Monday, January 31, 2011

As Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready Ben Grubb and Asher Moses

As Egypt's government attempts to crackdown on street protests by shutting down internet and mobile phone services, the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the internet.
The legislation, which would grant US President Barack Obama powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a senate committee, Wired.com reported.
It was initially introduced last year but expired with a new Congress.
A graph showing internet traffic to and from Eqypt. A graph showing internet traffic to and from Eqypt.
Senator Susan Collins, a co-sponsor of the bill, said that unlike in Egypt, where the government was using its powers to quell dissent by shutting down the internet, it would not.
“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an emailed statement to Wired. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”
The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.
Angry scenes ... protesters gather at the statue of Alexander the Great in Cairo to demand the resignation of Hosni Mubarak Angry scenes ... protesters gather at the statue of Alexander the Great in Cairo to demand the resignation of Hosni Mubarak Photo: AFP/Topshots
Last year, Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people".
He said that, for all its allure, the internet could also be a "dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets".
US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals".
The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. Photo: AP
Although the bill was targetted at protecting the US, many have said it would also affect other nations.
One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, had previously railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".
He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".
The scale of Egypt's crackdown on the internet and mobile phones amid deadly protests against the rule of President Hosni Mubarak is unprecedented in the history of the web, experts have said.
US President Barack Obama, social networking sites and rights groups around the world all condemned the moves by Egyptian authorities to stop activists using mobile phones and cyber technology to organise rallies.
"It's a first in the history of the internet," Rik Ferguson, an expert for Trend Micro, the world's third biggest computer security firm, said.
Julien Coulon, co-founder of Cedexis, a French internet performance monitoring and traffic management system, added: "In 24 hours we have lost 97 per cent of Egyptian internet traffic".
Despite this, many Egyptians are finding ways to get access, some using international telephone numbers to gain access to dial-up internet.
According to Renesys, a US Internet monitoring company, Egypt's four main internet service providers cut off international access to their customers in a near simultaneous move at 2234 GMT on Thursday.
Around 23 million Egyptians have either regular or occasional access to the internet, according to official figures, more than a quarter of the population.
"In an action unprecedented in internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the internet," James Cowie of Renesys said in a blog post.
Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt and Etisalat Misr were all off air but Cowie said one exception was the Noor Group, which still has 83 live routes to its Egyptian customers.
He said it was not clear why the Noor Group was apparently unaffected "but we observe that the Egyptian Stock Exchange (www.egyptse.com) is still alive at a Noor address."
Mobile telephone networks were also severely disrupted in the country on Friday. Phone signals were patchy and text messages inoperative.
British-based Vodafone said all mobile operators in Egypt had been "instructed" Friday to suspend services in some areas amid spiralling unrest, adding that under Egyptian law it was "obliged" to comply with the order.
Egyptian operator ECMS, linked to France's Telecom-Orange, said the authorities had ordered them to shut them off late Thursday.
"We had no warning, it was quite sudden," a spokesman for Telecom-Orange told AFP in France.
The shutdown in Egypt is the most comprehensive official electronic blackout of its kind, experts said.
Links to the web were cut for only a few days during a wave of protests against Myanmar's ruling military junta in 2007, while demonstrations against the re-election of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009 specifically targeted Twitter and Facebook.
Egypt – like Tunisia where mass popular unrest drove out Zine El Abidine Ben Ali earlier this month – is on a list of 13 countries classed as "enemies of the internet" by media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
"So far there has been no systematic filtering by Egyptian authorities – they have completely controlled the whole internet," said Soazig Dollet, the Middle East and North Africa specialist for RSF.
Condemnation of Egypt's internet crackdown has been widespread.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Cairo to restore the internet and social networking sites.
Facebook, the world's largest social network with nearly 600 million members, and Twitter also weighed in.
"Although the turmoil in Egypt is a matter for the Egyptian people and their government to resolve, limiting Internet access for millions of people is a matter of concern for the global community," said Andrew Noyes, a Facebook spokesman.
Twitter, which has more than 175 million registered users, said of efforts to block the service in Egypt: "We believe that the open exchange of info & views benefits societies & helps govts better connect w/ their people."
US digital rights groups also criticised the Egyptian government.
"This action is inconsistent with all international human rights norms, and is unprecedented in internet history," said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology in the United States

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Obama birth certificate 'egg on face' for Hawaii Gov. 'He's searched everywhere using his powers ... there is no proof he was born in Hawaii'

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily


Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie's much-publicized effort to find and make public Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth credentials left him with "egg on his face," according to a radio personality who says he's a good friend of the former congressman.
Radio personality Mike Evans said in an interview with 92 KQRS Morning Show in Minneapolis that the governor simply wasn't able to find any of the documentation he was hunting.
Evans, a long-time Hawaii resident, explained that Abercrombie, whom Evans has known for decades, gave up his search for Obama's nativity records because the governor was unable to find in Hawaii's vital records Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.
Moreover, Evans predicted the birth certificate controversy is likely to be a major issue dogging Obama during his planned 2012 presidential re-election campaign.
On the basis of his conversation with Abercrombie, Evans told the radio audience that Abercrombie was forced to conclude that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate exists for Obama in Hawaii.

"Although Abercrombie is an Obama lover, he's the first to say he's concerned this is really going to be an issue during the re-election," Evans said.
On air, Evans recounted a discussion he had with Abercrombie in which the governor made clear he had to abandon his search for Obama's birth records because the records Abercrombie expected to find in the Hawaii Department of Health vault were not there.
"Abercrombie was probably more shocked than anybody," Evans said, explaining that Abercrombie ended his search after he was unable to find any Hawaii official nativity documents for Obama that named a Hawaiian hospital where Obama was born or identified a Hawaiian physician who attended Obama's birth.

"Neil promised me that when he became governor, he was going to cut through all the red tape, he was going to get Obama's birth certificate once and for all and end this stupid controversy that he was not born in the United States," Evans said.
"Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he's searched everywhere using his powers as governor at the Kapi'olani Women's and Children's Hospital and Queens Hospital, the only places where kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born," Evans continued, "and there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii – absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."
Evans went on to say that Abercrombie purposely conducted this search "to get rid of that question" [whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii], but now Abercrombie "has some egg on his face, I mean, now he [Abercrombie] admits publicly there is no birth certificate."
The Evans interview with KQRS cast further doubt on whether Abercrombie had any personal knowledge of Barack Obama until long after Obama was an infant.
"I asked him [Abercrombie] when do you remember Barack, your first memory," Evans recounted on air.
Abercrombie told Evans his first memories of Obama were when Obama was playing in a T-ball league, around 5 or 6 years old.
"I go, 'What about before that?' and he [Abercrombie] goes, 'Well, I really don't remember him [Obama] much before that,' which I thought was very odd," Evans said.
In an interview broadcast on C-SPAN that Evans conducted in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2009, the day after Obama's inauguration, Abercrombie also stated that he first remembered seeing Barack Obama Jr. when Obama was old enough to walk around Hawaii as a child, together with his grandfather, Stanley Dunham.

Here is a key section of the C-SPAN interview transcribed:

EVANS: What was the first time you set eyes on Barack Obama?

ABERCROMBIE: Well that, of course, [laughs] was after he was born [laughs]. Barack Sr. had met his mom [Barack Obama Jr.'s mother, Ann Dunham], in a Russian class. She was just scarcely out of high school, really. And, they got married and, with statehood essentially, within a year or so of statehood, Barack Obama was born. Barack Hussein Obama was born.

EVANS: Do you remember him growing up?

ABERCROMBIE: No, I remember him as a little boy, with his grandfather. Because his mother and father separated. That story's pretty well known. And, the father, Barack Sr., went on to the mainland to go to school, and then back to Kenya. And, his mom went on, married again. In the process, I would see "Little Barry," as his grandfather called him, Little Barry and his grandfather mostly, all over. They walked everywhere. Stan Dunham, his grandfather, took him everywhere and they met everybody and knew everybody … I mean it's Hawaii, right? It was easy. You want to be friendly, you want to see people and know people? You can do it. And he [Stanley Dunham] did and Little Barry went with him everywhere.

There is nothing in the C-SPAN interview that would suggest any specific memories Abercrombie has of seeing or being with Barack Obama Jr. as an infant.
Nor did Abercrombie seem aware that Ann Dunham had left Hawaii with her infant child within three weeks of the baby's birth, to attend the University of Washington in Seattle, and that Ann Dunham did not return to Hawaii with Barack Obama Jr. until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands to attend graduate school at Harvard, in June 1962.
In a interview published by the New York Times on Dec. 24, 2010, Abercrombie distinguished that he did not see Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham at the hospital with their newborn son, but he remembered the couple bringing the baby to social events.
The New York Times did not press Abercrombie to describe any specific social events where he could remember seeing or being with Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii with the parents.

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama greets the media as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, November 14, 2010. President Obama is back in Washington after a 10-day trip to Asia. UPI/Yuri Gripas/Pool Photo via Newscom














It could be a game-changer.
A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.
It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.
The proposal, which also is being taken up in a number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:


Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
The critical phrases are "natural born citizen" and the requirements of "article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States," which imposes on the president a requirement not demanded of other state and federal officeholders.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
Burges told WND she's asked the proposal to be assigned to the Government Committee.
"I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND. "We do not accept the federal government's unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their extended branches."
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.
The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as a year ago when lawmakers adopted provisions that allowed state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The state's move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
WND also has reported that similar efforts are under way in Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas:
Montana
Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.
"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."
Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."
But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.
"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office.
Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.
He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."
"We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.
He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns.
"I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign," he told WND.
Georgia
Rep. Mark Hatfield has confirmed to WND that he will have a similar proposal pending.
He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year's session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.
"I do plan to reintroduce the bill," he told WND. "We'll move forward with trying to get it before a committee."
In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both houses of the legislature as well as "every constitutional statewide office," he noted.
"I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation]," he said.
Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot "would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified," he said.
"My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements," he said. "This is a first step in that direction."
Texas
WND reported on a bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation.
Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:
It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."
It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.


State Rep. Leo Berman
Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.
He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.
Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn't want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.
"If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he'll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he's a natural-born citizen," he said. "This is going to be significant."
Berman said he's convinced there are problems with Obama's eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.
Other state plans also might be in the works but unannounced yet. Officials with the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures said they were not tracking bills in development.
But Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, said efforts are under way now in Missouri and Oklahoma, too.
She said the bill is expected to be successful in Missouri where there is a GOP majority in the legislature, and in Oklahoma, where last year a similar plan failed by only one vote in the state Senate.
She encouraged residents of Tennessee, New Hampshire, South Dakota, California, Maine, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and Iowa to contact their lawmakers, as there has been some interest expressed.
"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union … as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.
Last year, several other states listened to proposals that could have had an impact on eligibility documentation. In New Hampshire, officials wanted to require candidates to meet the "qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution." In Oklahoma, lawmakers heard a plan to let voters decide the issue, and in South Carolina, the plan was to prevent candidates from being on the ballot unless "that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."
Further, several other states discussed requirements for candidates, but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance, so it's unclear whether they would have addressed Obama's situation.
There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.
Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provided:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.
There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.
For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effectiv

Electric cars OK .. I m just saying!

I think we as a country need to start asking who are the people running our country? Electric cars are a wonderful idea, they were really big in Demolition Man... There is only 1 problem, where does all the electricity needed to "Fuel" these cars come from ??  We have not been allowed to built a new nuclear or clean burning coal fired plant since 1971.Once you put 1 million of these cars on the road by 2015 like President Obama has called for... The above model falls apart. The cost per mile will jump from 2 cents per mile $1.54 per mile or $154.00 per 100 miles . The cost of electricity will sky rocket, simple supply and demand.

That's if you can find a high output station to re-fuel in less than an hour.. If you are charging at home it will take 8-10 hours. All of these cars will crash a already fragile power grid in most cities during high usage hours. Our electric grid was deigned and built in the 1950's. Where is all of the cheap easy to get electric going to come from??

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence had very few illusions about what they were risking. How much of what they pledged did they actually lose?

By ARTHUR BERNON TOURTELLOT






When the Continental Congress opened its session of Friday, August 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the major business of the day was to continue a somewhat moribund debate on the Articles of Confederation. An incidental piece of business was the signing, by all the delegates to the Congress, of an engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence—a matter which John Adams did not consider sufficiently important to mention in his diary of the day’s events. The great day, to him, was neither that of the signing of the Declaration, August 2, nor that of its adoption, July 4. The day “to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations [he wrote his wife] from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever more” would be July 2—the day the Congress passed a resolution affirming that the states were independent of the British crown.
There was little ceremony about the signing. Fiftyone of the fifty-six delegates were present. The other five signed the document later, in the fall of 1776, except for Thomas McKean of Delaware, who signed it sometime after January, 1777, or—according to some evidence—asiate as 1781. John Hancock, who as President of the Congress was the only delegate to sign the original document when it was adopted on July 4, was the first to sign the engrossed copy. Highly theatrical in temperament, Hancock wrote his name large and bold, commenting—so it was narrated years after—that he wanted John Bull to be able to read it without spectacles. Franklin, the oldest of the delegates, was reported to have responded to Hancock’s worried “We must be unanimous…we must all hans; together” with his breezy “Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” One of the newer members of the Congress, William Ellery of Rhode Island, who was of a literary bent, sensed the history of the occasion; he stationed himself close to the secretary in order to observe the expressions on the faces of the delegates as they affixed their signatures. “Undaunted resolution,” he reported of all of them.
There is little evidence that the actual signing struck any delegates, other than the impressionable Ellery and the dramaturgic Hancock, as one of the great moments in history. The delegation from Massachusetts, where the war had been going on for well over a year, thought it was long overdue, and Samuel Adams grumbled constantly about its lateness. Elbridge Gerry agreed with him: “We should have declared independence last winter and received a great advantage therefrom…” But Robert Morris of Pennsylvania thought it too early—“a certain premature declaration which you know I always opposed,” he wrote superciliously to Horatio Gates, the military malcontent of the Revolution.
The fifty-six men who were to achieve an immortality, the true dimensions of which seem clearly to have escaped all of them, represented no single stratum of colonial life. They were of varied backgrounds, ages, education, property, and experience. Two were brothers—the Lees. There were also two Adamses, remote cousins, and two Morrises, no kin. There were no father-son combinations, although Thomas Lynch, Jr., was sent by South Carolina to succeed his ailing father, who died on the way home from Philadelphia. And Dr. Benjamin Rush was the son-in-law of signer Richard Stockton of New Jersey.
Some of the signers, like the Adamses of Massachusetts and the Lees of Virginia, had already had broad political experience and had earned a considerable degree of fame. Some, like Franklin and George Wythe, were known and highly respected throughout the colonies. Others were unheard of, chosen as delegates because they were willing to serve—several as last-minute replacements for men who had refused to vote for independence or to support it. Some signed reluctantly. We have John Adams’ word for that: “…there were several who signed with regret, and several others with many doubts and much lukewarmedness.” But none signed casually. They were clearly aware, as Abraham Clark of New Jersey put it, that they would have “freedom or a halter.”
Sixteen of the signers had riot voted for independence when the vote was taken on July 2. The entire New York delegation of four abstained because they had no directive from their indecisive province. Robert Morris, who opposed the resolution, was intentionally absent on July 2, and five other Pennsylvania signers were elected only late in July to bolster the shaky delegation. Oliver Wolcott was home in Connecticut ill, and his replacement, William Williams, had not yet arrived in Philadelphia. Matthew Thornton, who signed the Declaration in November, was not elected to Congress until September, and Charles Carroll of Maryland was elected on July 4. William Hooper of North Carolina was absent when the independence vote was taken. All these delegates signed the Declaration without having voted for it, although only Morris had actively opposed it. Only one signer actually voted against independence—George Read of Delaware—although he later became an ardent supporter of the Declaration. (His vote, under the unit rule, would have prevented Delaware from casting its vote for independence had not Caesar Rodney, the third man of the Delaware delegation, rushed up from Dover to break the tie between Read and Thomas McKean.)
Eight of the signers were declaring the independence of a land in which they weren’t even born, and all eight of these were natives of the British Isles. The last to arrive in the colonies was Dr. John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, who came from Scotland only eight years before the Declaration. All the rest of the signers were born in America.
The average age of the fifty-six signers was fortyfive—not young by eighteenth-century standards, but not ancient. Franklin was at seventy the oldest, and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina was the youngest at twenty-six years and eight months, being just four months younger than his fellow South Carolina delegate, Thomas Lynch. These were the only two delegates in their twenties. (If either of these men had lived as long as Charles Carroll, they would have lived until S. F. B. Morse telegraphed “What hath God wrought” and the United States admitted Texas to the Union—but they both died young.) Sixteen of the signers were in their thirties; twenty—the largest single age-group—in their forties; eleven in their fifties; six in their sixties; and only one, Franklin, in his seventies.
Nine of the signers, all of whom had pledged their lives to the support of the Declaration, died during the Revolution—all but three as a direct or indirect result of it. The first to die was John Morton, a Pennsylvania farmer, who had been severely criticized for favoring independence. On his deathbed eight months after signing, he said of his critics, “…they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service that I ever rendered my country.” Button Gwinnett, a cantankerous merchantlandowner who had served as governor of Georgia, died a month after Morton. Gwinnett challenged a brigadier general of a Georgia Continental brigade to a duel over a military dispute. The two fired pistols simultaneously at four paces (about twelve feet), shooting low and wounding each other in the thigh. The general recovered, but Gwinnett died three days later of a gangrenous infection.
Another signer, John Penn of North Carolina, was challenged to a duel by Henry Laurens, who succeeded Hancock as President of the Congress in 1777. On the morning of the duel, Penn, who was thirty-eight, had breakfast with his fifty-three-year-old opponent; then the two set out together for the dueling ground. Laurens stumbled as they crossed a street, and Penn rescued him from falling. His sense of etiquette apparently disturbed by rescuing from slight injury an older man whom he was about to try to injure severely, Penn proposed that they call off the duel, and Laurens agreed.
The longevity of the forty-seven signers who survived the war was impressive. Four lived into their nineties, ten into their eighties, and nine into their seventies. The average age at death was sixty-nine—strikingly high for the time. Thomas Lynch, the second youngest signer, was the youngest at death—thirty; and Charles Carroll, who was thirty-nine when he signed, was the oldest, at ninety-five in 1832—the last of the signers to die. The last widow of a signer to die was Elbridge Gerry’s relict, who went to her reward the year that Abraham Lincoln turned down an appointment by President Zachary Taylor as governor of the Oregon Territory—1849.
Of the fifty-six signers, all but two were married, and fourteen were married twice. Caesar Rodney, the Delaware delegate who had made the mad ride to Philadelphia to cast his state’s decisive vote for independence, was apparently the only doctrinal bachelor. The other single signer, Joseph Hewes of North Carolina, who was talked into supporting independence by John Adams, had been engaged to be married, but his fiancée died a few days before the wedding. Benjamin Franklin, whose views of marriage were functional at best, had a common-law wife, but the other fifty-three married signers had more formally acquired consorts.
All but four signers risked their lives and fortunes in spite of considerable family obligations. Altogether they had some 305 children (figures are not available for two), and the number of their grandchildren ran well into four figures. Since fifty-two of the signers are known to have had children, the average per father was nearly six. Seven of these were illegitimate; two, including the Loyalist governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, were Benjamin Franklin’s by unknown predecessors to his wife Deborah, and five were those of another Pennsylvanian, George Taylor, who had two children by his wife and five children by his housekeeper. The largest number of children—eighteen—belonged to Carter Braxton of Virginia, who had married twice. Ten signers had ten or more children, and two of them, John Adams and Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, had sons who became Presidents.
The eighteenth century was an age of admirable generalists—men like Franklin and Jefferson who could turn with equal skill to many fields. Insofar as they had predominant occupations, however, more—twentyfive—were lawyers than anything else. Next most numerous were merchants (twelve) and landowners (nine). There were four physicians, two farmers, and two fulltime politicians with no other occupation. Franklin was the only printer. There was also only one clergyman, although two others, Robert Treat Paine and Lyman Hall, had been clerics, Paine later turning to the law as nearer his real interests, and Hall to medicine after having been deposed from his Connecticut parish for “confessed immorality.” Fifteen per cent of the signers, however, were sons of clergymen. Twelve of the lawyers were jurists, and so were two of the physicians, three of the merchants, one of the farmers, and one of the politicians—nineteen judges altogether.
By far the most versatile of this versatile group was Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey. Hopkinson wrote verse and essays that were published in a wide variety of important publications and later in book form, practiced law, composed cantatas and liturgical music, wrote social and political satires, wrote and directed theatrical productions, was a professional artist noted for his drawings, invented several generally used devices such as shades for candlesticks, served as a judge of admiralty, designed the American flag, designed the seals of the State of New Jersey, the University of Pennsylvania, and the American Philosophical Society—oldest of American learned societies—excelled at the harpsichord, played a leading role as a layman in establishing the Protestant Episcopal Church after its organizational separation from the Church of England, was a merchant, and served as a collector of customs.
Men of such varied and rich accomplishments could be expected to have had somewhat better than average educations, and they did. Half of them, twentyeight, were college graduates. Eight of these went to Harvard, five to William and Mary, four to Yale, two to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton), and one to the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania). Eight went to college abroad, including all four of the youthful South Carolina delegates, who studied law in London. Only three were limited to a common-school education, and eleven were largely selfeducated. Fourteen had the advantage of good private education by tutors and in academies below collegiate level.
Eighteen, a little less than a third of the signers, were rich men, though some were to lose all their fortunes, which they pledged along with their lives and honor that August day in Philadelphia, in support of independence. The richest of all was Charles Carroll, who styled himself “of Carrollton,” and of whom, as he signed the Declaration, another delegate observed ominously, “There go a few millions.”
There is no doubt that the signers of the Declaration knew they were up to something far more serious than making a brave gesture when they put their signatures on the document. Indeed, for reasons of security, the Declaration with the signatures was not published until January, 1777—six months after the signing—for it was fully understood that if the Revolution failed, the signers would be rounded up, their property confiscated, and their lives forfeited.
As it happened, Washington’s victory at Trenton the day after Christmas in 1776, and his defeat of Cornwallis at Princeton a week later, turned the tide, and the Declaration was published with all the signatures.
Nearly all the signers, in either a civil or a military role, became involved in the prosecution of the war. Over a fourth of them—seventeen—saw military service, and twelve of these were actively in the field during the Revolution. Four of them were taken prisoner. A civilian signer, Richard Stockton of New Jersey, father-in-law of Dr. Rush, who served as Surgeon General, was, however, the first to be captured. Late in September, 1776, scarcely seven weeks after he had signed the Declaration, Stockton was appointed by the Congress to visit the northern army at Saratoga, where he found the colonials marching with neither shoes nor leggings. Before he got home to Princeton, the British had invaded New Jersey and his handsome estate, Morven, was sacked. In December, he succeeded in getting his family installed in the house of friends in Monmouth County; but some Loyalists informed the enemy of his presence there, and he was captured and taken off to a British prison, first in Perth Amboy and later in New York City. Cold, poorly fed, and badly treated, he was kept jailed until the Congress eventually succeeded in arranging his exchange. Stockton was one of those who gave both his life and his fortune to back the instrument that he had signed: his health permanently broken by the ordeal of imprisonment and his fortune virtually wiped out, he died, at fifty, before the war was over.
The second signer to be imprisoned was George Wallon, a Georgia lawyer, who was commanding the First Georgian Regiment at the siege of Savannah in 1778. Walton was shot from his horse, his leg shattered by an enemy ball, and captured. His energetic civil service in the cause of independence was known to the British, who informed the colonials that he was much too important to be exchanged for anything less than a brigadier general. Some ten months later, despairing of a general, the British settled for a captain of the Royal Navy. Walton survived to live an active political life for twenty-eight years after the signing.
The tendency to stick together of the four delegates from South Carolina, all of whom were under thirty-four and all of whom studied at London’s Middle Temple, was further reflected in their war experiences. All four served in the Revolutionary forces. Even before signing the Declaration, the twenty-six-year-old Thomas Lynch had become invalided from a fever contracted while on recruiting duty in South Carolina. After three years of continuous illness, he set sail with his young wife for the West Indies, and both were lost at sea. All three of his young fellow delegates, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge, fought to resist the British forces besieging Charleston. All three were captured. All three were imprisoned in the steaming British garrison at Saint Augustine. All three were exchanged after a year’s imprisonment. Finally, all three survived the war—although Thomas Heyward, Jr., had a near miss. Freed from the British prison, he was en route by ship to Philadelphia when he fell overboard and saved himself only by clinging to the rudder until his plight was discovered.
In addition to these five signers, the British also took as prisoner the wife of Francis Lewis of New York. Lewis, an aging retired merchant of considerable wealth, was absent on his congressional duties from his country house on Long Island when the occupying British forces seized and destroyed it and captured his wife. Mrs. Lewis was deprived of any bed or change of clothes during her imprisonment. The colonials, who were no more delicate about taking civilian women as military prisoners, finally exchanged the wives of the British paymaster general and of the British attorney general in New York for Mrs. Lewis, who was, however, too weakened by the ordeal to survive long.
Several of the signers lost their fortunes not to enemy action but in acts of private generosity for the public good. William Paca, long an articulate leader in Maryland politics, used his own money to outfit troops for the Continental Army. Thomas Nelson, Jr., of Virginia had started the independence ball rolling in May, 1776, when he introduced Edmund Pendleton’s resolution calling for independence at the Virginia convention in Williamsburg and then carried it to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. During the last year of the Revolution, he took energetic military action. Having succeeded Jefferson as governor of Virginia, he gathered a militia of three thousand men and joined Washington in besieging the British forces in Yorktown. His own mansion there was known to be occupied by British officers. Nelson asked the American officers why it had been spared, and was told that it was out of respect for the private property of the governor of Virginia. Nelson urged that the artillery be turned on his house, and he was promptly accommodated. Two pieces were aimed at the building, and the shots riddled it, dislodging the occupants.
Others, too, lost their homes. The houses of William Ellery, Lewis Morris, and Josiah Bartlett were burned. Those of George Clymer, Lyman Hall, John Hart, William Floyd, William Hooper, Francis Hopkinson, and Arthur Middleton were destroyed or thoroughly ransacked. Altogether seventeen of the signers suffered extreme, and in some cases total, property losses. One in nine of them lost his life. But not one man of the fiftysix lost his “sacred honor.” Throughout the long ordeal of an often-floundering war, in a cause that at times seemed hopelessly lost, there was not among the fifty-six men a single defection—despite the reservations that some had had about independence at the beginning and despite the repeated sagging of popular support for the war.
When the war was over, the surviving signers continued active political careers, many of them extending into the early days of the republic after the unsatisfactory experiment of the Confederation. Two, Adams and Jefferson, became Presidents of the young republic, consecutively succeeding George Washington. Another, Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, was the only man, other than Washington and Adams, to receive any votes in the first presidential election in January, 1789. Three signers became Vice Presidents: Adams, Jefferson, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Two became Justices of the United States Supreme Court : Samuel Chase of Maryland and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. There were few offices in the fledgling democracy that some signer did not fill. Four became United States senators; four, ambassadors; seventeen, governors of their states; fifteen, state judges, including nine chief justices; five, speakers of their state legislatures. There was no limit to their enthusiasm for public office, nor was their enthusiasm always tempered with prudence.
One of the most zealous public servants among the signers was Thomas McKean, who signed the Declaration as a delegate from Delaware but who had acquired a second house in Philadelphia two years earlier. Thereafter, one state was too few to contain his activities. While a member of Congress from Delaware, he commanded a force of Pennsylvania militia in New Jersey. In 1777, he was made chief justice of Pennsylvania, while still a member of Congress from Delaware. In 1781, he was both chief justice of Pennsylvania and president of Congress. He was also governor (acting president) of Delaware, while chief justice of Pennsylvania, but in 1799 became governor of Pennsylvania, after having occupied its top judicial post for twentytwo years. He was re-elected in 1802 and again in 1805. In his third administration his political enemies, who were legion and were frustrated by his zest, started impeachment proceedings against him on a variety of trivial charges. He outmaneuvered them, however, and never came to trial. He retired in 1808 and died at eighty-three in 1817, the only signer to have served as chief executive of two states.
Political turbulence also haunted the post-Revolutionary path of Samuel Chase of Maryland, whose career was in many respects more inflammatory than the Revolution itself. He had led the independence movement in his state, getting the convention to reverse itself after it had voted against independence. He then carried the new resolution favoring independence to Philadelphia and threw himself with unprecedented energy into the war, serving on twenty-one committees in 1777 and on thirty in 1778. He also continued some concentrated private activities, including an effort to corner the flour market based on knowledge to which he was privy as a member of Congress. Alexander Hamilton exposed this economic venture, and Maryland removed Chase as a delegate to Congress for the two years 1779 and 1780. By the time he was reappointed in 1784, he was too busy selling munitions to the Maryland militia to attend further to his congressional duties. He also speculated in mines, lost heavily, and went bankrupt. In 1788, he became a chief judge of Maryland, first in the criminal and then in the general court, holding both posts simultaneously. For this McKean-like political pluralism, he was almost removed from both offices by the Assembly, the majority—but not the necessary two-thirds—of the members condemning him.
Although Chase vigorously opposed the Constitution, President Washington saw fit to appoint him an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to interpret it. His performance in that tribunal was extremely impressive—as history has shown is often the case with unpromising appointees—and his opinions were of outstanding distinction. Nevertheless, turbulence followed him there, too. Some injudicial behavior in court proceedings, coupled with hostility to President Jefferson, led the latter to suggest his impeachment by the House, which occurred in 1804. Chase was acquitted of all eight charges, but his powers declined steadily until his death in 1811.
Another sort of difficulty besieged James Wilson of Pennsylvania, as likely a prospect for the Court as Chase was unlikely, for he had been one of the architects of the Constitution. Conversely, after his appointment to the first Supreme Court by President Washington, Wilson failed to distinguish himself. He speculated heavily in lands, attempted to influence legislation, and had to move from state to state to avoid arrest for debt. He died in acute nervous collapse at fifty-six, while threatened with impeachment, his great intellectual powers wasted in an uncontrollable quest for lesser things.
The only other signer to incur censure was George Walton, who as governor of Georgia took sides with General Lachlan Mclntosh, the man who mortally wounded signer Button Gwinnett in the duel. Walton sent a forged letter in 1779 to Congress in connection with Mclntosh’s military service, and four years later he was censured by resolution of the state legislature for his pains. But any distress he felt was considerably alleviated by the fact that, on the day before, the same body had chosen him as chief justice of Georgia.
Although Jefferson directed that his authorship of the Declaration be cited in his epitaph, most of the signers, politically sophisticated and living in the midst of eventful times, did not in their later years dwell on the historic moment when they had signed it. They did not write memoirs of the event or, for the most part, even refer to it in their letters. In doing a job that had to be done, they seemed, like Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire, to have made up their minds to do it—and then to have taken it in their stride. Bartlett had written at the time, with orthodox New England respect for understatement, “The Declaration before Congress is, I think, a pretty good one.”
Arthur Bernon Tourtellot, editor, author, and television producer, is currently working on a sequel to his William Diamond’s Drum: The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Why is Hawaii gov. suddenly 'mum' on Obama birth 'certificate' After blizzard of attacks on 'birthers,' Abercrombie now avoids interviews

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, on left
Although Hawaii's newly elected Democrat governor, Neil Abercrombie, has recently given a flurry of high-profile media interviews condemning "birthers" who question Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, suddenly he is declining to answer a few hard questions.
Abercrombie, 72, a former member of the U.S. House, may be trying to quell the surge of doubt among Americans – polls show nearly six in 10 doubt Obama's own eligibility story – by promising he will try to release additional records on Obama from his state's Department of Health vault.
He has, in just recent days, expressed his disdain toward "birthers" in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, on CNN, as well as the local Star Advertiser and Hawaii News Now.
His startling remarks appear to be in response to the recent polling results as well as the rapidly growing list of high-profile personalities and leaders publicly raising questions about Obama's eligibility.



Even as stalwart an Obama supporter as MSNBC host Chris Matthews is now urging that Obama release his long-form hospital-generated birth certificate to assist Abercrombie's campaign against "birthers."

"I am not a birther. I am an enemy of the birthers," Matthews said. But, he added, "Why doesn't the president just say, 'Send me a copy right now?' Why doesn't Gibbs and Axelrod say, 'Let's just get this crappy story dead?' Why not do it? ... If it exists, why not put it out?"
Matthews was joined by Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune and David Corn of Mother Jones, both of whom agreed with Matthews' call for Obama to publicly release the document, which to this point has remained tightly under wraps.
But Abercrombie won't talk with WND, which has reported more on the controversy than any other news source in the world.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
"It [the Obama birth certificate controversy] is an insult to his [Obama's] mother and to his father; they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that," Abercrombie told the New York Times in a telephone interview Thursday. "It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office."
But this week, in e-mails from his press secretary, Abercrombie refused to be interviewed by WND.
"The governor did an interview over a week ago in which this topic [Obama's eligibility to be president under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution] was raised," Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's press secretary, said in an e-mail to WND.
"He [Abercrombie] has been on vacation since Saturday and is unavailable. Hope this helps you understand. You are in no way being singled out as your e-mail suggests," she said.
But despite the denials, Dela Cruz did not respond when WND followed up with a request for an interview with Abercrombie at the governor's convenience after he returns from vacation.
It was just last week that Abercrombie himself injected new urgency into the ongoing controversy over Obama's birth certificate when the Star Advertiser reported the governor has been talking with the state attorney general's office and the director of the state Health Department to see how he can bypass Hawaii's privacy laws and release more information about whatever Obama records exist there.
Interestingly, the new governor's links to the controversy go way back.
Abercrombie claims to have seen baby Obama in Hawaii
Although he has acknowledged he was not present at the still-unidentified hospital in Honolulu to witness Obama's birth, Abercrombie long has claimed he socialized with Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham Obama when Barack Obama Jr. was yet a baby.
"Maybe I'm the only one in the country that could look you right in the eye and tell you, 'I was here when the baby was born,'" Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune in an attempt to provide personal testimony to buttress the argument Obama was born in Hawaii as he has long claimed.
Abercrombie was a graduate teaching assistant in sociology at the University of Hawaii when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in 1959 from Kenya to enroll as the first African-born student in the university's history.
The problem with Abercrombie’s testimony is that Barack Obama Sr. and his wife, Ann Dunham, did not live together as man and wife with their baby son as Abercrombie claims to have witnessed.
WND has published transcripts from the University of Washington in Seattle that prove Ann Dunham was enrolled in extension classes there, across the Pacific, within three weeks of the baby's birth.
WND further has documented Ann Dunham's Seattle address in authoritative Seattle street directories from the period and interviewed Barack Obama Jr.'s babysitter in Seattle to further document the presence of Ann Dunham and her baby in Seattle, not Hawaii as Abercrombie has claimed.
WND also has reported that the address used in the two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 announcing the baby's birth was 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, an address maintained by Ann Dunham's parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham.
In August 1961, when Barack Obama Jr. was born, Barack Obama Sr. maintained a separate address on 11th Avenue, in Hawaii.
There is no documentary evidence that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever lived at the same address together as man and wife.
Moreover, university transcripts from the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii demonstrate that Ann Dunham remained in Seattle, fully enrolled in university courses, until she returned to Hawaii in 1962 to re-enroll in the University of Hawaii after Barack Obama Sr. had left Hawaii to attend graduate school at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Nobody invited to wedding of Obama's parents?
In actuality, it isn't clear Obama's parents were married, since official records never have been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.
In his book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Anderson elaborates: "There were certainly no witnesses (to the alleged civil marriage ceremony on Maui in 1961 between Obama's parents) – no family members were present, and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling that they were even engaged."
Anderson further quoted Abercrombie, a self-admitted friend of Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, as saying that "nobody" was invited to the wedding ceremony.
Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," wrote of his parents' wedding: "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."
Bachelor father?
Contrary to Abercrombie's assertion that he spent social time with Barack Obama Sr., his wife, Ann Dunham, and their child, Barack Obama Jr., the documentary evidence strongly suggests that while Ann Dunham was in Seattle attending the University of Washington, Barack Obama Sr. lived the life of a bachelor in Honolulu.
WND has published a photo of Barack Obama Sr. at a University of Hawaii student party that he attended without his wife, Ann Dunham; the photo clearly shows his left hand absent a wedding ring.


Barack Obama Sr. at party with University of Hawaii students in the early 1960s
WND also reported on a letter Barack Obama Sr. wrote from Hawaii to his political benefactor in Kenya, Tom Mboya, in May 1962, discussing his wife, but he does so without mentioning Ann Dunham, his Hawaiian bride and the mother of the president, Barack Obama Jr.
Toward the end of the 1962 letter, Obama wrote, "You know my wife is in Nairobi there and I would really appreciate any help you may give her."
Clearly Barack Obama Sr. is referring to his first wife, Kezia Aoko, whom he had married in 1954 when he was eighteen years old while she was pregnant with their first child.
He instructs Mboya that his wife Kezia was then staying with her brother, Wilson Odiawo, in Nairobi.
Two Hawaii newspapers published feature articles in June 1962, the month Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii to attend classes at Harvard, that profiled Barack Obama Sr. in considerable detail, but make no reference to his wife in Hawaii, Ann Dunham, or his then 10-month-old infant son, Barack Obama Jr.
Abercrombie, the only witness?
Strangely, Abercrombie is the only witness on the public record claiming a recollection of Barack Obama Sr., Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Jr. living together and interacting with him socially as a family in Hawaii.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune he remembered Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham as participating in "long coffeehouse sessions" while Barack Obama Sr. was attending the University of Hawaii.
The Chicago Tribune story further reported that on a trip to Africa years later Abercrombie caught up with Barack Obama Sr.
"He [Barack Obama Sr.] was drinking too much; his frustration was apparent," Abercrombie told the newspaper.
"To Abercrombie’s surprise, Obama never asked about his ex-wife or his son," Tribune national correspondent Tim Jones wrote.
Just last year, Abercrombie played a role in another Obama birth controversy when he read a letter at a Kapi'olani Medical Center centennial dinner in Honolulu that supposedly was authored by President Obama, claiming Kapi'olani as his birth hospital.
As WND reported, the letter read by Abercrombie and initially displayed on the Kapi'olani website turned out to be a computer-created likeness of a letter using HTML code, the building blocks of Internet websites, not an actual paper letter.


The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu originally posted on its website this HTML-created version of a letter supposedly written by Barack Obama in which he states he was born at the facility. Kapi'olani has since removed this image, and the White House has remained silent on its content.
When pressed on the matter, Kapi'olani officials eventually sent WND a photograph of a paper letter purportedly written by Obama, though the White House has still not confirmed its authenticity or content. Hospital officials told WND they "know" the letter must be from Obama because it was brought to them by then-Congressman Abercrombie.


A photograph taken by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for WND shows a letter allegedly written by President Obama on embossed White House stationery in which he declares the Honolulu hospital to be "the place of my birth," The hospital, after publicizing the letter then refusing to confirm it even existed, is now vouching for its authenticity, but not its content. The White House has yet to verify any aspect of the letter.
Also in 2009, WND documented that Obama and his supporters first claimed he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, before the story changed to Kapi'olani and Internet articles claiming Queens as Obama's birth hospital were cleansed to substitute Kapi'olani instead of Queens as the birth hospital reference.
'Friends' linked to Democrat Socialists of America
During his gubernatorial campaign, Abercrombie blasted WND for publishing a report that Abercrombie was listed as a member of the U.S.-based Marxist-oriented Democratic Socialists of America.
Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog, a researcher on communism, uncovered the November-December 1990 issue of the Democratic Socialists of America's official magazine, "The Democratic Left," that listed Abercrombie as a member of the party.
The magazine stated the group's political action committee endorsed two congressional candidates, "DSAer Democrat Neil Abercrombie seeking to regain the House seat representing Honolulu and Vermont independent candidate Bernie Sanders."
Louden also documented that Obama attended socialist conferences in New York in the early 1980s at the Cooper Union, the usual venue for the annual DSA-organized Socialist Scholars Conferences.
Stanley Kurtz, in his book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism," noted on page 63 that Barack Obama's name appears on a large list of names and addresses in a folder labeled "Socialist Scholars Conference," in the records of the Democratic Socialists of America.
From analyses of these lists, Kurtz concluded that Obama pre-registered for the Second Annual Socialist Scholars Conference held on April 19-21, 1984, at the Boro of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, in New York.
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and his appointment of lawyers to suppress all requests for his documentation.



Look who wants 500% bump in funding for government media State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WorldNetDaily



Ben Scott



"Net neutrality" rules must be implemented for content control while the government should quintuple federal funding for public and community broadcasting, Ben Scott, the State Department's recently appointed policy adviser for innovation, argues.
Scott's writings, last year in a radical magazine, were in an article co-authored by Robert W. McChesney, an avowed Marxist activist who has called for the dismantlement "brick-by-brick" of the U.S. capitalist system, with America being rebuilt as a socialist society.
McChesney is the founder of the George Soros-funded Free Press, which petitions for more government control of the Internet and news media.
Scott and McChesney also recommended the U.S. impose ownership limits on local radio, TV, and cable channels while pushing for more control of the media by the FCC.
The two were writing in the January/February 2009 edition of Tikkun Magazine, run by avowed Marxist Michael Lerner. Lerner has been accused of using the magazine to justify Palestinian terror and has written articles in which he suggested the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. policies.
"Whatever issue tops your list of priorities, real progress will be impossible unless we first change our media system," wrote Scott and McChesney. "Currently, access to communications and control over media content are vested in the hands of corporate titans."



   
The two recommended the following policy implementations:

  • Restore the original mission of the Federal Communications Commission as a guardian of the public interest. The FCC must become a 21st-century agency focused on the digital media marketplace of ideas and commerce, with a commitment to public engagement, transparency, and accountability.

  • Support ownership limits and public oversight to foster more diverse, competitive, and local ownership of radio, TV, and cable channels.

  • At a minimum, quintuple the federal funding for public and community broadcasting, to at least $3 billion annually – earmarking money for children's and public affairs programming. Funding should come from fees paid by commercial licensees to the public airwaves.

  • Ban all advertising on broadcast and cable TV programs where over 33 percent of the viewership is under the age of 12. This is similar to the rules in many European nations.

  • Establish "Network Neutrality" rules that guarantee free speech and a free market on the Internet by prohibiting discrimination, manipulation, and interference by network owners like Comcast or AT&T.

  • Restore competition to the market in high-speed Internet access to break the hold of the cable-telephone duopoly on the nation's "broadband" infrastructure.

  • Transition all public subsidies for telephone networks to fund infrastructure to bring the benefits of broadband to all Americans.

  • Authorize the license of more noncommercial, low-power FM radio stations in communities nationwide.

  • Open antitrust investigations into vertically integrated media companies that control production and distribution through anti-competitive practices.
"Net neutrality" refers to government demands for a principle for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
Just last week, FCC commissioners voted 3-2 to approve controversial "net neutrality" rules, with the content of those rules, about 100 pages, still being rolled out.
Just in May, Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department. He previously served as director of McChesney's Free Press.
Scott authored a book, "The Future of Media," which was edited by McChesney, who doubles as a professor at the University of Illinois and is former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.
In February 2009 McChesney wrote in a column, "In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."
The board of Free Press has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist organization.
In May, WND reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.
Now the group is pushing a new organization, StopBigMedia.com, that advocates the downfall of "big media" and the creation of new media to "promote local ownership, amplify minority voices, support quality journalism, and bring local artists, voices and viewpoints to the airwaves."
Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration.
Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press's May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C.
Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.
A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.



What do military heroes think of sex experiments? 'The mission is fight and win wars. President's job is to protect nation' Read more: What do military heroes think of sex experiments?


THE GAYING OF AMERICA 
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily


Adm. Jeremiah Denton
Their biographies read like the script for an action movie, except perhaps the movie wouldn't have quite so much action: Flying military missions over enemy territory, sending coded messages while captured, firefights in exotic locales from Vietnam to Iran to Mogadishu, Oval Office briefings and faceoffs with communists in Nicaragua.
These three retired military giants, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Eugene B. McDaniel, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin and Adm. Jeremiah Denton, have scoured their experiences and come to the conclusion that using the military services for social experiments regarding homosexuality poses a huge danger to America's future.
"My outlook tells me we should pray the words 'God bless America' and immediately after that prayer offer another, 'God help America,'" Denton told WND regarding the plan by Congress and Barack Obama that is intended to allow openly homosexual behaviorial choices inside the ranks of the Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines.
Join thousands telling Obama and Congress to stop forcing open homosexuality on the U.S. military.
Denton's extravagant heroics remain unchallenged to this day. Flying missions over Vietnam, he was shot down and spent years as a POW, famously blinking Morse code with his eyes during a staged "interview" to reveal that the communist regime was using torture.

He later returned to the United States to thank the president and nation for being allowed to serve, and went on to represent America as a U.S. senator from Alabama and also serve President Reagan.


His book, "When Hell was in Session," documents his eight years in captivity, his release, promotion to rear admiral and describes his shock at the moral decline in America during his absence.
"My opinions on 'Don't ask, don't tell' are not politically correct," he warned.
He said the military is not set up to respond to the "hurt feelings" of everyone because there is just no room in the battle for freedom and rights for those disputes. The nation, and its military; he said, need to be focused on the fundamental – biblical – principles on which the nation was founded.
Facing demands from homosexual advocacy organizations as well as Obama, Congress recently authorized the repeal of the military's practice of "Don't ask, don't tell," given certain conditions are met such as "proof" that it will not significantly hurt the nation.
"Not enough emphasis is being placed upon the fact that growing counter-cultural development has already done grave harm to the well-being and security of the United States," Denton said. "A strong portion of our population, including our government, has already been persuaded that many of the most critically important fundamental founding principles of our country should be discarded – especially the critically important portion of the Declaration of Independence which holds that it is an inalienable truth in the field of human rights that 'all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'"
He continued, "Our creator is God, and His Ten Commandments stipulate a set of behaviors that are permissible and a set of things that are not permissible in the pursuit of happiness by our citizens.
"Our government has all but abandoned this dictum … causing a tremendous deterioration of our culture and behavior. … A solid institution of the family is essential not only for a nation's survival, but for the survival of civilization."
He said the U.S. has abandoned a commitment to, or even recognition of, a morality.
"History has redundantly proven that when nations choose to ignore morality and the citizenry drops allegiance to God, they soon perish," he said.
"The government … is imposing social experimentation on our armed forces," he said. "We are taking a big new step toward violating the point of what President Reagan meant when he said, 'When we stop being one nation under God, we will become one nation gone under.'
"I regard the debate about DADT as one of the many symptoms of our progressive abandonment of the principles which brought this nation from birth to unparalleled world power…"
Joining the argument was Boykin, who in 1978 joined what would become the world's first Special Operations unit, Delta Force, where he was promised only "A medal and a body bag."
At one point he took a .50 caliber round in his chest and he spent his career bringing down warlords, despots and dictators. His team hunted in Columbia for drug lord Pablo Escobar and he helped capture dictator Manuel Noriega in Panama. His missions also took him to Mogadishu, Iran and Vietnam.
His book, "Never Surrender: A Soldier's Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom," describes his adventures.
He told WND the move to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military should not even have been considered.
"There is no constitutional right to serve," he said. "The military always has discriminated based on physical limitations, bad life choices like felony convictions."
The argument, he said, is about the moral character of the nation.
"The anchor of our society should be the church," he said. "The church already has been compromised. This [the military] is the last bastion of ethics and morality. That's what it's about."
He said such social considerations are not only unnecessary but dangerous.
"The mission [of the military] is to fight and win wars. It's never changed," he said. "There's no question that what this is going to do is reduce the effectiveness of the military."
He said America will "suffer the consequences."
"The No. 1 job of any president, of any administration, is to protect the nation," he said. "Every decision has to be made with a focus on enhancing the ability to do that."
However, the move by Congress and Obama, fails.
"No one can demonstrate this decision is going to enhance readiness," he said. "Quite the opposite."
McDaniel, a pilot in Vietnam, was headed to Van Dien, North Vietnam, when his jet was shot down and he spent nearly six years as a POW. After leaving the Navy as a captain, he founded the American Defense Institute to encourage patriotism.
"I'm very concerned about the impact [of repeal]," he told WND. He said it was difficult enough for military vehicles such as aircraft carriers to create opportunities for women, but the issue of those of the same sex openly exhibiting attraction to another in the ranks will befuddle standards and "destroy the morale."
"There is no upside," he said.
Also joining the argument was retired Gen. Carl Mundy, USMC, 30th commandant of Marines, whose remarks appeared on the Dakota Voice.
"Ordinary citizens have the right to say whatever they wish, to be active in politics of their choice, to demonstrate, to groom or dress as they prefer, to live wherever and with whomever they wish, and short of an absolute violation of law, to behave as they wish," he said. "Uniformed military members do not have these rights. By both verbal oath and personal signature upon enlistment, they swear before God to support the Constitution that gives rights to others in society, while denying the same to themselves. They affirm that they will bear true faith and allegiance to it, and that they will obey the orders of the president and those of the officers appointed over them. Officers go a step further, swearing that they accept this obligation without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
But he said nothing in the Constitution, nor any action of Congress to date, "Gives any citizen the right to serve."
He explained the military has the authority to reject applicants for age, physical or mental conditions, education, drug use, weight and other reasons.
And he noted the law for years actually has excluded from eligibility to serve those who exhibit "a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy already was an allowance for those with such lifestyle choices who would promise not to make a public spectacle.
He said the reason for military operations should not be "social reform" but "military effectiveness."
WND previously has reported that the military "study" that purported to show many members of the military comfortable with serving alongside those with openly homosexual behavior was suspect, at best, because of failures in its protocols.


Read more: What do military heroes think of sex experiments? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=245425#ixzz19v9b9tMW