefs with an action plan for the British prime minister.

Monckton, who has a BA and an MA from Cambridge University, is a former newspaper editor. He was a member of Thatcher’s Conservative Party but now serves as the head of the policy unit for the U.K. Independence Party.

Arpaio’s chief investigator on the eligibility case, Mike Zullo, said he thought that he and the sheriff “proved our point” to Monckton during the visit Monday.

“We went deeper today with Lord Monckton than we did in the press conference, and for him to come away comfortable with our findings, and validating our findings, is a validation for the sheriff,” he said.

Zullo affirmed that the sheriff’s office will continue to make its resources available to Monckton.

“One of the concerns of the sheriff is the media blackout that is surrounding him and this investigation, and we’re hoping that through this visit, that might change,” Zullo said.

Monckton said that he has researched some of the arguments made by people who insist that the document posted online by the White House April 27, 2011, is a valid birth certificate.

“It’s really very clear that they are unable to account for the manner in which the document, now purported to be a birth certificate, on the White House government website, has been fabricated,” he said. “They can’t replicate that fabrication by any natural or normal means.”

Monckton said it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar’s stamp were superimposed on it from another document.

Why go to all that trouble, he reasoned, “if there was an original document in some form that could simply be scanned and copied as a single entity?”

“Clearly, the suspicion must be aroused as to whether or not any such document in reality exists on the file in Hawaii,” he said.

If there is no such document, he concluded, “then the implications for those who have perpetrated what appears, at least on the face of it, to be a serious fraud, are very grave, indeed.”

WND has compiled a list of the many other high-profile personalities and leaders who have raised questions about Obama’s eligibility.


2012 WrestleMania prediction

Everybody loves the WWE, including us here at TWAU BLOG. On April 1st 2012 The Rock will go one on one with John Cena. Now, before I make my prediction on who will win the match. Let me just say I'm a fan of both Cena and the Rock.

Yes we all know Wrestling is scripted, but hey it's fun and entertaining! I have loved it since I was a kid and will probably always love it. Ok, back to my prediction. In a real life fight I'd say Cena would own the Rock, because Cena is freekishly strong. But at WrestleMania I believe the WWE has it scripted for the Rock to win.

I say this for a couple reasons, the adult male fans have been boo-ing the crap out of Cena lately. Not sure why, but they have. And I find it hard to believe the Rock would agree to fight at WrestleMania just to lose.

So though I'm sure it will be a great match, ultimately The Rock will win it!
Lou Buren~

Feel free to comment below...

Computer Virus: How to Remove It

Ughhhh! If your PC has ever been infected - or worse, if it's infected right now - you're probably groaning. Yes it's a pain, but the good news is: you can remove viruses yourself, for free.

STEP 1: Back Up Documents, Photos and Videos.
Save your important data to an external drive. Be sure to scan this drive and its contents after you remove the virus; you don't want to re-infect your computer after the clean-up.

STEP 2: Reboot in Safe Mode
You have to prevent the virus from running when you try to remove it. To do this, reboot in safe mode. Safe mode runs only the Windows operating system and a few key programs. It's a way to limit any malware from launching. Restart your computer and hit the F8 key on the keyboard repeatedly until you get to a black screen with the option of restarting in Safe Mode. Choose "Safe Mode with Networking" so that you can still get on the Internet.

STEP 3: Download Virus Scanner/Removal Tools
I recommend downloading two to three different programs to find and remove the malware. One may do the job, but three will almost certainly do the job. These three have worked for me and come highly recommended by PC Magazine and CNET:
PC Tools

STEP 4: Run Virus Scanners
Download, double-click to install, accept all the defaults they recommend, and then run each. This will take a while. When the programs locate a virus or any suspicious items, allow the programs to delete the files.

STEP 5: Reboot Normally
Reboot your computer normally; no need for safe mode. You should be back to normal now. If you have files backed up on an external drive, plug it in and use the security programs you downloaded to scan that drive before you open or transfer any files. If the virus is gone, go to step 6.

Many people will recommend you reinstall Windows or try system restore or download a registry cleaner. I say that at this point, most people should take the computer to a local PC repair shop. Where I live, it costs about $120 to get the virus removed and a clean version of Windows installed. It is a personal decision how you proceed from here, but take into account the value of your time.

STEP 6: Add Security
How did you get that virus in the first place? Even if you don't know, it's clear you need more protection. PC Tools is a real-time virus scanner that you can use as your ongoing protection, or install something like Avast or AVG. All three are very good, free, anti-virus programs. Also Microsoft's Security Essentials comes well recommended.

You should also go to the Control Panel of your computer, and in the security section click Windows Update. Make sure that it's set up to regularly update. And if you think someone else accidentally installed malware on your computer, it's a good idea to give other members of the family their own sign-on accounts that don't have admin privileges. This way, if the kids try to download software that could harbor viruses, they won't be allowed to. And yes, this means you should keep your admin password private. (Also, if they've installed any file-sharing programs, now would be a good time to remove them. P-2-P music and movie sites do expose you to a lot of junk.

STEP 7- Damage Control
Viruses are a gateway to identity theft and spam. So after you disinfect your computer it's a good idea to check your credit (annualcreditreport.com is the credit report site that the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act forced the credit unions to create for consumers to access yearly free reports). You should also change all your passwords, especially your email password and any passwords for your financial institutions. Here's my method for creating easy-to-remember rock-solid passwords.


Supreme court questions ObamaCare

The man often known as the Supreme Court's swing justice posed tough questions about the scope of the controversial health care overhaul Tuesday, suggesting he might have doubts about its validity.

Justice Anthony Kennedy did not fully tip his hand as to how he might ultimately vote in the case -- leaving all sides to ruminate for the next few months until an expected summer ruling.

On this most important day of arguments for the landmark case, most of the high court bench was thoroughly engaged for a two-hour debate over the constitutional merits of President Obama's health care law. Based on the tenor of Tuesday's arguments, the justices appeared to be closely divided and this case, as do so many other close ones at the high court, may ultimately come down to Kennedy's vote.

Early in the arguments, the veteran justice cut to the heart of the debate over the so-called individual mandate -- which was the focus of Tuesday's hearing -- asking the federal government's attorney to explain what constitutional power the government had to force all Americans to obtain health insurance.

"Can you create commerce to regulate it?" Kennedy asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli.

That question addressed the key issue about whether Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to pass laws governing economic activity among the states. Verrilli said that's not happening with the mandate; rather it is a regulation of a pre-existing health care marketplace.

Later, Kennedy described the law as unique and said the mandate "is different from what we have in previous cases -- and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

He acknowledged the Court normally gives Congress the benefit of the doubt on laws that it passes, but in this instance there was a "heavy burden of justification" necessary for supporters of ObamaCare to prove its legal worth. He also wondered about what limits to federal power would be in place if the court signed off on law.

What's not clear is if the answers provided by Verrilli about the narrowness of the law, or much else, satisfied Kennedy's apparent doubts.

The comments and questions from the other justices generally suggested they would fall along familiar ideological divisions. If that ultimately happens, it will be a 5-4 decision on this fundamental issue that will determine the law's fate.

At the start of his arguments, repeatedly interrupted by a scratchy throat, Verrilli plainly stated that "the Affordable Care Act addresses a fundamental and enduring problem in our health care system and our economy." That problem the ACA attempts to fix is the ability of insurance companies to drop or deny coverage based on preexisting medical conditions or other reasons.

The government's fix involved a requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance. This solved two problems for lawmakers. It would lead to health coverage for all people-a major issue for the president's base -- and it also covers the increased insurance costs by forcing these newly insured people, including many healthy people with minimal health care needs, into the system.

"So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve," Justice Samuel Alito said.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likened the ACA to the Social Security Act, which the Court ruled constitutional, as an example of where younger healthy people cover the payouts for older and infirm Americans.

In this context, she offered a simple explanation for that practice: "If you're going to have insurance, that's how insurance works."

It's also an area that Justice Elena Kagan touched upon. "And this is especially true, isn't it, General Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?" she asked.

Verrilli agreed, saying people never know when they'll need coverage.

It was an answer Justice Antonin Scalia jumped on.

"We're not stupid. They're going to buy insurance later. They're young and need the money now. When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us," he said.

Unlike Scalia and Alito who were more animated with their comments expressing doubt about the law's validity, Chief Justice John Roberts plainly offered some of his own concerns that at times mirrored Kennedy's.

He used the phrase "all bets are off" twice when talking about the ways future Congresses will attempt to fix perceived problems if the law survives. "There's this health care market.

Everybody's in it. So we can regulate it, and we're going to look at a particular serious problem, which is how people pay for it. But next year, they can decide everybody's in this market, we're going to look at a different problem now, and this is how we're going to regulate it. And we can compel people to do things -- purchase insurance, in this case. Something else in the next case, because you've -- we've accepted the argument that this is a market in which everybody participates."

Some of the justices wondered whether the government could compel people to exercise, eat broccoli or buy certain cars if the mandate is upheld. Verrilli maintained that wouldn't be the case.

"The (health insurance) market is regulated at the federal level in very significant ways already," Verrilli told the chief justice. "The question is, is there a limit to the authority that we're advocating here under the commerce power, and the answer is yes, because we are not advocating for a power that would allow Congress to compel purchases."

The government's defense of the ACA also relied upon the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause and taxing power. Those issues did briefly come up during the two-hour long arguments but were very much overshadowed by the debate over the mandate's relationship to federal authority in regulating commerce.

Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, did not speak in the courtroom. But his views on the expansion of the Commerce Clause have been clearly articulated in past cases where he objected to increased federal power. Based on those writings, it is widely assumed that he will similarly object to the scheme presented here.

Lawyers for the 26 states opposed to ObamaCare and the National Federation of Independent Businesses also faced tough questions from the justices. But by the time each took the lectern in the second hour of arguments, the Court's direction seemed clear.

For the second day in a row, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were in the courtroom. A number of prominent lawmakers from Capitol Hill were also in attendance. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and major supporter of the law, looked concerned over the questions Kennedy asked.

Wednesday's final day of arguments will be split into two sessions. The first will examine whether the rest of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate if the high court strikes down that provision. The last case looks at the law's provision to expand Medicaid coverage. The challenging states call that part of the law coercive.


So the Supreme court heard arguments on ObamaCare today, and the justices asked some tough questions. We have four liberal justices and four conservative justices. Then there is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is being called the swing justice. Because his decision will be the deal breaker on the issue. It looks good, Justice Kennedy seems to dislike the individual mandate which is the core of ObamaCare.

The federal government couldn't care less about people receiving healthcare. This is nothing more than a huge power grab ploy. And the only people on the Obamacare band wagon are people who have made a life of receiving government hand outs. People who have lived on food stamps for years. The bums who constantly seek freebies paid for by the working class.

Join us in prayer that ObamaCare is struck down! And please make your voice heard on the issue.
It is unconstitutional for congress/government to try to make citizens purchase anything! We are their boss, not the other way around.


Santorum: Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”

Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: I'm disappointed in Santorum for saying something like this. It's the words of a sore loser, and it sends the wrong message to American voters. If Romney wins the nomination, of course he'll be better than Obama. I have said time and time again, anybody would be better than Obama. He needs to go!

I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I understand that Obama is destroying our nation from within. Advocating and passing wicked laws that undermine our morals and our constitution. He claims to be a Christian, but he advocates abortion and homosexuality. It's been clearly shown that he's a socialist. And he's spending our nation into oblivion. Of course Romney would be better than Obama! And I'm disappointed that Santorum would say such a thing.


BOCA RATON, Fla. – Video of a black college student going berserk in evolution class is becoming a national sensation after classmates recorded the astonishing meltdown during which she threatened to kill her professor and all white people.

The obscenity-filled outburst took place at Florida Atlantic University, where Professor Stephen Kajiura was reviewing with his evolution class for a midterm exam.

That’s when Jonatha Carr, 24, of Coral Springs, Fla., interrupted him, asking: “How does evolution kill black people?”

When the professor tried to explain that evolution doesn’t kill anyone, that’s when Carr erupted into a vulgarity-packed, violent rage, uncorking a barrage of F-bombs on Kajiura and her classmates, who recorded her fit on their phone cameras.

Among Carr’s ranting, she was heard to say, “Every ten thousand white f—in’ white motherf—ers would die,” as well as shouting at the teacher, “You better shut the f— up before I f—ing kill you.”

Carr’s classmate, Rachel Bustamante, told the University Press that Kajiura was discussing attraction between peacocks when Carr raised her hand to ask her question about evolution. She asked it four times, and became increasingly upset each time Kajiura’s answer failed to satisfy her.

A witness who contacted police claimed, “No one was comfortable in the room. I realized the situation was escalating and went out to call the police.”

Moments later, Carr walked down an aisle of the class and bashed the palm of her hand into a male student’s forehead.

“She became increasingly belligerent,” Kajiura told the Press. “It was at this point, a highly emotionally charged individual who was no longer capable of responding rationally. She was threatening to kill both me and the students in the class.”

“Some [FAU technician] came in and ordered her to get out,” he continued. “He ordered her to leave the room, and they got into a physical altercation. Several other individuals jumped in and tried to help him.”

An FAU police report indicates Carr was Tasered three times for failing to comply with police orders. She also reportedly fought staff at the South County Mental Health Center in Delray Beach, Fla., where she was taken for psychiatric evaluation.

Kajiura said the entire event took no more than 10 minutes, and he resumed his lecture, despite an exodus of about half the class.

“No one could concentrate,” Bustamante said. “Everyone gave up and started texting.”

The Press says Bustamante gave the instructor a copy of the fight, which she recorded and posted on Facebook and YouTube.

Kaijura praised his students, saying they were “Absolutely fantastic. They acted responsibly.”


Not quite sure what set this female off, she very well may have been under the influence of drug(s). But she definitely should go to jail for making threats to kill people. These are the types of people that Obama and other liberals are breeding into our society.


Adultery is a horrible sin

A powerful testimony from a former adulterer. If your an adulterer, you can break the bondage chains, and be free. Jesus is the chain breaker.

What kind of people are the liberal's creating?

The liberal agenda is creating some pretty nasty people. The whole being politically correct, atheist, pro-abortion way of thinking. The idea that they don't have to follow rules and that they are entitled to everything. Liberals have people thinking they are entitled to everything for doing nothing.

The video below, shows what type of lying criminals the liberal agenda is creating.

California's state prison system is full of these lying, manipulative, criminals. And they just get worse and worse. Because instead of tough on crime tactics, they get spoiled and pampered in prison. Sad but true.

It's time that the law makers stop showering felons with goodies, and start giving their victims justice by punishing these guys correctly.




“America’s toughest sheriff” says there is “tons” more potentially shocking information on Barack Obama in connection with his probe into the president’s eligibility, and he calls the media’s suppression of his findings of a likely forged presidential birth certificate and Selective Service Card “probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States.”

“I’m not going after the president to keep him off a ballot or anything else, but that could happen,” Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. “I’m going at it strictly as a law-enforcement guy investigating a possible forgery and fraud. I’m sticking with that, but I’ll tell you one thing. We got tons of other information that could be very shocking, too, but I’m sticking now with just the [forgery] investigation and possible criminal violations.”

The lawman from Maricopa County made the comments March 16 on a national radio show hosted by Roger Hedgecock. (Scroll down for video.)

As WND reported March 1, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.

He stressed on the radio show his original intent with the posse was to put to rest all the claims suggesting Obama was not meeting the constitutional requirements to hold the presidency.

“I told these guys, ‘I want you to do a good job. I hope we clear the president,’” he explained. “I said give me the microfiche in Hawaii to show that he was born in that hospital. Give us the microfiche. I said that six months ago. And that would clear everything up. But as we went into it with an open mind, now we’re coming to a conclusion that we may have some forged documents revolving around this situation.”

When asked about making an arrest, Arpaio said, “We’re trying to identify any alleged forger. We haven’t done that yet. … I’m not blaming the president, but if they’re forged, someone has to be responsible for doing that.”

The sheriff also said that on Friday, he made a decision about where to send Obama’s Selective Service Card in order to have that agency “help us or do an independent investigation.”

“We have nothing to hide. We’re bringing it to their attention, and see what happens,” Arpaio said. “My problem is, there’s a lot of conflicts out here to get somebody to look into this. [Regarding] the media … this is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States. When I go to the toilet, I make it in national news. … I just can’t believe the media, including the cable media blocking this thing out.”

Today, Arpaio issued a statement saying he sent his request for assistance to the U.S. Selective Service System, asking its director, Lawrence Romo, to respond to him within 30 days on whether or not his national office will provide the sheriff with the original document, and if that office will move forward with an investigation of its own.

On Hedgecock’s radio show, Arpaio noted:

“I guess common sense would be to send it to them. The Selective Service director is appointed by the president. … They only have 136 employees in the whole organization. I presume if I did that, what do you think they’re gonna to do with it? The director who was appointed from San Antonio, Texas, eight months into the Obama administration, what do you think he’s gonna do? He’s probably gonna call some guy at the White House if he can get up to the chief of staff to ask some advice, and then what are they gonna do? Give it to the attorney general? I don’t know. … So I’m fighting big battles here.”

Arpaio made special note about the issue of Obama’s possibly forged Selective Service Card.

“We had a press conference. A lot of people came. They were snickering, trying to embarrass me, [saying] this is a pony show trying to get publicity,” he said. “However, when we showed the Selective Service Card on the screen, you could hear a pin drop.”

Because of inconsistencies on the form itself – including an unusually incomplete date stamp – sheriff’s investigators suspect the form, which was allegedly filled out in Honolulu in 1980, may be a forgery.

WND is reporting today that Arpaio is seeking Obama’s original registration card from Selective Service.

Sheriff’s investigators were able to replicate the alleged forgery by obtaining a circa 1980 pica stamp and a circa “2008″ date plug. Investigators were able to clearly demonstrate the “80″ (which should have actually read 1980) in Obama’s Selective Service Registration form resulted from cutting out the “08″ from an authentic “2008″ date plug, and inverting the “08″ to read “80″ when the cut plug was loaded into the year slot on the 1980 pica stamp.

Meanwhile, although Arpaio did not focus on Obama’s Social Security Number at his news conference, WND has also reported the president may be using a fraudulent number, another important piece of information the national news media continue to suppress.

The Arpaio findings are not the only items the media are refusing to cover. As WND reported yesterday, a full-blown cover-up appears to be taking place in connection with WND’s disclosure about a retired U.S. postman who has signed a sworn affidavit suggesting Obama was a foreign-born student who was receiving financial help to go to Harvard from the parents of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

See excerpts of WND’s interviews with mailman Allen Hulton:

Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse began its investigation in August after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition asking him to undertake the investigation. The tea partiers indicated if a forged birth certificate had been used to place Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Then last December, Obama’s Justice Department held its own news conference to claim Arpaio’s office committed civil-rights violations against Hispanics, including racial profiling and heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged complaints.

When asked about that during Friday’s radio show, Arpaio said, “They want to control my organization, [imposing] monitors and everything else. I’m not gonna go for that. So I guess they’ll sue me and we’ll go to court and put the real facts out. The real facts that they’re going to have to come up with including all their so-called witnesses that they won’t identify. They won’t give us anything.”

Obama would like nothing better than to burn our constitution to ashes. Support Sheriff Joe in his efforts and at the very least vote this monster out of our white house.
Lou Buren

DDO, a really fun MMO game

Online gaming is getting more and more popular. I have to admit DDO is one of my favorites. I currently have a level 18 artificer named Louchious. I play on the Khyber server. So feel free to look me up if you play. I'd love to hear what some of your favorite quests are. Leave a comment, and let us know... Thanks~

Romney, the GOP nominee?

I'm not so sure Romney isn't just the lesser of two evils. But at any rate, I'll support him for president over Obama. Because Obama is blatantly evil.

I believe Newt Gingrich would have been the best choice out of the options we have. But people have been making some strange decisions over the past few years. I guess the fall of America and mankind as a whole is inevitable.

Cling to Jesus my friends, pray and live life according to the way the Bible teaches. Jesus is our hope. The world leaders are all corrupt, and the American people have lost their way. Until we regain our foundation and put GOD back in America. Our nation is lost.

Comments? thoughts?
I'm so tired of watching Obama trample all over our beloved constitution. It's time to vote him out! Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG



The White House’s late-week release of an executive order has sent the online community into an uproar, worried that President Obama had secretly provided himself means to institute martial law in America.

In the common practice of dumping government documents on a Friday afternoon, just as the news cycle is wrapping up for the week – a move critics say allows the administration to avoid widespread coverage of embarrassing actions – the White House released an executive order on “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

Filled with language about “government-owned equipment” and a “defense executive reserve,” among other vague statements, rumors began to spread that the executive order expanded the president’s power to do everything from seizing whole industries to drafting private armies.

A Canada Free Press article titled “Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!” spread concerns of gasoline ration cards; while an Examiner article declared the order would “nationalize everything” and “allow for a civilian draft.” Facebook, email and Twitter were suddenly abuzz, and even the extremely popular Drudge Report posted a link to the White House release under the title “Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order.”

But are the cries of martial law and expanding executive power justified?

No, says William A. Jacobson, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School.

“If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language,” warns Jacobson. “There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.”

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

Obama’s executive order specifically assigns “executive departments and agencies responsible for plans and programs related to national defense” to do five things:

“identify” requirements for emergencies;

“assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base;

“be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat;

“improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense;

“foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors.

Later provisions in the order establish the protocol for government agencies to purchase equipment needed in times of national emergency and even make loans to ensure the availability of that equipment.

Despite the vague nature of the functions, none mention anything about martial law or seizing private property. The five functions are also identical to those identified in Clinton’s EO 12919.

So why did Obama issue the order at all?

A side-by-side analysis of Obama’s order compared to Clinton’s, conducted by Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure.

“If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the cabinet itself,” Morrissey writes. “In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (10 in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

“I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems,” adds Jacobson, “but unless and until someone [demonstrates any expansion of powers in the order], I’ll consider this to be routine.”

“The timing of this release might have looked a little strange,” Morrissey concludes, “but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: I have often thought Obama may try to declare martial law as a means of avoiding being elected out of office. If he does declare martial law and is in office longer than he should be despite the election. This guy may be the anti-Christ after all.

I think he may have organized the occupy rioters via his class warfare tactics, to justify declaring martial law. I guess at this point, only time will tell.


'Obamacare' to Cost Twice as Much?

The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama's health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive -- twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.

In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO's update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.

"The bill spends more than the president promised, it covers fewer people -- probably 2 million fewer people -- and it taxes more than was expected," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee.

The first estimates of the cost of the health care bill included three years before the bill even took effect, so there was little or no spending, making the full 10 years look less expensive. Sessions notes that the $1.76 trillion estimate includes only the costs of coverage, not implementation and other costs. He argues that all those drive the price up even further over the first full 10 years of the law.


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: This ObamaCare health law is nothing more than social slavery. You don't make a law that forces people to obtain something. When you do that, it opens the door to forcing you to do other things. It's a dangerous trend and can destroy our freedoms.



Donald Trump's note praises Sheriff Joe Arpaio for investigating President Obama's eligibility.

NEW YORK – Billionaire Donald Trump is heaping praise and encouragement on Sheriff Joe Arpaio for the Arizona lawman’s probe into the authenticity of President Obama’s purported birth certificate and his eligibility for office.

WND has confirmed with Michael Cohen, a top aide to Trump, that “The Donald” personally penned a handwritten note of congratulations to Arpaio following the Maricopa County sheriff’s Cold Case Posse news conference March 1 in Phoenix.

Having printed out an Associated Press report of the event that featured a photograph of Arpaio and published by the Huffington Post, Trump penned diagonally in the upper left hand corner, “Joe – Great going – You are the only one with the ‘guts’ to do this – Keep up the good fight – Donald Trump.”

Last April, after the White House released the long-form birth certificate that Arpaio’s law-enforcement investigators now have probable cause to believe to be a forgery, Trump told WND’s senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi that he would be willing to consider going public once again on Obama’s birth certificate if and when the issue resurfaced as a major news item.

Trump has consistently maintained he has doubts the Obama birth certificate released by the White House is genuine, even though he has decided to take a low profile on the issue in recent months.


The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crew’s camera snatched and hurled by comedian Chris Rock when he asked the star why he has called the Tea Party racist (video below).

“I was stunned,” said Mr. Mattera in an exclusive interview with Big Hollywood. “Tea Party members get called the worst things imaginable and still remain peaceful. But ask a big Hollywood celebrity to explain himself and the guy goes ballistic, wrestles the camera away from my camerawoman, chucks it 50 feet, and then challenges me to a fight. It’s unreal. And it perfectly illustrates why I decided to investigate and writeHollywood Hypocrites.”

The confrontation, which took place around 2:00 a.m. on January 23, 2012, at Spike Lee’s Sundance Film Festival after party at Tao night club, ended with Chris Rock challenging the conservative author to a fight, says Mr. Mattera:

“Chris Rock shouted, ‘You want to throw down? Let’s throw down right now!’ Of course, he was standing safely behind two bodyguards when he said it.”

The clash was ignited when Jason Mattera inquired about disparaging comments Chris Rock made about the Tea Party in an Esquire article in 2011:

When I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism's almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They're going crazy. They're insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they're fucking knocked out. And that's what's going on in the country right now.

Jason Mattera says his confrontation with Chris Rock is just the opening salvo in a series of forthcoming ambush celebrity interviews with some of the big name stars he chronicles in Hollywood Hypocrites.

“Hollywood celebrities preach to us to vote for Barack Obama and his leftist policies, yet not even they live by the values Obama and the progressive left stand for,” said Mattera. “If conservatives and Republicans are going to win in 2012, we must muzzle Obama’s backers. And that starts with a full-scale investigation of the positions they take and the lives they actually lead.”

Among the celebrity targets Jason Mattera’s investigates in his new book are:

Alec Baldwin

Matt Damon

Leonardo DiCaprio


Bruce Springsteen

Whoopi Goldberg


Arianna Huffington

Jon Bon Jovi

Spike Lee

Andrew Breitbart endorsed Jason Mattera’s book, saying that it “unleashes a barrage of body blows to Hollywood’s holier-than-thou limousine liberals that may make them think twice next time they open their pretty mouths.”

As for when he plans to release his next celebrity interview for Hollywood Hypocrites, Mr. Mattera says: “As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ‘You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!’ The next video is likely to drop sometime next week.”


Liberals get extremely angry when they are asked to explain their twisted views on things. They lack having Jesus in their lives, so their views are very twisted and distorted.



A stunning challenge has been issued in the argument over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and it comes from a lead investigator for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Ariz.

Arpaio’s team of volunteer professional law enforcement officers and attorneys concluded after a six-month investigation that there is probable cause that forgery and fraud were committed in the process through which Obama released a “Certificate of Live Birth” image at the White House last year.

Arpaio has assured those interested that the investigation is continuing and earlier suggested that the appropriate avenue might be for Congress to begin an investigation.

The challenge came from lead investigator Mike Zullo, who was interviewed by the CBS Channel 5 affiliate in Phoenix. Reporter Heather Moore pointed out that it was Zullo’s name and face that was being attached to the investigative report, and she asked how comfortable was he making the allegations.

“Very comfortable,” he said, citing experts the investigators consulted during their 2,200 hours of work. “You can build the document. You can’t do that if you scan [a document],”

Then she asks what he would say to “naysayers” who claim the allegations are just a bunch of “B.S.”

“Prove it,” he said. “We did.”

He added, “We proved our point. That document’s created.”

Specifically, he said the image that was released by Obama never was an original hard copy that was scanned, as the White House described. It was instead, he said, an idea created in a computer.

The CBS affiliate report already has had more than half a million views, meaning that the response the station got from the White House on the issue, a reference to a year-old statement by Obama that such issues are “side shows,” may not be sufficient much longer.

Arpaio, at his original news conference announcing the results, said he was not accusing Obama of any crime.

But he said the evidence uncovered shows “violations of the law. We’re investigation those crimes.”

At that time, the posse confirmed it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate.

In fact, Zullo reported, “We have identified the computer manufacture, [and] where that document resided 20 minutes before it was uploaded onto the White House website.”

The issue of Obama’s birth certificate centers on his eligibility to be president, since the Constitution requires that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but at the time the document was written, many experts believe it referred to the offspring of two citizens of the country. Some critics say the place of birth is irrelevant, since Obama has written that Barack Obama Sr., his father, never was a U.S. citizen.

The posse also said evidence suggests the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.

Arpaio launched the investigation at the request of 250 of his constituents. He assigned it to independent volunteers so that taxpayers would bear none of the costs of the investigation.


Obama says we shouldn't get distracted by side-shows? He is a side-show! And the reason he doesn't want you to pay attention to Sheriff Joe, is because he knows Joe has figured him out.

It's about time that some mainstream media has started reporting on this. Kudos to CBS NEWS!
Obama's days are numbered, he'll either be impeached for fraud or defeated in the election.
If justice is served correctly, he'll be impeached and imprisoned for crimes against America and its people.


Former NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design

LOS ANGELES – NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has landed robotic explorers on the surface of Mars, sent probes to outer planets and operates a worldwide network of antennas that communicates with interplanetary spacecraft.

Its latest mission is defending itself in a workplace lawsuit filed by a former computer specialist who claims he was demoted -- and then let go -- for promoting his views on intelligent design, the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.

David Coppedge, who worked as a "team lead" on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons, alleges that he was discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work. Coppedge lost his "team lead" title in 2009 and was let go last year after 15 years on the mission.

Opening statements are expected to begin Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court after two years of legal wrangling in a case that has generated interest among supporters of intelligent design. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design, are both supporting Coppedge's case.

"It's part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we've seen that for several years," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. "This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101."

The National Center for Science Education, which rejects intelligent design as thinly veiled creationism, is also watching the case and has posted all the legal filings on its website.

"It would be unfortunate if the court took what seems to be a fairly straightforward employment law case and allowed it to become this tangled mess of trying to adjudicate scientific matters," said Josh Rosenau, NCSE's programs and policy director. "It looks like a pretty straightforward case. The mission that he was working on was winding down and he was laid off."

Coppedge's attorney, William Becker, says his client was singled out by his bosses because they perceived his belief in intelligent design to be religious. Coppedge had a reputation around JPL as an evangelical Christian and other interactions with co-workers led some to label him as a Christian conservative, Becker said.

In the lawsuit, Coppedge says he believes other things also led to his demotion, including his support for a state ballot measure that sought to define marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and his request to rename the annual holiday party a "Christmas party."

"David had this reputation for being a Christian, for being a practicing one. He did not go around evangelizing or proselytizing. But if he found out that someone was a Christian he would say, `Oh that's interesting, what denomination are you?"' Becker said.

"He's not apologizing for who he is. He's an evangelical Christian."

In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge's claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his "team lead" status because of ongoing conflicts with others.

Caltech lawyers contend Coppedge was one of two Cassini technicians and among 246 JPL employees let go last year due to planned budget cuts.

While the case has attracted interest because of the controversial nature of intelligent design, it is at its heart a straightforward discrimination case, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees such basic rights as freedom of speech and religion.

"The question is whether the plaintiff was fired simply because he was wasting people's time and bothering them in ways that would have led him to being fired regardless of whether it was about religion or whether he was treated worse based on the religiosity of his beliefs," said Volokh. "If he can show that, then he's got a good case."

Coppedge, who began working for JPL as a contractor in 1996 and was hired in 2003, is active in the intelligent design sphere and runs a website that interprets scientific discoveries through the lens of intelligent design. His father authored an anti-evolution book and founded a Christian outreach group.

He is also a board member for Illustra Media, a company that produces video documentaries examining the scientific evidence for intelligent design. The company produces the videos that Coppedge was handing out to co-workers, said Becker, his attorney.

His main duties at JPL were to maintain computer networks and troubleshoot technical problems for the mission. In 2000, he was named "team lead," serving as a liaison between technicians and managers for nearly a decade before being demoted in 2009.

He sued in April 2010 alleging religious discrimination, retaliation and harassment and amended his suit to include wrongful termination after losing his job last year.

Coppedge is seeking attorney's fees and costs, damages for wrongful termination and a statement from the judge that his rights were violated, said Becker.


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: For years now, people have been fired from jobs when they have talked about God creating the universe etc. There is a very extreme bias against anyone who is Christian in the mainstream science field. Of course the theory of evolution is completely false, a made up lie. But mainstream secular scientists claim it to be 100% fact. And when a fellow scientist starts talking about God creating, that person is quickly fired to silence them. There is a documentary on DVD that documents the vast list of scientists fired over the years for exactly that reason. The DVD is called: Expelled, no intelligence allowed. Click here to purchase the DVD. I highly recommend it.

Above is the trailer for Expelled, however it's now on DVD. It's very sad that the mainstream science community is so bias against God, they deny him as creator. They need to understand that God created them, the earth, and the universe in six literal days, around 6,000 years ago.

The idea that anything is millions of years old is completely made up, and totally absurd. It's all part of the atheist agenda.

For more info on the evolution lie, and creation by God visit: Answers In Genesis.


Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.


Obama is acting like we live in a one world government, seeking permission from NATO instead of congress. This usurper is a flat out criminal of so many crimes. Please join us in prayer, that Obama is removed from office one way or another.

It's sickening how he tramples the constitution.


Kony 2012

Our prayers go out to the people of Uganda. This evil killer needs to be arrested and put to death for his crimes. Please join us in praying that he is captured. Our heart goes out to the children he has abducted and killed.

It is our Christian and American duty to do all we can to stop this evil.

The right to protest

Harold Hodge believes in the power of protest.

“It’s important,” he said as he walked on First Street in front of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. "I believe people should have the right to protest and picket against the government.”

But, he says, it’s a right that is disappearing.

“They,” he said, as he pointed up at the white columns, “are taking it away from us.”

In January 2011, Hodge was standing on the public plaza above the steps of the court wearing a sign around his neck. It read “The U.S. Gov. allows police to illegally murder and brutalize African-Americans and Hispanic people."


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: I believe people should have the right to PEACEFULLY protest. But with what's been happening with the occupy rioters I can see why they have to designate certain area's that people are allowed to protest in. Let me explain what peacefully protesting means; You don't break anything, you follow orders given to you by police. You hold up your sign or whatever and you stay out of people's way. Do not block progress of every day people living their lives.

I have never been a fan of protesters myself, I believe it to be a total waste of time. Because, nothing has ever changed because of any protest. And all it really does, is show us how much of an unemployed population we have.

Unedited Obama race video unveiled

This will most likely be the deal breaker for Obama. I'm sure this will cost him the election.
Obama has ties with very radical people. Obama is the main reason why we have the occupy riots happening. He is trying to divide the American people, and it seems to be working. Obama's main tactic for this election is class warfare. Turning people against one another, so they don't focus on how wicked he is.

Sheriff Joe's investigation on Obama qualifications.

You'll notice the media that was there at the News conference wasn't interested in the facts found out about Obama, but where there to attack Sheriff Joe. They are apparently paid off by the FEDS.

This was an actual investigation by a real law enforcement agency. And they found that Obama is a fraud. However, mainstream media is either too afraid to report the truth, or have been paid off by the FEDS to not cover it.

But bookmark our web site, we'll keep you up to date on all news relevant to Obama. And current events around the world. Let us be your one spot stop.


NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here.


The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s review of the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate today unloaded a bombshell about the case: that he was told by sources members of the media were threatened with federal investigations should they continue to report on the birth certificate issue.

Lead investigator Mike Zullo told WND that as he was preparing information to be presented to the public “it was clear that the mainstream media was not going to be in attendance” at the sheriff’s scheduled new conference, where he revealed facts suggesting both fraud and forgery in the image of a Hawaiian birth certificate that the White House released as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility for office last year.

“During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs,” Zullo said. The threats were so intimidating that some individuals quit their positions over safety concerns for their families, he said.

So the problem became to get the information to the American public in spite of an intentional media blackout, since citizens still must make critical leadership decisions about their government through the election process.

And the result was an ebook that includes the details from the investigation, the evidence that was accumulated, and the questions that remain for Arpaio and his investigators to continue pursuing.

Zullo has been blasted in recent days for coordinating that book project with longtime political writer Dr. Jerome Corsi. Much of the online criticism stems from a single AP article that links Zullo to “well-known political conspiracy writer” Jerome Corsi and includes a statement that Corsi “denied using Sheriff Joe Arpaio … as a promotional tool to sell his books and theories.”

It cites Zullo’s being listed “as the co-author” of the ebook. But it fails to mention the evidence cited by the investigation suggesting those alleged fraud and forgery crimes.

Zullo told WND that he had no interest in working on an ebook, but was faced with the question about how to get the information to the American people absent national media coverage. There were interests outside of Arizona, he was convinced, making obvious efforts to have the information closed down and never allowed to move beyond the borders of the state of Arizona.

Zullo told WND that as an investigator he sought transparency in the information released to the media and the people and he just wanted the information made available to everyone who wished a closer look. Zullo said it was not an easy decision. He knew he would be ridiculed by the media if the information was released, but the alternative of allowing the information to be squelched and people kept in the dark was just too much of an injustice. He decided to allow the ebook project in order to disseminate the facts of the case: that there is probable cause to believe Obama’s birth certificate document is a forgery – and the implications that has for the American system of government.

Corsi confirmed that Zullo was very reluctant to be in a position where he found himself. The prospect of being reimbursed financially from his investigation never was Zullo’s intention. But Corsi pointed out that Zullo contributed six months of his time to the investigation. Corsi also said he was acutely aware of the financial sacrifice Zullo made over the last six months, having to devote much of his time to the investigation. The posse investigate was not, in fact, subsidized by taxpayers.

The bigger question, Zullo said, is just exactly how would an investigator or a law enforcement officer ignore findings that suggest a deception at the highest levels of politics in the nation. And how does the national media willfully ignore it. Zullo said this is a very serious and alarming concern. It brings into question the transparent objective vetting of presidential candidates.

“If the evidence took us the other way, and the sheriff proclaimed this thing to be authentic, the news would have traveled from Arizona to New Jersey to Hawaii in milliseconds,” he said. “If I wrote a book about it I would have been hailed a hero.

“All we’re trying to do here is get this information out there and keep it out there. Had the mainstream media done their job, we wouldn’t have done [this book].”

He said now media members have started calling him a “kook” and an “old geezer” for reporting on the facts that resulted from the investigation.

“The media just wants to come destroy people’s credibility,” he said. “They’re trying to vet [investigators] when they should be vetting the next presidential candidate of the United States.”

He said that many people didn’t come forward with their knowledge about Obama “out of fear.”

“The information that we got, which these people refused to step forward with out of fear, but shared afterward, came independently – they don’t even know each other – from distance parts of the country, that investigations of major media outlets [were planned] if they continued reporting,” he said.

“Our system is broken because the vetting process used to rely on the free press. We don’t have a free press any more,” he said.

Although the numbers may have been small, there was support for Zullo’s perspective, even in the media.

In a column at American Thinker, Cindy Simpson quoted Ronald Reagan in support of Zullo’s work.

“Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, ‘Trust, but verify,’” she wrote. “President Obama told us he released his official long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. Can we trust him, and should we verify?

“Most of the reporters’ questions at the end of [Arpaio's] press conference were statements in defense of Obama, and the subsequent coverage by major news outlets asserted that rumors about the president’s birth certificate were ‘debunked’ and ‘discredited,’ but gave no details of the debunking or discrediting,” she marveled.

“As the sheriff also noted at the conference, no specific or official investigation has ever been reported, unless we can count Savannah Guthrie, apparently the only reporter allowed to touch and photograph the original long-form certificate after it was released, or the two representatives of Factcheck (neither noted as having an relevant professional experience in document examination) who photographed the short-form certification posted in 2008,” she wrote.

“To paraphrase another favorite Reagan quotation, ‘It isn’t so much that the mainstream media are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so,’” she added.

She noted that after they attacked the message, then the reporters at the news conference “questioned the motives of the sheriff and even the political affiliation of the posse’s lead detective, Mike Zullo.”

She said the focal point for a true reporter would be the issue at hand – the validity of Obama’s documents.

“Was the document posted by the White House a scan of an original certified document? Based on the analysis of the posse’s experts, it was not. In fact, the posse has traced the image to a specific computer where it resided a mere 20 minutes before it was uploaded, and has identified a ‘person of interest.’”

She suggest three possible answers: purely innocent anomalies to “touch up” an image and someone purposely tinkering to create the appearance of suspicion.

“Third, if the certificate is indeed an intentional forgery, we have witnessed the greatest fraud of the century,” she said.

“In my local paper, there was not even a single line devoted to the posse’s stunning assertions. What happened to ‘Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The posted birth certificate of a sitting president a possible forgery!’”

Nick Martin at TPM editorialized that the book sale “gives Zullo a financial motive to continue stoking the flames of a conspiracy theory that has been debunked numerous times by an array of independent investigations.”

But the details of those investigations were absent.

The sheriff himself also noted the single side of the issue that was being reported.

In a commentary in the Arizona Republican, he wrote of reporters, “They were practically salivating at the opportunity to embarrass me, my highly capable group of volunteer investigators and literally anyone else who would dare show in interest in the possibility that this investigation would lead to any real credible evidence into what they claim has already been ‘looked into’ or ‘widely debunked.’”

Arpaio also has defended the book.

“We needed a book precisely because we knew in advance the mainstream media would impose a blackout on any serious law enforcement investigation into Obama’s identification documents and his eligibility to be president,” Arpaio told WND.

He explained that the book is intended to bypass the filter the establishment media tries to impose on news. WND provided a live-stream Internet broadcast of the Arpaio press conference last Thursday for the same reason.

Martin wrote that the sheriff also failed to mention that much of the evidence concerned questions about the digital scan “that was already investigated and proven to be false” by another investigative agency, “National Review Online.”

There were signs, however, that the national media’s silence was creating concerns.

Wrote Jeff Crouere at the St. Tammany Slidell Sentry: “Despite a mountain of evidence and new allegations of fraud, the national news media refuses to cover the Obama birth certificate scandal.”

He cited the discoveries from the Arpaio investigation.

“Such a bombshell should have led the national news coverage throughout the country. Instead, it was completely ignored by a corrupt network of media elites who are decidedly liberal and wholeheartedly support Obama’s re-election,” he wrote. “The vast majority of the American people have been denied the truth by a media who want to shield Obama.”

He called reporters nationally “liberal sycophants” and said, “If these allegations had been made about a Republican president there would have been a media firestorm greater than Watergate and Iran/Contra combined.

“Not surprisingly, the media acted like partisan Democrats in the news conference after Arpaio’s team announced their findings. Instead of asking questions about the Obama documents, the reporters were more interested in asking Sheriff Arpaio about his political affiliation, his relationship with the tea party and his motives for the investigation.

“What the media conveniently overlooked was the expert testimony and the evidence presented by Arpaio’s group of investigators. Potentially, a major crime has been committed at the highest levels of our government, and the media attacked the messengers.”


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: So to answer the question that so many of my followers have been asking. "Why isn't the national media covering this"? The answer is, the FEDS are threatening them with job loss, and possibly worse things. But info sources like WND and ourselves (TWAU BLOG) will not be intimidated. We will continue to put the truth out there. And no matter what the mainstream media wants to think, people want to know about Obama being a farse.

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.

While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.

The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.

While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.

"I think that it's been pretty well established for a long time that freedom of speech is one area in which people do surrender some of their basic rights in entering the armed forces," said former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"Good order and discipline require the military maintain respect for the chain of command," Glazier said. "That includes prohibiting speech critical of the senior officers in that chain of command — up to and including the commander in chief."

According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform can't sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president.

In January, an Army reservist wearing camouflaged fatigues got into trouble for taking the stage during a rally in Iowa with Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Stein was first cautioned by his superiors at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, in 2010 after he launched his Facebook page, criticizing Obama's health care overhaul. Stein volunteered to take down the page while he reviewed the rules at the request of his superiors.

He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page under the shortened account name Armed Forces Tea Party. Last week, he said his superiors told him he couldn't use social media sites on government computers after he posted the message stating he would not follow unlawful orders of the president.

Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Another Marine alerted his command about the statement, Stein said.

Stein said he respects the office of the president, but he does not agree with Obama's policies. He said he is within his rights to speak up.

"Just because I'm a Marine doesn't mean I don't have free speech or can't say my personal opinion about the president or other public official just like anybody else," Stein said. "The Constitution trumps everything else."

Stein said it's positive when service members are well-versed on the Constitution and what's going on in government.

"When we know what we're fighting for, we fight harder," he said.

The Marine Corps said Stein is allowed to express his personal opinions as long as they do not give the impression he is speaking in his official capacity as a Marine. Spokesman Maj. Michael Armistead said the Corps is taking a closer look to ensure Stein has not crossed that line.

"At this time, he has not been asked to take down the statement on his page," he said.

Stein appears in a dress shirt and tie on his Facebook page but he also describes himself as "a conservative blogger, speaker, the founder of the Armed Forces Tea Party and active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran."

Marine Sgt. Jerret Wright, who liked Stein's page, said Stein "probably skirted the line a little bit" with his latest message about not following Obama's orders, but his boldness in expressing his views has been refreshing in a community that often feels silenced.

"People assume that we're zombies with an on-and-off switch, and that we listen to orders and do nothing else," Wright said.

Military observers say it's not that simple. They say it is bad form to lash out at the commander in chief. Experts also say his Facebook postings appear to link his professional standing with his political views.

They also point out that the Pentagon policy is necessary in preventing political and religious debates that could divide a unit and disrupt the strong working relationship that is needed to carry out missions, Glazier said.

"There are plenty of examples in the world of militaries heavily involved in influencing political events that have shown that is not conducive to civilian rule of law," he said.


Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: They want to make sure he isn't speaking in his official capacity as a Marine? that statement makes no sense what so ever. He is speaking his mind, and yes he is a marine! Enough said. The constitution makes it ok for every person to speak their mind. Marine or not! police officer or not! It does not matter what you do, or if your affiliated with government or not. We have freedom of speech! It's no secret that most of America hates Obama.

I mean sure, he still has the support of the non-white Americans. He'll have their vote no matter what, simply because he isn't white. but most of thinking America is going to vote him out on his BUTT this year. I predict a landslide loss for Obama this November.