By Spencer S. Hsu and Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with "cookies" and other technologies, raising alarms among privacy groups.
A two-week public comment period ended Monday on a proposal by the White House Office of Management and Budget to end a ban on federal Internet sites using such technologies and replace it with other privacy safeguards. The current prohibition, in place since 2000, can be waived if an agency head cites a "compelling need."
Supporters of a change say social networking and similar services, which often take advantage of the tracking technologies, have transformed how people communicate over the Internet, and Obama's aides say those services can make government more transparent and increase public involvement.
Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a "massive" and unexplained shift in government policy. In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."
Even groups that support updating the policy question whether the administration is seeking changes at the request of private companies, such as online search giant Google, as the industry's economic clout and influence in Washington have grown rapidly.
Two prominent technology policy advocacy groups, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation, cited the terms of a Feb. 19 contract with Google, in which a unnamed federal agency explicitly carved out an exemption from the ban so that the agency could use Google's YouTube video player.
The terms of the contract, negotiated through the General Services Administration, "expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google." The contract was obtained by EPIC through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens," EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg said. "The expectation is they should be complying with the government regulations, not that the government should change its regulations to accommodate these companies."
Cindy Cohn, legal director for Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the contract "troubling."
"It appears that these companies are forcing the government to lower the privacy protections that the government had promised the American people," Cohn said. "The government should be requiring companies to raise the level of privacy protection if they want government contracts."
The episode recalls a dispute in January when critics complained that a redesigned White House Web site featured embedded Google YouTube videos -- depicting events such as the president's weekly address -- that used tracking cookies. The White House and Google later reassured users that they had stopped collecting data.
But the current ban on cookies, according to senior OMB officials, applies only to federal agencies and not third parties. That means that a visitor to http://www.whitehouse.gov, for example, isn't tracked by the government, but information about a user who clicks on a YouTube video on the site could be tracked by Google, according to a source at the company with knowledge of the partnership with the Obama administration.
Google spokeswoman Christine Chen directed broader questions to the government, but said in a statement that the White House use of YouTube "is just one example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White House to provide privacy protections for users."
In a May 28 letter responding to EPIC's public records request, Zachariah I. Miller, a GSA presidential management fellow, said "...GSA and the rest of the Government do take personal privacy seriously and apply all existing privacy statutes and regulations in this area."
Similar to Online Stores
Vivek Kundra, the government's chief information officer, and OMB official Michael Fitzpatrick, wrote in a July 24 blog posting that the policy review is intended to improve customer service by allowing agencies to analyze how people use their sites and to remember individual visitors' "data, settings or preferences." Such use is similar to online stores' creation of personalized "shopping cart" services that have won wide public acceptance.
The pair proposed that if the change is made, visitors be clearly notified that tracking technologies are being used and allow them to opt out without penalty. For technologies that track users over more than a single Internet session, known as "persistent identifiers," there would be higher levels of privacy safeguards, they said.
EFF and another group, the Center for Democracy and Technology, have said that the time has come to expand privacy safeguards to new tracking technologies. At the same time, they say that the cookie ban might be too broad, keeping the government from improving its services for the public.
NY Times Reporter: I Was Fired For Criticizing Obama, Goldman Sachs
Columnist who compared Obama campaign to Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies is expelled
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A columnist for the New York Times has publicly stated that he believes he was fired last week simply for criticizing president Obama and his policies.
Commentator Ben Stein writes in the American Spectator that the real reason for his dismissal was not, as the Times indicated, due to a conflict of interest arising from his role as a spokesperson for credit rating service FreeScore.com, nor for budgetary issues.
Rather, Stein states, he was “expelled from the New York Times” due to recent criticism of Obama.
“The two main things, as I see them, were that I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices.” Stein writes.
“I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.” he explains.
Stein added, “By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)”
Stein is well known for his controversial 2008 film Expelled, in which he argued that the scientific theory of evolution has contributed to the rise of fascism, communism, atheism, abortion and eugenics.
Stein believes that his commitment to this project also contributed to his eventual dismissal, following a barrage of hate mail from those he describes as “neo-Darwinists”.
He also cites his questioning of Goldman Sachs’ activity as another reason for his firing.
“I made a new set of antagonists by repeatedly and in detail criticizing the real power in this country, the “investment bank” Goldman Sachs, for what seemed to me questionable behavior. This elicited a mountain of favorable mail but also some complaints by well-placed persons.” he writes
Stein was previously criticized in 2008 interview after comparing one of Obama’s major campaign rallies to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi rallies at Nuremberg.
Sztandarowa reforma Obamy napotyka na gigantyczny opór społeczeństwa, ale kto by chciał płacić z własnych podatków za aborcje i kompletną kontrolę państwa nad zdrowiem?
Kiedy siedziałem w USA i pewnego razu się rozchorowałem, to odbiłem się o system "opieki zdrowotnej" wielkiego brata. Takiego gówna to nawet w Polsce nie ma. Może i dobrze robi, bo dzięki temu ludzie będą mogli pójść na wizytę do lekarza bez obawy że zbankrutują. Ja na lekarza sobie pozwolić nie mogłem, chociaż że pracowałem legalnie i zarabiałem w miarę przyzwoicie. Ubezpieczenie zdrowotne jest tam dobrowolne, co oznacza, że jeżeli ciebie nie stać na nie to możesz zdychać pod mostem.
British Govt. officials planning the Assassination of Obama
August 17, 2009 By: Freedom Fighter
LaRouche Warns: British Oligarchy, Furious At Obama, Could Go For the Kill
August 17, 2009 (LPAC)—Two major British Sunday newspapers—the Observer and the Independent—published black propaganda stories today, claiming that the outpouring of opposition to the President’s health care “reforms” is coming from a rabid rightwing extremist movement, that could attempt to assassinate the President. Lyndon LaRouche promptly denounced these British stories, warning that if there is any attempt to assassinate the President, it will come from top circles in London, who are furious at President Barack Obama, for flubbing the British demands to impose fascism on the United States.
Writing in the Independent, Rupert Cornwell touted a recent study by the ADL-allied Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claiming a massive increase in radical militia activity as proof that a major domestic terrorist attack or a direct hit on Obama is likely. “As one SPLC official puts it, every element is in place for a ‘perfect storm’ of home-grown extremism. For the first time, the detested federal government is run by a black man. A struggling economy fuels discontent, with illegal immigrants accused of stealing American jobs. The military, long a breeding ground of the far right, is sending home veterans in vast numbers. Finally, there is the internet, which simultaneously propagates and intensifies the feelings of true believers—and the conspiracy theories they devour. The US has always had a taste for conspiracy theories, but rarely as now.”
Writing in the Observer, the Sunday edition of the Fabian Society-linked GuardianIndependent’s Cornwell. He interviewed Chip Berlet, the sexually ambiguous longtime slanderer of Lyndon LaRouche, who cackled, “This is a very dangerous situation that can spin off ‘lone wolf’ individuals who decide now is the time to act against people they see as an enemy.” newspaper, Paul Harris was even more blunt. In an article headlined, “Fears for Barack Obama’s safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism,” Harris wrote, “Welcome to the disturbing new face of the radical right in America. Across the country, extremism is surging, inflamed by conservative talkshow hosts, encouraged by Republican leaders and propagating a series of wild conspiracy theories. Many fear it might end in tragedy… Such extremism is becoming a major security issue, prompting fears of an attack on Obama’s life or some other incident of domestic terrorism.” Harris not only cited the same Southern Poverty Law Center study as did the
Lyndon LaRouche agreed there is a threat against the President’s life, but not from the so-called extremist fringe in America. LaRouche warned that any attack on Obama would come from the British, “who have a long history of assassinating American Presidents, from Abraham Lincoln, to William McKinley, to John F. Kennedy.”
LaRouche warned, “There is a threat to President Obama from the British, who are angry at his failure to bring fascism to America. It is estimated that the greatest danger to the life of the President is from a British assassination, aimed at attracting sympathy to the dead man’s cause. Were this to happen, it would represent a new 9/11 attack, with even more devastating consequences.
“We want the President safe. Unless he changes his policies in the immediate days ahead, he will become an ever increasing object of hatred from the American people. We want to assure his safety, because there should be no guilt associated with hatred for the President’s horrible policies, from bailing out Wall Street, to his so-called health care reforms.”
LaRouche hit back at both Cornwell and Harris: “These guys are spreading degenerate lies. They are lying about the American people, and lying about the actual popular upheaval against policies that will kill. The American people do not want to be killed, and these two British writers are stupid jerks who don’t know the first thing about what is going on here. In point of fact, the people putting out this kind of propaganda are doing the most to set up the conditions for such an attack on the President. The citizens showing up at the town hall meetings around the country are showing a decent respect for the person of the President, while voicing their strong opposition to the policies he is promoting. The lying claims of racism are exactly the opposite of the truth. The made-in-London policies being promoted by this Administration are where the racism is to be found—hatred of the human race.”
LaRouche concluded, “The British may very well be attempting to orchestrate U.S. politics by assassination. It would be dangerous to deny this. That is why I am speaking out, as a responsible public figure, now. If anything happens to the President, you can start with the assumption that the orders came from London. Preemptive exposure is the best insurance against something happening to the President.”
Strona Obamy na myspace podaje że ukochany polityk amerykanów urodził się na Hawajach w 1957 roku a nie w 1961 jak podaje sam prezydent.Niewielka różnica,powiecie,ale Hawaje są stanem USA dopiero od roku 1959,przedtem były jedynie terytorium zamorskim-czyli Barry znowu miałby problemy jako że znaczyłoby to że nie urodził się w Stanach.
Is President Obama's age 52? His MySpace page declares his age as 52, thus putting his birth year at 1957, two years before Hawaii achieved U.S. statehood.
If President Obama were indeed born in Hawaii, was it while the islands were a territory of the United States?
A new wrinkle in the dispute over his birth – and whether he is eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen – appeared today when Obama's official MySpace page declared his age is 52, thus placing his birth year at 1957 instead of 1961 as has been claimed.
That would mean he would have been born during the archipelago's time as a territory of the U.S., the islands' status from about 1900 until statehood in 1959.
The birth year also conflicts with campaign and other White House information that have discussed his 48th birthday this month.
An Aug. 16, 2009, screenshot of President Obama's MySpace page declares his age as 52, not 48 as has been claimed elsewhere.
When one puts the words "MySpace" and "Barack Obama" into search engines such as Google, the top result indicates: "Official profile page for Barack Obama includes his blog, blurbs, news clips, videos and comments from his MySpace friends."
A WND request to the White House for comment did not generate an immediate response.
It was the Associated Press that reported on Aug. 4 Obama was having Senate Democrats to lunch because "it's the president's birthday and Chuck E. Cheese was booked."
AP credited Obama with being the nation's third youngest president who turned 48 this month.
Interestingly, a check of the Internet archive "Wayback Machine" finds that in April 2007, Obama had his age listed as 45 on MySpace, which would be correct if, in fact, he had been born in August 1961 as has been trumpeted.
A screenshot from the archive of Barack Obama's MySpace page from April 10, 2007, indicates an age of 45 years old, which would be consistent with a birth date of Aug. 4, 1961.
Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, several times has raised the question over Obama's eligibility at White House news briefings – initially asking why the president didn't just release a copy of his original long-form birth certificate.
Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, at first laughed at the idea, stating the "birth certificate" was on the Internet. That image, however, shows a "certification of live birth" which is not the same document and until recently wasn't even accepted as identification by the state of Hawaii for some of its programs.
But a multitude of other records that also have not been released would shed light on the president's past, including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.
Even when a hospital in Honolulu started using an image of a letter purporting to be from Obama acknowledging the facility as his place of birth, the White House refused to confirm the validity of the letter.
The dispute rages because Obama has not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.
Hawaiian law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.
WND has reported on the dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" – challenges that all have been confronted by attorneys acting on the president's behalf to keep his records sealed.
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 he was actually 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.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The key question in the dispute also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
They are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Obama To Give Speech To Nation’s School Children September 8
September, 1, 2009 — nicedeb
Just when you thought this administration couldn’t get any creepier, it has outdone itself:
President Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009
PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009
Before the Speech:
• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be President?
To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?
• Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
During the Speech:
• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
There’s much more on the PDF file, including suggestions for teachers to assign classroom projects like having the children “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the President. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make the children accountable to their goals”.
Are they kidding me?! Not just no, but HELL NO!!!!
Na szczęście nie wszyscy ludzie to idioci i zaczęli się organizować aby chronić pociechy przed zbytnią dawką indoktrynacji:
Indoctrination Alert! Protect your kids on Sept. 8th
This Tuesday Sept. 8th President Obama is planning to address the nation's school children DIRECTLY, through a live internet broadcast at 12 noon. If you do not want Obama to have access to your children to say whatever he wants to them during their school hours without you being there, there are a few things you can do:
-Call the school's principal to find out whether the school was planning to show the speech, and if they are, let the principal know that you feel the role of the school is to educate, not to indoctrinate, and that you do not consent to have your child spoken to directly by any politician or government official, for any reason. Maybe if enough parents call, the school will not show the speech to students.
-If the school is going ahead with plans to show the speech, you can keep your child out of school that day.
-You can write up a consent form that would allow a parent of your choice, in your community, to remove your child (and all other children whose parents consent to it) from the area where the speech is being broadcast, and for that period of time, engage the children in some alternate educational activity, such as reading the text of the Constitution, for example.
and a letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to School Principals, encouraging them to broadcast the speech, and to accompany it with other activities promoting the same agenda:
[Check out the suggested activities that are meant to accompany the speech-- I think the intention is for schools to make this a day-long event in honor of the President]
The ostensible message that students should work hard to educate themselves may seem relatively benign, but the insidious subtext is that you should work hard not for yourself and your own individual happiness, but for the country, society, the state-- to make America more competitive in the world, to raise standards of living (through redistribution, presumably) for all Americans, etc... I personally don't want my children to grow up believing that they exist to serve the state, that it is somehow normal to think this way.
But fundamentally, it doesn't really matter what it is that Obama is planning to tell American children on Tuesday. What does matter is that it is totally inappropriate for him to be addressing children directly at a time when they are away from their parents, and a captive audience in their classrooms. State indoctrination of children is a hallmark of totalitarian government. Don't let it happen here.
September 04, 2009 By: Freedom Fighter Category: Uncategorized
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, seeking to breathe new life into his drive to remake US health care, will address a rare joint session of the US Congress on September 9, congressional aides said Wednesday.
The speech will come one day after lawmakers return from a month-long August break, during which Obama’s approval ratings slipped and doubts appeared to grow about his embattled efforts to extend medical care to more Americans.
The aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Obama had accepted an invitation from Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid to address Congress.
“Our nation is closer than ever to achieving health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage. We are committed to reaching this goal,” Pelosi and Reid wrote to the president.
“We would like to invite you to address a Joint Session of the Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 on health insurance reform,” they said in a letter made public by their offices.
Kontrowersje wokół "orędzia" Obamy do dzieci
Zapowiedź, że prezydent USA Barack Obama wygłosi przemówienie do uczniów szkół podstawowych, wywołała protesty konserwatywnych środowisk, które twierdzą, że prezydent zamierza indoktrynować młodzież.
Biały Dom poinformował, że prezydent pragnie po prostu zachęcać dzieci do pilnej nauki i nieopuszczania lekcji. Podkreślono, że przemówienie nie będzie zawierać żadnych treści ideologicznych ani politycznych.
Mimo to prawicowe środowiska, głównie na konserwatywnym południu, zarzucają mu, że będzie wpajał młodzieży "socjalistyczne" idee.
Przewodniczący oddziału Partii Republikańskiej na Florydzie, Jim Greer, oświadczył, że jest "zdumiony, iż pieniądze podatników będą użyte na propagowanie socjalistycznej ideologii prezydenta Obamy".
Konserwatywny komentator Mark Steyn powiedział w radiu, że Obama próbuje stworzyć wokół siebie kult jednostki, i porównał go do nieżyjącego dyktatora Iraku Saddama Husajna i przywódcy stalinowskiego reżimu w Korei Północnej Kim Dzong Ila.
Jak podał piątkowy "New York Times", w Teksasie kilka okręgów szkolnych pod presją rodziców rozważa plany umożliwienia dzieciom w szkołach, by nie oglądały przemówienia prezydenta.
Przemówienie będzie wygłoszone w południe i ma być bezpośrednio transmitowane przez telewizję. Na podstawie wytycznych z kuratoriów, w szkołach publicznych mają się odbyć lekcje na temat prezydenckiego wystąpienia.
Władze podkreślają jednak, że lekcje takie będą dobrowolne i żadna szkoła nie została zobowiązana do zapewnienia, by uczniowie wspólnie oglądali przemówienie Obamy w TV.
Protestujących przeciw wystąpieniu Obamy skrytykował w piątek nawet konserwatywny "Wall Street Journal".
"To co najmniej gruba przesada. Amerykańskie dzieci nie są aż tak podatne na propagandę, byśmy musieli zabraniać im oglądać prezydenckie przemówienia. Zważywszy że wiele dzieci z mniejszości rasowych ma trudności w szkole, rozmowa pierwszego afroamerykańskiego prezydenta z nimi może nawet spełnić pozytywna rolę" - napisał dziennik w komentarzu redakcyjnym.
W przeszłości do uczniów szkół podstawowych przemawiał m.in. w 1991 r. przez telewizję republikański prezydent George H.W. Bush (senior).
Kontrowersje wokół "orędzia" Obamy do dzieci
Jacy ci rządzący Ameryką są durni? Czy nie można w jakiś sposób wysłać im nagrań pierwszych sekretarzy nieboszczki pzpr z pierwszego września adresowanych do ówczesnej młodzieży. Nie musieli by pisać nowych przemówień.
Amerykański Departament Sprawiedliwości próbuje wywierać naciski na Sąd w Kalifornii, aby ten odrzucił pozew w sprawie, dotyczącej wciąż spornej kwestii miejsca urodzenia Prezydenta Baracka Obamy.
Właśnie wczoraj (8 września 2009) odbyła się sesja rozprawy, pod przewodnictwem sędziego Davida Cartera. Na tej rozprawie został przesłuchany świadek - Lucas Smith, który pod przysięgą oświadczył, iż przywiózł on ze sobą oficjalnie poświadczoną kopie certyfikatu urodzenia Baracka Obamy, pochodzącą z Kenii. Sędzia zaakceptował przedstawiony akt urodzenia jako dowód w sprawie.
Jeżeli ten akt urodzenia zostanie uznany przez Sąd jako właściwy, Prezydent Obama przestanie być Prezydentem, nie spełniając niezbędnych warunków konstytucyjnych do sprawowania tego urzędu. Nie trzeba chyba nikomu tłumaczyć jakie wynikły by z tego faktu konsekwencje polityczne, tak w USA jak i na całym świecie. Przypomnijmy te, że sam Barack Obama w pełni obstaje przy tym, iż urodził się na Hawajach. Ewentualny wyrok sądu uznający akt urodzenia z Kenii, automatycznie rozpoczął by przygotowywania do dochodzenia przeciwko Barackowi Obamie, w sprawie złożenia fałszywych oświadczeń, co skończyło by się najprawdopodobniej jego natychmiastowym impeachmentem (odebraniem mu urzędu Prezydenta USA).
Lucas Smith oświadczył, iż aby zdobyć ten certyfikat musiał przekupić pilnującego ich oficera kenijskiego, co w tym kraju jest zjawiskiem codziennym.
Już wcześniej adwokat Orly Taitz przedstawił oficjalny - kenijski dokument rejestracyjny, zaświadczający iż Barack Obama urodził się w Kenii. Dokument ten jest wypisywany na podstawie oryginalnego aktu urodzenia, sporządzanego zaraz po urodzeniu się dziecka. Ten właśnie akt został teraz przedłożony sędziemu Carterowi, w celu uzupełnienia materiału dowodowego.
Jak już wspomnieliśmy wcześniej, amerykański Departament Sprawiedliwości próbuje wywrzeć wszelkie możliwe naciski na sędziego Cartera, aby ten uznał sprawę za nie ważną "ze względów technicznych". Czyżby zapanowała panika w Waszyngtonie ?
"Teraz czekamy na dalsze decyzje sądu" - oświadczył adwokat Orly Taitz. "Mamy nadzieje, że w zaistniałej sytuacji sędzia nakaże prezydentowi Obamie upublicznienie reszty dokumentacji z jego przeszłości, łącznie z pełnym i oryginalnym aktem urodzenia na Hawajach" (Obama jak dotychczas tego jeszcze nie zrobił).
W Stanach Zjednoczonych odbywa się stopniowy zamach stanu i przejęcie dowodzenia armii USA oraz rządów przez byłego oficera armii izraelskiej Rahma Emanuela, który z kolei to reprezentuje elity finansowe skupione wokół Rockefellerów i Rotszyldów – finansjerów m.in. WHO (Swiatowej Organizacji Zdrowia), ONZ, firm Baxter, Novartis oraz kontrolerów Wall Street, Goldmann Sachs i tzw. FED
Inna sprawa że informacja ukazuje się 09.09.09, co dla niektórych powinno stanowić jakiś sygnał do stwierdzenia "A nie mówiłem(am)?"
_________________ Prawda nieraz jest bardzo trudna do ustalenia, ale nigdy nie jest tak niedostępna jak wówczas kiedy jest niewygodna.