ACTION

How we have degraded into the chaos and financial turmoil that is overwhelming us.

How we get out and get the country back on track while creating JOBS.

https://www.youtube.com/user/BukiTakumi?feature=mhee

The Way to prosperity for america

Due to the lack of coverage by the media, most of us are unaware that we are in danger of losing our Electoral College. USLJ is on the job.........

Our freedoms are under attack on a daily basis, and we are working hard not to sound like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It's important to pick your battles, and this one fits the bill.

OUR ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IN PERIL

 http://bit.ly/nJjeyt

Another Smoking Gun!

Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On October 20, 2011:

“New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished atJustia.com during the run up to the ’08 election.  My prior report documented the scrubbing of just two cases.  But last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all US Supreme Court cases which cite “Minor v. Happersett” as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present.

Since Justia placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state “Full Text of Case”, personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the US Supreme Court.

At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage.  Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.

We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked.  That being said, Justia’s reaction to my last report mirrored the deception of the sabotage.  Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all.  And they placed  “.txt robots” on their URL’s for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia.

TWO LAYERS OF SABOTAGE:

In all 25 instances of tampering, the case name “Minor v. Happersett” was removed from Justia’s publication of each SCOTUS opinion which cited to it.  Anyone searching for cases citing Minor at Justia or Google were led into a maze of confusion.  In some instances, not only was the case name scrubbed, the numerical citation was also removed along with whole sentences of text.

But the deception goes deeper still.  There are three official citations for Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627.  Researchers will either search for the case by name, or by any of these three citations.  Since it is common for legal researchers to query both the name of the case and/or the official numerical citation, these opinions were tampered for both.

In Kansas v. Colorado, Kepner v. U.S., Schick v. U.S.,  and South Carolina v. U.S., the citation left behind after scrubbing was “88 U.S. 422″.  In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the citation left behind was 88 U.S. 448.  Minor officially begins at 88 U.S. 162 and finishes at 88 U.S. 178.  So 88 U.S. 422, and 448 are completely bogus.  (See collage of screenshots.)  The other 20 cases cite to actual pages in Minor, but not to the official citations.  While Justia linked from the bogus citations back to the first page of Minor, anyone searching for US Supreme Court cases citing Minor by querying the official citations would have been thwarted.

This further establishes that the sabotage undertaken at Justia was surgically precise.  The reality that both candidates eligibility was questionable according to Minor v. Happersett appears to have been known and handled by somebody’s legal team.  However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008″.  (Dianna Cotter’s article will take a closer look at Tim Stanley.)

RECAP OF PREVIOUS REPORT:

On July 1, 2011 I published a report: “Justia.com Caught red Handed Hiding references To Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Opinions“.  The article featured screenshots and links to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine which chronicled tampering with two US Supreme Court opinions, Boyd v. Nebraska and Pope v. Williams.  Both cases cite to Minor v. Happersett, the only US Supreme Court decision to directly construe the natural-born citizen clause in relation to a citizenship issue.  The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born citizens:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.  Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”  (Emphasis added.)

McCain clearly does not meet the definition since he was born in Panama.  And since Obama’s father was never a US citizen, the current POTUS doesn’t meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen either.  Minor v. Happersett has, therefore, been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign.  Falsehoods about the case have been widely spread.  The two most flagrant are:

1) that Minor was only a voting rights case – not a citizenship case – and therefore the Court’s discussion of federal citizenship was dictum and not precedent

2) that Minor was overruled by the 19^th Amendment

Both criticisms are false.   Unfortunately, many of the Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor as precedent on citizenship were scrubbed by Justia along with other cases that continued citing Minor as good law on voting rights issues well after the adoption of the 19^th Amendment.  As you will see from the holding in a Supreme Court opinion from 1980, the contention that Minor was overruled by the 19^th Amendment is false.

PATTERN OF JUSTIA SUBTERFUGE:

The tampering exhibits a very noticeable pattern.  Below, I will include screenshots as well as links to the Wayback Machine which illustrate this pattern clearly.

In most of the cases scrubbed at Justia, the Wayback Machine evidence shows that the very first snapshots taken of Justia URL’s for these cases was in 2006, with a couple of snapshots taken in early 2007.  In all of the cases, the first snapshots exhibit that Justia originally published the cases correctly as they appear in the official US Supreme Court reporters.  However, by November 2008, all 25 opinions had been sabotaged.

Some cases scrubbed the words “Minor v. Happersett” every time they appeared, and some left it in one time, but removed it in other places.  References to The Slaughterhouse Cases, Scott v. Sandford, and Osborn v. Bank of United States (citizenship cases which prove troublesome for Obama’s eligibility) were also scrubbed along with full sentences from majority opinions (as was done in Pope v. Williams), and dissents (as was done in U.S. v. Wong Km Ark).  The scrubbing was surgically precise as to the issue of POTUS eligibility.  The Wayback Machine snapshots prove that the tampering stayed in effect through the final snapshots taken in 2010.

RECAP OF MY INITIAL REPORT REGARDING “BOYD v. NEBRASKA” and “POPE v. WILLIAMS.“

After I published the first report on July 1, 2011, the Boyd and Pope cases were un-scrubbed at Justia so that Minor v. Happersett was reinstated to each opinion, and the citations were corrected.  The other 23 cases, known only to the sabateur(s), were also un-scrubbed.  Perhaps they thought nobody would ever discover the depth of the operation, because they failed to place blocking robots on the other 23 cases.  This allowed us to look back into history and see the tampering unfold for each case on the Wayback timeline.

The initial report documented that Justia.com had removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from its published opinions of Boyd and Pope.  The report also documented that, in the Pope opinion at Justia, full sentences discussing Minor v. Happersett were removed thereby changing – not only the citations in the case – but also the Court’s statedopinion.

Within an hour after I published that report, Justia.com had re-instated the opinions to include the missing references to Minor and the missing text without commenting or noting the revisions.  Justia then further covered the trail of deceit by placing robots on their URL’s for Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, so that access to the Wayback Machine’s snapshots is no longer possible for those cases.  (Should they now scrub the robots, here are screenshots for Justia’s Boyd and Pope opinions which show the robot blocking.)

Justia’s stated mission is as follows:

“Justia’s Mission:

To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.”

Justia CEO and founder, Tim Stanley, is known as a leading light advocating for freedom of legal information on the web.  Stanley was also the founder of Findlaw, which he sold to West Publishing for $37 million.  So, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, and therefore Stanley is the last person who should be using robots to hide previous versions of Supreme Court cases (which are in the public domain anyway).

I haven’t spoken to Tim Stanley or anyone else at Justia.  I did not think it prudent, seeing as how Justia tried to cover their tracks after my last report, to contact them prior to releasing the rest of the evidence I gathered from the Wayback Machine.  I needed to publish before they could place robots on the URL’s for the other 23 tampered opinions.

OTHER BLOGGERS ARE COMING TO THE STORY:

Other bloggers following the developments discussed herein will be contacting Justia.com in the days ahead as this story develops.  I held back on publishing this follow-up so I could enlist the help of these other bloggers and journalists who have already viewed the evidence.  Dianna Cotter, who has published articles for Accuracy In Mediaand Examiner.com, has documented everything, and she has worked closely with me in the days leading up to this report.  She will publish a follow-up later today at Examiner.com.

Furthermore, whoever was responsible for placing the robots on Boyd and Pope at Justia should know that Dianna Cotter and I have forwarded and discussed the information published below with writers at The Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, Free Republic and many other publications.

I have also forwarded evidence of the tampering (screenshots, Wayback Machine URLs and downloaded HTML for each Wayback snapshot) to Cindy Simpson (who published an article yesterday at American Thinker which discusses  Minor v. Happersett).  I have also shared the evidence with attorney Mario Apuzzo who is writing an analysis of Justia’s sabotage of Wong Kim Ark, a case which was subjected to multiple instances of tampering by Justia.  (I will update my report with links to the reports of Dianna Cotter and Mario Apuzzo when they are published later today.)

I reached out to people I trusted before publishing so that all of the evidence could be documented by multiple sources, media publications and attorneys.  The evidence has been viewed and documented by so many sources now that any attempt by Justia to block it, the way that it blocked the evidence of my first report, will be futile.  This tampering happened at Justia.com.  That is a fact.  The questions which need to be answered now are who ordered it and who carried out the subversive plot.

Additionally, the US Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was forwarded the evidence.  I have personally spoken with one staffer and one official there.  Dianna Cotter has also been in contact with the SCOTUS PIO.

TAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018:

§1018. Official certificates or writings:

"Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The statute covers a “person” authorized by any law of the US to make or give official writings.  Justia.com is authorized – according to the federal Public Domain laws – to re-publish US Supreme Court opinions.  In every case that was tampered, the words “Full Text of Case” appear on each scrubbed opinion.  Since the cases were intentionally sabotaged by the removal of text, the affirmation at the top of each page, which indicated that one is reading the “Full Text of Case” is knowingly false.  It’s the inclusion of this intentionally false statement, which makes this a crime under the statute.

Each of the 25 instances of tampering carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison.  There are 25 possible counts, so the saboteur(s) could potentially face serious prison time.  And there may be other relevant criminal violations as well.

FALLOUT UPON THE REST OF THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL PUBLISHING COMMUNITY:

Not only were those who consulted Justia for these cases defrauded, this behavior has also cast doubt upon the entire enterprise of electronic legal publishing.  The other bloggers I have shared the evidence with are rounding up interviews with heavyweights in the legal publishing field, including West (who has previously sued Justia CEO Tim Stanley).

Furthermore, the American Association of Law Libraries (AALLNET) have been notified and are discussing the issue with Dianna Cotter.

I imagine the American Bar Association will not be pleased and that Tim Stanley, if he is behind this, could be disbarred in California and the federal courts.”

Continue Reading:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. JustiaGate!

Posted on Examiner-By Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner-On October 20, 2011:

“Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colorado in August ‘08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen - a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.   

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. - Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19^th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”

And

“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008... with those cases. 

So much for freedom of information. 

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior - deception - that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader. 

Furthermore, if Stanley were to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt. 

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump”. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times,Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change”though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.”

Source:

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

II. Citizenship Jeopardy!

Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On October 18, 2011:

“Trivia question:  What do Anwar al-Awlaki, Yaser Esam Hamdi, and newborn twin daughters of Mexican drug lord Joaquin Guzman have in common?

You were probably ready to hit the buzzer and answer something like “What is Islamic terrorism”-until you finished reading the entire question.

The correct answer:  “What is ‘presumed’ US citizenship.”

The adjective “presumed” was used by Justice Scalia to describe Hamdi’s US citizenship in the famous 2004 case ofHamdi v. Rumsfeld.  Hamdi was born in Louisiana in 1980 to Saudi parents, and in 2001 he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and held as an enemy combatant.  Hamdi’s father filed the petition from Saudi Arabia, arguing that his son was a US citizen and entitled to due process.

Noted constitutional law expert Dr. John Eastman in his editorial, “Wrong Question in Hamdi,” argued that the question before the Court should have been: “Why is Hamdi being treated as a citizen at all?”

The Center for American Unity (“CAU”) and the Eagle Forum submitted amicus briefs in Hamdi that described the reasons they considered Hamdi’s claim to “birthright citizenship” (the practice of granting US citizenship to every baby born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or legal status of its parents) more than presumptuous.

Tom Tancredo, one of the signers of the CAU brief, is asking the same question of al-Awlaki:  Was he “ever really an American citizen?”

As both briefs in Hamdi explained at length, those who insist birth on US soil mandates automatic citizenship base their views on this provision in the 14^th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The CAU brief noted:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was added during Senate debate [wherein] the authors discussed in great detail their purpose and intentions in adding the requirement that a person be born, not just in the United States, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Howard, sponsor and author of the Citizenship Clause, when questioned about the meaning of “jurisdiction,” responded that the phrase was intended to be read as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described persons who “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.” Chairman Trumbull noted that even “partial allegiance if you please, to some other government” is sufficient to disqualify a person under the jurisdiction requirement.

Although Justice Scalia did not elaborate on his usage of “presumed” in the opening of his dissenting opinion inHamdi, the government’s Respondent brief and both amicus briefs referenced above used the same terminology.  It could be argued that the entire case rested on the questionable premise of Hamdi’s US citizenship.

The Court appeared to follow just such a two-step analysis in the famous 1875 women’s suffrage case of Minor v Happersett.  Justice Waite, writing the majority opinion, first addressed the claim of Virginia Minor’s citizenship, and then proceeded to discuss whether such citizenship entitled her to the right to vote.  In answer to the first issue, (and thus making this part of the opinion a direct holding and not dicta), Justice Waite wrote:  “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

It is interesting to note that the judicial precedent established in Minor is heavily relied upon by so-called “birthers” who doubt the Article 2 “natural born” presidential eligibility of Obama, born a dual citizen in the US, the son of a non-US citizen father who was here in the country legally but temporarily on a student visa with the stated intention to return to his native Kenya to work in its government.

Popular opinion, however, would contend that all four of the “presumed” citizens in my original question—Awlaki, Hamdi, and Guzman’s twin daughters, because of their made-in-the-USA birth certificates, are “natural born citizens.” If their births were also announced in the local newspaper, presumably they could all run for President of the United States.

In 2005, the year after the Hamdi decision, the House Subcommittee on Immigration convened the hearing “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty.” Dr. Eastman, an expert witness at the hearing,noted:

With the absurdity of Hamdi’s claim of citizenship so recently and vividly before us, it is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of that language [i.e., in Wong Kim Ark], restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters actually intended, that only a complete jurisdiction, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented.

I wrote more about that Congressional hearing here, noting the fact that all present appeared to agree (some reluctantly) that the Constitution did not mandate the present birthright practice that creates the additional dilemma of dual citizenship. The hearing generated little media attention, however.

In the meantime, the State Department, rarely enforcing its policies discouraging dual citizenship although continuing to require rejection of past citizenships in the Oath of Naturalization, has adopted a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, described by Frances Stead Sellers in her thoughtful essays:  “When Conflict Focuses on Citizenship” and “A Citizen on Paper Has No Weight.”

One can’t help but wonder if one of the secrets in the secret memo that the Obama administration has relied upon in its justification for taking out al-Awlaki is the pivotal question:  Was al-Awlaki really a US citizen? A public discussion of the citizenship controversy, even more than adding heat to the “roiling boil” of the politically incorrect topic of immigration reform, may also bring to light the fact that the “birthers” contentions actually have substantial merit.  A serious examination of Obama’s eligibility, when combined with his falling popularity, would likely place his re-electionprospects in further jeopardy.

Seen by some as a calculated move to re-ignite his failing campaign, last month Obama ordered the fatal drone attack on al-Awlaki.  Just last December, Yale Professor Peter Schuck, in his article, “Citizen Terrorist,” presciently wrote:  “In the case of a known terrorist like al-Awlaki, his citizenship status may (depending on how the courts rule on the issue) affect whether the government can kill him without legal process.”  The Obama administration obviously did not wait for a ruling.

American Thinker’s Ron DeSantis writes:

If American citizenship creates a zone of protection around jihadists (as well as other malcontents) who take up arms against the United States, then America’s enemies will have an incentive to recruit individuals who can claim American citizenship but who have no actual loyalty to the country.  This will provide al-Qaeda (and other enemies of the U.S.) with an unwarranted tactical advantage, an advantage not in any way mandated by the Constitution.

Stanley Renshon, author of The 50% American, has estimated that over 40 million Americans are dual citizens.  The ongoing practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of non-US citizens continues to expand that figure.

As Ms. Sellers wrote, “War is all about taking sides - unless, of course, you can’t because you belong on both sides.”

The killing of al-Awlaki should be a serious wake-up call.  The continued refusal of our country’s leaders to examine the implications of dual citizenship and birthright citizenship on both the sovereignty and security of our nation places us all in jeopardy.” 

Source:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

III. Video: How The Internet Archive Changed Computer Source Code of NYS Board Of Elections!-Posted on YouTube.com-By pixelpatriot-On October 21, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qGY17DWMlM

IV. U.S. Presidents & Eligibility: Grandfather Clause, Natural Born Citizen Clause, or Seated by Fraud!-Posted on Scribd-By protectourliberty-On March 21, 2011:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

V. Did Obama Submit Phony Ballot Petitions in 2008?-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Ben Johnson-On October 13, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/election-fraud-watch-did-obama-submit-phony-ballot-petitions-in-2008/

VI. Suspicious petitions got a stamped signature: ‘Former Gov. Kernan, 12 others come forward to say they didn’t sign!’-Posted on South Bend Tribune-By ERIN BLASKO, South Bend Tribune Staff Writer-On October 12, 2011:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/sbt-suspicious-petitions-got-a-stamped-signature-20111011,0,3946909.story 

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/congress-report-concedes-obama-eligibility-unvetted/

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

DC knows that Obama is ineligible for office!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/dc-knows-that-obama-is-ineligible-for-office/

Massive Voter Fraud-Again!

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on Yahoo New!-By Augustine Anthony, Reuters-On October 23, 2011:

“ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.

The remarks were in sharp contrast to recent tension between the two neighbors over cross-border raids, and Afghan accusations that Pakistan was involved in killing the chief Afghan peace envoy, former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, by a suicide bomber on September 20.

“God forbid, If ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan,” he said in the interview to Geo television.

“If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan’s help, Afghanistan will be there with you.”

Such a situation is extremely unlikely, however. Despite months of tension and tough talk between Washington and Islamabad, the two allies appear to be working to ease tension.

In a two-day visit to Islamabad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued stern warnings and asked for more cooperation in winding down the war in Afghanistan, but ruled out “boots on the ground” in North Waziristan, where Washington has been pushing Pakistan to tackle the Haqqani network.

The Haqqani are a group of militants Washington has blamed for a series of attacks in Afghanistan, using sanctuaries in the Pakistani tribal region along the Afghan border.

Pakistan is seen as a critical to the U.S. drive to end the conflict in Afghanistan.

Pressure on Islamabad has been mounting since U.S. special forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in May in a Pakistani garrison town, where he apparently had been living for years.

The secret bin Laden raid was the biggest blow to U.S.-Pakistan relations since Islamabad joined the U.S. “war on terror” after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Karzai said tensions between the United States and Pakistan did not have any impact in his country’s attitude toward Pakistan.

The TV channel, Geo, did not say when the interview was conducted.

Afghans have long been suspicious of Pakistan’s intentions in their country and question its promise to help bring peace. Karzai repeated that concern in his remarks.

“Please brother, stop using all methods that hurt us and that are now hurting you.

“Let’s engage from a different platform, a platform in which the two brothers only progress toward a better future in peace and harmony,” he said.

Following the death of Rabbani, Karzai said he would cease attempting to reach out to the Afghan Taliban and instead negotiate directly with Pakistan, saying its military and intelligence services could influence the militants to make peace.”

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-back-pakistan-wars-u-karzai-023316217.html

Note: The following Video and articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Video: Afghanistan Would Back Pakistan In War With U.S.!

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/karzai-afghanistan-would-back-pakistan-in-27037364.html

II. Ghadaffi Dies of Propaganda Overdose!-Posted Laigl’s Forum-By Don Hank-On October 23, 2011:

http://laiglesforum.com/ghadaffi-dies-of-propaganda-overdose/2772.htm

III. George Soros – Commander-in-Chief?-Posted on Godfather Politics-By GIACOMO-On October 17, 2011:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/1550/george-soros-commander-in-chief/

IV. Why U.S. military in Uganda? ‘Obama’s billionaire friend has interests in African country’s oil!’-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On October 15, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=356321

V. Panetta: Obama Can Unilaterally Use Military to Protect ‘National Interests’!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover-On June 13, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-obama-can-use-military-without-c

VI. Podesta: Obama Can Use ‘Armed Forces’ To Push Progressive Agenda!-Posted on The Blaze-By Jonathon M. Seidl-On November 18, 2010:

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/the-military-pays-the-price-for-obama’s-agenda/

New World Order By Executive Order!

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Occupy Grand Junction started 10 days ago. Initially there was a panic among Tea Party activists who felt they had to counter the occupiers by getting a permit for the Old Courthouse location so they could occupy first. I encouraged the opposite. "Stay away from these guys," I suggested. "We don't want any association at all with them. We don't want to be seen in pictures with them and we don't want to share space with them. That would boost their credibility and harm ours.  The local Tea Party and Liberty groups took some deep breaths, sat back, and watched the circus unfold.  

I went down to the courthouse on the Monday after the sit in began, to drop off my mail-in ballot for our upcoming elections. I was intrigued by the milieu on the grass. There appeared to be a group of "organizers" splayed near the flag pole, planning the days important marches and discussing who should be their medial liaison.  There was another group under the trees and pop-up shades who looked just to be sitting about, eating the generous donations of food that local supporters had lavished on them.  All were dressed in what is best described as "hippie garb," tie dye, revolutionary slogan tee shirts, bedraggled and dreadlocked, and for the most part, filthy. I walked up to one young man who was wearing a tan hoodie and sporting a scraggly red beard and began to speak to him.

"Why are you here?"

"I am frustrated that no one cares." He replied, an edge of anger in his voice.

"Was there something that happened?"

"My boss fired me for screwing up and order..." he continued. And he told me the tale of how his job as a line chef had ended badly and that he had been "totally screwed-over" by the owner of the restaurant.

"I have friends in town who own restaurants. Would you like me to see if there are any openings?"

He paused, not really wanting to follow up with the obvious conclusion to his sob story--to find another job--but he said, "um, sure."

Another fellow came up to me and the young man with the tan hoodie. He was older, slightly inebriated, and more open to my suggestions. 

"Why are you here," I asked the older man.

"Oh, I'm just homeless...laid off my construction job. I come up here because it is safer than where the other homeless guys hang out." 

"Are you looking for work?"

"Yes, I have a lot of skills in construction. I can roof and drywall..." and proceeded to give me his resume of work experience. 

I told him, "You know what, I will see what kind of construction jobs are open locally and I can bring you the listings. Would that be okay?"

"Oh yeah, that would be so nice of you. I hate this homeless s___!"

He asked if he could walk me to my car and I said "of course." I wished him good luck and promised that I would be back the following day with some job listings.

I returned the next day with some print outs of job listings. I approached the young man with the tan hoodie and asked if he would post them at their "organizer" booth for everyone to see. He seemed a little perplexed and reluctant. But he was kind enough to acknowledge my real desire to help.

I returned the next day with a neat binder full of local job listings, some pens and note pads. The original two men were not present but another man wearing "99%" buttons but otherwise kind of normal looking said he would love to make some money. I told him that I had some hedges that needed to be trimmed. He said he could do that so I got his number. I called him 3 times subsequently but have not gotten a response.

I returned 2 days later with another handful of job listings for the binder. I could not find the binder I had left, so I placed the printouts on the table.

This is an ongoing experiment. If the people at Occupy Grand Junction have any sense of self, any human conscience that impels them to be accountable for their own lives, they will cease the demands that the government steal from earners, to give them what they want. I am hoping that there is a kernel of shame within some of the occupiers. They could turn a little shame and introspection into the power to choose and create a life for themselves. But they languish in a stew of contrived victimization and self-imposed helplessness. 

I will return again tomorrow to see if my efforts to point these able bodied fishermen to the waterholes where they can catch their own fish bears any fruit.  I wonder if they realize that if they get their way we will all be camped out in the dirt, filthy, and groveling at the feet of big government.

By Marjorie Haun 10/23/2011

Please visit http://reagangirl.com

How far do we let Obama go before we call for IMPEACHMENT.

He has ramped up his actions to dismantle this country, take away our rights, circumvent our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

No flags, no flag lapel pins, and hundreds of other changes to take the presence of our love country from the eyes of Americans and their children..  

He and Soros have brought in radicals, communists, acorn etc into the N. Y. supposed sit in against Banks.

He as taken actions that directly contradict our Constitution, he as gone around our Congress to set things into motion that should have been voted on by Congress.

He put into place an amnesty plan for illegals that was voted against by the House and Senate.

E. A. Holder implemented a gun running plan the Obmama had to know about, the selling of guns to Mexican drug lords and mafia.

Why are we not stopping this man and his czars.  Is it because the National NON News Media is on his side?

Do we wait for them to cry fowl, if that's the case it won't happen.  He bought them with the big business bail outs.  Our news media and news papers aren't owned by truth telling non opinionated new people anymore, they are owned by big businesses to took OBAMA MONEY.

IF Obama had been a Republican his head would already be on the chopping block.

When does this stop?  Do we wait til after the election to give him another year and half to destroy our COUNTRY our CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, to let radical ISLAMICs, COMMUNISTS, and all the other radical groups cast their shadows over this country?  WHEN DOES THIS STOP? WHEN DO WE STOP HIM?  WHEN DO WE TAKE ACTIONS TO STOP this ANTI AMERICAN who calls himself our PRESIDENT?  

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on The Glaze-By Becket Adams-On October 20, 2011:

“Thanks to CNBC, the Department of Energy has been caught removing references to “SunPower,” a solar energy company that was given $1.2 billion in loan guarantees, from old press releases (H/T Hotair).

“The changes occurred in two press releases from the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program — the same program that has been the center of controversy surrounding the failed solar company Solyndra,” reports Eamon Javers of CNBC.

“Both were changed to remove the name of a company that has received negative press attention in recent days, SunPower, and replace it with the name of another company, NRG Energy,” he added.

Watch the CNBC video:

{…}

What does this mean?

Hotair puts it bluntly:

Clean energy, cronyism, and another gigantic taxpayer loan headed down the toilet. As Andrew Stiles says, “SunPower is currently on track to become the second embarrassing failure in the DOE’s loan portfolio.”

Presumably DOE wants to do what little it can to scrub the company from its database before it melts down and another hugely embarrassing “federal-backed green project goes bust” media cycle begins.

Sadly, this story should not come as a surprise to many Blaze readers (or anyone else following the Fed’s energy loan program).

The Blaze has been investigating several of the energy investments of the Obama administration. We have meticulously cataloged the details of the Solyndra scandal, including the story of it’s loan restructuring and the fact that the administration was preparing to give it a second multimillion-dollar loan guarantee.

The Blaze also reported on a little known story that involved $420,000 in taxpayer-backed guarantees that were wasted on a doomed-from-the-start truck stop project in Tennessee.

There were other similar investments that The Blaze put on the radar because, like Solyndra, they did not sound like “good” bets and they reeked of cronyism.

An article titled Report: $737 Million ‘Green Jobs’ Loan Given to Company Affiliated with Pelosi’s Bro-in-Lawrevealed that there was a suspected level of cronyism involved in the awarding of $737 million to a solar energy company associated with Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law.

Another Blaze article titled Next Round: Obama Admin Authorizes Billions More In Loan Guarantees to Solar Companies reported that two more solar power companies were being awarded billions in loan guarantees.

There was First Solar, which received $3.0 billion ($967 million guarantee for a project in Arizona, $646 million for one in Antelope Valley and $1.46 billion for its 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight plant), and there was SunPower, which received $1.2 billion in loan guarantees.

Apparently, things started to unravel for the latter of those two companies. In an article titled The Next Round of Companies That Could Go Bankrupt, The Blaze documented the fact that SunPower (the solar energy company that received $1.2 billion in loan guarantees) was:

. . . getting destroyed with the rest of the U.S. industry. SunPower sold its 250MW California Valley Solar Ranch to NRG Energy this year. It also just signed a new $275 million revolving credit facility as well as a new $200 million letter of credit facility, according to Reuters.

Business Insider also noted that SunPower had a financial distress probability of 3.20 percent (as calculated byGovernanceMetrics International).

Next, Human Events brought us this:

How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project?

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization.

If SunPower were a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.

Two men with insight into the process are SunPower rooter Rep. George R. Miller III, (D.-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee and the co-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and his SunPower lobbyist son, George Miller IV.

Miller the Elder is a strong advocate for SunPower, which converted an old Richmond, Calif., Ford plant in his district to a panel-manufacturing facility.

So where do we stand?

The sad fact of the matter is that SunPower may be the next solar energy company to go broke. And where does that put the taxpayer?

Let’s see:

                  Mountain Plaza Inc.: $424,000

                  Solyndra: $535,000,000

                  SunPower: $1,200,000,000

                  Grand total: $1,735,424,000

Keep your eyes on First Solar ($3.0 billion in loan guarantees).

Who knows? They may be the next “safe” investment to keel over.

Update via CNBC: “On Wednesday evening, a Department of Energy spokesman said that the press releases had been returned to their original content as a result of CNBC’s inquiry about the changes.”

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/energy-department-caught-trying-to-revise-history/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Shocker: Harry Reid’s Senate Doesn’t Care about Solyndra!

No Surprise Here!

Posted on National Review Online-By Greg Pollowitz-On October 20, 2011:

“Via the Inhofe press blog:

House Republicans can’t get enough of Solyndra. Senate Democrats across the Capitol? Not so interested.

“I certainly appreciate the hearings the House has held,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said on Wednesday. “And I think it would be good if we did more here [on the Senate side] to call to light obviously all the issues with Solyndra.”

Two committees in the Republican-controlled House are probing the solar manufacturer’s spiral into bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee in 2009.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has examined the matter three times already and plans to hear from top administration officials, such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu. It and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are reviewing tens of thousands of pages of documents about that guarantee.

The investigation is probing decisions top administration officials made in approving the loan guarantee and throughout the two years the government was on the hook for Solyndra’s loan.

But the Democratic-controlled Senate has not held a Solyndra hearing and has no plans to.

Some Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions of Alabama, have cited Solyndra when claiming that President Obama’s green-jobs agenda hurt the economy and wasted taxpayer money. But floor speeches do not carry the same weight as a Senate hearing.

The rest here.

And as I said yesterday, since the Senate won’t hold investigations, it’s even more important for the House to widen its investigation beyond Solyndra to the entire DOE program.”

Source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/280785/shocker-harry-reids-senate-doesnt-care-about-solyndra-greg-pollowitz

II. Obama: The Best Crony Capitalist Since Mussolini!-Posted on RushLimbaugh.com-By Rush Limbaugh-On October 21, 2011:

III. Electric Car Company Received Obama Admin Approved Loan to Build Cars in Finland!-Posted on ABCNews.com-By MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and RONNIE GREENE, ABC NEWS and iWATCH NEWS-On October 20, 2011:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875

IV. Obama’s Teachable Truthiness Moment: ‘The Pinocchio of Pennsylvania Avenue strikes again!’-Posted on National Review Online-By Michelle Malkin-On October 12, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279841/obama-s-teachable-truthiness-moment-michelle-malkin

V. Why Did The Fed Use American Taxpayers Money To Bail Out Eurosone?-Posted on InvestmentWatch-On September 15, 2011:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/desperate-fed-bails-out-faltering-eurozone-as-worlds-banks-join-forces-to-shore-up-economy-this-doesnt-change-anything-it-helps-the-banks-for-the-next-couple-of-months-but-thats-it-u/

Note:  My following blog post contains numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on The Daily Caller-By Kenneth Timmerman-On October 21, 2011:

“In a Sept. 12 letter to White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan in September, Democratic Senate Homeland Security committee chair Joe Lieberman and ranking Republican member Susan Collins called for “meaningful standards” to govern counterterrorism training materials.

“Proper training about violent Islamist extremism is absolutely essential for our law enforcement personnel in order to empower them to identify and understand this grave threat, and then protect the American people from it,” the senators wrote. “Part of this training must be an understanding of the clear and profound difference between Islamist extremism, which is a totalitarian political ideology that is at war with us, and Islam, which is a religion practiced by more than a billion people around the world, including millions of law-abiding and loyal Americans.”

FBI analyst William Gawthrup is one of several experts on Islam whose training materials arouse the ire of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. At the beginning of a videotaped presentation showing one of his training modules, Gawthrup makes exactly the same distinction demanded by Sen. Lieberman. The video was published online in June.

“Understand that what we are going to be doing is looking at Islam as an ideology, not as a religion,” Gawthrup says in the video.

“What’s the difference? Religion is man’s relationship to his deity. In the United States, we protect it under the first amendment. We’re going to set it aside. We are not going to discuss religion. We are going to discuss Islam as an ideology — man’s relationship to other men.”

“We’re going to be discussing that component of Islam that is nonreligious,” Gawthrup adds. “That component comprises about 83 percent of the ideology. Islam is only about 17 percent religious. The other 83 percent discusses the relationship [of Muslims] with the non-Islamic world.”

Now the Obama administration is establishing an advisory panel to vet terror-training materials for law enforcement and the intelligence community “that is comprised of people from the same organizations that are cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund-raising trial,” according to Gaffney.

Reviewing these decisions at a forum about Sharia on Thursday, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy said the effort to include such groups as reviewers of training materials would have a “paralyzing” effect on law enforcement.

“What you’re doing is empowering the worst elements of the American Islamic community, which are the leadership elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and you’re selling out the rank and file of American Muslims,” McCarthy said.”

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/obama-administration-pulls-references-to-islam-from-terror-training-materials-official-says/2/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Deputy U.S. AG Confirms Obama Administration Pulled References To Islam From Terror Training Materials!

Posted on The Daily Caller-By Kenneth Timmerman-On October 21, 2011:

“Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.

Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.

In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring.

Some believe the Obama administration’s Justice Department will go even further.

“The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training” that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. Gaffney is co-author of a report, published by the Center, titled “Sharia: The Threat to America.”

Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials. Holton is the federal prosecutor who announced the arrest of so-called “Christmas tree bomber” Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010. That announcement made no mention of Mohamud’s Muslim faith.

“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” Holton said Wednesday. “They will not be tolerated.”

Such training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam,” he added.”

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/obama-administration-pulls-references-to-islam-from-terror-training-materials-official-says/

II. Islam, Appeasement, and Western Suicide!

Posted on CultureWatch-By Bill Muehlenberg-On September 3, 2011:

“Back in June 2009 President Obama gave a speech in Cairo. In it he said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Sorry Barack Hussein Obama, but the only real duty of the President of the United Sates is to uphold the Constitution and defend that nation against any threats.

It is not the duty of the President to appease America’s enemies, or seek to rewrite history, or push ideological agendas. And it certainly is not the duty of the US President to become an apologist for Islam. I don’t recall in his swearing-in ceremony any words about him becoming the first President in American history to champion the cause of Islam.

Indeed, imagine if he dared to say, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity whenever they appear.” The entire secular leftist world would go apoplectic: “Hey, what the heck happened to that separation of church and state?” They would be going ballistic over such a statement.

ack in June 2009 President Obama gave a speech in Cairo. In it he said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Sorry Barack Hussein Obama, but the only real duty of the President of the United Sates is to uphold the Constitution and defend that nation against any threats.

It is not the duty of the President to appease America’s enemies, or seek to rewrite history, or push ideological agendas. And it certainly is not the duty of the US President to become an apologist for Islam. I don’t recall in his swearing-in ceremony any words about him becoming the first President in American history to champion the cause of Islam.

Indeed, imagine if he dared to say, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity whenever they appear.” The entire secular leftist world would go apoplectic: “Hey, what the heck happened to that separation of church and state?” They would be going ballistic over such a statement.”

Source:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/09/03/islam-appeasement-and-western-suicide/

III. Official Sept. 11 memorial called Obama 'whitewash': '10 years after the 9/11 attacks, you would think we lost the war'!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On September 7, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342493

IV. The Administration Takes on ‘Islamophobia’: ‘The White House is giving free-speech opponents a megaphone’-Posted on National Review Online-By NINA SHEA-On September 1, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276021/administration-takes-islamophobia-nina-shea?page=1

V. Is 'evidence' of crimes erased before our eyes?-Posted on WND.com-By Art Moore-On June 26, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=313641

VI. Farah Exposes Radicals' Plan to Silence Exposé!-Posted on WND.com-By Joseph Farah-On June 18, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=312433

VII. With Dodging and More Dodging, Holder Admits DOJ Dumped CAIR Case!-Posted on National Review Online-By Andrew C. McCarthy-On April 27, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265729/dodging-and-more-dodging-holder-admits-doj-dumped-cair-case-andrew-c-mccarthy

VIII. Peter King vs. Eric Holder: Why did the Justice Department never indict CAIR?-Posted on National Review Online-By BRIAN BOLDUC-On April 26, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265576/peter-king-vs-eric-holder-brian-bolduc

IX. Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions? ‘High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons.’-Posted on Pajamas Media-By Patrick Poole-On April 14, 2011:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/did-obama-and-holder-scuttle-terror-finance-prosecutions/?singlepage=true

X. FBI chief confirms ties cut with U.S. Muslim group: ‘Agency bans outreach due to terrorist links’-Posted on WND.com-On March 18, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=276289

XI. New York-Based News Giant Was Best Buddies With Osama-Bin Laden!-Posted on WND.com-On October 21, 2011:

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Could Steps That Team Obama Has Taken Be Emboldening Terrorists?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/could-steps-that-team-obama-has-taken-be-emboldening-terrorists/

Is Shariah Law A Danger To Our U.S. National Security?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/is-shariah-law-a-danger-to-u-s-national-security/

Should Americans Fear Islam?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/should-americans-fear-islam/

What are CAIR's obstructionist goals?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/6951/

CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic law!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/cair-sues-oklahoma-for-banning-islamic-law/

Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/federal-judge-confirms-cair-is-hamas/

The Islamic Infiltration: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/the-islamic-infiltration-inside-our-government-armed-with-our-secrets/

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Update of previous Prophetic Word: As the truth shows, Col. Mirmar Gaddafi has long been a
dark influence to the efforts of terrorism for over forty-two years to the entire world!

Originally submitted by Jerry L. Robertson on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 12:01pm _
28] “Mortal man, prophesy. Announce what I, The SOVERIEGN LORD, AM saying to the
Prince's of the East, who are insulting Israel, say to them: 'A SWORD IS READY to destroy;
and It is polished to kill, to flash like lightning.
29] The visions that you have proclaimed are false, and the predictions you make are lies. You
are wicked and evil, and your day is coming, the day of your final punishment. The sword is
going to fall on your necks.'” 30] “ 'Put up the sword! I will judge you in the place where you
were created, in the land where you were born. 31] You will feel 'MY Anger' when 'I TURN IT
LOOSE' on you like a blazing fire, 'I WILL HAND' you over to brutal men, experts in destruction.
32] You will be destroyed by fire. Your blood will be shed in your own country, and no one will
remember you any more.'” The LORD has spoken! (Ezk. 21:28-32){Today's English Version} 

< The following, is the current list of those under INDICTMENT>

1. TUNISA~ Zine el Abine Ben Ali {deposed from Tunisa on January, 2011, is now in exile living in Saudi Arabia with wife Leila Ben Ali. Tunisa's government has issued arrest warrants with Interpol, charging him for money landering and drug trafficking. He and his wife have been sentenced in absentia to 35 years in prison on Jun. 20, 2011}
2. EGYPT~ Hosni Mubarak {was appointed Vice President of Egypt in 1975; assuming President on Oct. 14, 1981 following assassination of Pres. Anwar El Sadat. The length of his presidency, made him Egypt's longest serving ruler since Muhammed Ali Pasha! He rose from ranking Air Chief Marshal of the Egyptian Air Force. Mubarak was osted February 2011. On April 13, 2011 was ordered detained and ordered to stand trial for premeditated murder. His trial began on August 3, 2011. Egypt's military prosecutors have also claimed that it is investigating Mubarak's role in assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat. He has suffered a heart-attack and minor stroke, since beginning of his trial.}
3. IRAQ~ Saddam Hussein {Rose to power in 1968, was captured near Tirkit, Iraqin 2003 and incarcerated, tried by Iraqi Court, sentenced on November 5, 2006 to death bu hanging, with his sentence carried out by his hanging December 30, 2006! }
4. LIBYA~ Mirmar Gaddafi { has been on the run since January 2011, was killed by Libian Freedom Fighters on October 20, 2011}
5. SYRIA~ Bashar al-Assad
6. IRAN~ Mahmoud Amadejihad
7. MYANMAR~ Than Shwe
8. NORTH KOREA~ Kim Jong II
9. CHINA~ Li Kegiang
10. (1).Al QEADA~ Osama bin Laden {responsible for the September 11, 2001 attack of the twin-towers in New York City, NY and has headed up Al-Qeada since its beginning in Afghanistan after his association with the Mujahideen. He acted as leader of Al Qeada until his demise by assassination by US Navy Seals on May 2, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan}
11. (2).AL QEADA~ Ayman al-Zawahiri {number two in command, quickly assumes leadership of Al Qeada in June 2011. He and Osama bin Laden have worked closely together in Afghanistan-Pakistan for many years. He grew up in Maadi, Egypt from a prominent family and was educated at Cairo's University, Egypt, He has been active organizing Islamic extreme since he was fifteen, was arrestedfor collaboration of the overthrowing of Gasmal Abdel Nasser's secular Egyptian government; and later was arrested for collaborating inthe assissanation of Anwar Saddat. Zawarahiri and bin Laden have been in close collaboration since 1980,where he was a surgeon, working for the Red Crescent Society. He currently is designated as the most wanted terrorist on the FBI's list and the U.S. State Department offers a $25 Million REWARD for information leading to his captureor his death! }
12. (3).AL QEADA~ Anwar Al-Awlaki {American born April 22, 1971, to Yemeni parents in New Mexico! He rose to number three position in command, operating in Yemen! He was responsible for communication with US Army Major Nidal Makik Hassan, who killed 13 people and wounding 30 on November 5, 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas near Waco; linked to failed car-bomb attempt in New York City by american born Pakistan/American; and the botched attempt by the 'underwear-bomber) Umar Fiasal Abdulmutallabo from Africa. He has long been identified as the 'pided-piper' for Al Qeada. After two years of man hunting by the CIA has finally effected his killing by a drone on September 30, 2011! His son (17 years old) Abdirah al Awalaki was killed by a drone on October 11, 2011.}
13. Hezbollah~ Sheikh Hassan
14. Hammas~ Khalid Mashaal
15. Palistine Liberation Org.~ Mahnoud Abbas

Lies We Believe

               Some lies make life easier and who doesn’t like easy? Easy is what Man is all about. But, lies have a way of catching up to both tellers and believers. The notion that social welfare is compassionate is a lie. Social welfare programs, as practiced in America, are nothing more than a salve for the conscious of those too self-centered to be bothered with the poor. We draw an imaginary line and say—here’s some money. Now, go away. True constructive help never enters the picture. The reason for this is simple. Building productive people is time consuming, costly, and offers few positive results.

The culture of living on the government runs deep. Sparks of incentive are quickly extinguished; usually at the family level. I’m for helping the poor, but help with no teaching or responsibility attached is no solution. It serves only to prolong dependence and stifle effort. So, do we just boot everyone off welfare? No, but we do set goals for the day benefits stop. In medicine and nursing discharge planning starts on admission. Why not welfare? For those too disabled, mentally or physically, appoint independent guardians or mentors to manage benefits.

Granting independence is not the same thing as teaching it. A child with a credit card, even a limited one, needs instruction in its use. Want can be an excellent teacher, but not long term. We have an obligation to teach or stop enabling.

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.”

“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak…”

“Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.”