Archive for July, 2008

Antigua murder

July 29, 2008

It’s better for a white person to let himself be murdered by blacks, then for him to form the simple, factual thought, “The black population contains a high proportion of predatory savages, I must be aware of this and take precautions.”

A hundred times I have mentioned H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine with its story of the soft, pretty Eloi who passively allow themselves to be slaughtered nightly by the savage Morlocks. But the analogy doesn’t get old, because it is so true.

The ethnic distribution consist of 91% Black or Mulatto, 4.4% Other Mixed Race, 1.7% White, 2.9% Other.

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites


Neocons are stooges of victory of Islam

July 29, 2008

By pretending to fight something, but not really trying to win over the real enemy, the neocons are a fifth column for Islam to enter and win.

Comment posted at Front Page

Date: 7/29/2008 10:16 AM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Let Iran build nukes is what Bush does
Comment: The neocons have basically decided to do nothing on Iran. A lot of stories have come out ignored by Front Page and Jihad Watch on Iran’s latest doings. It appears the neocons are back to wanting to elect a Republican not stop Islam. Its repeating the same mistake as in 2000 and 2004. Neocons just want jobs for themselves.

Their only policy now is to make sure Obama doesn’t talk to Iran until after they have nukes, just like Bush.

The neocons have never advocated a draft and a real fight to victory against Islam, Iran, Pakistan,Saudi Arabia, etc. They should just admit they are really for defeat of the West by Islam. Its what they advocate in terms of policies. How many stood up for Virgil Goode? How many stood up for America against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan after 9/11? They wanted to get Saddam after 9/11, not Islam. They just don’t care, or are afraid to think, or have a group think that makes them effectively stupid.

To deal with Iran we need a draft and a big army. This is because we have to just finish them off if we fight, not some missile stunt. We can’t shoot missiles at them and then use the Persian Gulf in safety, we would always have to fear their attack. So we have to remove the regime. The neocons won’t advocate the draft to do that. So they are for defeat, just like after 9/11.


Date: 7/29/2008 10:46 AM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Invade Iran now surround Pakistan
Comment: Draft 2 million men. Invade Iran. Surround and blockade Pakistan to give up its nukes. Then remove Islam from Arabia.

” It was originally known as Yathrib which was founded by Jewish refugees”

Make Medina Jewish again and Mecca Christian. The atheist option won’t work for the 3rd world. Win when we can.

History is a subset of evolution. We are choosing evolution to go on a path of our extinction. We are led by self important fools who ignore what is taught in textbooks on population genetics. We don’t have to repeat their inane fallacies.

We as a race and civilization are going down the tubes and the neocons are dancing on our grave. They don’t care if its Islam and 3rd world genes that replace us as long as we disappear completely. That’s what they do and its pretty close to what they say. When anyone proposes anything that could stop it, the neocons stop what they are doing for one of their giant denunciations like against Virgil Goode. This is when they show their true loyalties.


Neocons win by delay. Our extinction is happening, as genes and civilization. They just need to obfuscate and pretend they are for action to delay things until it is too late. Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. are all the same in that respect. They just obscure our civilization and genetic loss.


Date: 7/29/2008 1:09 PM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Third Parties are change
Comment: With Bush we got pretend. All Bush wanted to do is get Saddam. Bush went into Afghanistan because he knew he had to to get Saddam. Bush was nuts not to denuke Pakistan after 9/11 as his main priority.

If the right votes 3rd party it tells the Republicans their disdain of us isn’t working. They pretend to fight for us, but actually they pursue policies guaranteed to fail. So we need to vote 3rd party to tell them we are not fools. When you vote for them after they betray you, then they feel they own you.


Date: 7/29/2008 1:04 PM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Vote Draft Negotiate Vote
Comment: Dad, we are not going to use nukes. The practical solution is a draft. Bush needs to ask Congress to

Vote: a Draft, conditions on Iran, commissioners

Negotiate with Iran

Ask Congress to authorize force.

Bombing Iran doesn’t let us surround Pakistan and blockade it to give up its nukes.

Date: 7/29/2008 2:12 PM
Name: Old Atlantic
Subject: Bush needs Congress
Comment: Congress can agree to a vote for a draft, conditions, and to appoint commissioners subject to a second vote. Congress at the second vote will then vote for war.

Bush has basically decided to do nothing. A nuclear attack proposal without negotiations doesn’t have support.

Many wars are preceded by negotiation attempts. Britain and France negotiated with Hitler in 1938 and then declared war in 1939. That is one year. Hitler negotiated with Britain and France and invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, that’s zero years. Hitler and Stalin negotiated in 1939 and invaded Poland in 1939.

Negotiation prior to war is part of the art of statecraft. Its done to build support within one’s own side. The result of the British French German negotiations in 1938 was both sides built support internally to fight.

The Bush neocon method of do nothing over Iran has kept nothing from happening for years. If we go from Axis of Evil speech in January 2002, its now 6 years later. So negotiations in 1938 got Britain and France ready to fight in 1939 because negotiations were tried and failed. It was Neville Chamberlain who declared war in 1939, the same one who did the negotiations. He decided Hitler was a liar and he had the credibility to bring along others, both because he negotiated.

But if you need to get a majority, then you need a plan that will get a majority of votes.

Bush can’t get a vote in Congress for war with Iran w/o negotiations as part of the package.


The more the Iranians act like they usually do, the faster Congress will agree to war. What makes neocons think the Iranians can put on a moderate image at the negotiation table that will help them win time? When have they ever done that?

If neocons are so sure the Iranians will act like thugs in negotiation why are neocons afraid to let moderates in the US see that in action? Why are neocons afraid to build the consensus for war?

Unlike the neocon missile attack proposal, the avoid negotiations pressure from neocons has worked. They have avoided a showdown as actually happened at Munich in 1938. Thus unlike the 1930’s where war followed in 1 year of the meeting, the neocons have kept any war from happening. Its like they had let Hitler conquer Europe without having negotiations and called that being tough minded. Its really having a neocon box of rocks in the head to think that Pakistan developing nukes for the 7 years since 9/11 is a success for the don’t negotiate strategy.

What Munich did in 1938 was build a consensus in the West for war in 1939. Without the Munich meeting in 1938 to try peace, the West would not have gone to war in 1939. The West, after WWI, was not going to go to war without trying to negotiate first.

Its exactly the same now. After Iraq, the West won’t invade Iran without an attempt to negotiate with Iran. Because Bush has refused to negotiate directly, the negotiations that have happened so far have not been counted by the public as negotiations, even in Europe that is negotiating with Iran. The West won’t support any strike against Iran until there are negotiations first.

Its the same as 1938. The West then wouldn’t support a second war without face to face negotiations. Those had not been tried before WWI and the West wouldn’t support war again without trying them. The neocons learn exactly the opposite lesson from 1938. 1938 was a win for the war party because it showed Hitler wasn’t serious about negotiations. Its the same now. Iran doesn’t want to negotiate seriously. Negotiations would show that. They would be followed by a draft and real victory, not a missile strike that doesn’t work.

Neocons already know a missile strike won’t work. So as their usual custom, they advocate what is sure to fail and to alienate moderates in the West pushing them away from supporting what is needed for real victory. Negotiations with Iran like with Hitler in 1938 will bring moderates along for total mobilization for victory, not symbolic missile strikes.

Hitler was the one who lied at Munich and then brought on war a year later when he persisted in his schemes. We can bring Iran to the table and confront them.

If you had a renter who didn’t pay his rent would your strategy be to not talk to him, don’t go to court, bomb the house which you own? The point is to negotiate with Iran to build a consensus that Iran doesn’t want peace it wants war. That can’t happen until we meet with Iran.

US Soviet meetings are not a parallel, because the US wasn’t going to attack the Soviet Union with or without negotiations. In the case of Iran, there won’t be any support for war in the US until after negotiations. Iran is not the Soviet Union. It is in fact possible for us to attack us. Thus meeting lore from the Soviet era is not relevant.


1938 to 1939 was 1 year.

2002 to 2008 is 6 years. From Axis of Evil speech to now is 6 years.

This proves that negotiations which show a Hitler is bent on war will convince a leader, Neville, and his people, the British and French, i.e. the West, i.e. us.

After WWI, the West wouldn’t fight again w/o trying direct negotiations first.

After Iraq, the West won’t fight again w/o trying direct negotiations first.

Why do you think Iran will act any different in negotiations with commissioners from Congress than they have up to now?

Congress and Bush would appoint commissioners based on conditions voted by Congress to meet with Iran on a timetable of 3 months. Iran would have to stop its enrichment within 30 days of the vote by Congress. The commissioners would report back to Congress at the end of the first month on the stopping of the enrichment.

Neocons can only stop negotiations, they can’t start war. They concentrate on the one thing in their power, to let Iran proceed without any interference.

When Iran disses Congress’s commissioners we will get support for a ground invasion that works. A missile strike won’t. Neocons want to fail. They want Islam to take over and defeat the West. Whatever is on the table, they pick what will fail for the West. That is why we still have immigration, including Muslim immigration that neocons say its racist to stop.

McCain Obama don’t care Brenda Walker does

July 29, 2008

John Sidney McCain III and Barack Hussein Obama II both say that if your child, sibling, parent, friend, etc. is killed by an immigrant, don’t come to them, go to Brenda Walker. Its not their department to deal with the consequences of their policies. Where have we heard that? McOb are both Bush III.

George Bush I and George Bush II both said that what their immigrants do to us is not their responsibility. Brenda Walker covers one of the McCain Obama Bush killings here:

Every person killed by an immigrant or birth displaced is intended by McCain Obama Bush, I, II, III.  I,II and III all agree, its not their department to care about us.  The reason is we vote for them, showing we don’t care about us.

Bush spoke here: The like radical Islams you know

July 28, 2008

Radical: something that works the same as it always did and the way originally intended.

Radical Islam = Islam.

Radical Sun = Sun

Radical Water = Water


Adding s to the end for no reason

The Internets

The Islams

There is only one Internet. There is only one Islam. But in Bush spoke here land, they are different.

The radical gun shot radical bullets through the radical air that hit the radical man who stopped being like you know radical alive because he was radical dead.

Radical Cheech and Radical Chong (Think of Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush as the radical New Yorker Cartoon of Michelle and Barack Obama)

Listening to radical Bush is like you radical know man its like a radical bong hit.

Its like pig Latin. You just remove the radical and it has the same meaning. Radical Islam means Islam. Radical Constitution is original intent. Radical typical white person is like typical white person. Its easy once you know.

Bush pluralism is easy too. The Islams and the Internets mean Islam and the Internet. Spell checker is putting a radical red line under Internets. Its not like with it in Bush spoke hereland.


Most of the time wood is not burning even though its around air. But sometimes wood burns in air, i.e. there is a fire. We then say the wood is burning in the radical air. This way we don’t offend the atmosphere god. Most of the time the atmosphere is not burning something. Most of the atmosphere is peaceful and isn’t burning something. But radical air does burn. This is what distinguishes air from radical air. Don’t try this at home. Radical air should only be used by licensed professionals.

Barack Obama: American identity is an accessory like birth certificate

July 26, 2008


You could travel as a non-Muslim American to Pakistan in 1981.

Published: June 14, 1981

“Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports.”

“Furthermore, since alcohol is no longer served in public places (you can get it in your hotel room if you are a non-Muslim foreigner) the lure of a lingering restaurant evening was somewhat diminished for us.”

“Because Pakistan is an Islamic nation, most tourist attractions and all mosques are closed to visitors on Fridays.”

So on non-Fridays non-Muslims could even visit mosques.

Obama did not need a KTP from Indonesia showing he was Muslim. Nor did he need an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in the summer of 1981 or later.

==Correction on KTP

search indonesia ktp identity “17 years”

Indonesia passport “age 17”

Unmarried children in Indonesia do not get a KTP until age 17.

I have also seen that children travel on the parent’s passport. But am not asserting this. So its possible that Obama never had an Indonesian passport?

==Correction 7:08 PM EDT

There is a student KTP as well as an adult one as Judah Benjamin clarifies at his revised post.  The basic conclusion of JB that Obama held dual nationality while in Indonesia and likely afterward seems valid.  When Obama returned to Indonesia in 1981, he was older than 18 and under 21.  Which may present some interesting possibilities based on what he did or didn’t do.


To Barack Obama, the American passport is an accessory. You can switch it for the Indonesian passport and Indonesian internal passport, KTP, when you want to or need to. Obama may have used his Indonesian passport or KTP at age 20 to visit Pakistan as a Muslim in 1981 while a college student at Columbia University.

If so, this is a factor in determining whether he had chosen US or Indonesian citizenship. As part of the same trip, he visited Indonesia. Another factor is whether he used the Indonesian passport or KTP during that trip in 1981 while a college student in the United States.

Judah Benjamin at Texas Darlin analyzes the issue of loyalty and dual citizenship in the test for eligibility for president which is different than simply being a citizen with the right to vote, do business, etc.

Does his Indonesian passport show he is Muslim? The KTP does show he is Muslim. When he entered Pakistan in 1981, he may have used a US passport and an Indonesian KTP to establish he was Muslim or may have used both the Indonesian passport and the KTP.

My comment posted at TD:

When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 if he used his Indonesian Passport and/or KTP to prove he was Muslim, then he made use of his Indonesian citizenship at that point.

This goes back to Constitutional intent. The Founding Fathers in the 1780’s already knew that there were people who would use nationality and citizenship as an accessory, using whichever was most convenient at the time. Divided loyalty was not a new concept to the generation that fought the revolution and saw Benedict Arnold use identity as an accessory.

They were willing to welcome such an attitude on the docks of New York but not in the White House. In Article II, they intended to say to be president, you had to be an American for life, not using American identity as an accessory.

Another comment posted at that thread on TD

At age 20, Obama may have used his Indonesian passport or KTP to gain entrance to Pakistan.

“Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:

* becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18;”

Note that there are conflicting statements on these issues. Currently, the person has to intend to give up US citizenship, but in 1981 a different standard may have applied. How an act done in 1981 is interpreted now is also an issue. By using an Indonesian passport in 1981, did Obama activate or elect Indonesian citizenship? Is that why he kept the Pakistan trip secret for so long?
Did Obama use a KTP or Indonesian passport when he traveled to Indonesia in 1981 as part of the same trip?

Additional Comment at TD

Obama appears to have gone to Indonesia first in 1981 and then to Pakistan. Obama may have renewed his Indonesian passport and KTP in 1981 in Indonesia at age 20. That would mean under Indonesian law at the time that he had elected Indonesian citizenship after age 18 and that under Indonesian law he had given up US citizenship.

US law at the time and now is that the person is expected to obey the law of both countries. So by renewing or even using a current Indonesian passport and KTP to travel to Pakistan and Indonesia in 1981, Obama intended to give up US citizenship under the law of the time taking the law of both countries together and assuming he intended to obey both or at least Indonesian by renewing or using an Indonesian passport and KTP that were current in 1981 after his 18th birthday.

Many ask why Obama didn’t mention the trip to Pakistan before, e.g. in his books. One reason is that if he used the Indonesian passport in 1981, then that may be a factor to determine whether he chose Indonesian citizenship.

What is the critical date to choose citizenship? Is it 18 or 21? If its 18, then Obama in 1981 was 20 years old, he was born in 1961, and he was past the critical date. By using the Indonesian passport after age 18, then he chose Indonesian citizenship is one interpretation or legal theory.

The new Indonesian citizenship law considered as landmark on citizenship. It provides for, among others, children from mixed-marriage to have dual citizenship until they reach 18 years of age or more when they have to choose one citizenship, either Indonesian or the other.

Under this new-enacted law, the child does not automatically lose his or her Indonesian status. Indonesian women are not automatically follow their husband’s citizenship status and can be sponsor for their husband to turn status to Indonesian citizens.

The newly-enacted citizenship law gives children of mixed-marriages with Indonesian mothers the rights to dual citizenship until they are 18 years old. At the age of 18, they can choose whether to stay Indonesian citizens or follow their foreign father’s citizenship. They will be then given additional three more years to decide on which nationality to choose.

The above is from a full-service Indonesian law firm that can assist people with these citizenship issues as well as doing business in Indonesia presumably. (No fee to OA.) The old law may have treated women and men differently, i.e. the father or the mother.

If Obama used his Indonesian passport or KTP at age 20 to get into Pakistan, that may constitute a choice under Indonesian law to have chosen to be Indonesian. That would be a factor in such a test.

For US president, the factor test may be different than citizenship. For US president, a person must have always chosen the US branch. For citizenship, there might be 6 factors one way and 4 factors the other, and the person is considered to have chosen one citizenship over the other. Obviously, we don’t want people to lose both citizenships and have nowhere to go. Even bigots don’t want that.

Obama wants to be a world president. Obama has involved himself in the internal politics of Kenya while an elected US official, which he has been continuously in Illinois or the US Senate since the mid 1990’s. Obama has 3 countries at least, Kenya, Indonesia, and the US he feels loyalty to.

Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father, show him choosing loyalty to his father over loyalty to his mother. Judah Benjamin at Texas Darlin discusses the Kenya loyalty issues. These become additional factors for Obama. Canada and even the U.K. may receive some points if Obama was born there.

Say there are 100 loyalty points to use in tests of loyalty. In Obama’s case, suppose the U.S. has 40, Indonesia 30, Kenya 25 and miscellaneous 5. So the US is less than 50. That may give him US citizenship for tax, residence and business purposes. But it is not what the Constitution intended.

The Constitution didn’t say the person for president could have loyalty to 3 countries, and as long as the US was best out of 3, he could be president. Obama could activate his Kenyan citizenship at any time according to Judah Benjamin’s analysis at Texas Darlin linked to above. Thus this is an ongoing factor. This is very important because Obama in his book, Dreams of my Father, showed he picked his father, Kenyan, over his mother, American-Indonesian. Obama has also participated in internal Kenyan politics while an elected official in the United States.

Thus Obama’s ability to activate Kenyan citizenship and his participation in politics there may indicate he has a substantial mine of Kenyan points. He has a substantial part of his family there. Obama shows no identification with his extended white family as he does with his Kenyan one. He doesn’t write books about looking up his extended white family relatives. Nor does he visit them and join in the politics of the states or cities they live in as part of his travels.

The US Constitution requires under Judah Benjamin’s analysis that if a person has 100 citizen points, then they all or a very high percentage, say 90 or more have to be in the U.S. scale. The ones that are voluntary, using the Indonesian or U.S. passport when age 20 are of particular importance. Writing books where the person says he is loyal to his Kenyan family and doesn’t even care about his American family while attending a white hating Church and joining in Kenyan politics is evidence of his internal feelings of loyalty. Steve Sailer has developed this in many articles.

The intent of the Constitution was not that people could come and go using US citizenship and identity as it suited them and be president. You could be a sailor with such an approach or a merchant or dealer. You could have a house in the port of New York and another in the West Indies or Paris. But you couldn’t be president with such a history.

Obama over the course of his life has used citizenship or religious or national identity as it suited him. He has worn the coat of many colors in nationality, citizenship and religion. Whichever advanced him at the time was the one he used. Obama wants to be a world president as his Berlin trip showed. Obama regards Kenyan, Indonesian, and American citizenship or identity as just part of his brand and his experience to prepare him to be the world president.

But that is not what the Constitution intends. The Founding Fathers already knew about world travelers like Obama who changed identity with each port of call. They had those in the 18th century already. They didn’t want a Benedict Arnold president who could switch sides when it suited his career interests. They wanted a George Washington president. A guy who was there for you. They wanted a president who would hang with us even if meant risking being hung with us.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution wanted a president without options. Obama has options. Obama can activate his Kenyan citizenship at any time. Obama has used his Indonesian citizenship when it suited him. Obama has chosen to be a world merchant politician who tells each city he visits that he is one of them.

The Founding Fathers already decided that disqualified someone from being the American president. The analysis of Judah Benjamin at Texas Darlin makes that clear in the Constitutional and legal history context in Kenya, Indonesia, and America. The Constitution says no KIA presidents, only pure A presidents are allowed.


Obama likely got an Indonesian passport and KTP in 1965 or 1966. By 1981, he may have had an expired one. To visit Pakistan in 1981 he may have needed an Indonesian passport, and possibly a KTP showing he was Muslim. We know he went to Indonesia first on that trip, or at least I’ve seen that. So he may have had to go to Indonesia first to renew his Indonesian passport and likely KTP. That KTP would have said again that he was Muslim. He needed that to show to Pakistan that he was Muslim. They would want to see his current KTP not his old one if he showed them a new Indonesian passport.

Obama by getting a new Indonesian passport and internal passport KTP in 1981 when he was 20 would have then affirmed a choice as an Indonesian citizen after age 18. Under Indonesian law at that time, that meant he was a sole Indonesian national and citizen and not US. US law at that time may have tended to see countries with those laws as meaning the person intended to give up US citizenship. That could be used as a fact standard for legal analysis today even under the intent to give up citizenship.

In 1981, Indonesian and US law combined meant that for Obama at age 20 to get Indonesian citizenship he intended to give up US citizenship. So even under today’s intent standard looking at the facts and law as it existed in 1981 to establish intent by Obama in 1981, we arrive that he intended under the law and facts of the time to give up US citizenship by renewing his Indonesian passport and KTP in 1981 as a 20 year old.

Indonesia would let him do that because he was desirable. Even if he had to do that at age 18, they could accept this because he was a student at Columbia University. Indonesia wants IMF and World Bank loans, and other international and US assistance. So they want people enrolled in Columbia University or the equivalent to be Indonesian and carry the Indonesian passport. In addition, bribes can be paid.

Obama needed the current Indonesian passport and current KTP marking him as Muslim in 1981 to then go onto Pakistan. So he had to go back to Indonesia and do the renewals.

If he had current Indonesian papers from when he was before 18, by going to Indonesian and then Pakistan and using the then current KTP and Indonesian passport at age 20, he still showed he wanted to be treated as an Indonesian citizen after age 18. He knew that meant under Indonesian law giving up US citizenship.

US dual citizenship standards today indicate the person is expected to obey the laws of both countries. So in 1981, that meant Obama gave up US citizenship to obey Indonesian law by using Indonesian passport and/or KTP that were current to get into Indonesia and Pakistan. Thus Obama intended to give up his US citizenship in 1981, because he knew that was the consequence of renewing or using Indonesian KTP and Passport in 1981 to go to Pakistan and likely using them in Indonesia as well.


Any person has standing to file in court for Obama to be stripped of his delegates on the basis that he gave up his US citizenship completely in 1981 by going to Indonesia and renewing or using a current Indonesian passport and KTP and then using the same to go on to Pakistan in 1981. Under the law of Indonesia at the time that meant he intended to give up US citizenship. Under US law at the time and now that shows intent to give up US citizenship. So Obama did in fact intend to constructively give up US citizenship. The constructive means that because the law says he intended to obey the law of both counties and Indonesian law at the time and now says that he gave up US citizenship, that constructively this was his intent, regardless of his personal thoughts.

So Obama is completely out as a US citizen. So he can’t hold any office. He is not a US citizen and that is the basis of pleading for him to give up his delegates and be disqualified.

Obama used “technicalities” in the 1990’s and in the primaries. Obama kept Florida and Michigan from revoting or getting their full delegates. Citizenship is not just a technicality for president. He is not a citizen by his actions in 1981.

To summarize. Any US citizen can plead in court to have Obama stripped of his delegates on the grounds that he is not a US citizen. They can plead to not allow him on any ballot for president on the same grounds.

Obama had the intent and actually did give up his US citizenship in 1981 by either renewing his Indoensian passport and/or KTP or using ones that were current to travel to Indonesia or Pakistan. The law of the US and Indonesia is that constructively he had the intent in 1981 to follow the law of both the US and Indonesia. That meant that under Indonesian law he gave up US citizenship in 1981.

His constructive intent is proven by showing that the laws of Indonesia and the US at the time indicated that his getting or using a current Indonesian passport or KTP in 1981 at age 20 meant that he gave up US citizenship. This is because the law of both countries taken together indicates that intent by constructively giving him the intent to obey the law of both countries. In any analysis of intent under today’s standard, looking back to the laws of Indonesia and the US at the time, that interpretation follows.

If Obama became 5 before he got to Indonesia, or his mother married Soetoro, that would be well established in the public record by Obama. Any other critical date event in Obama’s favor we would know about. He already knows all the critical dates and legal theories. Data that supports his case is public. Data that doesn’t is in the we don’t know or aren’t sure category. That was where the 1981 trip to Pakistan was until Obama himself disclosed it because he needed to show foreign policy experience relative to McCain’s early experiences in the Navy.

The registration at school in Indonesia show he was adopted, even if it happened after age 5. His step father was a government official and his mother American, so he was desirable. That’s the way citizenship procedure has always worked in practice.

Reference on Pakistan 1981 trip

It all sounds very innocent, “a college trip to Pakistan”.

Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).

Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.

The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:

To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every “True Believer”.

For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.

In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.

Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone’s family in 1981.

Posted by: Rob | May 3, 2008 2:13:43 AM

Suppose Obama wanted to get drugs in Pakistan. That would give him motive to arrange the trip to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport and KTP so that he could go to Pakistan, get drugs, and it wouldn’t show up on his US passport that he went to Pakistan. He also went to India on the trip. So to the US coming back, he went to Indonesia and India. The trip to Pakistan is on the Indonesian passport.

Obama wanted real bad to renew that Indonesian passport in 1981 so that the US authorities wouldn’t see he had been to Pakistan. So he could have and maybe bring back his drugs without being searched minutely, as he would be if the US authorities knew he had been to Pakistan on the trip.

Search Obama drug usage

Other unPC info on Obama

search IMF Resident Representative Indonesia

Mr. Neiss. … He was appointed Chief of the South Pacific Division of the former Asian Department in 1973, served as IMF Resident Representative in Indonesia between 1974 and 1976, and was appointed Assistant Director of the Asian Department in 1979.

Indonesia wanted friends in the West. So they would want to help Obama become adopted in 1966 or renew his Indonesian citizenship, passport and KTP in 1981 so that he could use them in Indonesia and to go to Pakistan.


I don’t claim to be a lawyer or sophisticated in the law. I offer legal arguments so that they can be corrected and I and others can learn from the correction of my errors.

This is draft and preliminary. This is hypothesis, speculation or opinion. This is subject to revision. Comments and corrections welcome. All other disclaimers apply. If quoted or reposted, please post this disclaimer and a link so that others may see any revisions or corrections.

Jesse Ventura Veepcake (TM) Rumor made here

July 24, 2008

The purpose of this post is solely to use the word Veepcake (TM) before anyone else does. I was listening to CNN say Veepstakes and I misheard it as Veepcake so I thought I better get this out. Since Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be president, unless he can produce a Hawaian COLB or birth certificate, that leaves Jesse Ventura as the closest thing to vice-presidential beefcake that can be mustered.

Your search – veepcake – did not match any documents.

I don’t think the following counts as prior use

Results 11 of 1 for veep cake.

pho / Super Articles

Pho graph gram mailed signaller cornelia accomplishes pho os cicely orbited coky consequently veep cake hello daut theories interferes dork tern rei. – 39k – CachedSimilar pages

That leaves which party would win the Jesse Veepcake Ventura veepstakes.

Jesse on the issues

Jesse Ventura (born July 15, 1951 as James George Janos), also known as “The Body”, “The Star”, and “The Governing Body”, is an American politician, retired professional wrestler, Navy UDT veteran, actor, and former radio and television talk show host. He was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2004. He is also a former co-holder of the AWA World tag team title with Adrian Adonis.

Jesse and McCain give us an all Navy ticket. Jesse would give the Navy seal to Obama who seems to be deficient in getting his seals in place.

Ed Morrissey Obama absolver teaches hot air rules of evidence

July 23, 2008

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air

Undoubtedly, this will not stop the speculation among conspiracy theorists. Taking a spin through the comments and the trackbacks at the site, one title actually says in part, “Mystery continues.” Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I’d say the “mystery” is over.

(not linked to in post but the reference “mystery continues” in the page indicated is to this blog.


Back to analyzing the logic in EM’s long sentence.

“the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President”

According to EM, each element of this union must be true or there is no mystery. Lets list them all out. Notice its an AND logical operator that applies between each element of the list.

  1. the Advertiser decided
  2. to participate
  3. conspiracy
  4. at Obama’s birth
  5. in 1961
  6. to provide false citizenship

which now depends on the following linked set, again connected by the AND operator.

  1. off-chance
  2. that an infant
  3. from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother
  4. would run for President

So if the first list all happened, but some element of the second was missing, according to EM, there is no mystery. Thus the paper could have done every single item in the first list, but if it wasn’t for the intention of the second list, then it would not be a mystery. It is what he wrote.

What about the following questions for Mr. Ed.

  1. What if Obama was adopted in Indonesia by his step-father and changed his name legally to his step-father’s last name?
  2. What if Obama was enrolled in school as a citizen of Indonesia and this was marked on official documents?
  3. What if Obama later filed to change his name in the U.S. from what it had been changed to in Indonesia?
  4. What if he didn’t bother, and just picked up the old US name when in America?
  5. If Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, when did his citizenship lapse?
  6. Did Obama send notice to Indonesia of it?
  7. Does Indonesia require registration of a person’s religion?
  8. Is Obama registered as a Muslim citizen of Indonesia?
  9. To this day?
  10. What about his mother?
  11. What about citizenship registrations in Kenya?
  12. Did Obama visit Pakistan in 1981 when only Muslims were allowed to visit, according to some reports, and visit as a Muslim?
  13. What if Obama reverted back to his father’s name in the US because Obama was in a Muslim religious phase?
  14. What if Obama at birth was not in fact Barack Hussein Obama II but something else?
  15. What if Michelle Obama is right that Obama’s mother was single when he was born?
  16. If Michelle Obama is right, doesn’t that mean the newspaper is wrong on the Mr. and Mrs Obama?
  17. If the newspaper is wrong on that, doesn’t that cast doubt on whether it is right on anything else it asserted?
  18. Does the newspaper say the baby was born in Hawaii?
  19. Doesn’t Hawaii allow a registration that is late to parents for a birth not in Hawaii?
  20. Is the newspaper announcement a registration?
  21. The word African appears as the race on Obama’s birth certificate on his web page. At any time from 1961 to present has Hawaii used that as a race? Did Obama petition to have that changed to its current form?
  22. Did Obama ever attend a mosque?
  23. Did he attend religious class in Arabic?
  24. Was that the basis of his quoting the Muslim Call to Prayer in Arabic to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times in 2007, which is apparently on tape?
  25. The list goes on of Obama mysteries. When did he meet Ayers and Dohrn? Did Michelle Obama meet Dorhn at the law firm they both were at in the 1980’s?

Mystery is work. You have to study and review evidence.

We have the FRE, Federal Rules of Evidence, and then we have the Ed Morrissey, Hot Air Rules of Evidence, HARE.

Let’s compare the FRE to the HARE

  1. Common plan or method evidence. FRE in. HARE out. (Obama has a common tendency to say, no tape, no case. Or no files no case. Then he doesn’t release the files.)
  2. Hearsay exceptions. FRE: in. HARE: out.
  3. Jury listens to all the evidence before forming a conclusion. FRE in. HARE out.
  4. If its complicated, its still admissible. FRE in. HARE out.
  5. If you have to read, you know, like two entries in Wiki then its too complicated.
  6. Evidence is only admissible to prove what the evidence says, not more, unless combined by logic. FRE in. HARE out.
  7. Combination inferences. FRE in. HARE out.
  8. Expert testimony. FRE in. HARE out. (The green border that is the wrong color to any known Hawaii COLB for example.)

List of Adrian Messenger

Not to spoil the movie for you Ed, but the main plot is solved, but the mystery remains and there are actual several at the end that are wrapped up. You can find out who did it, and then there are still little mysteries left to tie up. Glad you didn’t waste your time or money on writing or reading or listening to mysteries, since you were busy on your new Simplified Hot Air Rules of Evidence, SHARE. Under SHARE, you just say what you feel and that is all the proof you need.

In the SHARE system, you just say, Let me share this with you, and what follows is admissible. Like the lengthy unions of disparate elements in the sentence analyzed at the top. This is an example of SHARE thinking. You don’t use logic to analyze what you say, you say what you feel.

You can buy a copy of the FRE in a little size that fits in your pocket. You can take it to the gym or on walks or the bus or subway if you ride to work.

NITA publishes it, I get nothing from this link.

You can also study the FRE on audio-tape, every good law bookstore carries them.

My fav is Faust F. Rossi (no not even an Amazon fee to me)

He has many comic characters who illustrate fallacies in the law of evidence. You might volunteer to be one for his next tape. Morrissey’s Fallacy. Except there seem to be multiple ones.

My favorite law bookstore is Washington Law Books. If you live in the DC area or get there you can shop there. (No fee to me either.)

Files we are waiting for Obama to authorize released.

  1. Hawaii birth certificate.
  2. Hospital he was born in, wherever in the world.
  3. Indonesia – passport, school, adoption, citizenship, mosque
  4. States: Hawaii, Washington, Illinois, NY, Mass, DC.
  5. Canada any birth records, even none to apply to hospitals, customs, etc.
  6. Kenya: any registration as a citizen. Religion. Any records relating to his recent trips or activities.
  7. Pakistan: In 1981 did he travel there as a Muslim?
  8. US: Passport, FBI, tax, etc. Also Social Security registration of his name and any changes.
  9. Countries: US, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Canada.
  10. Schools: Indonesia. Also at Harvard, did he get financial support from the Ayers family? Any letter of reference. The full file.

Ed Morrissey: No mystery about Obama.

Obama himself, stock answer: No tape, no case. No files, no case.

Ed, haven’t we had enough, “no tape, no case” presidents? Do we need another? Right now? Do we need to replace the phrase OJ lawyers with Obama lawyers?

I don’t expect you to answer this Ed, because its combination evidence, and that just takes too long to learn.

==Additional links on this issue.


I assume Ed wrote his off hand comment with little thought or consideration or respect for any of those he included in it. The point of this post is to point out there is a substantial basis for questioning Obama and his defenses and for finding a common plan of hiding evidence on his life and delaying answering or making files available until too late.

The many who have spent time on this have made a contribution. This includes Texas Darlin, Larry Johnson, Polarik, Techdude and others. We have learned a great deal about documents and their provenance. As pointed out in another post, everything under the sun that man does is allowed to be studied by man. This includes why Obama’s COLB on his webpage does not look like other COLB’s in certain respects, especially the border appearance. That is still a mystery. Obama has delayed answering.

The overall set of issues are more than just the COLB. Obama has a common plan or method of avoiding answers, delaying answers, keeping files closed, and then providing skimpy bits of info to seem like he is providing due diligence to the person who casually follows the news but who doesn’t pay attention. Axelrod Obama are targeting that group by their methods. The Axelrod method is you give out little bits of nothing in answer to serious document requests and delay, delay, and delay.

The COLB links into many other issues, but by itself is not the sum total of the mystery of Obama’s life. He keeps avoiding answering questions, providing documents and authorizing governments, schools, mosques or others to answer questions or release documents. This common plan or method is worthy of being pointed out and is itself grounds for the trier of fact, the voters, to reject the candidacy of Obama, even if he provides some partial answers that are accurate within certain limits from time to time. But as we have seen, Obama can change his answers and remove information from his web page. Maybe even Hot Air has some examples.

This is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections are welcome. This is opinion, speculation or hypothesis. This is subject to revision. All other disclaimers apply.

Emily Dickinson: I’m a typical white person! Who are you?

July 23, 2008

I’m a typical white person! Who are you?
Are you a typical white person, too?
Then there’s a pair of us -don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know.

How dreary to be the one they have been waiting for!
How public, like a frog
To tell your invented names and stories the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

Search Emily Dickinson racist

“The Negro Never Knew”: Emily Dickinson and Racial Typology in the Nineteenth Century.

by Paula Bernat Bennett

In the spring of 1992, I was teaching a graduate seminar in Dickinson. As teachers generally do, I took pleasure in reading selected poems aloud. In the middle of “The Malay – took the Pearl” (F451, late 1862), however, I stopped dead, unable to go on. I had read this poem dozens of times before and written on it as well; but this was the first time I saw it not as a Dickinson poem, but as a nineteenth-century text, one of many texts in which the denigration of people of color is treated so casually one barely registers it’s there. Certainly, the racism of the lines I had just read–“The Negro never knew / I – wooed it – too”–never jumped out at me the way it did then. I remember the pause so well because it went on so long. What appalled me was not the recognition of Dickinson’s racial slur but, as I told my students, that it had escaped me heretofore. Why had I been so blind? Or, put another way, what had allowed me to see “The Malay’s” racism now when I had not before?

What had changed, I believe, was that for the preceding two years I had increasingly focused on other nineteenth-century women poets, working with a group of writers who, whatever else one says about them, were directly engaged in the great social issues of their day in ways that Dickinson was not–at least not as I had always read her. In the process, I had developed a much broader grasp…;jsessionid=LHgMD0sjwv8PFCvvL1dzLfkRvcplJJnm1SKG8llVbxt3gHC2NGmH!128054815?docId=5001902769

search Emily Dickinson “the Negro never knew”

The Malay—took the Pearl—
Not—I—the Earl—
I—feared the Sea—too much
Unsanctified—to touch—

Praying that I might be
Worthy—the Destiny—
The Swarthy fellow swam—
And bore my Jewel—Home—

Home to the Hut! What lot
Had I—the Jewel—got—
Borne on a Dusky Breasty—
I had not deemed a Vest
Of Amber—fit—

The Negro never knew
I—wooed it—too—
To gain, or be undone—
Alike to Him—One—


The actual meaning of the poem is the opposite of what the offended one says it is. What the poem says is the Negro had the courage to swim for the pearl and so took it home. The one with the courage, wins the prize. It ends by saying the author and the Negro are still the same, win or lose.

In fact, Negro should not be capitalized. Dickinson was giving into PC to capitalize it.


Emily Dickinson makes me think of Vanishing American. They both sing the American song in the voice that only a woman who truly is American and loves America can. They are both original American lionesses who fight fiercely to defend their cubs for many generations to come. As we are tested in the fight upon us and the darker one to come, their words are lamps that shine through the fog that emanates from the bog.

Emily Dickinson is from a happier time than ours. Vanishing American is a voice of truth for our time. Generations hence will be able to read her words too as a lamp from the past guiding them to the truth and giving them the courage to do what will need to be done in the shadow war and half-wars that stretch far into the future.


As VA has pointed out, it doesn’t matter what the white person says or means or feels, what matters is that of the black. In this case, the person wanted to feel hate towards whites despite the real meaning of the poem, which they already knew. This is the point of Obama’s phrase, “typical white person” to describe his own white grandmother. What a cynical invocation of hate and tribalism to get him out of his difficulty.

That is the whole point. Obama is using the weapons of the half-war shadow war that is now consuming the white race and not by mixture, but by total genetic extinction. The process is happening by displacing white births by immigrants. Mixture is bypassed on a population basis. Mixtures are only token in number.

Obama is Maliki’s man who is Iran’s man for surrender

July 23, 2008

Obama went to Iraq and got the good Maliki seal of approval.

Maliki has the good Iran seal of approval.

By transitivity,

Obama has the good Iran seal of approval.

Iran wants us troops out of Iraq so it can build nukes without a ground invasion.  Iran can deter a missile strike by its Russian anti-ship Sunburn missiles.

Maliki wants US troops out so that Iran can build nukes, because they are his masters.  What they want he wants.

Obama wants US troops out because?

Texas Darlin finds proof Obama born Hawaii mystery continues

July 22, 2008

Texas Darlin found a newspaper announcement dated August 13, 1961 of Obama’s birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Its by Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama.

Under Hawaii law, its still possible the child was born in Vancouver, Canada at a home for unwed mothers and then the announcement was printed by the grandparents and then a Hawaii birth certificate obtained even though Obama was not born in Hawaii.

This is really evidence tending towards Obama being born in Hawaii, instead of proof. The Obama b.c. still has the odd green shaded border that is not on any known Hawaii certificate of live birth, colb. The b.c. still looks wrong. We still have expert reports that its wrong. So we shouldn’t give up completely at this point.

== My comment posted there:

Great work. It also shows the integrity the extreme left side keeps claiming we lack. I think its they who lack integrity by ignoring all we already know about Obama, even from him directly. I don’t include in that Strata or many others who express their own views on the b.c, which has always been jump ball in my opinion, and still is a mystery.

I think you are right on the Indonesian citizenship and adoption. Obama was likely adopted in Indonesia legally. I bet there is no legal basis in Indonesia at that time for an adoption in which the adopted child is not a citizen of Indonesian. Countries have adoption for the purpose of their citizens adopting a child to be a citizen of that country. Adopting a child for the purpose of that child going to some other country is not the case that lawmakers are thinking of when they write adoption laws.

==Second comment posted at TD

Grayslady, you are right. We should not become too credulous. We know that this family has painted pictures from the beginning.


The mystery of Obama’s birth certificate still continues. The border in particular has a strange color. We still don’t know the truth and Obama is still hiding things. We know that from many sources, including his own inadvertent leaks.

%d bloggers like this: