Angelina Jolie’s Double Mastectomy by Dr. John McDougall

3

People Are Desperate for Change

I have no intention of criticizing the famous actress, Angelina Jolie, for her decision to have both breasts removed in an effort to improve her chances for a longer life. (National headlines on May 15, 2013.) I have treated nearly a thousand people with breast cancer over my 45-year career in medicine. From my experience, I can safely say that she has agonized over this decision. Her radical treatment may have helped her; time will possibly tell.* All we know for sure is that Ms. Jolie has made a great sacrifice today for a theoretical benefit in the very distant future—say one to five decades henceforth.

*If she develops breast cancer then we can assume this prophylactic treatment failed. If the cancer never appears there are two possibilities: one, she may never have been destined to grow, or die of, breast cancer—in this case a double mastectomy would not have been necessary. The other possibility is that the treatment saved her life. Neither disease-free outcome can be proven for her as an individual.

Some important lessons can be learned from her story:

1) Women (and men) are willing to make almost any sacrifice to avoid premature death and suffering. This tells me that the effort required to eat a better diet is no real obstacle. Switching from braised beefsteak to Mary’s Tunisian Stew (found in The Starch Solution) is no sacrifice at all—especially when compared to a double mastectomy. Breast, prostate, and colon cancer are due to an unhealthy diet—and so are type-2 diabetes, obesity, and coronary heart disease. Unfortunately, few people are given the information needed to take advantage of a simple, cost-free, dietary solution.

2) Profit drives health messages. One woman’s double mastectomy generates more than $50,000 in medical business. Dietary change cuts the food bill in half. People do not save themselves with a healthy diet because no doctors are prescribing it, no hospitals are serving it, and no Fortune 500 companies are selling it.

3) Left unchecked by a few honest doctors, scientists, and politicians, profiteering would lead to medical recommendations to cut a smoker’s risk of lung cancer in half by having one lung prophylactically removed (rather than cost-free smoking cessation). Prostate cancer occurs in nearly 100 percent of men by age 80 years. So why not recommend total prostate removal on every man’s thirtieth birthday?

4) Sexism is rampant in the medical businesses. Conservative treatment (including a “doing nothing approach” called “watchful waiting”) has been a standard recommendation for men with prostate cancer for more than 20 years. Mutilation, has been, and still is, universally recommended for women, even with the slightest hint of pre-cancer of the breast (DCIS). Even those women fortunate enough to avoid breast amputation (a mastectomy), are universally harmed. They are all persuaded into receiving breast, lung, and heart damaging radiation, when a simple (in most cases non-deforming) lumpectomy alone would suffice (even for women with invasive breast cancer).

5) Celebrities have great influence. Ms. Jolie’s experience may cause many women to choose radical surgical treatments, but President Bill Clinton’s experience with reversing his poor health (and heart disease) by changing his diet sent millions more people towards a very conservative course. We need more positive examples.

6) Shining light on a subject will reveal the truth. With mastectomy back in the headlines, stories should again be told about how more than sixty years of medical research has unarguably shown no survival benefits of mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, over a simple removal of the lump. As a result of this science more than 18 states in the US have “informed consent laws” that force physicians to tell women facing breast cancer tests and treatments the facts about the failure (and benefits) of breast cancer treatments. In the state of Hawaii where I helped get the 3rd informed consent law passed in the US, women have also been told by state law since 1982 that they need to change their diet.

I applaud Ms. Jolie for making her story public. I do hope her life has been prolonged by this radical surgery. I would, however, discourage this approach for my patients, because I believe the harms far outweigh the benefits. Irrespective of any decisions about mastectomy, or any other medically prescribed treatments, all women and men need to have the opportunity to benefit from a starch-based diet. In 1984, I performed the first study ever published in a medical journal showing the benefits of a healthy diet for women with breast cancer (the McDougall Diet). Since then, dozens of other scientific papers have come to similar conclusions. Yet, doctors rarely mention the importance of food, as they send their patients off to therapies that they (in fact) know will have disastrous consequences.

For better understanding and scientific support read The McDougall Program for Women and McDougall’s Medicine – A Challenging Second Opinion (found in libraries and downloadable from my web store-www.drmcdougall.com).

Also see my Hot Topics on breast, prostate, and colon cancer (www.drmcdougall.com).

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013other/news/jolie.htm

Posted in Current Events, Family, Health, History, Men, News, Personal Freedom, The Patriot's Wife | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Squeezing Breasts ‘Can Stop Cancer’

New research has shown that squeezing breasts could prevent malignant breast cells from causing cancer.

Experiments found that physical pressure led cells back to normal growth patterns, and that even after compression was no longer applied, the malignant cells stopped growing.

1

A little squeeze may be all that it takes to prevent malignant breast cells triggering cancer, research has shown.

Laboratory experiments showed that applying physical pressure to the cells guided them back to a normal growth pattern.

Scientists do not envisage fighting breast cancer with a new range of compression bras, but they believe the research provides clues that could lead to new treatments.

“People have known for centuries that physical force can influence our bodies,” said Gautham Venugopalan, a leading member of the research team at the University of California in Berkeley, United States.

“When we lift weights our muscles get bigger. The force of gravity is essential to keeping our bones strong. Here we show that physical force can play a role in the growth – and reversion – of cancer cells.”

The study involved growing malignant breast epithelial cells within a gel injected into flexible silicone chambers. This allowed the scientists to apply compression during the first stages of cell growth, effectively squashing the cells.

Over time, the squeezed malignant cells began to grow in a more normal and organized way.

Once the breast tissue structure was formed the cells stopped growing, even when the compressive force was removed. Non-compressed cells continued to display the haphazard and uncontrolled growth that leads to cancer.

“Malignant cells have not completely forgotten how to be healthy; they just need the right cues to guide them back to a healthy growth pattern,” said Mr Venugopalan, a doctoral student.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco.

http://news.uk.msn.com/health/squeezing-breasts-can-stop-cancer

Posted in Current Events, Health, The Patriot's Wife | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Openly Gay Boy Scout Resolution Will Devastate Scouting

Grapevine, TX, May 23, 2013 – Following the vote today by the Boy Scouts of America’s voting delegates to pass the resolution allowing “open and avowed homosexuality” in the Boy Scouts, John Stemberger, Founder of OnMyHonor.Neta coalition of members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) including parents, Scoutmasters, Eagle Scouts and other Scouting leaders who affirm Scouting’s timeless values, made the following statement:

“It is with great sadness and deep disappointment that we recognize on this day that the most influential youth program in America has turned a tragic corner. The vote today to allow open and avowed homosexuality into Scouting will completely transform it into an unprincipled and risky proposition for parents. It is truly a sad day for Scouting.

The Boy Scouts of America has a logo that bears the phrase ‘Timeless Values.’   Today, the BSA can no longer use this phrase in good faith.  It has demonstrated by its actions that the organization’s values are not timeless, and instead they are governed by changing tides of pollspolitics and public opinion.

The saddest part of today’s decision is what the organization is teaching our children and young people in the program.

The BSA is teaching our kids that when your values become unpopular, just change them.

The BSA is teaching our kids that when your convictions are challenged, just cave to peer pressure.

The BSA is teaching our kids that public opinion polls are more important than principles.

Today, the BSA is teaching our kids that you should not stand up for what is right instead you should stand up for what is popular.

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to “prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”

BSA is teaching our kids through its new mission that we don’t make ethical and moral choices through the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law but we make them like an unprincipled politician does, by putting your finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing or by looking at the latest polling results.

What kind of a message are we sending to young people about being brave when its top adult leaders don’t even have the courage to stand up to the pressure of a militant lobby when the bullies in Washington DC, Hollywood or even some of their own renegade councils start pressuring and harassing them? 

Each and every one of the thousands of Scouting families that have supported and followed our movement must now make a very difficult decision.  We respect the right for each parent and family to decide whether they will continue their membership in the Boy Scouts of American or not.

Many, like me and my family, cannot continue to support an organization more concerned with the intolerant demands of activists while compromising the safety and security of the young people they swore to serve.  In July of last year, after a two year study from 2010 to 2012, the BSA’s eleven member task force unanimously concluded that their existing policy on this issue was “the absolute best policy for the Boy Scouts of America.”  Suddenly, less than a year later, that is abruptly reversed.

We hoped to keep sex and politics out of Scouting. Now we grieve for those young boys who will not have the wonderful traditions and experiences that so many of us have had in Scouting.

Despite this setback, we will look to the future. I am pleased to announce that OnMyHonor.Net along with other likeminded organizations, parents and BSA members, are announcing a coalition meeting that will take place next month in Louisville, Kentucky. There we will discuss the creation of a new character development organization for boys. While the meeting will be private, your voice is very important to us and will be represented there.  We will host and facilitate a national coalition meeting of former BSA parents and other youth leaders who wish to return to truly timeless values that once made the BSA great.  We welcome your comments as we develop our plans. Please share your thoughts with us at Contact@OnMyHonor.Net

We grieve today, not because we are faced with leaving Scouting, but because the Boy Scouts of America has left us. Its leadership has turned its back on 103 years of abiding by a mission to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices.  Instead, it is embarking on a pathway of social experimentation that we believe will place at risk the very youth the organization is entrusted to serve, while rendering as hollow the tenets of the Scout Oath.  Many of us find that unacceptable, and we have a desire to explore how we might serve families and young people at the highest standard originally intended by Scouting’s founder, Robert Baden-Powell.”

OnMyHonor.Net is the nationwide coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting Donors, Eagle Scouts and other members of the BSA who are united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and in their opposition to open homosexuality in the Boy Scouts. More information at www.OnMyHonor.Net.

Posted in Boy Scouts, Children, Christianity, Cub Scouts, Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

21 Essential Items For Women Found At The NRA Convention

The lady gun market was hotter than ever at the NRA convention.

And how do you make a gun stuff for ladies?

The lady gun market was hotter than ever at the NRA convention. And how do you make a gun stuff for ladies?

You make it pink!

 

You make it pink!

21. First off, we have this iPhone taser.

First off, we have this iPhone taser.

It also chargers your phone at the same time.

20. A “chicks dig deep conceal” poster.

A "chicks dig deep conceal" poster.

19. A gun holster for over your boobs.

A gun holster for over your boobs.

18. A gun holster for under your boobs.

A gun holster for under your boobs.

17. A “crush girl” bracelet.

A "crush girl" bracelet.

16. A rhinestone fedora with waist-belt gun holster.

A rhinestone fedora with waist-belt gun holster.

Perfect for the jazz club gun enthusiast.

15. Something that says “shoot like a girl” on it.

Something that says "shoot like a girl" on it.

It’s basically the official motto of the NRA ladies.

14. Pink handguns.

Pink handguns.

PRO-TIP: Lady guns cost significantly more than their male counterparts even though they have the same specs.

 

PRO-TIP: Lady guns cost significantly more than their male counterparts even though they have the same specs.

In this case $352 for the pink one vs. $199 for the black one.

13. Denim.

Denim.

12. Hats.

Hats.

11. Pink camo.

Pink camo.

Perfect for blending in at a baby shower.

10. More pink guns.

More pink guns.

9. This shirt.

This shirt.

8. A “Sex In The City” inspired purse.

A "Sex In The City" inspired purse.

“Fabulous”

"Fabulous"

7. A Muddy Girl rifle.

A Muddy Girl rifle.

6. African elephant hair jewelry, of course.

African elephant hair jewelry, of course.

5. This book.

This book.

4. Stickers.

Stickers.

3. Purses with flair.

Purses with flair.

You probably want the grey one.

You probably want the grey one.

Or the pink one.

Or the pink one.

Or you know what? All of them!

Or you know what? All of them!

2. Machine gun casing necklaces.

Machine gun casing necklaces.

1. And last but not least, my absolute favorite: the Blingsting.

 And last but not least, my absolute favorite: the Blingsting.
Posted in Current Events, Firearms, Liberty, News, Personal Freedom, The Patriot's Wife | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2 gun-permit-300x1981

Posted in Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, Firearms, History, Liberty, Men, Personal Freedom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deceit in the Boy Scouts

1There is deception in the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America.

A faction in the national leadership of the BSA wants to get rid of the longstanding membership policy against “open and avowed” homosexuality. But the way it’s going about it is not worthy of the Boy Scouts.

The BSA Executive Committee recently released a resolution which will be presented to the National Council for a vote on May 23. To the surprise of many, the resolution addresses only “youth membership,” leaving in place the prohibition on open homosexuality on the part of leaders.

It has been widely characterized as a “compromise,” but no Boy Scout should be fooled. The tension this incoherent policy would create would make it practically and legally unsustainable, and those pushing the resolution surely know that.

Under the policy, open homosexuality would be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Scout’s career until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes inconsistent with the code. And then what? No troop leader would want to put himself in the position of enforcing such an irrational rule, and likely few would. A de facto change in leadership rules would occur almost immediately.

But it won’t stop there. This move could forfeit the legal victory the Scouts won at the Supreme Court over a decade ago. When the organization was sued for unlawful discrimination, the Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the BSA has the right to maintain its membership policy under its First Amendment speech and association rights. But if the Scouts’ new “speech” is incoherent – open homosexuality is consistent with the Scouting code except when it isn’t – there may be no legal basis left for courts to uphold one part of the code over another. It will be a lawsuit nightmare for the Scouts.

The truth is, a vote to allow open homosexuality on the part of scout members is a vote to allow open homosexuality on the part of scout leaders. The executives who drafted the resolution know it. It isn’t the first time they’ve intended to deceive.

Last year the results of an in-depth, two-year study of Boy Scout families showed overwhelming support for the long-standing membership policy. This was a frustration to those in the Executive Committee who want to change the policy, so they conducted another survey in February.

The February survey can fairly be called a “push poll,” a device used by political campaigns to try to influence the views of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.

The lead scenario in the February survey describes a boy who joins as a tot and dutifully fulfills all requirements over the years until, at the moment he stands before the review board to receive his Eagle Scout Award, “he reveals that he is gay.” Is it acceptable for the board to deny him his Eagle Scout award?

In an obvious slip, the survey instructions were made public along with the survey questions. They tell survey-takers to present this scenario first every time, while rotating others involving boys sharing tents and “gay male troop leaders” who “follow the youth protection guidelines” on camping trips.

But even the results of this survey went wrong for those gunning for a change: Sixty-one percent of parents and Scout leaders favor keeping the current policy, while only 34 percent favor changing it. News agencies aren’t reporting it that way, though, because the official media statement released by the BSA executives includes nothing of the actual survey results but only this very calculated and utterly misleading claim: “While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”

The “Executive Summary” of the survey is also crafted to deceive, leading with vague and disingenuous claims that suggest parents support the membership policy change while burying in a heap of diversionary words at the bottom of page 2 the real numbers that show parents overwhelmingly oppose it.

If the survey was slanted, the official documents released to the public and the press about its results are sheer treachery. How un-Boy Scout of them.

There will be a showdown in Grapevine, Texas, on May 23rd. But will it be a fair fight? Sources inside the Boy Scouts are hearing troubling reports about hundreds or even thousands of additional delegates arriving in Grapevine to cast a vote, anonymously, on the membership policy resolution. Their identities have not been revealed. Voting members of the National Council who support the current policy are in discussion with legal counsel and taking steps to preserve their right to a full and fair vote, an unfortunate step to take in a fraternal organization like the Boy Scouts, but obviously a necessary one.

The first tenet of Boy Scout law is to be Trustworthy. Even those at the top of the organization should not count themselves above it.

By Cathy Ruse. Originally appeared on Townhall.com

http://www.onmyhonor.net/2013/05/13/deceit-in-the-boy-scouts/

Posted in Boy Scouts, Children, Christianity, Cub Scouts, Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Linus Gets It Again!

1

Posted in Children, Christianity, Current Events, Fatherhood, Firearms, Food, Government Corruption, Health, Liberty, Personal Freedom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nora Craig’s Remarks to Government Officials

Nora Craig’s Remarks to Government Officials

Posted in Current Events, Firearms, Government Corruption, Liberty, News, Personal Freedom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

British National Archives Show A Son Was Born To Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya

The [British] National Archives (BNA) is an executive agency of the government of the United Kingdom. Based in Kew in southwest London, the BNA is the UK government’s official archive, containing 1,000 years of history from Domesday Book to the present, with records from parchment and paper scrolls to digital files and archived websites, including Foreign Office and Colonial Office correspondence and files. The collections held by the BNA can be searched using their online catalogue. Entrance to the Archives is free.

On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya. Reporters at the UK’s The Guardian were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found that the name of Barack Obama (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States.

But it’s not just UK journalists who can access the British National Archives; anyone can. In May 2012, someone conducted a search of the Archives using the search term “Obama” and found that an unnamed son of Obama Sr. was born in Kenya in 1961. Since the POS in the White House is the only known son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before 1963 when Kenya became officially independent from the UK, it is reasonable for us to conclude that the POS is that unnamed son of Obama Sr. born in Kenya in 1961. And in fact, the claimed birth date of the POS is August 4, 1961.

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (l); Stanley Ann Dunham (r).

Below are excerpts from Dan Crosby’s on-site report from Kew for The Daily Pen, “Obama’s Kenya Birth Records Discovered in British National Archives,” July 18, 2012:

Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives. [...]

It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.

Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya.  Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly.  Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidentally paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.

Also, the presence of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington.  Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent high school graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).

The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.

The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama [Sr.] are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA.  The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961.  Barack Obama [Sr.] is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.

To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.

A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).

The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender.  However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives.  According to researchers, Obama [Sr.]’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books.  Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama [Sr.] birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.

However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf

Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009.  African news agency expressed surprise at Clinton’s arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.

For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…

The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.

On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name his newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.

Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.

Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.

[...], in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.

In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. [...] Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.

[...] If Obama [Sr.] is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.

[...] Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama [Sr.] ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.

Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child.  A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.

Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama [Sr.] had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.

[...] Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of presidentwhen he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.

[...] Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.

[...] Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. [...] The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961.  The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. [...]

UPDATE (Aug. 25, 2012):

According to Dan Crosby, the specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files (Courtesy: British National Archives):

General Register Office
SERIES RG36
Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia
Legal status:    Public Record(s)
Language:    English
Creator names:    General Register Office, 1836-1970
Covering Birth Registration dates:    1895-1965
Physical description:    15 volume(s)
Access conditions:    Available in microform only
Held by:    The National Archives, Kew
Scope and content:    Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates.
Publication note:    Geoffrey Yeo ‘The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom’, London, 2nd edn, 1988.
Related material:    Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general.
Place:    Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 – 1963
Subjects:    Birth: registration

 

Posted in Fatherhood, History, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Meet The Republicans Who Want To Impeach Obama Over Gun Regulations

Republicans and pro-gun advocates are outraged over Obama’s 23 executive orders to curb gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Invocations of dictators like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein are becoming commonplace in articles.

The movement to impeach Obama over these executive actions is taking hold among lawmakers and Republicans. Here are five people calling for Obama’s impeachment:

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)


Stockman plans to introduce articles of impeachment, calling Obama’s anti-gun efforts “an existential threat to this nation.”

Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL)

Following Stockman’s lead is Florida Congressman Trey Radel, who said impeachment “should be on the table” and stated that Obama wants an executive order to “ban guns.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)


Louie Gohmert stated that Obama’s action is “illegal” and grounds for impeachment. “The American Revolution was all about fighting such a monarchy — and that is not what the Constitution anticipates. It’s not something a Constitutional president would do,” Gohmert lamented.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese (R)


Edwin Meese, former Reagan Attorney General and current Heritage Foundation official, is also taking up the call for impeachment. In an interview with Newsmax, Meese stated that Obama may have “really tried to override the Constitution itself.” Congress, he said, would have to take action, “perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

Larry Pratt


The head of Gun Owners for America urged Republican lawmakers to stop being “spectators while the country is being torn apart” and impeach Obama.

Posted in Current Events, Elected Officials Positions, Firearms, Liberty, News, Personal Freedom | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment