I think that the Peak Oil theory is essentially correct. Kievsky made an important observation. It doesn't matter, insofar as the economic or ecological arguments are concerned, whether oil is a biological residue or whether it is abiotic in origin. The significant fact for these purposes is that it does not replenish at anything close to the speed at which we use it. Therefore, we are not in a steady state situation, but rather we are in a drawdown situation, and sooner or later the deposits will be diminished to the point beyond which they will have no more practical utility.

That point, as Dennis Lawrence noted, occurs when the energy needed to extract a barrel of oil, refine it, and transport its products to the end user, exceeds the energy contained in a barrel of oil. After that moment, oil is no longer a net energy resource, but is an energy sink. In order there to be any advantage in trying to use it, the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) for oil must be greater than one.

I believe that oil is a biological residue of very prehistoric plants, that its chemical potential energy is derived from sunshine via photosynthesis. I also suspect that any methane dissolved in the Earth's mantle would react with oxygen or oxygen bearing minerals to form CO2, water, and other more oxidized compounds. When a volcano outgases, you don't observe copious quantities of methane; rather, you can observe that a large fraction of it is carbon dioxide, as might be expected from chemistry. But whether my opinion on this matter is correct or not, it is certainly correct that there exists for our practical purposes a fixed supply of oil, and when we have used it all, we will be short on energy, as well as on such important derivatives of oil as artificial fertilizer, pesticides, plastics, and so on, and suffering from the loss of a readily transportable (because fluid) high-energy density resource.

"When will the oil run out?" is A question. But it is not THE question. The answer to it, by the way, is "never," because there will still be some oil left in the ground when it is no longer energetically profitable to attempt to extract it.

"When will the EROEI of oil become less than one?" is a better question because it addresses the primacy of energy physics over market economics as the real basis of life on Earth. The answer to it is "probably in less than 30 years." But this is not THE question, either.

THE question is "When will be start having big troubles on account of an insufficiency of energy resources?" And the answer is "As soon as any of the major currently producing oil fields, which are being kept at present at a sustained peak of extraction rate by seawater pumping, become so depleted that they are no longer worthwhile on account of a local EROEI < 1. That could happen (to, say, Ghawar) most any time.

There are two reasons, and they work together like synergistic devils. First, there's plain old supply-and-demand. Fossil fuel supply rates will go into decline. There's some dispute over when that will happen, and I happen to think that, globally, it already has begun to happen, that the rise in fuel and commodity prices means exactly what it seems to mean (i.e., 911 was a conspiracy, the holocaust is a hoax, but peak oil is neither), and that the end of civilization really is heading our way. Rising prices are a continuous spectrum kind of thing, but they trigger toggle events, such as a major trucking company or supermarket chain going out of business, in the same way that a rise in photon energy triggers the photoelectric effect.

As China's industry grows and its technology modernizes, it will bid for more and more of the world's remaining fossil fuel energy. What it gets, America and Europe do not get. That's why Bush sent US soldiers to Iraq, and it is why those troops are going to stay in Iraq. A similar thing can be said of India and for some other parts of the Third World. More people in the future than in the past will want energy, and there will be less of it in total global supply, and much less of it per bidder.

But besides supply and demand, we in the West have an aggravating condition: fractional reserve banking, monetized debt... in short, Jewish fake currencies posing as real money. The Jews began this game way back in 1850 when the Rothschilds agitated up moral outrage over slavery (they'd have tried to sew division between American Protestants and Catholics if slavery had not been more convenient). They continued the agitation until North and South went to war with each other, borrowing Jewish phony money to gear up their armies. The biggest purpose of the Civil War was to disunite and endebt the United States.

After the war was over and Lincoln was shot for issuing greenbacks and trying to send the Blacks back to Africa, the Jewish bankers hijacked the Senate and the House of Representatives, whose corrupted members cheated up the 14th Amendment—which to this day has no actual legal existence, however much the government tells us to the contrary at gunpoint. The 14th Amendment had two major purposes: (1) paving the way for race-mixing and (2) forbidding Congress to repudiate the public debt of the United States. Of course, since the 14th Amendment has no legality, Congress may indeed repudiate the public debt, and it may indeed make the United States a White country again, by law. It does not because of political pressures which the Jews continue to exert through the banks and through the media.

The next step was the Federal Reserve System, which is a privately owned (by Jews) central bank which has stolen from Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Louis T. McFadden tried to warn America of what the Jews were up to, and the Jews killed him for it. Kennedy tried to reverse that fiat accompli, and the Jews killed him, too. Ignorants like to point out that the President of the United States nominates the chief governor of the Federal Reserve, and the Senate must decide whether to confirm him or not. But it is a mistake to think that the Jews care one whit whether this Jew or that Jew will serve as the visible liaison to the US government for the next several years, and a liaison is all he is.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve exists to create money "from nothing" by loaning it into existence. The bankers do no work to justify its creation. They do no work to recompense the country for the income they derive from the interest payments. They don't even pay income tax on that income, and they are the only for-profit corporation in the United States with that particular exemption. They even have advantages over counterfeiters (of the illegal sort) in that they can make the American taxpayer buy them the materials to print their money with, the paper to print it on, and the labor involved in the process.

The key fact is that all money in circulation in the United States (or very nearly so) is the aggregate principal of a great many loans. There is no other money set aside, interest free, to pay the interest with. And that means that the country as a whole can never escape endebtedness, so long as it continues to play the game by the Jews' rules. That's why the 14th Amendment's prohibition on repudiating the US public debt was so important to them. In fact, that debt must, by mathematical laws, continue to grow and grow unstoppably, eventually to the point where the whole productive power of the American people can no longer suffice to pay even the maintenance costs, the interest owed on the principal.

Although a few people will escape their own endebtedness through hard work, clever trades, or by means that are or ought to be illegal, they can do so only by capturing a portion of someone else's loan money, thereby leaving that fellow worse off than he was before.

The game is rigged so that the Jews can, at the time of their choosing, snatch away from us every worthwhile thing we have made and appropriate it for their own use, without doing any compensatory labor for our benefit in exchange.

Not content with even this, however, the Jews on the Federal Reserve banks augment their basic strategy with a contrived cycle of booms and busts. During the boom times, the Jews lower the interest rates to encourage Americans to borrow their fake money and use it to hire workers to build valuable things, or to buy them once built. Such as houses, for example. But at the moment the Jews believe that Americans are as deeply into debt as they are going to ever get, they contract the money supply and leave tens of millions of debtors without the means to repay their obligations. This is how the Jews "squeeze the sponge." They emerge at this time to haul the debtor Americans into court, whereupon they strip us of all that we had made with our minds, with our hands, at our risk, and dump us into homelessness, into the prisons, or into our graves.

Demand for energy resources rises exponentially because debt-interest increases the owed amounts at an exponential rate. As long as the supplies of energy kept pace with this demand, most of the people subject to Jewish economics could keep their place through constantly accelerating the rate at which they used energy. That's why prices have already begun climbing, even though the rate of oil extraction has been maintained at a plateau, for the moment, by seawater pressure. A plateau isn't good enough to keep the Jewish vampire away. He will emerge from his crypt and destroy us with our own courthouses unless we either regain an exponentially increasing energy supply, force the US government to quit pretending that the 14th Amendment is real law, or else kill all the Jews involved in the monetized debt scams that threaten us.

When the rate at which energy becomes available begins to decline the Jew cannot fail to emerge to drink our blood. He might even find ways to go after those of us who believe ourselves safe because we are not in debt. For example, the Jews might start manipulating the property tax laws. Every Jewish home? A temple. It has a religious tax-exemption. Every gentile home? A den of vice! It must be taxed double or triple, or a dozen times what it was before, until the goy homeowner can pay no more, at which time the sheriff will appear to dispossess him, and his house will be bought at auction by those Jewish banks who will already have in their hands the homes of the gentile debtors.

Jerry Abbott

Part 1.

QUESTION: Why is Nasa Racist against black Spacemen? How come all the spacemen that Nasa send to space are always white? I have NEVER seen them train and send a black spaceman there. And IT IS A FACT that all the spacement who went to the moon were white males. - Is this fair? ermm NO. - So why dont president obama declare a new mission to the moon before the decade is out and make sure that at least two of the crew are black spacemen? Everyone should be given a chance.

Arthur Jensen is a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario. Both of them have been prominent in the investigation of intelligence as being correlated with race, or of average group IQ being racially variable.

"How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?" by Arthur Jensen, Harvard Educational Review, Winter 1969.

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior," by J. Philippe Rushton, Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Here's a condensed brief on why Blacks are not represented in science in general, or in spaceflight in particular, with anything resembling their demographic percentage.

Blacks resident in the United States have an average IQ of 85, a figure that has been stable for about the past hundred years. The reason US resident Blacks have higher IQs than their African cousins (mean IQ 70) is that the former have absorbed White genes to the extent that today they are about 25% White, a fact which shows not only in a somewhat lighter skin color, but also in a significantly higher intelligence.

The lower IQ scores for Blacks don't occur because Blacks were "marginalized" or "disadvantaged." The shortfall in Black IQ is the direct result of Blacks having brains that are 100 grams lighter and have about 14% less cerebral sulsification. The causes of the brain differences were persistent environmental differences (chiefly climate) in paleolithic times; they are not the result of environmental differences in modern times.

The reason that Blacks have smaller and less complex brains is that they evolved in a tropical environment. Whites own evolution took them through generations of cold winters, during which people with small brains, caught without shelter while traveling, had their heads frozen solid, causing death. Natural selection favored the survival of people with larger brains, and, once the extra neural mass was available, nature was quick to find ways to put it to use. And that is why Whites are, in general, as a rule, smarter than Blacks today.

However improved versus the pureblood Africans they might be, the US resident Blacks are nowhere near the IQ of White Americans (mean IQ 103). The abundance Blacks in intellectual occupations is the result of legal arm-twisting; it is not a consequence of any Black intellectual merit.

Let me show you some homework.

White (American) racial average in IQ: 103.
White (American) racial standard deviation in IQ: 15 points.
Black (US resident) racial average in IQ: 85.
Black (US resident) racial standard deviation in IQ: 12 points.
Gaussian distribution in IQ assumed for both races.
Simpson's rule used to integrate distributions.
> Step size: 0.01 points of IQ.
> Variable precision: 16 digits.
Fraction of Whites with IQs above 130: 0.03593
Fraction of Blacks with IQs above 130: 0.00008842
US population ratio, Whites to Blacks, in 1995: 6.71.

For a job requiring a minimum IQ of 130, there should be one Black hired for each 2727 Whites hired, on the average. Any trend involving the systematic hiring of Blacks in a proportion greater than one per 2727 Whites indicates some sort of bias, unrelated to merit, in favor of Blacks. A "reachdown," in other words. Like those female firefighter applicants who were denied employment because they couldn't pass the "climb and carry" tests, but sued the city to be hired anyway, and God help the heavy person who must depend on any of them someday to carry him out of a burning building.

Likewise, one day the employer whose success in business depends on his Black reachdown hires actually knowing how to do the job they are being paid to do, to do it well and creatively enough to beat the competition, will fail when the legal assumptions about racial equality don't agree with the facts of life.

Space science involves many intellectually very demanding tasks. We can't have just anyone being an astronaut. It would at least waste the taxpayers' money, and might endanger the lives of other persons, if NASA made allowances for racial quotas and, thus, did reachdowns. Of course, those risks won't stop NASA from doing that very thing in the prevailing atmosphere of political correctness, but it is, nonetheless, a dangerous thing to do.

Suppose that some future manned deep space NASA mission runs into the sort of trouble that Apollo 13 had. The computer is down. The radio won't work. The window for a necessary course correction is coming up, and the crew hasn't received the delta-vee vector from Mission Control. Somebody like Buzz Aldrin (or me), in that situation, can just about figure out what the delta-vee has to be with a ballpoint pen on the back of an envelope. With a pocket calculator, it would be a breeze. Could the typical reachdown Black astronaut do as well? Not likely. Here's my article where I solve this very kind of problem.
http://jenab6.angelfire.com/eto.rtf
(You'll have to copy the URL and paste it into your browser's address window. This link doesn't work if you just click on it.)

The higher the minimum IQ is for satisfactory job performance, the smaller the Black-to-White hiring ratio would be, if the government stopped meddling in the market with "civil rights" laws.

If the minimum IQ for a particular job is 140, then the average hiring ratio (without government interference) would be one Black for each 19997 Whites hired. If the minimum IQ is 150, the hiring ratio would be one Black for each 190,981 Whites hired. If the minimum IQ is 160, the hiring ratio would be one Black for each 2,365,466 Whites hired.

The Asians tested are mostly those who immigrated to Western countries, which might constitute a high-pass filter on the general Asian population, whereas the Whites with whom they were compared were not so filtered. We really don't know what effect it would have on the "average Asian IQ," if most of the people in the interior of China, along with those in Nepal and Tibet, were also tested. For the studies from which we draw our comparisons, the Asians were not so completely sampled as were the Whites.

The average IQ for US-resident Asians is 105.
The average IQ for White Americans is 103.
The average IQ for the US population, including all races, is 100.
The average IQ for US-resident Blacks is 85.
The average IQ of Black Africans is 70.

It's clear where the BIG gaps are, and where they are not.

I don't know why some people speak of diversity (i.e., racial mixing) as if it were some sort of improvement. It usually isn't. Most of the time, the drawbacks outweigh the gains. And there might not be any actual gains, from a mission operational standpoint. You might think that ability and good intentions were all that mattered for building a professional team. But that's not quite true.

When races are mixed, a raft of adverse circumstances leaps into being and must be weighed against any gains in team competence. The most obvious adverse circumstance is the visceral offense that race-mixing nearly always gives to the hominid tribal sense, which usually manifests as a vague feeling of impending threat, much as though someone critical were always looking over your shoulder, breathing down your neck. People compensate for having that feeling by behaving in an excessively ingratiating manner, being over-polite, mouthing all the correct platitudes without devoting any rational thought to whether they are actually true.

Acting that way is no trouble at all... for the first hour or so. But if you find that you must do it every hour of every working day, you will get tired of the act. It will wear you out. You will have to divert increasing amounts of attention, mental energy, to maintaining the "tolerance facade" over your real personality. Your own performance will decline as the result. As people become tired of playing their unnatural roles, they'll begin to slip. To keep order, those in authority will start to crack down on those who slip.

And where there are such things as "protected minorities" who must be "shielded from oppression," those who are not in such favored groups will be presumed guilty when any disorderly behavior occurs. You can see where this will lead, I'm sure.

And when reachdowns are being done to satisfy laws, or to secure political objectives, with regard to mixing races, we ought not assume that everyone hired is able or has good intentions.

Jerry Abbott

"Mixing shit and ice cream ruins the ice cream and does not improve the shit. America's cities are made unlivable because of Black violence and impoverished because Whites fled from the Black perpetrators of murder, assault, robbery, rape, and property destruction. American's educational system, which was the wonder of the world a hundred years ago, was eviscerated and devalued every single year because of fanatical racial egalitarian attempts to mainstream Negroes. Civility in the United States descended into the anomie, stupidity, and rudeness of a third-world nation. From the pinnacle of polite society, or close to it, America fell down to the level of a Suweto ghetto with toys, deodorant and glamorized pornography. That's what multiculturalism did to the United States. For the past 50 years, the Americans have tried, with a government gun to their heads and with liberal hymns in their ears, to mix shit and milk. They did not get a milkshake. They got poison."


Part 2.

QUESTION: What happens to everything else not traveling a the right velocity to fall into orbit?

Every possible combination of position and velocity corresponds to some sort of orbit. The orbit might terminate in a collision with another object, in an atmospheric entry, or with a change of velocity that puts it into a different orbit, but while a celestial body is moving under the influence of gravity, it's in an orbit. The position and velocity of an object, for the same moment in time, is called a "state vector."

[ x, y, z, Vx, Vy, Vz ] @ time = t

Let's assume that [x,y,z] is the heliocentric position vector whose components are given in meters, while [Vx,Vy,Vz] is the sun-relative velocity whose components are expressed in meters per second, and t is the moment of interest in Julian Date (days).

The solar gravitational parameter.
GM = 1.32712440018e20 m³ sec⁻²

The heliocentric distance (meters) of the object at time = t.
r = sqrt( x² + y² + z² )

The sun-relative speed (m/sec) of the object at time = t.
V = sqrt[ (Vx)² + (Vy)² + (Vz)² ]

The semimajor axis of the orbit, meters.
a = 1 / { 2/r − V² / (GM) }

The angular momentum vector per unit mass (m²/sec), in the orbit.
hx = y Vz − z Vy
hy = z Vx − x Vz
hz = x Vy − y Vx
h = sqrt[ (hx)² + (hy)² + (hz)² ]

The eccentricity of the orbit.
e = sqrt[ 1 − h² / (GMa) ]

The inclination of the orbit.
i = ArcCos( hz / h )

The longitude of the ascending node of the orbit.
Ω = Arctan ( hx , −hy )

Definition of the two-argument Arctan function (result in radians).
atn(z) = single argument Arctan function of the argument z.
Function Arctan( y , x )
. if x = 0 and y > 0 then angle = +π/2
. if x = 0 and y = 0 then angle = 0
. if x = 0 and y < 0 then angle = −π/2
. if x < 0 then angle = atn(y/x) + π
. if x > 0 and y > 0 then angle = atn(y/x)
. if x > 0 and y < 0 then angle = atn(y/x) + 2π
Arctan = angle

Note: the math to this point works for either elliptical or hyperbolic orbits. However, some of the stuff to follow works only for elliptical orbits. I can supply the math for hyperbolic orbits on request. You'll know that the orbit is a hyperbola if (1) the semimajor axis is negative and (2) the eccentricity is greater than one.

The true anomaly of the object in the orbit at time = t.
cos θ = h²/(rGM) − 1
sin θ = h (x Vx + y Vy + z Vz) / (rGM)
θ = Arctan ( sin θ , cos θ )

Argument of the perihelion of the orbit.
cos ω'' = (x cos Ω + y sin Ω) / r
If sin i = 0 then sin ω'' = (y cos Ω − x sin Ω) / r
If sin i<>0 then sin ω'' = z / (r sin i)
ω'' = Arctan( sin ω'' , cos ω'' )
ω' = ω'' − θ
If ω' > 0 then ω = ω'
If ω' < 0 then ω = ω' + 2π

The eccentric anomaly of the object in the orbit at time = t.
sin u = (r/a) sin θ / sqrt(1−e²)
cos u = (r/a) cos θ + e
u = Arctan( sin u , cos u )

The mean anomaly of the object in the orbit at time = t.
m = u − e sin u
Note: u must be entered in radians, and m will return in radians.

The period of the orbit, days.
P = (π / 43200) sqrt[ a³ / (GM) ]

The mean motion in the orbit, radians per day.
μ = 2π / P

The time of perihelion passage of the object in the orbit, Julian Date.
T = t − m/μ

The Keplerian orbital elements.
[ a, e, i, Ω, ω, T ]

Jerry Abbott


Part 3.

QUESTION: Why exactly are there 6 billion people on this planet?

Voluntary methods of population control fail because whatever genes promote compliance behavior get deleted by natural selection from the gene pool. The "responsible" people, who limit their breeding, get outbred and replaced by the "reckless" people, who kept on breeding as fast as they could.

Forcible measures to limit births at the national level also have a potential problem. At least, they do if technology can't make up, in terms of national defense, what a reduction in the number of soldiers takes away. A country that assiduously ensures that its population is kept down might become vulnerable to conquest by a more numerous neighbor country, after which its population might go from limited (by birth control) to zero (by military genocide). And once again the "reckless" rapid breeders win the game.

Nature provided a way for humans to keep their numbers down: low-technology warfare. We're actually supposed to fight each other, to partition ourselves off in clannish tribal groups and make plans to exterminate our rival clannish tribal groups. In that way, the victors will limit the human load on the biosphere by killing the losers, and at the same time the struggles will generally go in favor of the stronger and smarter peoples. Over the generations, the human species would improve, as well as staying within sustainable numbers.

But along came the "universal brotherhood" religions, and the liberal sentimentalists, and the fossil fuel industries, and spoiled nature's whole game. For that, we shall pay a price when we start running low on fossil fuels and discover that we are far into resource overshoot. The human die-off that will follow will dwarf anything that man has ever done to himself with war.

Jerry Abbott


Part 4.

QUESTION. How to find the path of an object around a planet? Is there an equation?

Orbital motion near a planet is Keplerian only to a first approximation. Planets are often imperfectly symmetric in their mass distribution. There are equations that model the gravitational potential field of a planet by spherical harmonic expansions. They are fairly complicated.

Φ(r,β) = (GM/r) { 1 − Σ(n=2,∞)[ Jn (R₀/r)ⁿ Pn sin β ] }

Φ = potential energy per unit mass
GM = Earth's gravitational parameter
r = geocentric distance
Jn = Bessel function, or zonal harmonic, of order n
J₂ = 0.0010839, J₃ = -2.4e-6, J₄ = -1.3e-6, J₅ = -2.0e-7
Pn = Legendre polynomial, degree n
β = latitude
R₀ = Earth's average radius

The J₂ zonal harmonic is by far the largest, and corresponds to Earth's equatorial bulge, caused by the planet's rotation. For short term position predictions, the higher order harmonics (which correspond to various kinds of lumpiness) are often ignored.

However, if you're only going to use an orbit for one pass, as is usually the case for transfer orbits, then you can stick with the Keplerian approximation. I'll be good enough to get you to within shouting distance of where you want to be.

Jerry Abbott

Here's my answer.

Karl Marx was right about the injustices of capitalism, but he was wrong about the remedy. Capitalism's biggest fault is that individual merit only determines success at the beginning. As time goes by, wealth gathers into the hands of a minority, where it becomes a decisive advantage in the pursuit of more wealth. The measure of man moves from his genes to his bank accounts, from his blood to his wallet, from what he is to what he owns. The possession of wealth becomes the supreme survival trait, easily overmatching strength, dexterity, agility, stamina, and, in the end, even intelligence.

The reason it works is the availability of exosomatic energy resources, chiefly fossil fuels. As long as money can buy gasoline, rich men can pretend that fossil power, put to use in engines, is power inherent in them as men. No one without money-privileged access to nature's accumulated stores of exosomatic energy can compete with those who do.

That's what Ayn Rand left out of Atlas Shrugged. It's a fantasy, of course, but it is a fantasy very seductive to rich people, who believe it because it flatters them. Ayn Rand spoke much of "men of ability," leaving it very strongly implied that what enabled them was their personal qualities, such as intelligence or decisiveness. She spoke often of coal-burning engines and other industrial uses of fossil fuels. But she used every trick she could think of to prevent her readers from connecting the ability with the fuels and observing that her "men of ability" really weren't so much superior to everyone else as their wealth might lead one to suppose. In real life, wealth brings such men privileged access to exosomatic energy resources, which then become their enabler.

The simple fact is, the employer merely stands between the customer and the labor. He listens, and then he points. He produces nothing himself and could be outdone by any of his workers were he to try it.

When fossil fuels are depleted, as eventually they must be, the illusion will be dispelled: the lumberjack will again know himself stronger than the owner of the bulldozer, the engineer will again know that he is smarter than the corporate manager who once bossed him, and the banker will understand, at long last, that he is worthless. When fossil fuels are depleted, nature will present mankind with the bill for his accumulation of genetic defects, which temporarily had been put on the credit card of technology, and many hereditary lines will suddenly discover that they are not really fit to live in this world.

But Marxist socialism isn't a good remedy to capitalism. It leads merely to the exchange of one kind of exploiter (the capitalists) by another (the communist party). The workers don't actually get to behave as if the country were theirs; no, they must toe the communists' political lines and jump through the communists' legal hoops, more or less as they once did for their employers, or for corporate lawyers.

Marxism has "tragedy in the commons" type failures. Capitalism has one of these, too, but capitalism's commons is the entire world and everything in it, including the "non-player" people (the working folks), and the tragedy doesn't happen until the world is all used up. Socialism has tragedies in the commons on a much smaller scale, being the result of presuming all workers equals, even though they are not, and pretending that each worker ought to be paid the same for being "on the job" for an hour.

Every worker knows that it is useless for him to display exceptional talent or diligence, since he won't be paid for it, and what eventually happens is workers just show up and read books or drink vodka, unless the secret police appear to see whether everyone is working. Then one guy gets dragged off and executed, and everyone else works hard until they aren't scared any more, then they go back to reading books and drinking vodka.

Capitalism is like a cancer. It grows like mad, kills a world, and dies along with it. Marxism is like having chronically low energy while most of your body parts have been assigned to the wrong places.

However, it is a mistake to consider Marxism as the only kind of socialism. Marxism is socialism based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, members of economic classes. That's the wrong idea that causes much of the trouble with it. Nature's laws never produced any special reason for people to identify with their economic class.

But there is a kind of socialism that is based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, members of biological communities: families on the small scale, races on the large scale, with tribes being somewhere in the middle. Nature's laws did create a special reason for people to identify with their biological communities, though it requires explanation.

Millions of years ago, evolution was making animals more competitive by making them bigger, stronger, and more ferocious. The fossil record shows that dinosaurs kept gaining size and power. After a while, though, the point of diminishing returns was found, as the mass-to-muscle-power ratio set a limit on how large an animal could be without being unduly burdened by his own weight. At that point, additional increases in size were evolutionarily counter-survival, and further adaptive advantage had to be found by other means.

With the evolution of mammals, nature had settled on intelligence as the new means for evolutionary progress. But now there was a new trade-off: between the amount of time the mother remained pregnant, thereby being burdened and endangered, and the amount of time required for the formation of the baby's brain. Nature's compromise was somewhat longer pregnancies, but the baby was born without the ability immediately to care for itself. If the mammal babies were forsaken by their mother, as reptile babies usually are, they'd be easy prey for any carnivore or omnivore.

Nature's remedy was to evolve a new emotion for mammals, and that emotion was love, perhaps first expressed as the maternal instinct to take care of babies. That allowed mammal brains to grow larger with time. It also overcame the "tragedy in the commons" problem for biological collectives—up to a point, anyway.

A socialism based on the idea that people are primarily members of biological collectives might actually work, whereas Marxism, which is based on the wrong sort of collective, never has worked so far.

Jerry Abbott


Part 2. Our nickname for Barack Obama should be Pongo.

As former US President George W. Bush sometimes resembled an angry chimpanzee, even more does our current Usurper, False-President Barack Obama, resemble an orangutan. The Jewish media had an easy time of doctoring up carefully selected photos of Bush to emphasize his resemblance to a Pan. But despite all their efforts to conceal the resemblance of Obama to a Pongo, it is nonetheless obvious.

Lawbreakers deserve, at the very least, to be mocked, and someone who usurps the office of President in clear contravention of the supreme law of the land is one of the most egregious of lawbreakers. So, to give him his due, let us refer to Barack Obama, henceforth, as Pongo. Pongo from the Congo? No, this Pongo is from Kenya.

Notice to smartypants liberals: I already know that orangutans are apes native to Indonesia. That's the country in which Barack Obama currently has citizenship.



Part 3a. Some thoughts and statistics pertaining to feminism and child support.

I'm an antifeminist, and there are several small antifeminist movements afoot. But these are not nearly as effective as they should be. They are not unified, and they are mostly either local or mail-box organizations. They don't have the budget to compete with the Jews, er, ah, I mean the feminists.

Oh what the heck, I'll tell you. Feminism is only a part of a yet higher level of organization. Don't you suppose that there is a reason that it sprung up like a Jill-in-the-box in the middle of the 20th century? Feminism is one of several major strategies that the Jews have raised against Western Civilization. Another is economic globalism. A third is international racial mixing. A fourth is communism. A fifth is the systematic corruption of academia, especially as pertains to history and the life and social sciences. A sixth is the Jewish control of the mass media in America, in the UK, and in many European countries.

The 1960s hippie counterculture scene was also mostly a Jewish invention, albeit a more temporary one. It was led by Jews such as Abbie Hoffman and Ira Einhorn.

It's all part of the same, Jewish package of hate against the White West. Each of their strategies is intended to weaken us in some way, or divide our race against itself to the same end. Each of them has had heavy Jewish financial backing, and most of the leaders of the crusades, in every case, are Jews or Jewesses. Even communism, which began when Leon Trotsky carried $20 million in gold backed certificates from Jacob Schiff of New York's Kuhn-Loeb bank to finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

In other words, not only are men's advocates several magnitudes of organizational scale too small to challenge the feminists effectively, if they were to slay the feminist dragon and do nothing more, then they would find all their work undone when the Dragon Breeders simply popped another dragon upon them at some later date.

Feminism has raised the divorce rate, made hostages of millions of children and slaves of millions of fathers. That's the truth. The only thing feminism has done to children is harm them while providing women with inducements to moral corruption, not to mention the harm to men foolish enough to believe that a woman meant it when she promised "...for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, for as long as you both shall live." Let's look at some of the details.

Children raised by their mothers only (i.e., in a fatherless home) account for:

* 71% of pregnant teenagers
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, press release, Friday, March 26, 1999.)

* 63% of youth suicides.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census.)

* 90% of all homeless and runaway children.

* 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
(Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988.)

* 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders.
(Source: Centers for Disease Control.)

* 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger.
(Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)

* 71% of all high school dropouts.
(Source: National Principals' Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

* 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers.
(Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)

* 85% of all youths sitting in prisons.
(Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992.)

Want that fixed? Then support changes to the laws that award custody to fathers, instead of to mothers. We know from statistics such as these that awarding custody to mothers causes an increased risk of harm to children. By making fathers the prime choice for custodial parent, the risk to children will lessen. And it will probably have a side benefit of reducing the divorce rate. The evidence is in, and this is what it means. Anyone who does not support that change in the child custody laws does not care about children, is venal to the point where he would sacrifice a million children's lives and hopes so that he might keep in good report with the Jewish media.

Child support is an extortion racket that feminists invented and slid into American laws, where they plague us all. It isn't about helping children. It's about transferring wealth from men who worked to earn it to women who did not. Child support awards contain a large proportion of hidden alimony, or money that the women receiving it use for their own pleasure. It is not fair to men that they must thus sustain a woman who no longer provides them with those things which wives do for their husbands.

Divorced mothers are about five times more likely to receive sole custody of children, as compared with divorced fathers.

80% of divorced mothers with sole custody of children receive child support payments from their former husbands, but only 30% of divorced fathers with sole custody of children receive child support payments from their former wives.

47% of divorced mothers who are ordered to pay child support to custodial fathers are complete deadbeats, but only 27% of divorced fathers who are ordered to pay child support to custodial mothers do not pay.

(Source: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.)

Now, suppose we pretend that we could remove the gender bias from the law. If fathers and mothers were equally likely to receive sole custody of children, if non-custodial parents all had the same odds of paying or receiving a child support award, regardless of their gender, then what would the ratio of deadbeat moms to deadbeat dads be? The per capita rate of deadbeats among noncustodial moms with a child support obligation, divided by the per capita rate of deadbeats among noncustodial dads with a child support obligation, is 1.74. Male parents have some combination of honesty, dutifulness and concern for their children that exceeds that of female parents by that ratio.

It is clear that children would be better off if they were raised by their fathers, rather than by their mothers, other things being equal. It is also clear that, on a per capita basis, women are more likely than men to try to sneak away and not pay. If the gender bias in determining custody, and the further gender bias in deciding whether a child support award will be made, were removed from the law, it would be obvious that the typical deadbeat parent is a woman, not a man.

Whether you judge by the per capita rate ratio of female to male deadbeats (1.74), or by the abuse/neglect statistics presented earlier, it seems likely that fathers are more responsible parents than mothers in about seven cases out of ten, on the average.

So why are things as they are? Jews. They corrupted White women with promises of power, and achieved their real aim, which was weakening the White race by setting its men and its women against each other. It's actually a rather simple variation of their Marxist game, in which the Jews use the working class against the intellectual class, promising power to a part, but really achieving only a weakening of the whole.

The evidence that women have been morally corrupted is not especially hard to find.

In 1963, before women had started roaring too loud to be ignoring, there were 160,000 reports of suspected child abuse. As feminists began having their way with the divorce laws, women going through divorces found it expedient, and essentially risk-free, to falsely allege that their husbands were child abusers. In 1985, there were 1.7 million claims of child abuse. In 1995, the number had reached three million allegations, and more than two-thirds of them were definitely proved to be false. To my knowledge, not a single one of those lying women went to prison for perjury, even though in each case a man would surely have been wrongfully incarcerated if her lies had been believed.

(Source: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), Child Maltreatment 1995: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.)

Jerry Abbott


Part 3b. Venting some similar thoughts on Yahoo Answers, in response to the question:

Why do feminists blame men for womens decisions period? If not enough women aspire to gain positions of power its mens fault. If not enough women aspire to become pro athletes its mens fault. If women enter the adult entertainment industry its mens fault. Whats up with that?

It's worse than you suppose. Even if lots of women enter the adult entertainment industry, men aren't supposed to have any sexual fun while being entertained by them. No, the feminists want all the fun to belong to lesbians. Men are merely supposed to appreciate the aesthetic grace and power of the women performers, and to speak very respectfully of them, in such a way that implies they are worshiping them as though they were angels, not lusting after them because they are members of the opposite sex.

As to the other professions in which women don't appear in their demographic proportions, usually it's because women don't apply or train for them in demographic proportions. Feminists assert, quite without proof, that women do apply and train for such professions, but that men "band together" to deny them entry or advancement. That's not the case. Men generally are not cohesive enough to behave with the kind of sexist collectivism that you observe among feminists. But you can't reason with feminists to the point where they understand that they are projecting themselves into their mental image of men.

Shelob, feminists are certainly competitive. They just don't want qualifications to matter. Remember the female firefighter trainees who failed the "climb and carry" tests, were denied employment for that reason, and then sued the city to be hired anyway? There's a prime example for you.

Another example can be found in child support laws. It's the woman who chooses to have the baby... but they want men to pay the bills. Logically, in all fairness, the man's liability should be limited to half the cost of an abortion, to be paid only if the woman has an abortion. Well, okay: maybe whether she has an abortion or not. But half of what an abortion costs is the just extent of the amount due. Instead, men get stuck with the equivalent of forced labor, i.e. slave labor, in the amount of 10,000 to 20,000 hours, from which all the reward goes to the woman who mothered his child.

Feminists like to find fault with men who don't pay child support, but they don't acknowledge the sexism which they had such a large part of putting in the child support laws. Mothers are at least five times more likely than fathers to receive custody. Custodial mothers are 2.7 times more likely than custodial fathers to be awarded child support from their former spouse. If both of these sexist practices were ended, such that fathers and mothers were equally likely to receive sole custody and such that custodial parents were equally likely to receive a child support award, regardless of the custodial parent's gender, then you would see that the typical deadbeat parent is a woman, not a man. On a per capita basis, noncustodial mothers owing child support are deadbeats 1.74 times more often than are noncustodial fathers owing child support.

Not only that, it's a fact that about 3/4 of the major problems that afflict children—teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, going to jail, using drugs, etc.—involve children being raised by their mothers alone, i.e., in fatherless homes.

Whether you judge by the responsibility in paying child support, or by the distribution of the results of bad parenting, it is clear that fathers are better parents than mothers in about seven cases out of ten, on the average. By instilling into child custody laws a heavy preference for maternal custody, feminism has harmed children. It seems obvious in retrospect that feminism never set out to protect children, that their aim all along was to create an extortion racket in which men could be enslaved by their former wives following a divorce, which gave females legal and social leverage by which to pressure and control males. Which has resulted in the moral corruption of women.

Jerry Abbott

*since JD 2454852

To the governments of every country in the world. As long as Barack Obama is acting as President of the United States, and has not proved his Constitutional eligibility to do so, he should be presumed a Usurper of the powers of the United States to whose acts the United States cannot be legally bound. It is in your interests, as it is in ours, for you to forsake all ties with the United States until such time as it once again has a head-of-state of proven legality. Please, do not conduct any business with the United States until then, nor enter into any treaty, nor collaborate in any venture which Barack Obama or his agent may propose. Shun the United States as a rogue nation until we have a lawful chief executive once more.

To the US Armed Forces. Please support and defend our Constitution and entertain no pretenses that you are doing so when you are not.

As long as the one who hold the office of President is constitutionally ineligible, you are in a dangerous dilemma. The moment you get an order that originated with the Usurper, or resulted from one of his policies, you will have to choose whether to be called a "traitor" in the press and on legal papers or else be a traitor for real. If you obey the order, then you really are a traitor, even if nothing bad happens to you. If you disobey the order, rightly pointing out that you are forbidden to obey illegal orders, then you will be called a traitor and probably punished as if you were one, even though the exact opposite will be true.

To date, very few of your comrades in the ranks and in the officer corps have demonstrated a willingness to do their duty to preserve the Constitution in the face of an outlaw president. It's as if Jesse James were running a bank, and all the bank guards were pretending not to notice the stealing he was doing, just as long as their own paychecks and retirement benefits were left alone.

Did you not think that the time might come when you would have to fight for your country? Didn't you consider that the danger to your country might come from an unusual direction? What kind of soldier are you?

To the top military leaders: How does it feel, Generals, Admirals, Chiefs of Staff, to be caught so unprepared for the communist assault when it finally happened? There you have been, these past 60 years, bristling with your modern weapons, ready to fight anyone who might be tempted to start a war with the United States, loud in your declarations of "preparedness," and then watching without any meaningful challenge as your enemy walks boldly and openly into the office of your Commander-in-Chief. Do you have enough sense to know when you have been mocked?

I mean, thanks for nothing, fellows. Do you know what you are? Let me just tell you. You probably watched the movie Braveheart. It was a good movie, with Mel Gibson playing William Wallace. Do you remember how, in the crucial battle for Scottish Independence, the Scottish nobles, who figured they could get a better deal from the enemy king than they'd have in an independent Scotland, betrayed their country by failing to charge into battle at the pivotal moment? That's you.

This farce of an illegal alien's presidency has convinced me that the Constitution of the United States has, in fact, no defenders and is dead. This travesty should have been dealt with, either by the courts before Obama's inauguration or by the military before the sun set on that day. Since the Constitution is the device by which the United States came into existence, and by which it lived, it follows that there is no more United States of America. There's just a criminal gang in possession of the trappings of power. The noble experiment with the American Republic has run its full course and has fallen in the end to internal corruption. May our next effort to create a "Jeffersonian" Republic, if there can ever be another, have longer life and better fortune.

Edit: It seems I was wrong. The Constitution of the United States has one defender: Lt. Scott Easterling, who is defying the orders of Barack Obama until such time as Obama proves that he is eligible to serve as his Commander-in-Chief. One man in uniform actually meant it when he swore his oath. One, single US Army officer didn't just say the words to get a paying job and a chance at federal retirement benefits.

Easterling had been too old to join the US Army until the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Up to that time, he had been working for a defense contractor to do what he could to support American troops. When it became possible for him to enlist, Easterling did so, leaving his former job. He applied for and was accepted to Officer Candidate School, passed, and became a 2nd Lieutenant in August 2007.

Now. Watch the traitors tear him apart. Because that's what will happen. Even the cowards who share Easterling's belief that Obama must prove that his presidency is legal by the Constitution will stand by and watch as the one American with courage gets torn apart by the powerful criminal gang in Washington.

Or will they? A second American soldier in Iraq (name withheld) and (retired) Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers have joined Easterling in a lawsuit that seeks to require Obama to prove that he is qualified to hold office as the President of the United States. So there is some small movement in progress, though at present it appears somewhat hesitant and diffident.

US Representative Bill Posey proposed a bill that would require future US presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility to hold office—something that is theoretically a part of constitutional law anyway (it comes from the idea of reserved and enumerated powers). Posey suggested that there be a federal law to make the theory more explicit, so that in the future political candidates and their parties can't miss it. Certain Media Jews took Posey to task for his proposal, with one of them saying, "What you should do is stop embarrassing yourself and take the Reynolds Wrap off your head." Such typical Jew sass.

Here's what Representative Posey said in response:

"Why'd I do this? Well, for a number of reasons and the more and more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing. I've been called some pretty nasty things. That's fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand … whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government. I could easily fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show their ID for … everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the FEC."

It sounds like Bill Posey understands a valid principle of modern politics, to wit: The more often and the more vociferously you are the target of leftist smear attacks, the more likely it is that you are right, or in the right, and not merely "on the right."

A retired U.S. Navy officer, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, has filed a criminal complaint against Barack Obama, calling him an "impostor" who illegally holds the office of President of the United States. The charge is filed with the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Fitzpatrick accused Obama of "treason," though this might not be strictly correct, since before one may be a traitor, one must first have a basis for a fealty that can be betrayed. Since Obama is not a US citizen, he has no such fealty, hence he isn't a traitor. He is, however, a Usurper—and that's plenty bad enough.

On the other hand, someone with an obligation of fealty, especially if combined with a position of public trust—such as, for example, being a federal judge or the governor of Hawaii—who knowingly aided or abetted Obama's illegal pursuit of power contrary to the clear provisions of the US Constitution, is indeed guilty of treason, and that is a capital crime.

A grand jury, led by Georgia resident Carl Swensson, has criminally indicted Barack Obama on charges pertaining to his ineligibility to hold office.

Lyle Rapacki is a security analyst who advises police about circumstances that could lead to civil disorder. He has written, and publicly released, a "white paper" that the issue of Barack Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of US President could trigger domestic unrest. But descriptions of his wording leave something to be desired, honestywise.

For example, Rapacki said, "This could create a constitutional crisis." Wrong. The time to say that was before Obama was inaugurated. Now that he occupies the President's office as a Usurper, the constitutional crisis is already here. The only thing that hasn't started yet is its remedy.

Rapacki suggested that there would be confusion over which of Obama's orders, laws, and actions "should be valid." The correct answer is that NONE of Obama's orders, laws, and actions is valid.

Rapacki said, "The economic crisis could with this type of constitutional crisis could prove to be a 'flashpoint' that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security."

Did you notice the implicit assumption that law enforcement and homeland security would be on the Usurper's side? Perhaps they would be. But that's the exact opposite of what their job is. The mission of law enforcement is to uphold the law, not prop up a Presidential Usurper, thereby aiding and abetting the biggest malefactor in the country. If the police and security apparatchiks were to do their jobs correctly, there wouldn't need to be a civil war. All that would happen is that Mr. Obama and his accomplices would be arrested and given a fair trial, following the due process of law.

Rapacki asks a loaded question. "What does [Obama's ineligibility to be President] do to the decisions that already have been made, already done for the economic issues that can't be taken back?"

What does he mean "can't be taken back"? Anyone who takes the money of the American people from the hand of a Usurper, to do the Usurper's will, is a traitor. The penalty for treason is death. It has always been death, throughout history and in every country that has ever existed. If a traitor is permitted to give back his ill-gotten money and escape with no other penalty, then he is getting off lightly.

Jerry Abbott


"Most codes extend their definition of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the oppressions of the government; the latter are virtues; yet they have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former; because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny, have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." (Thomas Jefferson)


Part 2. How much of Obama's opposition is genuine?

I've noticed a very over-proportionate fraction of Jews among Obama's outspoken critics who are lawyers agitating for him to be investigated for eligibility. Experience has taught me that the Jews are very clever people who have ways of keeping races much larger than theirs divided and confused, and one of those ways is the adroit use of shills. A shill is a pretender to being someone he isn't, or to pretend to a purpose which he intends to sabotage. A seller in an eBay auction might, for example, use a phony account to bid on his own item to attract attention as well as get a higher final price from someone else.

Just so, Jews sometimes use shills to control a debate. They'll send some of their own number to represent their own opposition. The Jewish owners of the mass media are wise to the scam, of course, but they abet the shills by pretending to take them as serious opponents to the main Jewish opinion on an issue. The public never finds out, or at least never can prove, that the whole ballyhoo on TV and in the press is controlled by a single plan, that people with the same agenda are running both sides of the debate, that the fuss is phony, that the appearance of considering all sides of an issue is an illusion, that the result of the debate is predetermined, that the side which is to win will win and the side which is to lose will rant and bellyache... but lose—by design.

The remarkable lack of success by any of the mostly Jewish ostensible opponents of Barack Obama (Alan Keyes is Black) makes me wonder whether they aren't all a bunch of very high-level shills. Perhaps not, but where there are Jews, there's nearly always a certain amount of deception. Sometimes there's a great deal of deception. It would be consistent with what I've learned to expect from Jews if most, if not all, of the Jews (and perhaps some of their imitators) who are loudly clamoring to see Obama's papers and filing lawsuits supposedly aimed at getting Obama to release his birth certificate are doing so in bad faith. That is, many of them might not really be out there to win, but merely to be seen seeming to struggle.

The alleged AP article that appeared in April 2009, concerning Obama's allegedly receiving financial aid as a foreign student while enrolled at Occidental College in California, might be a hoax. However, I doubt that this particular hoax was invented by anyone seriously challenging Obama's eligibility to act as US president. Rather, this hoax (if such it is) was probably invented by persons on Obama's side. It's one of the simplest of propaganda tricks, and it has a categorical name: Setting Up A Strawman.

When Obama's educational records are finally made public, I do indeed expect to see evidence that Obama attended school as a foreign student. The real evidence will say the same thing the strawman does, except that it won't be such an obvious hoax that it could not have been manufactured by anybody who had hoped to do a seriously good job of hoaxing. Likewise, when Obama's longform birth certificate is finally brought up to the light from the Hawaii state archives, I do indeed expect to see that the document is a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate.

Jerry Abbott


Part 3. The Way Back: Undoing the Damage after Obama Is Deposed.

Barack Obama, the orangutan that currently occupies the White House, is a Usurper of the powers of the United States in violation of the eligibility requirements for US President specified in the Constitution of the United States. Everything he does with his office is illegal, his least official act is a felony. He never should have been permitted to take office. The sooner he is ousted, the less the total damage will be.

The rule of law in the United States begins with the Constitution of the United States. As long as the laws are well-constituted and enforced without political favor or sacrificed to a social agenda, they establish a kind of justice in a country and safeguard it from chaos. When there is a controversy over who is entitled to wield power, the laws must be followed strictly to the letter. A man who is legally ineligible to an office, even if the ineligibility seems a picky one, must never be allowed to hold it. In a sense, Obama's inauguration destroyed the United States, inasmuch as it put an end to the Constitution as the definitive authority on who may act as the country's head of state. The only chance to restore the United States is for Obama either to resign or to be removed.

After Obama is removed, the job of tracking down all of the illegal expenditures of America's money and requiring all recipients of illicit cash to repay it to the US Treasury will begin. That goes for individuals, corporations, and foreign countries. All of the laws and treaties signed by Obama will have to be identified and anulled as void ab initio. All of Obama's policy changes must be discovered and reversed to what they were before he changed them.

Also, the people responsible for putting a Usurper into the office of US President will have to be tracked down, arrested, held for trial, and, if convicted, punished appropriately. Every person who aided or abetted Obama, by concealing the truth about him, or by carrying his lies for him, or by giving him money used in his criminal pursuit of power, must face trial for sedition and/or for treason.

Every military officer who obeyed Obama's orders must be dishonorably discharged from the service without pay or benefits, and, where appropriate, also tried for sedition or for treason. Every judge who evaded his duty to make judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy or his presidency must be stripped of his office, arrested, and tried for treason. Every police officer who enforced a law that would not have existed had Obama never taken the President's office must be investigated for civil rights violations and for complicity in treason.

A Civil War is not too high a price to pay for removing Obama the Usurper. The consequence of not removing him is to destroy the authority of the Constitution and to lose the country therefore.

Jerry Abbott


Part 4. Barack Hussein Obama II is probably not a citizen of the United States.

Prologue. When leftists want to deceive the people, but fear that the truth will come out despite their attempts to block discovery by the general public, they use the phrase 'conspiracy theory' to describe all truthful summaries of the facts. The average person is meant to believe that 'conspiracy theory' is a synonym for 'lie,' but really it's only an equivocation. Leftists relentlessly use this term to deceive, avoiding the shorter and simpler term of 'lie,' so that if the truth becomes widely known they can claim never to have engaged in deception. They never called it a lie, they will tell us, but only described it as a 'conspiracy theory' and hope that no one remembers the smirks, sneers, jeers, and sarcasm that accompanied their uses of that phrase.

Americans are in a media-suppressed constitutional emergency. The US President-Elect, Barack Hussein Obama II, seems to have been born on 4 August 1961 in the Coast Provincial Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya, upon which birth he was given the name "Barry Obama." His father's relatives have claimed to have been present for his birth in Kenya, and I believe them. When they spoke, they might not have been aware that Obama could be disqualified from becoming President of the United States because of his birth outside the territory of the United States.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)

Our Constitution requires that the US president be a natural-born US citizen, and Obama's foreign birth legally disqualifies him to hold the office for which he has won a popular election.

Wikipedia, which is supposedly the encyclopedia constructed by its users, but which in reality is thoroughly under the control of liberals and Zionists, has been censoring all references to Obama's questionable citizenship status and banning members who attempt to include mentions of those issues in the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama, which as it stands is a political whitewash filled with lies.

Source: "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility: Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned," by Aaron Klein in World Net Daily.

In fact, Wikipedia has recently "locked" the article to all except approved members. The lies are in. The truth is out. And the liberals in control of Wikipedia intend to keep it that way.

There was an exception that applied in 1961 to some foreign births of babies to American parents, but it does not apply to Obama's birth. The law stated that if at least one of the parents had been a US citizen AND resident for at least 10 years, at least five of which years with the parent above the age of 14, then the parent was empowered to bequeath US citizenship to her baby. But Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was only 18 years old when Obama was born, so she was not able to transmit US citizenship to Obama.

Ann Dunham, a White woman, had traveled to Kenya to visit with the family of the Black male who was her husband at that time. She had wanted to return to the United States to have her baby, so that it would receive US citizenship. But she waited too long, and the airline refused, because of her advanced pregnancy, to board her for a flight to Hawaii, fearing that she might go into labor during the trip. Obama was subsequently born in Kenya, and his paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth.

A week or so later, Ann Dunham and her baby returned to Hawaii. It is possible that a fake Hawaiian birth event was staged, as some immigrant Mexican women have done for their Mexico-born babies.

Alternatively, it is possible that Hawaii issued a "certification of live birth" for Obama in 1961. That may be the document that Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino allegedly found. Obama supporters are trying to make it seem as if this COLB is the mysterious long-form birth certificate that Obama can't be bothered to retrieve and publish. But the two documents are not the same. The certification of live birth is a shorter form does not prove birth in the United States. It only indicates that the state issuing it has NOTICED that a US citizen has had a baby. The line on the COLB that indicates the "location of birth" merely reflects what someone told the state official who made the record. Nobody really checks.

Barack Obama's sister has identified two different Honolulu hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital, as being the location of Obama's birth. So the US-resident part of Obama's family has not been consistent about which hospital Obama was supposedly born in, while the African side of his family seems very sure that Obama was born in their presence in Kenya.

Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!, at EarthFrisk Blog.

A pro-Israel website, Israpundit, says that Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, admitted in a radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Kenyan Ambassador confirms Obama was born in Kenya, at Israpundit.

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”

The Kenyan government has not denied the existence of Obama's Kenya birth records. Rather, it has SEALED those records. More recently, the government of Kenya has issued a gag-order to restrain Obama's African relatives from speaking again to reporters (this was reported in the Nairobi Star for 11 Dec 2008).

Kenyan Government Imposes Gag Order on Obama Family, at World Net Daily. "No media contact: 'We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information', says government."

The Kenyan government yesterday heightened its war on the media, arresting 11 journalists even as Prime Minister Raila Odinga promised to intervene in the matter. The journalists, who included Kenya Times reporter George Kebasso, were arrested when police fired teargas canisters to disperse a demonstration staged to oppose the punitive Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008 presently awaiting presidential assent.

Reliable police sources said that the order to arrest the scribes came directly from Police Commissioner Major Gen. (rtd) Mohamed Hussein Ali through the Nairobi Provincial Police Officer (PPO) Njue Njagi. And hours after the arrest, Cabinet Ministers James Orengo (Lands) and Mutula Kilonzo criticised the harassment on journalists and urged police to allow them to press for their rights.

Just what, exactly, Kenya's government hopes to accomplish with this gag-order, other than embarrassing itself, isn't clear. The Obama family has ALREADY given copious, documented, eyewitness testimony that Barack Hussein Obama (junior) was born to Ann Dunham, in their presence, in Kenya in 1961. Nothing more, really, is required or needed of them. So it's not easy to see why Kenya's officials are locking the barn door after the cows have escaped already. Maybe they can pretend that what Grandmother Obama said earlier simply "doesn't count." On the contrary, it does. It always will count as testimony given freely with no motive other than expressing family pride. The Obama family's original testimony is what they said before the forces of corruption began their perverse and evil work. That's why it "counts."

A notice in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for 13 Aug 1961 reads "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." It is not known who provided the information for the notice, but a private investigator hired by World Net Daily, Jorge Baro, has released an affidavit that questions whether Barack Obama's family ever lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961. An elderly neighbor of Obama's alleged former residence, Beatrice Arakaki, has stated that she has lived in her home since before 1961 and remembers no mixed racial family ever living next door. Further, none of the investigators could locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the announcement. Read more about it here.

Here's what a priest named Father Joe wrote about Obama's birth.

Apparently this is what happened:

Obama’s family did not take to Ann Dunham Obama (his mother) very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya, she decided to return to Hawaii because she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near delivery term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama’s grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, his mother rushed him back to Hawaii.

Immediately after she got home, his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8, 1961, in the Hawaiian public records office. Evidently some have tried to cover up these facts with listing the hospital of his birth. However, two hospitals in Hawaii have been given, the Kapiolani Medical Center and the Queen’s Medical Center. Now it appears that neither was correct and that he was born in Kenya, coming to an American hospital later only for a checkup. At least one case of a researcher trying to get records about Obama’s birth in Kenya was arrested at the airport and deported. This whole business is shaping up like a bad movie. But alas, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!

Father Joe Jenkins is the pastor of the Church of the Holy Spirit and a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

During Barry Obama's school days, his mother divorced his Kenyan father and married an Indonesian male named Lolo Soetoro, who probably adopted Barry, since the boy's name was changed to Barry Soetoro. The Indonesian school's records list Lolo Soetoro as Barry Soetoro's father, and Indonesia permits only its own citizens to attend its schools, so Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II) seems to have acquired Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

Indonesia does not permit dual citizenships. If Obama became a citizen of Indonesia as a child, then Indonesia's laws would declare that he lost whatever prior country citizenships he might have had at that time. However, US laws evidently would ignore Obama's assumption of Indonesian citizenship, unless his mother had expatriated both herself and him in favor of Indonesian citizenship (U.S. Nationality Act of 1940). I don't know anyone who can answer that question one way or the other.

It has been claimed that Obama (then "Barry Soetoro") traveled to Pakistan in 1981, when he was 20 years old. Pakistan was under martial law that year and was subject to a US State Department travel ban. Barry Soetoro probably would not have been admitted to Pakistan if he were traveling with a US passport, and the only other passport he might have had would have been one from Indonesia. If Obama had used a Pakistani passport as an adult, it might be arguable that he forsook US citizenship by that act or by whatever oath he had to take in order to get Indonesia to give him a passport.

Since then, Barry Soetoro changed his name to Barack Dunham, then to Barack Obama, and he now styles himself as Barrack Hussein Obama, after his Kenyan father.

Obama has been challenged to provide a certified copy of his vault, or long-form birth certificate, which would be signed (if it exists) by his mother and by the attending physician, would identify the hospital in which Obama was born, and would provide facts that could be checked.

Instead of doing that, Obama merely released a copy of his short-form Hawaiian "certification of live birth," which proves nothing because Hawaii was giving these COLB's even to foreign-born babies in 1961. Even if this document were genuine, it would not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, but only that the State of Hawaii knew that he had been born... somewhere or other. Furthermore, estimates of what Obama has spent to hire legal firms to defend himself from being ordered to present his documentary bona fides to the public have exceeded $500,000. Why would Obama spend so much on legal help, when a simple and inexpensive act would have made those legal costs unnecessary?

And this particular COLB might not be genuine. Notice that the child's name is given as "Barack Hussein Obama II"? Obama was named Barry when he was born. His name was changed to Barack later. Notice the way his father's race is identified as "African"? In 1961, states were officially using the word Negro to refer to Blacks.

The document provided by Obama (or by his campaign managers) to "prove" his US citizenship doesn't do any such thing. He undoubtedly meant to fool us into believing the contrary. But that document would not prove his natural-born US citizenship even if it were genuine, as it is the wrong document for that purpose. Experts in detecting fraud in computer graphics say that they've detected signs of digital tampering. They are documented by these articles:

Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery, by Janet Porter of WorldNetDaily.
The Greater Evil, by Ron Polarik, Ph.D., at Townhall (many large images).

On the other hand, other sources say that Obama's COLB is a genuine COLB, and that the defects noticed in the Hawaii Health Department seal and in the green patterned security paper are scanning artifacts. But they agree with WND that it doesn't establish that Obama is a natural born US citizen, as the Constitution requires US Presidents to be. The very fact that Obama holds out as proof a document that does not do any proving weighs against his credibility.

Several affidavits from Kenya's citizens assert that Obama was born in Kenya. Hawaii's "Statute 338" permits foreign-born children of Hawaii residents to get Hawaiian COLBs of the same kind that Obama has shown us via Factcheck, Snopes, and "Fight the Smears." In other words, a COLB isn't good enough. It never was good enough to establish the eligibility of a candidate for President of the United States. It certainly and doubly wasn't good enough the moment Obama's grandmother and Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego gave us testimony that Obama was born in Kenya. None of the hospitals in or near Honolulu have any record of Obama or his mother. The birth certificate allegedly found in the Hawaii state archives by Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle could be originally from Kenya—Governor Lingle has never said anything to rule this out, and accordingly there is a reasonable suspicion that Governor Lingle was being deliberately ambiguous.

Shocker: Why Obama will NOT be President in January, at EarthFrisk Blog.

There's a very good chance that Obama has deceived Americans so that they would accept him as the next US President. He has been repeatedly challenged to divulge his long-form birth certificate, the genuine signed document that that really would prove whether or not he had US citizenship at birth, but he has refused to do so on each occasion. Instead, he has spent thousands of dollars (estimates say about $500,000) to fight lawsuits against him to make his birth records known.

It is rather obvious that every US citizen has direct and tangible interests in making sure that their next head-of-state is legally qualified to hold that job: taxes, wars, the impact of law-enforcement upon public morals, just to name three. It is a fact that a federal judge in Pennsylvania at first agreed with Berg in Berg vs. Obama, and, on 29 September 2008, ordered Barack Obama to turn over a copy of his "vault" birth certificate within 72 hours. Citing the earlier case FEC vs. Akins, the court found that "the injury pertaining to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete" and ruled that Berg did have standing to sue Obama, and that his standing had six separate grounds, being pursuant to all of the following:

[1] 5 USC 702
[2] FEC vs Akins
[3] 524 US 11 (1998)
[4] 5 USC 148(b)
[5] 28 USC 1343, Civil Rights and Elective Franchise
[6] Federal Question Jurisdiction

Judge Surrick wrote: "Plaintiff [Berg] is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision."

The judge then ordered Obama to turn over these items to Berg within three days:

[a] A certified copy of Obama's "vault" version ("original" long version) Birth Certificate.
[b] A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship.
[c] A certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.

And then something happened. Less than a month later (24 October 2008), without any introduction of evidence, testimony, or affidavits from the Obama/DNC side, the court reversed itself. We don't know what caused the reversal, or what the judge's reasoning was. All we know is that the court, after giving a carefully-reasoned opinion against Obama and in favor of Berg, and after ordering Obama to turn over his "vault" birth certificate (which, presumably, Obama defied), the judge changed his mind and ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue Obama.

Apparently, the judge decided that he was mistaken on each of those six grounds which he previously believed gave Berg standing, since any one of them would have been sufficient all by itself.

Those were the circumstances under which Berg vs. Obama was dismissed by the federal judge in Pennsylvania.


Now that Obama's citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The "burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim." Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government's powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual's exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution's command that "[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President" is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being "a natural born Citizen" is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for "the Office of President" must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama's true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory." This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama's eligibility for "the Office of President" will not deny his supporters a "right" to vote for him-rather, it will determine whether they have any such "right" at all. For, just as Obama's "right" to stand for election to "the Office of President" is contingent upon his being "a natural born Citizen," so too are the "rights" of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that "Office." If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any "right" to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.


Judge R. Barclay Surrick knows he was correct the first time, when he told Obama to prove his citizenship. His reversal suggests that he was corrupted by some means, though we don't know what the means was. Bribery? Blackmail? A threat of some kind? Perhaps time will reveal the details. But two things are certain: Judge Surrick knows that his first decision, to require proof of natural born US citizenship from Obama, was the correct decision, and he also knows that his reversed, amended decision was spurious, dishonest, and in conflict with established laws, precedents, morals, and common sense. It might even be treason.

Obama's paternal family have raised reasonable doubts about the location of Obama's birthplace by stating that they were present at his birth in Kenya. It is now reasonable to demand of Obama that he prove that his relatives in Kenya are mistaken and that he is right, instead, when he claims he was born in Hawaii. The simplest and best way for him to do that is to publish his original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, if it exists. No rhetoric or substitute in lieu of that document will suffice.

So there is reason to believe that our country is in danger of being ruled by a usurper, one of the most dangerous kinds of criminal there can be, beginning at 12h EST on 20 January 2009. Why is it important? Well, for one thing, the sitting of a usurper as US President can start another American civil war, if US military commanders become divided regarding whether to support an unconstitutional President, or whether to support the Constitution by removing the usurper.

On 17 December 2008, the US Supreme Court did two things: (1) It denied a petition for injunction by Philip Berg which would have prevented Obama from taking office as President, and (2) it scheduled the legal case Berg vs. Obama for conference on 9 January 2009. Immediately, almost every organ of the Jewish-controlled mass media began telling the same lie, namely, that the Supreme Court had contemptuously dismissed the Berg vs. Obama case. To get the truth of things, someone would have to read right-wing blogs on the Internet (which isn't unusual in such matters as this). Why the Jews are doing this kind of thing, I can only guess, and my best guess is that they are trying to increase the SHOCK value of their hiss & screech news coverage that they have planned if things don't go their way in the Supreme Court. That is, the Jewish media bosses are trying to fix things, PR-wise, so that the Justices will look like villains if they find Obama constitutionally ineligible to take office.

The oath of office for every military officer is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Obeying a LEGITIMATE President is SECONDARY to obeying the Constitution. It is true that some of our commanding generals are nothing but political bureaucrats who would only burp and shrug and act as if a presidential usurper were of no matter. But other US military leaders would react as their oaths and US law require them to do. A usurper's every act as US President is a violation of law. A usurper acting as President is ipso facto an enemy of the Constitution, and all who obey his orders are traitors to their country.

So unless Obama proves that he is, in fact, a natural born US citizen who has never renounced his US citizenship, there could be a civil war in the United States at some point in the future. The facts are circulating on the internet despite the strenuous efforts of the Obama campaign people to discredit them. The mainstream news media were silent on Obama's doubtful US citizenship for months, which ensured that most Americans would remain ignorant on the matter until it was too late, or nearly too late, to protest.

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue is Legitimate, at American Thinker.
Obama Citizenship Accusations Come to a Head, by Kurt Williamsen.

Also, the Internet's largest search engine, GOOGLE, apparently has done something to reduce the amount of "Berg vs Obama" citizenship challenge information as possible. At some point, the responses from relevant web searches fell off sharply, while responses from other search engines did not.

On 5 Dec 2008, the US Supreme Court refused to give certiorari to one case challenging Obama's eligibility to be US President, namely Donofrio vs. Wells. Another such case, Berg vs. Obama, has yet to be discussed by the high court. You'd think that the Justices would assign Berg a very high priority, due to the fact that the Electoral College will vote on 15 Dec 2008 (it is 12 Dec as I write this updated paragraph). But there are suspicions aired that the SCOTUS may be acting on a political agenda, that it is their intention to delay their consideration of Berg and thereby avoid delaying the EC vote.

If the Electors vote BEFORE any discovery that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President, then by law the Electors will be required to cast their votes for him, since he won the popular election. However, if the Electors vote AFTER it is confirmed that Obama is ineligible to be President, then the Electors will be required to vote for the runner up in the popular election: John McCain. If the SCOTUS Justices were acting upon a liberal political bias, then delay is exactly what you'd expect them to do. Let the Electors vote first for the Obama-Biden ticket. Let Obama become US President. Then, if it seems the politically smart thing to do, "discover" that Obama isn't qualified and have his presidency anulled, leaving another liberal, Biden, as acting US President. Whether Obama is later determined to have, or not to have, US citizenship, there will be a liberal President who will nominate liberal Justices to the Supreme Court when the present Justices retire.

Of course, this is only a theory. But it is a plausible theory, a theory which makes sense, a theory about a quiet conspiracy of political preference on the part of persons who should be, and would like to SEEM TO BE, above such politics.

Furthermore, it is known that Obama met secretly with eight of the nine Justices (Samuel Alito was absent) in January 2009 shortly before his inauguration, at a time when cases were pending against him in the Supreme Court. That's a fundamental legal ethics violation. What happened in that closed meeting between Defendant Obama and those Justices? Did he give them a large bribe? Did he threaten their grandchildren? Did they, for political partisan reasons, give Obama coaching on how to "get by" the SCOTUS without unduly embarrassing them on account of malfeasance? The American people have a right to be certain that their highest court remains above corruption, and now the American people have been denied this assurance.

So for the Supreme Court to delay, knowing that time is running out, may be functionally indistinguishable from their deciding... wrongfully and underhandedly. You know the old saying: justice delayed is justice denied.

Our First Illegal Alien President: Supreme Court Fails to Act, by Jeff Davis at White Civil Rights.

All the courts are failing to act, and some of them are using some of the most transparent, even supercilious excuses. Here's an example. Federal Judge James Robertson recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by retired (but subject to recall) Air Force Colonel Gregory Hollister that would have sought to require Obama to prove his qualifications to be President of the United States. And just why did the judge throw out the case? BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC to a point where many people had heard about it. Of course, lawsuits such as Berg vs. Obama predate the widespread knowledge of Obama's questionable citizenship, and the courts were doing their dismissing, delaying, denying thing back then, too, on one pretext or another. Now "twittering" has been added to the list of convenient pretexts for judges who don't want to do their constitutional duties. Why is it that "twittering" doesn't prevent most other lawsuits or trials from going forward, not even if the twittering involves a massive effort on the part of the television media and the nation's largest newspapers?

In the last few months, dozens of U.S. courts have dismissed legal challenges to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hold a hearing on the evidence – but what have the courts actually cited as reasons for dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans? Mootness, lack of jurisdiction, lack of responsibility, lack of standing, a series of "no comments" and even the fact the issue has been "twittered." The one subject that has been avoided to date has been whether or not the president is, in fact, eligible. —World Net Daily.

Who can doubt that there IS a conspiracy—a very widespread, very high-level one—to deny a due process examination to the reasonable doubts that many people have regarding the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as US President? Nobody honest, that's for sure. The nearest that any court has come to honesty in regard to cases such as Berg vs. Obama was Judge Surrick's original finding that Berg had standing to sue Obama, to require that Obama turn over his documents, and that Berg's standing had six independent legal grounds. Unfortunately, Surrick's honesty didn't endure even a month before something, presumably that conspiracy, got to him and made him change his mind. All six times.

It's my belief that the mainstream news media are minimizing their coverage of this constitutional crisis in order to preserve the option of creating "shock coverage" at a later time, should Obama be disqualified from holding office. Blacks and leftists might be inflamed by such media tactics into a murderous rioting rage. The threat of this media "shock treatment" is a kind of political leverage, or blackmail, which might be meant to pressure the US Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and perhaps also the US House of Representatives, into installing Obama despite his failure to meet the constitutional qualifications for that office.

Around the Clock Bars Week of Inaugural Concerns Officials, in the DC Examiner. It sounds as if the urban Blacks are setting the stage for an ugly riot in the event there are legal problems resulting from Obama's citizenship status, and using "celebration" as a cover for their preparations. The law authorizes DC bars and restaurants to serve alcohol until 5 am. Proponents on the DC Council referred to it as "emergency legislation." (It is known that two of the 13-member DC council who opposed the bill are White men: Phil Mendelson and Jim Graham.)

So if Obama isn't qualified, but gets the job anyway, we may have a civil war and martial law. If Obama does not get the job, we may have a civil war, or perhaps rioting in a good many US cities, which could serve as a pretext to impose martial law. And the reason for the latter danger is devious information management by the bosses of the mainstream news media.

In the United States, no candidate for high public office is allowed to come to the attention of the voting public unless he has some dark secret, known to the bankers and their media mogul cohorts, which they can use to control him. Unimpeachable candidates simply are not allowed. They don't get campaign funds. If one of them is rich enough to buy his own campaign, the mainstream media will sneer and spit his chances away.

I think that Obama's supporters and financial contributors knew from the beginning that Obama wasn't constitutionally eligible to hold the office of US President, and that they planned to keep his secret as a form of blackmail, as a trump card over him, to be played in the event that Obama displeases them with his financial policies, or with his foreign policy, or with his executive orders, or with his powers to veto legislation, or by any failure on his part to choose people acceptable to them as his top advisers. In any such case, they'd have a "researcher" suddenly "discover" that Obama isn't really qualified to be president. They would pretend to be very surprised.

I believed for a time that the premature disclosure of Obama's doubtful citizenship would sour that deal, but apparently the secret that is not-so-secret remains good enough. The bankers and the media bosses (briefly, shall we say Jews?) can still use it. If Obama gets his own ideas, these Jews will have someone "discover" that the "rumors" about him were true after all! Wow, who'd have believed that a "crazy" like Philip Berg and a bunch of bloggers could actually have stumbled upon the truth! The powermongers would pretend to be very surprised.

Perhaps the reason Obama is being so energetic in his propaganda efforts is that he has a very long way to fall if it should come out that he wasn't a US citizen when he enjoyed the rights and privileges that, by the Constitution, belong ONLY to US citizens. Among these are representing the people of Illinois, who are entitled to be represented by one of their fellow citizens. If Obama isn't a citizen of the United States, then he is also not a citizen of Illinois, and he has employed himself for several years in cheating all the people residing in that state of their constitutional rights. For that, he could end up in a federal prison for the rest of his days, I should think.

So Obama is going to try as hard as he can to become US President without proving to anybody that he is a US citizen. Once he is installed in office, he'll try to use the official powers of the presidency to protect himself, even if it means turning the United States into a military dictatorship.

Please spread the word about this issue, as the mainstream news media are trying to suppress it, and pass it on to the rest of the world if you can.

A timeline for lawsuits against Obama that would require him to prove he is a US citizen is given at America's Right.

To the governments of every country in the world. As long as Barack Obama is acting as President of the United States, and has not proved his Constitutional eligibility to do so, he should be presumed a Usurper of the powers of the United States to whose acts the United States cannot be legally bound. It is in your interests, as it is in ours, for you to forsake all ties with the United States until such time as it once again has a head-of-state of proven legality. Please, do not conduct any business with the United States until then, nor enter into any treaty, nor collaborate in any venture which Barack Obama or his agent may propose. Shun the United States as a rogue nation until we have a lawful chief executive once more.

To the US Armed Forces. Please support and defend our Constitution.

Letter To Members of the U.S. Military and Legal Professionals: Dr. Orly Taitz Esq seeking Article 138 By Military Personnel

Note: I have no way of telling which of these high-profile challenges to Obama's presidency are genuine and which are false-flag efforts to uncover and eliminate military officers who remain loyal to the Constitution, rather than to the Usurper. Make your bets as you will. Just, if you please, don't go on pretending that there is no problem.

Jerry Abbott


More to read:

Devvy Kidd:
Impeach Obama?
Chief Justice John Roberts Meets Obama in Private
No, We Don't Have a New President
Obama Supporters: Deceived or Just Plain Liars?
Obama Eligibility Issue Must Be Resolved Soon
Obama Citizenship Crisis and Industrial Strength Stupidity
.

Heliocentric position of Voyager 1 at 12h UT on 13 March 2009 (JD 2454904).

r = 109.17 AU
hlong = 254.146 degrees
hlat = +34.858 degrees

Heavens Above: Probes on Solar Escape Trajectories.

Here's how to do the calculation.

Voyager 1, orbital elements.
a = -3.22185 AU
e = 3.72466
i = 35.777 degrees
Ω = 179.001 degrees
ω = 338.272 degrees
T = JD 2444227.38

Hyperbolic mean anomaly.
M = 0.01720209895 (t - T) sqrt[1/(-a)^3]

Hyperbolic eccentric anomaly.
u = 0
Repeat...
. u0 = u
. f0 = e sinh u0 - u0 - M
. f1 = e cosh u0 - 1
. f2 = e sinh u0
. f3 = e cosh u0
. d1 = -f0 / f1
. d2 = -f0 / [ f1 + (d1)(f2)/2 ]
. d3 = -f0 / [ f1 + (d1)(f2)/2 + d2^2 (f3)/6 ]
. u = u0 + d3
Until |u - u0| < 1E-14

True anomaly.
Q = arccos { (e - cosh u) / (e cosh u - 1) }

Heliocentric distance.
r = a (1 - e cosh u)

Canonical position vector.
x''' = r cos Q
y''' = r sin Q

Rotate by argument of the perihelion.
x'' = x''' cos ω - y''' sin ω
y'' = x''' sin ω + y''' cos ω

Rotate by inclination.
x' = x''
y' = y'' cos i
z' = y'' sin i

Rotate by longitude of ascending node to get...
The heliocentric position in ecliptic coordinates.
x = x' cos Ω - y' sin Ω
y = x' sin Ω + y' cos Ω
z = z'

Heliocentric longitude.
hlong = (180/π) { arctan( y / x ) + δ } degrees
if x>0 and y>0 then δ=0
if x>0 and y<0 then δ=2π
if x<0 then δ=π

Heliocentric latitude.
hlat = (180/π) { arcsin( z / r ) } degrees

TI-89 Titanium calculator program: probe(jd).
It finds the position of a probe on a solar escape trajectory (a hyperbola relative to the sun).

:probe(k,jd)
:Pgrm
:setMode("Display Digits","FIX 6")
:setMode("Angle","RADIAN")
:ClrIO
:.01720209895→k0
:(probes[1])[k]→a
:(probes[2])[k]→e
:(probes[3])[k]*π/180→i
:(probes[4])[k]*π/180→L
:(probes[5])[k]*π/180→w
:(probes[6])[k]→T
:(probes[7])[k]→nam
:k0*(jd-t)/(-a)^(3/2)→m
:0→u
:While abs(u-u0)>1.e-14
:u→u0
:e*sinh(u0)-u0-m→f0
:e*cosh(u0)-1→f1
:e*sinh(u0)→f2
:e*cosh(u0)→f3
:-f0/f1→d1
:-f0/(f1+d1*f2)→d2
:-f0/(f1+d1*f2/2+d2^2*f3/6)→d3
:u0+d3→u
:EndWhile
:arccos((e-cosh(u))/(e*cosh(u)-1))→q
:a*(1-e*cosh(u))→r
:r*cos(q)→xp
:r*sin(q)→yp
:xp*cos(w)-yp*sin(w)→x
:xp*sin(w)+yp*cos(w)→y
:x→xp
:y*cos(i)→yp
:y*sin(i)→zp
:xp*cos(L)-yp*sin(L)→x
:xp*sin(L)+yp*cos(L)→y
:zp→z
:(180/π)*arctan(y/x)→lh
:If x<0 Then
:lh+180→lh
:EndIf
:If x>0 and y<0 Then
:lh+360→lh
:EndIf
:(180/π)*arcsin(z/r)→bh
:Output 1,1,nam
:Output 11,20,x
:Output 21.20,y
:Output 31,20,z
:Output 41,1,r
:Output 51,1,lh
:Output 61,1,bh
:EndPrgm

TI-89 Titanium data file "probes" - used in program probe(jd)

r1c1=-5.663407
r1c2=1.39939
r1c3=2.346188
r1c4=229.543416
r1c5=287.930748
r1c6=2453772.55
r1c7=newhoriz
r2c1=-3.22185
r2c2=3.72466
r2c3=35.777
r2c4=179.001
r2c5=338.272
r2c6=2444227.38
r2c7=voyager1
r3c1=-4.02568
r3c2=6.27722
r3c3=78.7783
r3c4=101.6368
r3c5=130.06246
r3c6=2445454.94
r3c7=voyager2

Execution from the TI-89T HOME screen:

probe(2,2454904)

Output on the IO screen:

voyager1
   -24.473811
   -86.175767
   62.397398
109.172641
254.145519
34.858239

The first three numbers are the rectangular position in heliocentric ecliptic coordinates, x,y,z. The last three numbers are the position in heliocentric spherical coordinates, r,hlong,hlat.

Preface: This is a short story that I wrote on 22 September 1985 using the author name David Sims. Copies were mailed to several Members of Congress and US Senators. A few of them wrote back comments. I must confess that this story was a bit naive. I didn't know when I wrote it that the biggest leak that the US economy has is built into the money system itself, with the bankers who run the Federal Reserve System having a vested interest in wrecking the state in order to own the nation. If I had known about that, I'd have made the gash in the ship's hull reach a foot below the waterline even when the ship was empty.


The Good Ship Economy
by David Sims (a.k.a. Jerry Abbott)

     There was once a great ship that set to sail in a deep ocean.  It had many passengers aboard, and a swimming pool on the top deck for their enjoyment, but it was dry.  The captain had promised that he would have it filled later.

     The world situation was unstable.  So tense were international relationships that even passenger ship such as this one had defensive weaponry: great water cannons which could loft a stream of water at an enemy ship, getting its crew uncomfortably wet.  However, the cannons' water batteries were empty.

     The ship had, unfortunately, a long vertical gash in its hull.  The captain wasn't worried about it, since the lower extent of the gash was fully a millimeter above the waterline.  Even if water started coming in, he could always order his passengers to bail.

     The ship Economy steamed out of the harbor.  It had not gone far when the lookout upon the bridge cried "Enemy ship!"  The captain sped to the bridge and snatched the lookout's telescope.  Sure enough, there was an enemy ship on the horizon.  Alarmed, the captain ordered the water cannons made ready, just in case of trouble.

     Pumps began to work, and the water batteries were filled up to the half mark.  The extra weight made the Economy ride a bit deeper in the water, and the sea begin to seep through the part of the gash which was not below the waterline.  If nothing was done about the seepage, the influx of water would begin to fill the bottom deck, making the Economy still heavier.  That would result in the ship settling into the ocean even deeper, and the water would pour through the gash faster.

     The captain had no choice but to put the passengers to work bailing.  He gave each of them a bucket and sent them below to scoop up the water, bring up their full buckets, and dump the water off the side.  The captain really wasn't worried that his ship might sink.  After all, the leak was a small one, and his passengers seemed able to take care of it easily.

     The enemy vessel paced the Economy, coming no closer, but not going away either.  The captain guessed that the enemy knew that he had filled his water-batteries (at least up to a point), and that the enemy was reluctant to do battle on even terms.  He also guessed that the other ship was constantly watching his, hoping to see him empty his batteries by porting over the side. The captain of the Economy resolved to keep his ship battle-ready as a deterrant.

     Night came, and the Economy sailed on.  At midmorning of the next day, some of the third-class passengers complained that the swimming pool was still dry, and they wanted to swim.  This was their right, the captain realized, and he must do whatever he could to keep his third-class passengers happy, since they were the majority.  He ordered the swimming pool filled to the half mark, and set the remainder of the passengers--those in the first and second classes--to working harder and bailing faster.

     In the afternoon a representative of the first-class passengers entered the bridge to speak with the captain.  He complained that certain clauses in the first-class passenger contract made him exempt from bailing duty.  The captain was dubious about this, but he was unfamiliar with the precise text of that contract.  He asked the passenger for a copy of his contract "so that he could study it."

     That night, a third-class errand-runner brought a copy of the contract. The captain offered the boy a penny for his service, but the boy refused it (explaining that accepting employment aboard ship would adjust his status to second-class).  The captain dismissed him and locked himself in his cabin.  He seated himself at his desk and opened the sealed document.  Folded inside the contract lay a five hundred dollar bill.  The captain decided that the exact wording of the contract did, after all, exempt the first-class passengers from bailing.

     The red dawn came again, and the captain emerged from his cabin, much refreshed for the good night's sleep.  He strode up to the top deck where all the grumbling, weary second-class passengers were stumbling up from the hatches bearing buckets full of water.  He smiled and waved to them, promising that things would get better soon.

     Upon entering the bridge, the lookout reported to him that the enemy ship had sneaked closer during the night, but was again pacing the Economy.  It was still far beyond water cannon range.

     The captain commanded the water batteries to be filled up to capacity. The Economy took on more weight.  The tired second-class passengers could now barely keep up with the incoming water.

     The third-class passengers complained that the water in their swimming pool wasn't deep enough, and they demanded that the captain do something about it.  The captain ordered the pool filled up to the brim.  Now the second-class passengers were definitely losing ground to the tide.  The lower hold was slowly being filled with water.

     One second-class passenger, a scientist named Gerard, trudged to the bridge with an idea for the captain.

     "Why aren't you bailing?" demanded the captain when he saw him.

     "S-sir!" stuttered Gerard.  "Our shipping lane will take us past Frontier Island, will it not?"

     "Yes, yes!" snapped the captain, waving his hand angrily.  "What of it? We can't dock there for repairs--we don't have a treaty with Frontier Island that permits it."

     "But we could send a few men there in a lifeboat to buy what we need to fix the ship, couldn't we?"

     "Out of the question!" snarled the captain, thinking of the thousands of dollars the materials would cost.  "In the first place, the only ones qualified to go would be myself and the crew, and we are needed here."

     "But couldn't you send a passenger?" Gerard begged.

     "NO!" shouted the captain.  "A third-class passenger doesn't have the education or the wits to operate as our agent," he ticked off with his fingers. "Such extra duty is not written into the first-class contract.  And you second-class passengers are needed here to bail!  Now get back to work!"

     Gerard, the scientist, shuffled away.

     The Economy sank the day after it had passed Frontier Island by.  The enemy ship had surged forth and hosed it immediately after the Economy had ported water from its batteries in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.  As the good ship Economy sank beneath the waves, the enemy was treated to the spectacle of all the passengers, crowded upon the top deck, scrambling in a huge pile--each one trying to reach the peak so that his face would be the last to go under.

Part 2.

My thoughts on sex between high school teachers and high school students, in case you wanted to know what they were, are as follows:

If the student catches an STD from the teacher, then the teacher should be hanged by the neck until dead. Otherwise...

If the teacher is male and the student is female and was willing, the teacher should be fined for infringing on the rights of the student's future husband. It should be a heavy fine, perhaps equal to a year's worth of his gross pay. The money would be held in trust by the girl's parents and given to her as a dowry upon her marriage.

If the teacher is male and the student is female and was raped, the teacher should be fined (as above) and then imprisoned in The Really Bad Section of a men's prison for several years.

If the teacher is male and the student is male, willing or not, the teacher should be fined and imprisoned (as above), and finally castrated as a condition for his release back into society.

If the teacher is female and the student is female, willing or not, the teacher should be fined (as above) and imprisoned with men until she learns to like having sex with men. However long it takes.

If the teacher is female and the student is male and was pressured (e.g., by a promise of better grades, etc.), then the teacher should be fined (as above) and then imprisoned in a women's prison for several years.

If the teacher is female and ugly and the student is male and was willing, then I'd tell the student that he had poor taste in women, but otherwise I'd do nothing.

If the teacher is female and pretty and the student is male and was willing, then I'd tell the student that he had great taste in women and give him a pat on the back.

Jerry Abbott


The Career Woman
She put it off for as long as she could,
Then tried to catch the last train to motherhood...
And miscarried.
Ha ha.
No children for you.

"It is a matter of some large distinction to be heaved out of this joint. You ain't arrived socially until you've been thrown out of here." (From The Goblin Reservation, by Clifford D. Simak.)

At some online forums, apparently, the smaller the mind is, the greater are the administrative powers which that mind is entitled to exercise. I was banned from The Philosophy Forums after my third post there. I was banned shortly after another poster, named Calicantser, was banned for asking  challenging, politically incorrect questions.

Benkei wrote: I think the fact that not everyone is banned speaks for itself that you are not reading me right.

It isn't necessarily true that everyone here who has not been banned is a great thinker. That is, I doubt that the reasons used, here, to judge whether to ban or to censor has much to do with whether someone is a great thinker, or whether his writing contains great thoughts.

On the other hand, it is true that you have said that Calicantser "is not a great thinker," and you gave this as a justification for his being banned, which implies that all of us who have not been banned are great thinkers. Which is, I think, not true.

Since none of us is known for our great thoughts, it might be reasonable to suppose that each of us is, in fact, somewhat mediocre at thinking - above the average of the broad masses, perhaps, but not so much that we have become renowned as a supplier of wonderful ideas, new philosophies, or proved solutions to the problems of our world.

So if, as you said, Calicantser has been banned because his thinking was insufficiently great, then probably the rest of us ought to be banned for that reason, too.

Benkei wrote: It referred to the thread title and the irony ManiacJack implied he saw in it. There is none.(1) And I have seen a few posts that might not necessarily be new thoughts but certainly on par with the greatest writers and philosophers out there. Morrandir in that respect is one of my favourites. You might want to look him up. And 180proof has his moments too.

I think that, absent a more specific citation (a quote would be nice), I'll just wait until something great that Morrandir says leaps out at me. Going hunting for what YOU think might be great doesn't seem to be a good investment of my time. If you differ, feel free to quote from what you regard as his best.

Benkei wrote: Apparently you fail to see...

And you fail to see that you are not, at this moment, providing great thoughts. You are engaging me in tit-for-tat, which will go on and on and on and on until one of us has been banned, or until one of us tires of the game.

Benkei wrote: ...that it is not his point of view for which he is banned but for the fact that he is unable to present it based on facts or argumentatively.

Let's see. Calicantser challenged you, among other things, to list great-thinking Negroes who have founded schools of philosophy and broken new philosophic ground on substantive matters, such as natural science, or mathematics, or the purpose of life in the universe, or whatever. Calicantser declared that there were none, or anyway none he knew of, and gave you the opportunity to prove him wrong by publishing, right here in this thread, a list of such great-thinking Negroes.

That's not only legitimate, it's courageous. If you had been able to meet Calicantser's challenge, you'd have won that part of your debate with him. There have been occasions in which one African or another has been falsely alleged to be a great thinker. So, while going about answering Calicantser, you should have done more than just mentioning the obscure names of allegedly great-thinking Africans, of whom Calicantser has probably never heard. You should have also posted some exemplary quotes from their work that prove that these Africans were indeed great-thinking ones, instead of being plagiarizers or the beneficiaries of academic charity regarding the meritoriousness of their work. Instead you, by your own admission, asked that Calicantser be banned from the Philosophy Forums.

And it's not really true that Calicantser was "unable" to present his case argumentatively, based on facts. Or, that is, he was certainly able to do so before he was banned. Now, it seems, he cannot present his case here--because he was prevented. As it happens, I'm aware of what Calicantser might have said in support of his case. It's not hard to learn that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is about 70. I'm not certain what the standard deviation in Negro IQ is over there, though I know that the IQs of Blacks resident in the United States averages 85 +/- 12 points. The US-resident Black probably outshines the African Black for intelligence because of a degree of White genetic mixture, and the most likely cause of the ~30 point differential between (almost) pure Blacks and (almost) pure Whites is that the former has a smaller average brain size, compared with the latter.

(Evidence for the smaller brain size of Negroes comes from autopsies and magnetic resonance imaging.)

That's just one of the points raised by Calicantser. I mention that one because it is a subject with which I am familiar. For all I know, and, most likely, for all you know, Calicantser could have debated each of his points argumentatively, based on facts. But he was prevented, and you are the one who asked that he be prevented. It is blatant hypocrisy for you, now, to assert that Calicantser could not support his theses with good arguments, now that he can't log on to this forum to prove that you are wrong.

Benkei wrote: The same is true for Gerard Rudolf's writings which have been clearly debunked by Michael Green and regular historic research and several thousands of feet of German redtape documenting killings of Jews (in the case of Melar). That has nothing to do with doctrine but with scientific fact and if they refuse to submit facts to the contrary they are trolling.

No, they are not "trolling." They are disagreeing with you, and you can't abide it.

The Germans lost the war. Having lost the war, they were helpless to prevent the manufacture of bogus "evidence," helpless to counter the continuing, relentless Allied war propaganda, and helpless to prevent unjust convictions and punishments for crimes that did not happen. More Germans died as the result of Allied actions AFTER the war than there were Jews who died DURING the war.

There is an old and wise rule in jurisprudence: When you catch a witness in ONE lie during sworn testimony, that witness has impeached his credibility and cannot be trusted. Extending that rule to Holocaust "evidence," we find that there have been photos altered by superimposing scenes from other photos or by drawing new persons or things into the picture that were not in the original.

We find that there have been miscaptioned photos, such as one in which a bulldozer is pushing dead bodies into a ditch, bodies alleged to be those of dead Jews near Buchenwald, but were in fact the bodies of dead Germans near Dresden.

We find that there have been staged photos, such as one showing allegedly "German" soldiers massacring Poles in the Katyn Forest, but which, in fact, showed Soviet soldiers dressed in German uniforms doing that very thing.

We have, likewise, sworn courtroom testimony from Jewish "eyewitnesses" that conflicts with itself, with the testimony of similar "eyewitnesses," with known physical evidence, or with the laws of nature. One of these Jews testified at the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada. When attorney Douglas Cristie showed the Jew that the crematoria could not possibly have emitted gouts of flame or ashes from their chimneys, due to the way they were constructed, the Jew hemmed and hawed and finally admitted that he wasn't, after all, an eyewitness, but that he had heard this story from another Jew and was just passing it along "in good faith."(2)

If the Jewish tale about the Nazi gas chambers were true, there would not have to be ONE lie. Not ONE exaggeration. Not ONE altered, miscaptioned, or staged photograph. There would not have been any reason for ONE presentation of fabricated, bogus "evidence" to the IMT court. None of these things would have been necessary, since the truth, if the Holocaust's basic myth were true, would have sufficed.

Benkei wrote: Why any of you actually values debating with close-minded fanatics that cannot move beyond semi-coherently expounding an opinion is personally beyond me.

There is some question about who the semi-coherent, closed-minded fanatic is. You say: Calicantser. If Calicantser were he, he'd probably say: Benkei. Fingers pointing each way. The only differences, as far as I can see, is that YOU (for whatever reason) called for your debate opponent to be banned and had the sympathy of the moderators, whereas Calicantser did not. Again, I say, on a board ostensibly set up to pursue the truth, the remedy for error is not censorship or banning. The proper remedy is argument. And you engage in hypocrisy when you assert that Calicantser "could not" support his theses, because what you really mean is "Now, he cannot" (accompanied, we might assume, by a smirk).

Benkei wrote: Furthermore, the fact that you wish to apply a criterium of decency on this site and its moderators but believe that posters should be magically exempt then maybe you should consider going to a different forum and see whether you can have a similar level of content as you will find on this site. Banning is done for the purpose keeping the level of the forum up. And yes, that makes this place "restrictive" but justifiable so.

You extenuate your hypocrisy. I did not see anything "indecent" in Calicantser's post. What you mean, I think, is that content on this forum is subject to a standard of political correctness which you, as one of the politically correct, intend to see enforced. When anyone can win a debate conclusively, he does not call for his opponent to be banned. Whether his interest is in demonstrating the truth for its own sake, or whether his interest is persuading the audience to agree with his aims, it is better for him to win the debate out in the open, with the whole world watching.

Not everything believed to be a fact is a fact. Sometimes the Galileos are right, whereas what the Church teaches and what nearly everyone therefore "knows" is sometimes wrong. And sometimes, the people who cast aspersions on "conspiracy theories" are the ones in error, since there are such things as conspiracies, and since the possibility of getting money illicitly is one of the more common bases upon which conspiracies form. In other words, I know of no reason why the Holocaust isn't a conspiracy, among mostly Jews, to defraud Americans and Germans (and others) of their wealth, a swindle that depends on the gullibility and the humanitarian sentiments of mostly White people.(3)

Benkei wrote: Common sense of everyday people decide on the quality of the material.

The common sense of everyday people is suspect of being inadequate to that purpose. It is, for example, insufficient to put together a working watch from its parts scattered over a table top. It is insufficient for the even more difficult task of giving a nation wise leadership. And it might even be the case that you can't find the truth by the method of voting on what the truth is. I rather think that nature holds trump cards over elections in that respect.

Benkei wrote: And again, it is not about opposing views but a lack of coherently argumenting for those views. And that does not involve debunking proof to the contrary as "doctrine" or "Scriptures" but dealing with the actual arguments. A person who consistently fails to live up to that will get banned.

I hope that you are not excessively offended when I say that I don't believe you. I think that you were afraid that Calicantser's arguments would have proved sound, and, had he remained here to debate you, that he'd have painted you into a corner with your own words. You were not concerned that Calicantser was ineffective in presenting his case, but to the contrary: he'd have been more effective than you'd wish him to be.

Benkei wrote: I offered three names earlier, which you apparently missed: Kwasi Wiredu, Paulin Hountondji and Henry Odera Oruka. After that he shifted the goal posts in that they had to be well-known. As if that is any indication of the quality of the work in the first place. Even so, if they had been well-known, they would have been part of the establishment and just be part of the indoctrinated West according to him.

Perhaps Calicantser is familiar with the history of Philip Emeagwali, long said to be a great African genius who invented the supercomputer after observing the hexagonal design of bee hives. He was later credited with originating the idea of parallel processing and with establishing the Internet. None of these claims is true. Emeagwali's status as a genius was endorsed by the American media establishment and by former President Bill Clinton. But it turns out that Philip Emeagwali, a Nigerian of the Ibo tribe by birth, is merely very intelligent FOR A BLACK AFRICAN. He isn't a genius in absolute terms. His only actual claim to achievement was that he once wrote a computer program that ran on a supercomputer, and he was awarded a secondary portion of a Gordon-Bell prize therefore. That's it! Every other thing credited to Philip Emeagwali was fraud and deception, carried out by the media and by prominent liberals.

Where this is done once, it might have been done repeatedly.(4) Calicantser might have been expecting you to post significant passages from the work of Kwasi Wiredu, Paulin Hountondji and Henry Odera Oruka, and explaining why you considered those thoughts to be great ones. I mean, we do actually quote Nietzsche and Kant, do we not? If I want to impress you with their brilliance, I don't merely mention to you their names, do I? Hardly. So what were you waiting for? Why did you not show Calicantser that Wiredu, Hountondji and Oruka were indisputably great thinkers by quoting their loftiest thinking while Calicantser was still here to read them? Hm? It is what I would have done.

Benkei wrote: This idea that we should have every opinion just be posted without any consideration to its content is exemplary of a naïve individualism. Not everyone's opinion counts, certainly not on this forum.

Which leave only the matters of who decides whose opinion "counts" and of what the criteria are for discrimination between the worthy content and the unworthy content. Again, we see that the only difference between yourself and Calicantser is who had the power to do the banning, and who did not. It might be the case that you'd have been shown more respect and forbearance in a forum owned by Calicantser than he was shown here. (You could, you know, hardly receive less.)

Benkei wrote: Their outside views have been considered for several pages. Your point seems to be that it has not been considered enough. Maybe having spent quite some time on this forum the mods here have a little more experience in assessing who's a troll and who isn't.

Why is there a page/post limit? Here's what I saw. I saw two people debating, and I saw that neither of them had convinced the other of his rightness. As far as I can tell, Calicantser was not more intransigent than you. He was not less willing to debate facts than you, much as you might have me think otherwise. I see only one difference: YOU called for your opponent to be banned, and HE did not. See once again what I said regarding an honest debater's interest in continuing a public debate, when he believes he can win, no matter how unwilling his opponent might be to "listen to reason." If you really are right, then the more he talks, the more you can demonstrate his errors, to an audience, if not to him. That you called for banning Calicantser implies that you did not think that you would do well in debate with him.

Jerry Abbott

(1) The thread title was "Academia Still Too Restricting for Great Thinkers."

(2) Just to illustrate the lies the Jews tell, and how they deny ever having told them once they can no longer be profitably continued, recall the Jewish allegation that the Nazis made soap from the bodies of dead Jews. This lie originally was Allied war propaganda in World War 1, admitted as untrue after that war ended. But in 1942, it was resurrected by lying Rabbi Stephen Wise (1874-1949), who claimed that he'd been informed officially by the Jewish World Congress that the Nazis were making soap and fertilizer from the bodies of dead Jews. A few weeks after Wise's lie, another Jew from the WJC in Switzerland popped up and "confirmed" the lie, citing certain Nazi documents that no one else, before or since, has ever seen as "proof" that the Nazis were buying Jewish corpses for 50 Reichmarks each and converting them into soap, glue, and lubricants. To add bells and whistles to the tale, other Jews have "informed" the world that Rabbi Wise "knew" about the manufacture of Jewish fat soap before 1942, but had refused to believe it. (Oh, so he had to be convinced! Dragged in horrified reluctance to this awful conclusion. This is one way in which hoaxers can hint at the existence of evidence that does not really exist.) After the end of World War 2, many Nazi officers were charged falsely with war crimes, with their convictions and executions foreordained by the IMT court at Nuremburg. One of the charges was the making of soap from fat taken from human corpses (chiefly, those of Jews). Soviet officers brought forth cakes and jugs of soap, quite ordinary soap, and declared it to be samples of the illicit Jewish-fat soap which the Nazis were accused of making. The trials being rigged, the evidence was of course accepted, and the accused were of course convicted. Many innocent Germans were murdered judicially because of this and similar lies. For many years, the "Jews to soap" hoax was going strong as major part of anti-German Holocaust propaganda. It was mainstream. It was cited by many Jews as being illustrative of Nazi cruelty.(5) Eventually, historical revisionists proved that the "Jews to soap" story is false. The Jews gave ground only when and where they had to. (The story is still believed in some parts of East Europe.) Jewish organizations try to make it appear that the "Jews to soap" story was always "just a rumor" and never a part of mainstream Holocaust mythology. Nizkor, for example, writes: "The overwhelming majority of Holocaust historians have never believed that the Nazis mass produced human soap." Tricky! As the quoted statement is written, it might actually be true. It is indeed possible that "the majority of Holocaust historians" don't believe much of what they claim the Nazis did in WW2. The point, though, is that their lack of belief in their own lies doesn't stop them from spreading those lies in the form of Holocaust propaganda.

(3) I could say almost the same thing about international finance.

(4) Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a US-resident Negro whose academic attainments were likewise based on fraud and deceptive PR.

(5) In the late 1940s, a group of rabbis solemnly buried bars of this bogus "Jewish fat" soap in consecrated ground in Israel. Now, I'm not religious, but I can imagine the look on God's face when the souls of a bunch of barnyard animals arrives before Him after they were blessed into Heaven by a gang of hoaxing rabbis. "OH," sayeth the Almighty. "SO THEY ARE MAKING PIGS INTO JEWS NOW, ARE THEY?" And all of Heaven shall say "Amen."


Part 2. What Trixie said about Calicantser's being banned.

Another poster in The Philosophy Forums, in the same thread as my post appeared, gave her opinion concerning the banning of Calicantser.

Calicantsar posted an opinion.

Many were offended by this opinion, relating it back to their cultural dogmas that associate it with a particular kind of person. A skin head , a Nazi, a hillbilly. Prejudice. The comforting kind.

They then confronted him thinking it would be an easy affair; him being one of these types, and all.

Calicantsar posted some questions which nobody could answer without looking like an idiot. He became more difficult.

They tried to turn the tables by asking for "proof", that is an authority that supported his views, which is related to the very topic of this thread, about establishment and institutionalized truths and how science is not immune to cultural effects.

One of the stunted intellects that thinks himself an "intellectual" then asked for biochemical evidence.

Calicantsar responded by telling him that biochemical evidence is debated over, is still not fully understood, but that our senses have evolved, over millions of years, to interpret biochemical manifestations because nobody requires a biochemical review to know that a green banana is not ripe or that that black creature with the stripe down its back is a skunk. Nobody asks for biochemical evidence to prove that an ape is different from a man. It is evident by appearance and from experience, which includes more than just looks.

He asked for evidence of this Negro equality.

Some random names were offered without providing what genius these minds possessed. What made them merit a position next to a Plato a Spinoza, a Nietzsche, a Michelangelo, a DaVinci, a Beethoven, an Einstein? You can't just make declarations and post some names and think you made a point. There has to be reasoning behind it, supporting what you say, if evidence is lacking or spotty.

Our consciousness is a discriminating tool. It evolves to determine "good" from "bad" using the senses and to evaluate quality using the senses. That we've managed to survive means its simplifying methods are good enough in determining essence. So much so that imitation is a well-known survival tactic.

He connected it all back to a Schopenhauer position concerning appearance and essence, which nobody picked up on, and on a Heidegger proposition concerning Being and Time, which nobody sought to explore. No, he had to be dismissed, as quickly as possible, because an idiot who tries to "expose him" to the public as a "racist" - What a loaded label that is - soon found that it was he that was being exposed, as a dim-witted follower of norms and authority figures. An institutionalized mind.

But then it is easier to dismiss someonethan to actually debate them, isn't it? Especially when he doesn't prove to be what you thought he was and you become entangled in a fight that will embarrass you. Because dismissing them, especially when they've began to challenge you intellectually or they begin exposing you as a two-bit retard who has based their entire belief system on popular opinions and cultural mythologies and who can only say "biochemistry" to think he made a "good point".

How much easier it is to just call him a racist or a troll or a fascist or illiterate, or ignorant and then return to your pseudo-intellectual pursuits in analyzing Nietzsche or discussing Spinoza until the cows come home. This is what constitutes philosophical thinking amongst the western dullards who only have a diploma to offer as evidence for their wisdom and deep intellect. If only it was so easy.

The question if he, Calicantsar, had "kissed a black person" was particularity funny and telling. Wasn't it?

This is what sheltering environments do to the mind. A user of tools, with no creativity of his own, equating himself with the maker of tools. Apes wearing overalls and calling themselves "philosophers". But don't let thinking go outside their comfort zones. No, then they panic, like little girls, running to the teacher. Yes, a sexist, also.

Then this forum can continue in its boring pursuit of mediocrity, of attracting the average with brilliant careers, and well-read morons that can't stop talking about the books they've read, where the only thing mentioned that actually challenges us is safely in the areas that have little to do with our daily lives or only deals with speaking about others.

And because this is my last posting, I continue...

The owner of this forum has already proven what quality of mind he has by the way he runs this forum. A reflection of everyday mediocrity, sprinkled with name-dropping and quotations and endless debates over who got what authority figure right and who really speaks using his mentor's words.

The dull pretending to be interesting by mentioning Kant, every so often, or daring to project themselves as the only ones that understood Nietzsche the best or who really got Hegel. But do not dare challenge their core beliefs!! They will not and cannot go there. This lies outside any book and what have they to reference in response?

Ah, statistics? Perhaps a few pie-charts and endless referencing scientific positions which are never absolute but always theories - THEORIES!!!! - is best.

I would think if this forum were in an Islamic State or during a previous era, the forum would ban anyone that questioned the flatness of the earth or who dared speak against the Koran. Maybe anyone that challenges Copernicus would be best dealt with with the label: TROLL!!!. Infidels and illiterate trolls, they would all be, because the scientific evidence of that time is decisive in its conclusions. Aren't all scientific positions final?!!! Aren't all scientists immune to cultural and social considerations? Does not the observer the asker affect the answer the observed?

Theories created by humans, for humans. Humans who cannot help remaining human despite their scientific methodologies and profound objectivity.

What happened in the markets recently? The endless bullshit, and mathematical models hit the fan!!! Didn't they?!!

Not even the "experts", despite their diplomas, understand it, could have predicted it, but they now scramble with their credentials in hand to excuse the system to justify their status to re-validate what has been exposed as a sham and return the herd back to its merry regurgitating in the fields of our Lords. Greenspan himself admits that his world-view has been shaken. Him the most brilliant economic, authority in the U.S.!!!

This forum isn't special, it is a reflection of reality, of human reality. The dense and fearful trying to defend their illusions from the light of day. The dim falling back on "experts" and "established" truths that comfort us and that mommy taught us was decent and "good".

No, God forbid we question our own self-evident truths and find that they are based on cultural influences rather than an honest assessment of the world.

Species do not split off a common ancestor due to genetic isolation and the effects of environment upon these populations over time. No, this would expose the diversity we see in humans to be something akin to it and this is far too disturbing to consider. No, intelligence just happened magically. It did not offer a survival advantage. No, God forbid that it would!!

Why then everything that we believe, in the west, to be fact just might be bullshit, created to keep the mediocre at bay and comfortably munching their grass, growing on heavy loads of fertilizer.

We heard an idiot claim that technology precedes intelligence, and he isn't banned for being obtuse, because he is defending the establishment, the status quo, the humanitarian bullshit.

This idiot wanted a biochemical analysis to tell him what was there in front of him?!!!  He thinks nature is superfluous, it only creates changes for aesthetic reasons, superficially, with no mental effects?

Where have they mapped the human genome and provided a precise analysis on what each sequence means and does? WHERE?!!! Where is the certainty and the final word?

Here is my final word.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha... Most of you are sad.

Now I return you back to referencing, quoting, name-dropping, regurgitating and pretending you are actually thinking and engaging reality directly, instead of feeding on the spittle of another. Maybe some mundane babble is also what this forum is best for. Mundane babble for the mundane. But the title does say: Philosophy Forums, so there must be some philosophy happening here.

HA!!

By the way Calicanstar is a Greek word for Satyr!!!  Only the Hellenes can truly appreciate irony.

I happen to disagree with the version of World War 2 history that the Jews usually tell, or have others who are under their influence to tell for them. And I resent the fact that there are countries in which the Jews have arranged for laws that make my opinions illegal to share with anybody else, which makes it unsafe for me to travel abroad lest I be punished with a prison sentence for what I believe the truth is.

I'm an American, and I had no plans to travel anyway, but it's still an outrage to me that this one ethnic group has so arranged the laws of many other countries that I could not safely travel internationally if, for whatever reason, I might want to do so.

And even though I don't actually travel, my words are routinely censored even though they are quite reasonable in thesis and moderate in tone. I don't swear. I don't insult anybody. My posts are censored because the Jews want them censored, and they have far too much influence, and exercise far too much selfish control over public discourse, for anyone else's good.

I recently registered on a web forum called "Politics Forum.org." You'd think with a name like that there would be a policy of allowing controversial ideas into discussion, no matter whom they offended, and debating them on their merits, on the basis of facts, with the realization that not everything said to be a "fact" is indeed a fact, with the knowledge that sometimes the Galileos are right and the Church is wrong, with the understanding that such a thing as a conspiracy is possible and that conspiracies do sometimes occur, especially when there is illicit money to be made.

Here is the content of my first (and so far only) post to "Politics Forum.org." I wasn't even finished with my touch-up editing before another poster had responded to assert that I was an asshole and that my post only served to show why threads like this one should not be allowed. My post was deleted within a few hours, and there followed a long series of posts, running on for several pages of the thread, in which Holocaust believers rehashed the propaganda lies and deceptions that revisionists have repeatedly disproved and which they still routinely debunk -- when they can, when they are not in prison for doing it.



W01f wrote: Wait a minute. Maybe Europe is different from Canada, but since when could you be punished by law for merely not liking certain races or ethnicities? Don't you have to actually commit a crime in order for it to be..a crime? I don't see this guy hurting anyone, inciting violence or even admitting he doesn't like Jews. The only thing apparent is that he's a quack. There are many quacks in the scientific community who believe crazier things than that.

The Jews watch for people who say things that they don't like, and disagreement with the Holocaust myth is near the top of that list. They nearly own the German government, which is why the laws in Germany give more preferential treatment to Jewish interests than any other government except Israel.

England, however, is not a free speech country either, where the Jews are concerned. An Englishman is on the run from his own government now because he's wanted for the crime of telling the truth. His name is Luke O'Farrell, and his website is

http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html

The Jews in England have pressured the British government to put Mr. O'Farrell into prison for writing what he has written on that website, and, so far as I can see, there are no false statements anywhere in any of his columns.

The persecution of dissenters to Jewish propaganda is international. It's going on in Germany, in England, in Canada, in Australia, and in the United States.

A Canadian named Ernst Zundel was arrested illegally by agents of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at his wife's home in Tennessee. The INS had scheduled an immigration hearing, about which Zundel was never informed, and, when he failed to attend, they got warrants against him. Zundel was deported, again illegally, to Canada. Canada declared him "a danger to Canada's national security," but did not say why he is so dangerous in that way. (It seems ridiculous on the face of it, and it sounds as if the charge was merely a pretext to keep Zundel in prison.) Zundel was later deported to Germany to stand trial for denying the Holocaust.

http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/index.html
http://www.rense.com/general34/zun.htm

(Added comment not in original post: Which, of course, raises the interesting question of why Zundel was believed to be less of a danger to Canada's national security in Germany than he was in either Canada or the United States. I can think of only one way that might be true. If the Jews in Canada have positioned themselves to utterly ruin Canada economically, or in a way that enables them to provoke a war between Canada and some other country, such as the USA, and if the Jews of Canada have intimated that they would cause such mischief unless they got exactly what they wanted from the Canadian government, then the Jews of Canada would be a danger to Canada's national security that Canada simply can't handle, so, instead of forthrightly addressing the Jewish threat, the Canadian government must perforce appease the Jews, giving them what they want, in this case by jailing Ernst Zundel on the flimsiest of pretexts until a deportation to Germany for a "show trial" could be arranged. Zundel's persecution was, in a sense, "office politics" writ large.)

An American named Hans Schmidt was arrested in Germany for publishing a pamphlet in the United States that questioned the Jewish version of World War 2 history.

http://128.241.238.86/free-speech/fs961b.html

A British man named David Irving was arrested in Austria for sharing similar doubts in public.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Austria/arrest_2005/index.html

Now, it's Toben. The Jews put the names of the people whom they want punished on a hit list, which is circulated to the governments on which they have influence (by their control of the media and the banks). And whenever any of those people must travel, especially by air, they run a significant chance of being arrested at an airport either before takeoff or upon landing.

Despite myth to the contrary, it is not settled that six million Jews died during World War 2 -- anywhere or in any fashion. The number is more likely nearer 300,000.  Nothing like 4 million Jews died at Auschwitz, as they originally claimed, nor even 1.5 million Jews, as they now claim. The total number dead at Auschwitz during the entire war, Jew and gentile, inmate and guard, is about 70,000 - mostly from an epidemic of typhus that would not have happened if the Allies had not bombed German rail to the east, preventing the Germans from keeping the camps supplied with food, medicine, and rodent control chemicals (which is what Zyklon B really was).

The Nazis did not operate any gas chambers at Auschwitz, nor at Treblinka, nor in any other prison camp, during WW2. They did execute malefactors, and some of these were Jews, but most of the anecdotes you may have heard are false, and most of the pictures you may have seen are miscaptioned, staged, altered, or drawn by someone intent upon bolstering Holohoax propaganda.

A picture taken at Dresden, showing a bulldozer pushing a big pile of dead Germans was miscaptioned as a bulldozer pushing a big pile of dead Jews at Buchenwald. A photo made of "German" soldiers killing Poles in the Katyn Forest was later proved to show Soviet troops, dressed in German uniforms, doing that very thing. A pile of corpses of people dead of typhus was superimposed in the foreground of a line of naked prisoners waiting for their clothes to be returned from delousing (to kill typhus-spreading lice), and that photo was used to "prove" that Jews were being marched into gas chambers while their dead relatives' bodies were piled up just to one side.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the US president during much of the war. He said nothing about any Holocaust of the Jews. Do you suppose it slipped his mind?

The gas chambers are not the original means by which the Nazis were said to have carried out the mass executions of Jews. Other  methods for killing were circulated earlier as trial balloons. One of them? An electric floor, similar to an electric chair, except it was a whole large floor, made wet for enhanced conductivity. When revisionists proved that story untenable, the Jews substituted other killing methods, finally settling on the gas chamber story.

The truth, of course, would not have changed.

Nearly everything the revisionists have said about the Holocaust myth is true. Nearly every arrest made for Holocaust denial is a purely political arrest, and its victim is a purely political prisoner. The Soviet Union, itself the creation of Jewish bankers in New York and Jewish communists in Russia, did not actually die: it merely exported itself from Russia to the rest of the world.

Once upon a time, if you told the truth about the Jews in Russia, you were thrown into prison or worse. Now everywhere besides Russia, that's what's happening. The United States, because of its tradition of explicit legal protection for free speech, is perhaps the least affected of the affected countries, but that is not to say it is unaffected.

Think about it: Why should the Jews have legal protections from having their version of history doubted, when nobody else has such protections? Why should the Jews get such paramount consideration for their feelings, as opposed to the feelings of others? Is there really any reason?

Think about this, too: is all that is "antisemitic" necessarily untrue? If there is such a thing as a true antisemitic statement, then why would it be any more unspeakable than a true anti-White statement? Is there really any reason?

Jerry Abbott

P.S. Not only was this post censored shortly after it appeared, I was banned from the forum by the administrators. "You have been banned from this forum. Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information." This was after policies had been defined such that Holocaust related debate would be acceptable there. Perhaps what they had intended all along was stage sort of a faux-debate, with false-flag "doubters" being "convinced" by stalwart Holocaust supporters, and the arrival of a genuine skeptic was interfering with their plans.


Part 2. "They banned me and deleted all of my substantial posts, including my two newest posts in two different threads. It's funny how they decided some time ago to make 'holocaust denial' and arguing about the holohoax acceptable there, but then suddenly begin to delete all substantial posts that challenge the official fairy story." (An email from a friend in Finland.)

Bait and switch is a game played by unscrupulous merchants, in which they convince a buyer to pay for one thing, but then they give him something of inferior worth, plus some sort of excuse, such as "Oh the one you were looking at in our store is for display purposes only, we ship the actual item you purchased from our warehouse. It should be essentially the same as what you saw in the store." Only, of course, it isn't.

The game of bait and switch was possibly invented by Jews (or anyway I would not be surprised), at first for cheating in the marketplace. But they learned how to adapt it to political situations. What happened to you was bait-and-switch on rules and policies. You were told that something would be allowed, but the purpose for saying that was merely to identify people whose opinions were contrary to political correctness.

The Jews are perhaps the most frequent perpetrators of political bait-and-switch, but the most famous instance of that game wasn't committed by Jews, but rather by the communist government of China. It was called "The Campaign of 100 Flowers," in which the Beijing government pretended that it had suddenly become tolerant of democratic ideas. The Chinese democrats trusted the government and gave their opinions, and the government, for a while, smiled and wrote down the dissidents' names and addresses. Soon tolerance time was over, and the arrests were made, followed by the executions.

The Jews and the liberals who follow them, do that very same thing. And that's what happened to you.

Jerry Abbott

Part 3. Luke O'Farrell, after quoting a paragraph from an article in The London Times for 7 Sep 2006, said: "Oh dear, so it wasn’t the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] who wanted to turn us into a police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free speech, that’s who. If Jews have power and influence, they start working to take away free speech. It’s no use arguing that some Jews support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there any popular support for Britain’s race laws, introduced in the 1960s and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn’t, but what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn’t gotten them."

Very true. And very well spoken. But the Jews not only suppress truthful speech by White people, especially on the subjects of race in general and Jews in particular, they also use their control of the media to spread false opinions though various kinds of deceit, which is often mostly the misuse of emphasis and omission.

Allow me to illustrate. In which group do you find the largest percentage of pedophiles? The Jews who own and operate the mass media would dearly like you to believe that it's White nationalists (most), followed by Catholic priests, followed by Black preachers, followed by Jewish rabbis (least). In fact, the exact reverse order is likely to be true.

The Jews have found a couple of White nationalist perverts after and because they were first discovered, and promptly reported, ostracized and condemned by other White nationalists. Now, against this White nationalist record, tally up these guys, many of whom carried on their disgusting perversions for years or even decades before someone blew the whistle.

Note: I do not originate, nor do I presume to confirm, any of the accusations against the below-named persons. The list to follow is simply a recitation of names of persons who have been accused by others of committing sexual crimes, mostly involving children. Anyone wishing to know the accusations in each case is invited to do his own research and form his own opinion.

Rabbi Avraham Asher
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner
Rabbi Lewis Brenner
Rabbi Ephraim Bryks
Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach
Rabbi Elior Chen
Rabbi Perry Ian Cohen
Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen
Rabbi Asher Dahan
Rabbi Arnold Fink
Rabbi Jacob Frank
Yehudah Friedlander (rabbinical assistant)
Rabbi Mordechai Gafni
Rabbi Ephraim Goldberg
Rabbi Isaac Goldenberg
Rabbi Sidney Goldenberg
Rabbi Mark A. Golub
Cantor Joel Gordon
Rabbi Israel Grunwald
Rabbi Solomon Hafner
Rabbi and Child Psychiatrist Alan J. Horowitz
Cantor Mark Horowitz
Elbert John Jarvis II (Beth El Hebrew Congregation voted this alleged pedophile "Man of the Year" in 2005.)
Rabbi Steven J. Kaplan
Rabbi David Kaye
Rabbi Israel Kestenbaum
Rabbi Robert Kirschner
Rabbi Yehuda Kolko
Rabbi/Yeshiva Teacher Ze’ev Kopolevitch
Rabbi Baruch Lanner
Rabbi Avraham M. Leizerowitz
Rabbi Jerrold Martin Levy
Rabbi Pinchas Lew
Rabbi David E. Lipman
Rabbi/Psychologist Mordecai Magencey
Rabbi Richard Marcovitz
Rabbi Samuel Mendelowitz
Rabbi Yaakov Menken
Rabbi Yona Metzger
Rabbi Juda Mintz
Rabbi and Psychologist Avrohom Mondrowitz
Cantor Howard Nevison
Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Oratz (Name not unique, the alleged pedophile was born 11 April 1967)
Rabbi Michael Ozair
Rabbi Haim Pardes
Cantor Stanley Rosenfeld
Rabbi Edward Schlaeger
Rabbi David Schwartz
Cantor Michael Segelstein
Rabbi Charles Shalman
Cantor Robert Shapiro
Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel
Rabbi Ze’ev Sultanovitch
Rabbi Melvin Teitelbaum
Rabbi Aron Boruch Tendler (Name not unique, the suspected pedophile was born 15 January 1955)
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Rabbi Isadore Trachtman
Rabbi Hirsch Travis
Rabbi Eliyahu Tzabari
Rabbi Tzvi Wainhaus
Rabbi Matis Weinberg
Rabbi Yaakov Weiner
Rabbi Nachman Weisfeld
Rabbi Mordechai Willig
Cantor Phillip Wittlin
Rabbi Hershel J. Worch
Rabbi Mordechai Yomtov
Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman
Rabbi Max Zucker

This is not, of course, an exhaustive list of alleged Jewish pedophiles. Nor is it even a complete tally of rabbis who are pedophiles. It is, rather, merely some of the names of alleged Jewish rabbi pedophiles that I could find in a hurry. No doubt further research would uncover more.

It is possible that some of the named Jews are innocent of the crimes for which they are accused. The reader is urged to review all of the available information and make his own judgment. The listing of the names is meant to be a starting point for such research. The list is not an attempt to convince anyone of any particular opinion in any case.

A percentage of the common secular Jews are also pedophiles, about whom you hear nothing because the Jews control the media. For example, the following Jews were given a position of trust, which they allegedly betrayed by some form of child sexual exploitation:

Arie Scher, career diplomat, formerly Israeli Assistant Consul to Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, 2000. Engaged in child rape, child prostitution, and child pornography. The customers for the prostitution business were mostly wealthy Jewish tourists from Israel.

Georges Schteinberg, college professor, formerly teacher of Hebrew language at Liessin College in Rio de Janeiro, 2000. Engaged in child rape, child prostitution, and child pornography as Arie Scher's accomplice.

Leonardo Chaim, counsellor at a youth boy's camp near Sao Paulo, Brasil. Engaged in child rape and child pornography (2000). Produced a pedophile instruction manual entitled "How to Rape a Boy" (translated from Portuguese).

Seth Bekenstein, member of the tennis club of Walnut Creek, California. Known to the FBI as the former US West Coast distributor of child pornography, some of it also snuff porn, made by a Jewish crime syndicate in Russia, with gentile children kidnapped throughout East Europe and FSU Republics.

Richard Steve Goldberg, Jewish aerospace engineer. Raped children in his spare time. Was one of the FBI's "Most Wanted" until his arrest in Canada in 2007.

David Sonenschein. Noted Jewish author and pedophile. Here's a "fair use" sample of his work.

"It is best when beginning sex with a kid to do it as part of a game. Sometimes the kid will make the first move, sometimes the adult. Sometimes the adult can create a situation where a kid can ask for sex or start sex if they want. Curiosity is a big factor, exploring somebody and having them explore you is another good way to start. This can be a kind of show and tell. Just about anything that adults can do together an adult and a kid can do together. It's best to go slowly the first time - and its more exciting that way too - but of course you have to be sensitive to size differences.

"Kids enjoy non-penetrating sex the best. Most very young or small kids can not and should not be penetrated by an adult. Having sex is having fun! If anyone is not able to relax, it won't be as enjoyable. Sex is play, not work. If you have sex with some that like it, they can tell those of their friends who may also be interested. Sometimes starting out sex is better if other kids are doing it too. Group sex is a good way to experiment and experience all kinds of sex with all different sorts of partners. What better way to learn!"

I recently found another long list of Jewish perverts, but I'm tired of typing their names. Click the link. They include a Jewish Youth Group Leader who raped four boys, a Jewish soccer coach who molested two, a Jewish school teacher who sent child porn through the Internet, a Jewish pediatrician who raped his little patients, a Jewish doctor who raped his daughter, a Jewish "Big Brother" who raped at least 35 of his "little brothers," a Jewish judge who looked at kiddie porn and molested children, and so forth, and so on.

As another writer has said, "this is just the tip of the iceberg." Maybe it's the tip of the goldberg, too. And the goldenberg. And the schteinberg. And the weinberg. Plus a few baums, steins, and witzes.

Furthermore: if you didn't know which pedophile offenders belonged to which racial group, if you didn't see any of their names, but were only given complete and accurate summaries of what each of them did, and then asked which of the offenders were the worst, you wouldn't pick out the White gentiles among them. Indeed, not. You'd pick mainly the Jews as being the worst of this bad bunch. Set their crime histories side-by-side, and blank out only the names and racial affiliations if you're afraid of being "prejudiced," and you will judge that the Jewish child predators will almost always have been crueler, dirtier, sicker, and more rapacious than the White ones have been.

So remember this the next time you hear a Jew carrying on about Catholic or White nationalist malefactors. The White moral record isn't spotless, but it's better than that of most other races. And the Jewish moral record isn't merely checkered, it's among the worst of all races. You can't know all the facts when your sources of information are controlled by Jews, and the Jewish control of the media lets them play these games of emphasis and omission in order to mislead you. When you discover the facts, you'll understand why the Jews must engage in censorship, deceit, and self-serving "information management."

Jerry Abbott


The Nazis have been telling the truth about the Jews for 90 years to a world that the Jews have deceived with lies.

Here's an antisemitic joke created by altering a Jewish sales ad for a yarmulke: "The Star of David or Magen David as it is known in Hebrew literally means the Shield of David. According to the Kabbalah, the two triangles facing opposite directions represent the dichotomies inherent in man: good vs. evil, or spiritual vs. physical. The triangle that is pointing downward symbolizes evil, which Jews gather from the pits of hell in order to activate a flow of wickedness that comes back up into the world, which is symbolized by the triangle that is pointing upward."

A joke about a Jew and an Amish man. Once upon a time, a hungry Amish man came to the doorstep of a Jew and knocked upon the door. The door opened and the Jewish man said, "Vell? Vat do you vant?" The Amish man said he was very hungry and asked if he might have some food. The Jew said, "Sure, sure," grabbed a bag of Doritos, tossed it at the Amish man, and slammed the door shut. As it happened, several weeks later the Jew was walking along the roadside after being jokingly kidnapped and stranded far from home by a gang of naughty Black homosexuals. He stopped at the door of a house, being very hungry, and knocked for attention. The door opened, and it was the Amish man. Not recognizing him at first, the Jew begged for food. The Amish man said, "Certainly, one moment..." The door closed. An instant later six Amish men appeared in the back yard with lumber and nails, and in two or three minutes had built a trestle table of the kind you find in all the better public parks. Then the Amish man's wife and daughters came out bearing plates, eating utensils, and two huge covered platters. A delicious aroma began to fill the area. The Jew thought he was in Heaven. "Sit and eat," suggested the Amish man. The Jew sat down in front of a plate, reaching for the cover of the largest platter. Removing it, he saw staring at him a perfectly done roast suckling pig... complete with an apple in its mouth. The Jew groaned because his religion forbade him to eat pork. Then he removed the cover of the other platter... and found a bag of Doritos.

Part 1. The question "What is the value of space exploration?" was asked on 22 September 2008 by Yahoo member Bianca M. Here is my answer.


A lot of people say that the value of space exploration is in the advance of technics (which basically means an increase in people's comfort level) or in an increase of knowledge. But while those things are indeed valuable, there is a reason to explore space that stands far above comfort or knowledge.

For three billion years, Earth has been the home of life. And during all that time life has been struggling against itself and against the environment to survive. In a competitive situation, survival requires constant improvement. One of the improvements was intelligence.

With intelligence came culture, art, wisdom, and the appreciation of beauty in things both natural and contrived. Although the same process might have occurred, or might someday occur, on some other planet, we don't know that this is the case. And whether extraterrestrial life exists or not, it would be to our shame to allow the Life of Earth to become extinct, to act in such a way as to shorten greatly its run through this universe.

As the species that evolved the intelligence and the inclination to develop technics and to exploit fossil fuels, it became our responsibility to ensure that the Life of Earth did not succumb to our own foolishness or to any other failure mode. From the moment we began our civilizations, our highest purpose should have been to carry out the mission of bringing Earth's life to other planets, to give it new homes to live in, to fill the universe as much as possible with culture, art, wisdom, and the ability to appreciate beauty.

Why is this our responsibility, and not merely our opportunity? Because with us, Earth has for the first time ever a species with the ability to understand the eons-long struggle that led to its own creation, and, with that understanding, to look above the struggle to see the glories that might someday accrue to the Life of Earth, but only if WE do OUR job properly. If we become extinct, nothing like us might ever appear on our world again.

And, even if another intelligent species did someday take our place, we shall soon have used up the material prerequisites for spaceflight, such as metal ores and fossil fuels, that nature spent all the past history of Earth gathering for the first species able to make use of them. In other words, nature passed the ball to humanity. Whether we run for the touchdown and score, or foolishly ignore the rules of the game and so engage in activities that cost us our chance to win, is our choice. It's a decision that might require a god's wisdom to make rightly; yet, it is ours.

Beside this, no other purpose has much value, relatively speaking. Rather than lose this, let us lose nine-tenths of Mankind. Fifty million people dead in a war, or a hundred years of starvation on a continent, are as nothing in comparison to the tragedy of losing 99.9% of the potential future of the Life of Earth. This purpose should have determined all of our ideologies and all of our moral systems at least from the industrial revolution forward.

Why it did not is a very interesting, and very politically dangerous, question that would lead us to consider what capitalism, communism, politics, and international banking might have had in common, and we might conclude that Earth has had the misfortune to evolve a kind of rapacious, parasitical intelligent life that acts on other intelligent life in much the same way that a virus or a cancer acts on their victims.

If we don't establish an independent space colony in a place where technics can continue after terrestrial fossil fuels have all been burned, then all of Earth's life will perish within two billion years. If we do, however, we might eventually do what science fiction makes seem all too easy: fly ships to the planets of other stars, thereby enabling the Life of Earth to continue until the stars themselves die. As Thomas Jefferson said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?" when the purpose for which those lives are spent has such great importance for the life that remains.


Part 2. The "Violation" that Yahoo Answers suspended my account for.

"We ain't decided yet if we're going to eat in this crummy joint. It's all right to get liquored up in, but--" (From The Goblin Reservation, by Clifford D. Simak.)

The Question:
Does anyone know what the scenario will look like if the $700 billion bailout doesn't go through? In order to decide if something should be done one must look at both sides of the story. What will happen if the bail out doesn't go through, what institutions will bite the dust? Should they bite the dust? They made the bad loans, they helped create the problems. Mortgage loans can be renegotiated so that someone ends up with the house or with the mortgage so that is not a total loss. We are talking here of real houses with wood, nails and roofs, so there is something there worthwhile. If the bail out goes through who gets the cash? CEO's with lavish expense accounts and multimillion dollar wages with bonus packs for running a company into the ground. I don't think so. If the deal is so good why don't private individuals like some of the big millionaires buy up the loans or create a company to absorb the losses afterall they got rich on this same market.


My answer:

You're using your head, there. Most people have forgotten how to think on large economic matters because the bankers' propaganda has discouraged such thinking for so long.

But I think that the necessity of making the choice of whether to bail out the banks IS "the scenario." It was created in the first place by the kind of money system our government permitted the bankers to impose on the country. It's basically a Ponzi scam, in which the bankers loan money into existence at interest. That means the bankers get an income, a really huge income, without doing any work to recompense the country.

Every dollar in circulation is the principal on a bank loan. If all the money in existence were paid back to the bank to settle up on those loans, the bankers would claim that even more money is due, because of the accumulated interest. And our government, with its courts and its police, would agree with the bankers. Inevitably, there would be many people who would owe to a bank more money than they have to pay with, and the bankers feed on such people, like a spider, using the laws as their web to ensnare their victims.

It's a nice little racket. The bankers slosh the economy a bit by creating boom and bust cycles. During the boom times, they use low interest rates to bait people into taking out loans. The people use the loaned money to pay each other for goods and to build things of value, like the houses you mentioned, as well as other desirable items. When the aggregate private (and corporate) debt is as great as the bankers think it's ever going to be, they quickly contract the money supply and catch people short of funds. Then the spiders emerge, with their lawyers, and take everybody into court to strip them, quite legally, of what they had made with their labors while money was in plentiful supply.

It was high treason for our government to collaborate with the bankers to impose this kind of money system on us. And WHO are the bankers, to whom the government has sold us all into slavery? Why they are the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Lazard Brothers, the Schiffs, the banking families of Kuhn, Loeb, etc. Most of them are Jews. And this bailout is EXTRA money, yet more money, a claim upon our productive labor above and beyond what the bankers plan to cheat from us during the next bust.


Interesting, isn't it? This sort of watchful censorship is almost everywhere on the Internet. In the Peak Oil News and Message Boards, for example, I took note of the fact that the U.S. Government kills foreigners in order to get the resources it needs to satisfy the demands of the bankers to whom it is endebted. That is, our government kills people (and loots their national corpse) so that it can remain financially solvent. Evidently, that particular truth was approved for mentioning. But a bit later I went a bit farther. I asked whether it might be more efficient, assuming that our government were going to be killing people anyway, to target the bankers instead of those innocent foreign folks across the sea. WHAM! Within a few minutes, I was censored and warned never to say such things again.

Jerry Abbott


"If the American people ever allow banks control of the issuance of their currency, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will, first by inflation and then by deflation, deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." –Thomas Jefferson

Some of my regular readers have been bored by my recent techie posts and want to read more of my racist stuff. I'll get around to putting more racial articles here, of course. But I've gone off on a programming binge lately, so the racism is on the back burner for a while here. But if you're in a hurry, you can read much of what I've written about race on the White Realist website. My Yahoo Answers from all of my past Yahoo accounts are archived there.

Jerry Abbott posting as "Jondalar469"
Jerry Abbott posting as "Peter S"
Jerry Abbott posting as "Father Wiggly"
Jerry Abbott posting as "Elohimself"
Jerry Abbott posting as "Blaringhorn"
Jerry Abbott posting as "Jenab6"
Jerry Abbott posting as "David S"

Now that that's out of the way, I am going to announce my new hobby. I recently bought a new TI-89 Titanium calculator, OS 3.01, HW4, which supposedly has a 16 MHz Motorola CPU in it. The learning curve is fairly steep for a calculator. I spent all of today figuring out how to code and run my first TI-BASIC program. It converts calendar date into Julian date. Here's the code:

:julian()
:Prgm
:ClrIO
:InputStr "CDATE (YYYY.MMDD)",cd
:InputStr "UT (HH.MMSS)",ut
:expr(left(ut,2))→h
:expr(mid(ut,4,2))→m
:expr(mid(ut,6,2))→s
:(h+m/60+s/3600)/24-1/2→t
:expr(left(cd,4))→y
:expr(mid(cd,6,2))→m
:expr(mid(cd,8,2))→d
:If m>2 then
:0→n
:Else
:-1→n
:EndIf
:1461*(y+4800+n)→j1
:int(j1/4)→j1
:m-2-n*12→j2
:int(367*j2/12)→j2
:y+4900+n→j3
:int(j3/100)→j3
:int(3*j3/4)→j3
:j1+j2-j3-32075+d+t→j
:Disp "JDATE",j
:EndPrgm

It works better than the webpage at http://wwwmacho.mcmaster.ca/JAVA/JD.html, which returns incorrect responses for dates prior to 1 March 1900 and after 28 February 2100 (because it thinks all century years are leap years, and this is not so). My program doesn't have that problem.

All the astronomers use Julian dates because they make finding time differences in days easy.

Today, as I write this, it's 10 September 2008. The Julian Date for this day at noon in Greenwich, England, was 2454720.0.

Jerry Abbott