Then and Now
By Larry Brian Radka
Mount Rushmore before and after the sculptures were created is illustrated above, on this vintage postcard recently won in an Ebay auction. Below is a blowup of its center section to make the text on the front of the postcard more legible.
The information provided on the back of this postcard describing this popular memorial in South Dakota reads as follows:
This view shows Mt. Rushmore, before work was started in 1927 and the gigantic monument as it looks to-day. The Memorial carved out of Granite Rock by the famous sculptor Gutzon Borglum is 6200 ft. above sea level and the Busts are proportionate to men 465 ft. high.
Speaking from experience, these giants in American history—which include one of the authors (pictured above) of the United States Constitution—are indeed a sight well worth seeing.
It is noteworthy to point out here that Gutzon Borglum (1867-1941) also started the work on Stone Mountain with a 450 step staircase in 1916, but later left his work there for others to complete, and went on to carve his greatest sculpture at Mt. Rushmore. The inscription in the lower right of the photograph above reads: "To my dear Dr. Orlof M. Orlow Sept. 22nd - Sincerely Yours - Gutzon Borglum 1919".
Stone Mountain is the “Eighth Wonder of the World!”
Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself
Exclusive Times 247
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announces preliminary findings of his investigation into the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate during a March 1 news conference in Phoenix, Ariz. Photo Credit:AP/The Arizona Republic, Charlie Leight Is President Obama’s birth certificate a forgery? Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., believes it is. He recently held a press conference in Phoenix to discuss the findings of a new 10-page report. Mr. Arpaio’s investigators have come to a stunning conclusion: The long-form birth certificate Mr. Obama released last year is a “computer-generated forgery.”
With the exception of The Washington Times, however, no major U.S. media outlet reported this bombshell story. The liberal press corps is desperately trying to suppress any discussion of Forgerygate — potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. The media class is betraying its fundamental mission to pursue the truth.
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”
The Washington Times story, written by Stephen Dinan, points out that Mr. Arpaio has called for Congress to investigate the matter. Think about this: A high-profile sheriff orders a team of former law enforcement officials to examine whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and that he has the constitutional and legal right to occupy the White House. Their official report is that Mr. Obama’s documents are shoddy and he likely engaged in deliberate fraud. And yet, most of the American press corps doesn’t believe this is an important news story? The liberal media has become rotten to the core.
Ironically, the foreign press reported widely on the story. For example, Pravda — that’s right, the former official organ of the Soviet Communist Party — did an extensive analysis of Mr. Arpaio’s findings. The article by Dianna Cotter asks the obvious question: What are U.S. journalists afraid of?
The answer is that the issue strikes at the heart of Mr. Obama’s administration: If his presidency is illegal, then all of his accomplishments — the stimulus, Obamacare, the contraceptive mandate, the government takeover of the auto sector and appointments to the Supreme Court — are illegitimate as well. The scandal would trigger a constitutional crisis.
Following Mr. Obama’s surprise news conference last year, when he unveiled the long-form certificate, the media insisted that the controversy was settled once and for all. The "birthers" supposedly had been silenced. Mr. Arpaio’s report, however, changes that. The issue has been resuscitated — except in the eyes of the mainstream media.
A prominent sheriff says he has damning evidence that Mr. Obama probably lied to the public. The international media believes it’s a big deal; many Americans agree. They want to get to the bottom of it. Yet, the liberal hacks at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC can do nothing more than yawn.
Contrast this with their treatment of President George W. Bush. Throughout the Bush years it was open season: routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, charges of being a war criminal, calls for impeachment, trumped-up scandals like the Valerie Plame affair, investigations into the partying habits of his teenage daughters, stories about Mr. Bush’s drinking as a younger man, his National Guard service and mediocre college grades — journalists left no stone unturned, no questions unanswered, no topic was beyond the pale.
Not with Mr. Obama. In fact, the opposite is true: Almost everything pertinent is not to be touched. He is the least-vetted president in modern memory. During the 2008 campaign, the liberal media deliberately propped up Mr. Obama. They suppressed vital information about his radical past and deep ties to virulent revolutionary leftists — the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky and Edward Said. For all of their differences, they share one value in common: hatred for traditional America.
To this day, Mr. Obama’s college transcripts, undergraduate thesis and health records remain sealed. We know little about his years in Indonesia as a young boy; his overseas trips to countries like Pakistan in the 1980s; his relationship with his mother and Muslim stepfather; and his time spent as a “community organizer” in Chicago. In short, the president’s past is clouded in mystery. This is not conspiracy-mongering, but objective fact. Americans have a right to know who their commander-in-chief really is. Instead, the media wants to bury any debate or inquiry into Mr. Obama’s background.
Whether you believe Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery or not, Mr. Arpaio should be applauded. He has done our nation a huge service. He is asking the press corps to look into an issue of the highest importance: Has the president committed a monstrous hoax and fraud upon the American people? In particular, the sheriff’s team has identified a supposed “person of interest” who they believe played a pivotal role in Forgerygate. The media must follow up on the story. If it is false, then Mr. Arpaio will be rightly humiliated and publicly discredited. But if — and I stress if — it is true, then the press will have unearthed a scandal that will shake this country to its very foundations. Either way, it’s time the media did their job and stop acting like Mr. Obama’s poodles.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
Read the original article at Times247
Read more: http://times247.com/articles/forgerygate-ignoring-arpaio-s-report-is-a-scandal-in-itself#ixzz1q1QZPfEb
The above video keeps disappearing, so if it is not there, perhaps this will make up for its absence:
"CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE…SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!
Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.
by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen
Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.
Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.
We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.
In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.
Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.
Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.
2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.
3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.
Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.
4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.
5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.
6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.
8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.
Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?
As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’
Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.
However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.
Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S.
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.
Unruh continues: “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”
Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him. This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.
Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.
Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.
Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?
Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.
It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is."
In a patriotic letter to the Editor of The Post & Email, dated July 23, 2011, titled “The Coup d’etat on January 21, 2009 AND WHY DOES CONGRESS STAND BY AND DO NOTHING?” Gary Stevens announced on:
(Jul. 23, 2011) — No battle was fought. No guns were fired. No bullets or bombs were involved. In the smooth movement of a pen over a previously-prepared document, the overthrow of the United States of America took place. The coup d’etat, still in its progressive movement of deconstructing America, was achieved without Congressional debate. No voice of argument. Less than 24 hours into office, the putative President of the United States, Barry Soetero (aka Barack Obama), signed Executive Order #13489.
Filed on January 23, 2009 at 8:45 a.m., the occupant of the Oval office sealed his records containing past names, student status, foreign travels, passport information, Selective Service registration and all educational transcripts. The historical footprint of Barry Soetero (his last legal name since adoption) was wiped away in the swoosh signature of a pen on a document prepared by Robert Bauer. No fanfare. No major media paid attention. For the first time in the Republic’s history an unknown, undocumented, and non-vetted candidate took the highest office of the land. Through the cheers, the tears, and the exuberance of those who voted for this unknown mystery, many failed to note what really happened.
The HUGE fact that a previous document (the Constitution) required that the office of President and Vice President be eligible as to age, country of residence and a “natural born Citizen” was disregarded in the election of 2008. The distinction of “natural born” in Article II, Section 1 was deliberately articulated by the founders for these two offices. Why? So that no foreign loyalties could hamper or compromise the Republic. We as a nation have been compromised. All the awareness of terrorism in our day from without is but a distraction of the real threat we have within the White House. A person would have to be blind and not know Braille to see the fabric of complicity among the ranks in government.
Why has there NOT been discovery allowed in every court case filed regarding Barry’s real ID? Why is the FBI NOT investigating the now-proven fraudulent birth certificate? Why is Congress NOT interested in the fraudulent use of Barry’s Social Security number? Why is the only person who peeked into the passport records of Barry shot dead? Why is it okay to have seventy (70) known documented National Socialist members in Congress? Why is the majority of Barry’s administration all linked to Soros or the SEIU or communist organizations? Is there even a hint maybe something is amiss with the incompetence of the impostor?
The GREATEST INSANITY of all!
The Congress is negotiating the economic future of America with an illegal president.
The ALARMING INSANITY: the liar-in-chief commands our military.
The ASTOUNDING INSANITY: the Director of Homeland Security has a boss that is “THE” breach of all security.
The ASTRONOMICAL INSANITY: he is still in office with no disclosure of who he really is !
The coup d’etat from January 21, 2009 continues.
If Obama succeeds, a new face may be carved into Mount Rushmore after all.
This page was last modified on Wednesday, January 20, 2016