Tea Party Patriots

Read and face up to the real truth!

In general, “media” refers to various means of worldwide communication.  The majority of American’s media (news reporting agencies, TV, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and movies) are owned and operated by very like mined people, socially and politically.  They have the monopolized ability to what is and is not seen, hear and reported and are thus very influential in the attitudes and behaviors for social and political change in America to their way of thinking.  They control the airwaves and presses and thus control the flow of information they want known and not known.

They support people, organizations, institutions, businesses and causes that further of their views and thinking.  They make sure the majority of the population hears, rehears, reads and rereads the same information over and over till it is accepted as a fact!

It has been observed that ten percent of people are thinkers; fifteen percent of people think they are thinkers, twenty five percent of people wish they were thinks and fifty percent of people would rather die than think.  I add this thought to that observation, that of the ten percent that are thinkers, at least fifty percent of them are socialist-progressive thinkers.  These are the majority of the owners of the global media and are of this mind set.  The news media is their way of indoctrinating and manipulating in a creatively entertaining format to get the masses to believe and accept they know what is best for us, socialism!

They always show us the choices, left or right, liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life, progressive or traditionalist, Democrat or Republican.  A limited, constricted, slanted either or choice, rarely the true facts unless exposed and forced, creating division.

The pretense of the media is there to keep check on our government, to protect the people all the while subversion, betrayal, deception, and treason.  Why would I say this?  This information on the following pages is actual historical fact that has and is being subverted by intimidation, deception, and lies.  The so-called leaders of our country, in all three branches of our nation, our elected representatives sworn to uphold and protect our constitution are committing treason.  They are ignoring their oath and destroying our nation and its sovereignty.

This is not just in Washington, DC.   Not one state electoral board or state attorney checked.  The Illinois state government representatives and Illinois Democrat party knew and never tried to stop this from happening.  The real question I have is not of his eligibility anymore as he was not, rather …

When did Barack Hussein Obama II become an American citizen?

Let me repeat that, reread it and think about it!

When did Barack Hussein Obama II become an American citizen?

AP declared Obama Kenyan-Born

John Charlton The Post & Email     October 16, 2009

What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services.   What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a birther news organization.

How so?  Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at

The AP reporter stated the following:

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a natural born citizen, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, So what?  I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004 that he was born in Kenya.

The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama:  because if you search for Kenyan-born US Senate you won’t find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.

For those who believe what they see, a full sized screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 is page three of this four page handout.  Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive.

Readers should take note that this AP story was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide.  If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story.  You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.

Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm.  However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

Special Reports

Big Issue | Financial Standard | Maddo | Pulse | Style | Society
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

Barrack Obama

“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

“I feel for him actually,” Obama told a Chicago TV station. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

“Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state,” she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, “There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere.”


A Chronology of Deceit

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough:  Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii? This question is distinct from the question, just where in fact was Obama born?  And from the other question, what do official documents say about where he was born?

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1.  As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii.   This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted he conceded that he was not a natural born citizen.

(C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the 2nd half of April, 2005) [Alan Lee Keyes served in the U.S. Foreign Service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan, and served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1985 to 1987]

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

June 25, 2004,2933,123716,00.html

June 26, 2004  Bellview News Democrat

June 26, 2004  AP Online Story by Michael Tarm

June 25,  2004  AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan

(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)

(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

Received December 8th, 2009:


AP- WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the  Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.   The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President.  When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain ‘s Daily Mail has also carried
the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,  Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey.   This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.  Donofrio’s case is just one of eighteen (18) suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.  Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.  Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.


Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?  While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi ?  So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.  It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,

2) He traveled with a British passport,

3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No, it is not possible.  Why, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list

in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.  If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.  And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.  Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how and/or when he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Could this actually be the greatest and potentially the deadliest of Obama’s screw ups so far?

Red State

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

I missed the implications of this up front and I bet you all did too, but I am hearing from members of the American intelligence community and some on the outside closely connected to those on the inside who are raising a huge red flag right now.

It appears Barack Obama inexperience and amateurishness has just started bonfires on the bridges connecting him to the American intelligence community and delivered a huge, HUGE psychological win to Al Qaeda.

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

To you and me this may not seem like a big deal. But I’m told this is hugely significant and shows just how out of touch the Obama administration is with the intelligence community. I’m told that no other President has issued such blanket statements of public mourning directed toward an attack on the CIA and thereby having the White House itself confirming an attack on our intelligence community.

The intelligence community is licking its wounds right now and Obama’s rush to confirm for the world that the community suffered such wounds has the intelligence community simmering tonight and Al Qaeda preparing a PR blitz with what they view as good news.

UPDATED: Take the information above and couple it with this. The White House is subtly blaming the intelligence community for the failure to deduce the Delta/Northwest attack.


Presidential aides are concerned that Obama will somehow be unfairly accused of dropping the ball on the fight against terrorist in Yemen

Because the President is worried about being blamed, the White House is trying to blame the CIA while at the same time undermining the CIA through a rush to publicize the Afghan attack.

Either this White House is willfully trying to sabotage the intelligence community or they are rank amateurs. I pray to God in Heaven it is the latter.

Tracking Your Taxes: Defense Bill Pays for Prostate Screenings, Sprinkler System

Fox News

President Obama pledged in August to cut all pork barrel projects from defense spending, threatening to veto any swollen bills that came across his desk — a pledge shattered by nearly 2,000 pet projects that have made their way into the defense budget.

“If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it,” he said to a meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix. “If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it. ”

Just last week, Obama broke his promise as he signed into law the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill — a $636 billion behemoth loaded with $4.2 billion of pork.

“We should be concerned that we’re getting ripped off,” said Ryan Alexander, president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“The earmarking process is the beginning of figuring out whether or not we’re getting ripped off. Absolutely dollars are being directed, not based on the best decision making process.”

In all, Congress added in 1,720 pet projects, including:

$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York

Lawmakers also added $5 billion for two destroyers, 10 C-17 cargo planes and to develop a jet engine the Pentagon neither wants nor needs. Critics call it classic pork — projects that may save jobs, but not money.

“There is a reason they are added to the Defense appropriations bill, because everyone in Congress knows this is a must-pass piece of legislation”, said Todd Harrison, a budget studies fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Despite the billions in pork, the White House says it’s making progress. The earmarking total is 14 percent lower than it was on last year’s defense bill, and the Obama administration says federal agencies found more than $19 billion in contract savings for 2010. The president has also succeeded in killing funding for the pricy F-22 Joint Strike Fighter and a new presidential helicopter.

Members of Congress are also defending their earmarks. Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., who added the Ted Kennedy Institute to the defense budget, says it is a tribute to the late Senator’s leadership on military technology and safety for our troops.

Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., says she was “proud” to secure $20 million for a new wing of the National World War II museum in her home state.

But a study by the Center of Defense Information says earmarks like those in this bill — including those for the solar film, prostate cancer research, and the New York sprinkler system — mean less money for pilot training, supplies, repairs and ammunition.

Harrison is especially disappointed Congress cut $300 million from a successful counterinsurgency program used by Army field commanders.

“That money is used by commanders on ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to fund small projects that help win over the local population,” he said.

Terror probes – what you’re not being told

Canada Free Press

By Doug Hagmann  Friday, January 1, 2010

On August 1, 2001, Hollywood actor James Woods witnessed four men of Middle Eastern appearance engaged in suspicious behavior on a transcontinental flight from Boston to Los Angeles. Mr. Woods’ first public recounting of his observations was five months after 9/11 on The O’Reilly Factor. During that February 15, 2002 broadcast, Mr. Woods stated that the suspicious behavior of the four men “would have been blatantly obvious to the most casual observer.”

Investigation ultimately confirmed that the actor witnessed a “practice run” for the 9/11 hijackings. He ultimately learned that all four men he observed aboard his flight were terrorists who took part in the murderous hijackings on 9/11 – and that they were not all on the same plane during the actual hijackings.

Fast forward to Christmas Day 2009, when Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdul-Mutallab carried PETN onto Delta-Northwest flight 253 and attempted to detonate the explosive package using a catalyst in a syringe. As some “assembly” was required, Abdul-Mutallab used the lavatory prior to his attempt at mass murder. Note carefully witness accounts glossed over by the media, downplayed or denied by officials, such as a second person allegedly taken into custody while another aboard the aircraft reportedly took video.

Intelligence analysis confirmed that Islamic terrorists always use such practice runs, often dubbed “dry runs” or probes to assess operational logistics and various aspects of airline security.  Knowing that and having better hindsight after 9/11, why haven’t we seen media reports, DHS, FBI or TSA acknowledgement of such probes prior to the Christmas Day bombing attempt? Was there a practice run for flight 253? What about the second person reportedly arrested, and reports of a bomb sniffing dog hitting on luggage in the possession of a man a witness described as a 30 year-old male, possibly from India, while the passengers were being held for individual questioning by the FBI?

Answers to some of these questions might be found in the statement obtained by this investigator on behalf of Canada Free Press and the Northeast Intelligence Network from a passenger aboard the very same flight from Amsterdam to Detroit exactly one week before Christmas Day. While filling in on the Schnitt Radio Show, nationally known talk radio host Pat Campbell received a call from Howard, a passenger aboard flight 253 one week before the attempted bombing. Howard recounted the odd behavior of two passengers during the flight, one well dressed man in his mid 30’s and a female of European origin. While Howard reported the incident, there appeared to be little official interest in his observations.

Howard provided his contact information to Pat Campbell, who in turn provided his contact information to this investigator. The information obtained by this investigator is contained in this report [PDF format]. While it is possible that the observations documented in the report could have a rational explanation, the events must be considered through the template of the actions we know took place aboard the Christmas Day flight.


Obama Gives Interpol Unprecedented Liberties to Control Americans

Where is the Conservative Outrage? Where are the Federal Judges? Where is the Media? And what the hell does Barry think he is doing? Random thoughts while wondering what this guy will screw up next. 1Dragon

Canada Free Press

By Jerry McConnell  Friday, January 1, 2010

It is the first day of the calendar year 2010; the year in which true Americans hope to rid our country from the scourge of traitorous and anti-American behavior so prevalent in the Congress and Administration.

But few people have heard about a potential act of infamy by Barack Obama when he signed an Executive Order on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 amending already existing Executive Order 12425 “in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.”

This seemingly innocuous action done in typical Obama Administration to prevent overt transparency, in other words, ‘keep it quiet and under cover’ should be getting blasted by every conservative politician and journalist in our country.  I did not expect the Mainstream Media to publish information on it as they are part of the transparency “cover up” enjoyed by our government; but I did expect screams of rage from high ranking minority party officials and other news organs than MSM.

Canada Free Press has had a couple of articles giving the ghastly details of this action that in effect will “allow an international police authority to overrule the US government” as CFP columnist Barry Napier mentioned in his piece on Wednesday, December 30, 2009.  But, WHERE IS THE CONSERVATIVE OUTRAGE?

The Washington Examiner editorial on December 30, 2009 stated “No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: ‘Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities.’ “

I realize that Congress is in another one of their numerous “vacation” periods; but are all the conservatives asleep or just not caring?  I would hope that I am overly concerned and that one of them at least will be in the news today blasting this utter deceitful and dangerous presidential action.

If not, then I guess we can forget about any timely or effective actions to be taken to clean house in Washington in November.

Obama’s Shameful Handling of National Security Issues

Pajamas Media

Jan. 2, 2010

A cool and aloof president isn’t what we need right now. We need someone who’s willing to fight.

December 30, 2009 – by Pam Meister

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

The year 2009 has not been a stellar one for Barack Obama. It ends on a particularly sour note with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by a Nigerian jihadist. A jihadist, whom we recently learned, may not have been alone on that flight.

Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano has taken a lot of heat, and rightly so. It took her three days to admit that airline security failed in this case. She’s incompetent and should do the honorable thing and step down. And if she doesn’t, she should be fired. But what about her boss? You know, the guy who appointed a governor whose handling of the illegal alien issues in her state was not without concern? The buck stops in the Oval Office. Why did he leave her twisting in the wind for so long? HDTV viewers likely could see the sweat oozing out of her pores as she dodged and weaved reporters’ questions.

Meanwhile, the would-be bomber warns that there are “more like me” coming to America. But I shouldn’t be so cynical. Maybe they’ve heard about the desire by some in Washington to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and are just trying to cash in on the American dream.

When Bush dropped the ball on Hurricane Katrina by “flying over” the immediate aftermath, the press raked him over the coals for weeks and months afterward. A jihadist with explosives tucked into his tighty whities makes it through airline security and is only stopped from blowing up a plane over Detroit by his own bumbling and the passengers who tackled him, and it takes Obama three days to speak to the American public? As Jerry Seinfeld might say, “What’s up with that?” We know he isn’t camera shy: before he even took office, he set a record for press conferences as president-elect, and he had quite a few in 2009. He was certainly quick to denounce a white Cambridge police officer for arresting a black Harvard professor when he “didn’t have all the facts.”

When he did finally make a public statement, it was pretty much boilerplate: ordering a review of security procedures and a promise to get the bad guys. All with the trademark “cool” that made him so different than his predecessor. Sorry, but “cool” isn’t what we need right now. We need someone who’s willing to fight.

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

Rocket Launcher Found In Apartment

No Charges Filed

HOUSTON — Police went to a southwest Houston apartment to break up a disturbance but ended up finding something else, KPRC Local 2 reported Wednesday.

A woman called police on Monday and said a man was forcing his way into her apartment in the 5300 block of Elm Street.When officers went inside, they found something that made them concerned enough to call the bomb squad.They found an AT-4 shoulder-mounted rocket launcher. It can shoot a missile nearly 1,000 feet through buildings and tanks.”It gives infantrymen the advantage with an ultra-light weapon that can stop vehicles, armored vehicles as well as main battle tanks and fortifications,” said Oscar Saldivar of Top Brass Military and Tactical on the North Freeway.That type of rocket launcher has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan.The renter of the apartment didn’t want to talk to KPRC Local 2.”This is my house,” the woman said. ” Get away from here. I don’t want to talk to nobody.”The woman did tell police that the rocket launcher belonged to Nabilaye I. Yansane, someone whom she allowed to store items at her apartment.Police records show that she didn’t want Yansane at her apartment, so she called them.According to court documents, officers also found Jihadist writings that allegedly belonged to Yansane. The woman didn’t want to talk to KPRC Local 2 about that, either.”I don’t know,” she said. “You’ll have to ask the police.”Yansane was charged with criminal trespassing and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three days in jail, which he has already served. No charges related to the rocket launcher or writings were filed.”Other people could have had access to the apartment, so maybe if a rocket launcher was located there, as is stated in the offense report, maybe it belonged to somebody else,” attorney Garl Polland said.Prosecutors said there are no state charges for having the unarmed launcher or possessing Jihadist writings, unless they contain some type of threat.The former director of Houston’s FBI office said rocket launchers can be dangerous if they’re in the wrong hands.”I don’t know any other use for those weapons except in combat,” Don Clark said. “I’ve had them in combat, used them in combat. That’s what they are used for.”Houston police said they did a thorough investigation and did not find any ties to terrorists or a terrorist network.

Basic American Principles

The Post & E-Mail

Jan. 2, 2010


by Rep. Susan Lynn

Rep. Susan Lynn — 57th Distirct Tennessee

Principles are important – without them we get off track and lose our way. Many believe that our federal government has lost its way while others just don’t understand why so many object to the “change” taking place today.

Let’s look at some of the foundational principles of American government; the principles that made our nation great.

The purpose of our government is to secure our rights

The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

Our Constitution, drafted in 1787, used the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance. The Constitution up-holds the purpose of our government, to secure our rights, and provides seventeen specific powers to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. Two years later a Bill of Rights was added by the states in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers; succeeding amendments bring the total number of enumerated federal powers to 30. None of those 30 powers grant general legislative authority to the federal government. In fact, such powers belong only to the states; called police powers – states pass laws to secure the rights of individuals.

So what they created is the freest county in the world – with a government that recognizes mans’ unalienable rights, and whose purpose is to secure those rights for its citizens’. In the United States, all have freedom and all understand that we can express our freedoms until we infringe upon another’s freedom. Except where individual actions may infringe on the unalienable and Constitutional rights of another, our government is to stay out of the affairs of the people and of business.

Our government cannot take-away or infringe on our rights

Our nation, our Constitutional Republic is based upon natural rights. But just what are unalienable rights and Constitutional rights? An unalienable right is a natural right granted to man by our Creator; described ever so simply as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence and it is also a Constitutional right. Life is, well, life. Examples of liberty are freedom to believe, or become, or protect yourself; a right to your speech, your reputation, and the things you create. Pursuit of happiness is freedom to make your own way, own your own property or live anywhere; a right to what you earn.

Constitutional rights such as trial by jury, to bear arms and vote don’t seem natural. They are not natural, but they do serve to directly secure our natural rights. For instance, who judges our actions is very important because we can lose our liberty as punishment. Arms are not natural – but protecting yourself, especially from your own government, is a natural right. Therefore, the right to bear arms serves to secure your natural rights. The right to vote protects your right to self-determination and liberty, even speech. All in all, unalienable or Constitutional, our rights are rights which no government can take-away, question or alter, they are unalienable. No social contract can cause us to surrender these rights.

Rights are of no cost to anyone else

My freedom of speech costs you nothing. Your freedom of religion costs me nothing.

The liberal error; confusing needs with rights; confusing positive and negative.

What liberals tend to do is to believe that they can “create” rights out of needs and then demand those rights from the government in the form of services – such as for health care. The liberals’ major mistake is that they not only misunderstand what rights are but they also misinterpret rights as “positive rights” – in other words, that the government has an obligation to provide a particular right to each citizen.

For example, we have laws against crime, and in the past there have been times when citizens have sued the government because the police didn’t arrive in time to prevent that crime. While you have a natural right not to be harmed, there is no right to expect that the government will prevent you from becoming a victim of a crime; the government is not at any fault or liability in this instance.

Liberals need to understand that rights are natural and negative. There cannot be a natural right to health care. Making health care a right requires infringing upon your rights and the rights of others. Aches and pains are natural but there is no natural right that someone must tend to your every ache or pain. To take resources (money, labor or goods) from one to give to another violates our natural right to our own property. For the government to force you to buy something that is not for the purpose of protecting the rights of another, such as liability car insurance, is a taking of your property in direct violation of your rights.

America is about freedom

Defending our nation from foreign invaders, serving justice through the courts and constructing an orderly monetary and bankruptcy system are enumerated powers in the Constitution. Each of those federal powers helps to secure the continuance of our government, our liberty and our property. Government financing of health care is not an enumerated power of the federal government nor is health care a natural right.

In fact today, the federal government does thousands of things not enumerated in the Constitution – and although it has become customary in Washington, this is why millions object. You can’t fundamentally change the fact that the whole point and most unique feature of our American government is that the government cannot infringe or take-away our natural, unalienable or Constitutional rights.

Federal legislators have had a good time through the 20th and now 21st century infringing on the states, and satisfying the Liberals by creating all kinds of programs and laws that spend trillions and trillions of dollars, all of it at direct expense to individual freedom and liberty and states’ rights.

What most of us want liberals to understand is that the most important basic principle of our American government is – America is about freedom. The citizen is in charge. He is not just a funding source for the federal legislators’ – there are limits to federal power and purpose. It is the American people that have always solved the problems of our nation – and we must be free in order to continue to do so.