"You can't take two monkeys and make a human. Chromasomes would be missing. But you can go the other way and take two humans and come up with something pretty close to monkey. There are a lot of people like that." - R. Buckminster Fuller
freydo
JoinedPosts by freydo
-
19
Did We Evolve from Monkeys?
by Dogpatch inmost people think we didn't evolve from monkeys.
i would buy drugs with the fifty dollars.
i would buy drugs with the fifty dollars.
-
-
-
27
I need you to pray for me, I absolutely want to die right now. I feel so horrible right now.
by miseryloveselders ini just massacred and entire bag of oreo cookies and quarter gallon of milk.
my stomach is killing me.
ohh, i just want to croak right now.
-
-
freydo
Reminds me of Tweedy Pie telling sea-sick Sylvester,
"Oh poor puddy tat. He don't feel so good. Here puddy tat, have a nice fresh piece of RAW PORK!"
-
-
-
freydo
It's about pressure on those in power designs. And the Constitution Not who's more qualified.
And until I see the holes in Obama's picture plugged ..............
-
36
Letter to Phoenix Suns owner about AZ immigration laws
by startingover indon't know if this is authentic or not, but it really doesn't matter.
it's still a great analogy.
the owner of the phoenix suns basketball team, robert sarver, opposes az's new immigration laws.
-
-
freydo
Gingrich: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Should Sue Feds
Friday, 30 Jul 2010 02:46 PM Article Font Size
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich backs Arizona’s new immigration law and says Gov. Jan Brewer “ought to promptly file suit against the federal government to make them pay for all the costs that Arizona’s dealing with — costs in schools, costs in prisons, costs in hospitals. If the federal government’s basis of it’s lawsuit is that it has sole responsibility, then it ought to have sole responsibility. If I were [Gov. Brewer], I’d present them with a bill for several billion dollars on behalf of the people of Arizona who are currently suffering because eof the incompetence and failure of the federal government.”
Editor’s note: See the clip below -
44
Do 'general' masons, understand what their symbology means?
by EndofMysteries inamong them and their associates, almost all are based on faces of cherubs, serpent as the god of healing, many things from solomon's temple.
i know those who continue to make them and use them, must have an idea of what they represent and the reason for them.
i don't know, if the general members have any clue or if they are just in it for their own reasons, the association, benefits, to help others, or to advance their life/career, etc.
-
-
freydo
At it's root, the question is to whom do Mason's like Muslims give homage? If that question is of no concern, then it speaks of the same mental, or should I say lack thereof, disregard for any other abnormalities that are obviously threatening to bring down western civilization and the freedoms that people in totalitarian systems cannot even fathom, by ranting on about conspiracy theories being the exclusive province of any who don't see things from their blinded perspective and who simply are content to be duped and howl at the wind. They make no logical counter arguments. But only emotional fulminations that show a complete lack of understanding and obvious wanting in areas of cerebral development, and more often than not have avatars of their own choosing to prove it.
-
-
-
freydo
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," -
-
-
freydo
Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?
November 25, 2008"The controversy that surrounds the birth certificate of President-elect Barack Obama, as well as his place of birth, has this writer asking her own questions: whose supposed to verify a Presidential candidate is legitimate, a natural born citizen? Is it possible for a candidate to be elected as President, who wasn’t egible to run? If so, and the citizenary discovered the candidate had fraudulently run for President, what safeguards are in place to rectify the situation?
When running for President, Barack Obama, whose father was a citizen of Kenya, and whose mother is a natural born citizen of the United States, submitted an online a copy of what is known as a “Certificate of Live Birth”, or COLB, from the state of Hawaii. COLB’s are issued to parents of a child born either abroad, or outside of a hospital. World Net Daily has focused on the COLB issue with Janet Porter’s, Rathergate II, Certificate of Live Birth a Clear Forgery.
Porter’s piece focuses on analysis of the COLB issued by Hawaii and has cited analysis which purportedly shows the COLB is either a forgery, or has been altered. Porter also claimed that Obama wasn’t issued an American passport until he was a United State Senator, even though he had previously traveled overseas to countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Kenya.
There are currently lawsuits working their way through the U.S. Courts: Leo C. Denofrio of New Jersey is one such case.
In his case, Denofrio has challenged the egibility of three candidates running on the New Jersy ballot for President: Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain, and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.
Denofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State, who by law, is entrusted with vetting Presidential candidates who are on the New Jersey ballot. While some may consider Denofrio’s suit “frivolous”, the case is scheduled for a conference by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, December 5th. Denofrio’s case also answered one my questions: who is in charge of vetting Presidential candidates?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Roger Calero, the Socialist Workers Party candidate who ran for President on the New Jersey ballot, Calero was in Nicaragua, is not an American citizen, carries a Green Card, and ran on five different state ballots for President. At no time did the Secretary of State of New Jersey, in charge of elections, verify whether Calero was a “natural born citizen”.
State by State
Even though the office of the President is part of the Federal Government, the Feds don’t have any power to enforce the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement for Presidential candidates. This was news to me, I assumed, that someone, somewhere, in the Federal government was entrusted with verifying a candidate was eligible to run for President. It’s the state governments, and their State Elections Divisions, who are actually the government officials who are responsible for ensuring a candidate, during the election process, is legitimate. When Denofrio contacted the New Jersey Secretary of State Elections Division, what he discovered is quite shocking:..........When running for President, Barack Obama, whose father was a citizen of Kenya, and whose mother is a natural born citizen of the United States, submitted an online a copy of what is known as a “Certificate of Live Birth”, or COLB, from the state of Hawaii. COLB’s are issued to parents of a child born either abroad, or outside of a hospital. World Net Daily has focused on the COLB issue with Janet Porter’s, Rathergate II, Certificate of Live Birth a Clear Forgery. Porter’s piece focuses on analysis of the COLB issued by Hawaii and has cited analysis which purportedly shows the COLB is either a forgery, or has been altered. Porter also claimed that Obama wasn’t issued an American passport until he was a United State Senator, even though he had previously traveled overseas to countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Kenya..........." -
-
-
freydo
Friday, July 30, 2010
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
Constitutional lawyer says electors have duty to investigate citizenship
Posted: November 24, 2008
9:48 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily
"A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
Already, more than 115,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition here.
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero. The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama’s ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?" -
121
3 Things You Should Know About Islam
by onemore in....watch the video, what if we were to substitute the word islam (in the video) for watchtowerism.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbptzalqfy.
-
-
freydo
To whom do they give homage? It's not the God of the Jews who would provide a ransom for all and then turn around and produce an anti-messiah in their sworn enemies.
http://www.yrm.org/4-3-10video.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956058781270914781&hl=en&emb=1#
-
121
3 Things You Should Know About Islam
by onemore in....watch the video, what if we were to substitute the word islam (in the video) for watchtowerism.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbptzalqfy.
-
-
freydo
It's more of a political ideology that's promotes itself as religion that everybody should have respect for.
The political part is dangerous. The religious side is full of contradictions and error.
The cathaholics are the same
Ditto for "christian fundamentalism"
Ditto for jw's
