Sunday, August 11, 2013

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood goes underground, hides command structure in Gaza DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 11, 2013, 6:27 PM (IDT) Tags: Egypt's military coup, Muslim Brotherhood, Gaza, Israel, Sinai, Al Qaeda, Mr. X, secret Brotherhood leader Mr. X, secret Brotherhood leader On July 22, debkafile revealed that a group of six Muslim Brotherhood officials escaped from Egypt after the July 3 overthrow of president Mohamed Morsi in a military coup and smuggled themselves into the Gaza Strip to lead an uprising against the military. The group was headed by Mahmud Izzat Ibrahim, known as the Brotherhood’s “iron man” and fourth in rank in its hierarchy after Supreme Guide Muhammed Badie. The fugitives set up a command post at the Gaza Beach Hotel for operations against Egyptian military and security targets in collaboration with Hamas and armed Al Qaeda-linked Salafist Bedouin in Sinai. The group planned their revolt to spread quickly out from Sinai to Egypt proper and topple the interim rulers in Cairo. Western intelligence agencies following the inner workings of the Muslim Brotherhood have since discovered that the Brotherhood’s plans are a good deal more high-powered than first thought. According to debkafile’s intelligence sources, the movement never dismantled its clandestine paramilitary underground. Its hidden commanders manipulated front politicians from the shadows under three Egyptian presidents and continued to do so after the Brotherhood was elected to power in Cairo in 2012. At all times since then, the Brothers stood ready to step in should their Freedom and Justice Party leaders be ousted and sent back to prison. “Supreme Guide,” Mohammed Badie was therefore no more than an obedient front for the Muslim Brotherhood’s real leader, who was until now Mr. X. It now transpires that he is none other than Mahmoud Izzat Ibrahim, who is firmly at the helm and running the show both in Sinai and Cairo from the Gaza Beach Hotel, under the auspices of the Palestinian Hamas rulers. He plans to confront with violence every action ordered against the Brotherhood by Defense Minister, Gen. Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi. While conducting a war of terror against military targets in Sinai, Izzat Ibrahim’s orders keep thousands of followers maintaining their sit-in protests in Cairo for their president's reinstatement. They are determined to leave the military no option but to use force to disperse them. Ibrahim's goal is to lead his movement into a bloody confrontation with the military. Gen. El-Sisi, for his part, knows that the Brotherhood’s underground command center in the Gaza Beach Hotel must be destroyed in order to beat its war of resistance. For effective action in the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian military needs help from Israel’s Defense Forces, just as the IDF needs the Egyptian army to counteract the al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in Sinai who are dedicated to attacking Israel as well as Egypt. This tacit interdependence and the interchanges against a shared enemy shot into prominence over two incidents. The first was the two-hour closure Thursday, Aug. 8 of Eilat airport at Israel’s southernmost tip, following an Egyptian intelligence tip-off over a missile threat from Sinai. Then Friday, Aug. 9, foreign sources reported that two missiles fired by an Israeli drone in North Sinai destroyed a missile launcher and killed four or five terrorists at Ajarah. Israel never confirmed this attack. The impression it made was quickly overlaid with conflicting reports. Egyptian officials initially attributed the Israeli drone attack to intelligence cooperation between the two armies. An Al-Qaeda group in Sinai, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, accused Israel of killing four of its members by a drone strike and vowed vengeance. debkafile reported that the attack may not have been conducted by Israel but Egyptian authorities, which preferred to disavow an operation carried out on the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr. Finally, Sunday, the Egyptian military reported that its operation against armed groups in the Sinai believed to have been plotting attacks on security forces and other targets was ongoing. At least seven people were killed over night and six arrested in a raid. The Egyptian military statement went on to report that the raid followed an air strike by the Egyptian military on Friday, which saw at least four people killed. The assault on Saturday happened when Apache helicopters hit areas south of Sheikh Zuwaid in north Sinai, according to Egyptian state media. Israel’s Defense minister commented: “The Egyptian army is fighting first and foremost to defend Egyptian citizens and sovereignty. We will not let rumors and speculation impair the peace relations between our countries.”

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood goes underground, hides command structure in Gaza
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 11, 2013, 6:27 PM (IDT)
Mr. X, secret Brotherhood leader
Mr. X, secret Brotherhood leader
On July 22, debkafile revealed that a group of six Muslim Brotherhood officials escaped from Egypt after the July 3 overthrow of president Mohamed Morsi in a military coup and smuggled themselves into the Gaza Strip to lead an uprising against the military. The group was headed by Mahmud Izzat Ibrahim, known as the Brotherhood’s “iron man” and fourth in rank in its hierarchy after Supreme Guide Muhammed Badie.
The fugitives set up a command post at the Gaza Beach Hotel for operations against Egyptian military and security targets in collaboration with Hamas and armed Al Qaeda-linked Salafist Bedouin in Sinai. The group planned their revolt to spread quickly out from Sinai to Egypt proper and topple the interim rulers in Cairo.
Western intelligence agencies following the inner workings of the Muslim Brotherhood have since discovered that the Brotherhood’s plans are a good deal more high-powered than first thought.
According to debkafile’s intelligence sources, the movement never dismantled its clandestine paramilitary underground. Its hidden commanders manipulated front politicians from the shadows under three Egyptian presidents and continued to do so after the Brotherhood was elected to power in Cairo in 2012.
At all times since then, the Brothers stood ready to step in should their Freedom and Justice Party leaders be ousted and sent back to prison. “Supreme Guide,” Mohammed Badie was therefore no more than an obedient front for the Muslim Brotherhood’s real leader, who was until now Mr. X.
It now transpires that he is none other than Mahmoud Izzat Ibrahim, who is firmly at the helm and running the show both in Sinai and Cairo from the Gaza Beach Hotel, under the auspices of the Palestinian Hamas rulers.
He plans to confront with violence every action ordered against the Brotherhood by Defense Minister, Gen. Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi.
While conducting a war of terror against military targets in Sinai, Izzat Ibrahim’s orders keep thousands of followers maintaining their sit-in protests in Cairo for their president's reinstatement. They are determined to leave the military no option but to use force to disperse them.
Ibrahim's goal is to lead his movement into a bloody confrontation with the military.
Gen. El-Sisi, for his part, knows that the Brotherhood’s underground command center in the Gaza Beach Hotel must be destroyed in order to beat its war of resistance.
For effective action in the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian military needs help from Israel’s Defense Forces, just as the IDF needs the Egyptian army to counteract the al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in Sinai who are dedicated to attacking Israel as well as Egypt.
This tacit interdependence and the interchanges against a shared enemy shot into prominence over two incidents. The first was the two-hour closure Thursday, Aug. 8 of Eilat airport at Israel’s southernmost tip, following an Egyptian intelligence tip-off over a missile threat from Sinai.  Then Friday, Aug. 9, foreign sources reported that two missiles fired by an Israeli drone in North Sinai destroyed a missile launcher and killed four or five terrorists at Ajarah.
Israel never confirmed this attack. The impression it made was quickly overlaid with conflicting reports. Egyptian officials initially attributed the Israeli drone attack to intelligence cooperation between the two armies. An Al-Qaeda group in Sinai, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, accused Israel of killing four of its members by a drone strike and vowed vengeance. debkafile reported that the attack may not have been conducted by Israel but Egyptian authorities, which preferred to disavow an operation carried out on the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr.
Finally, Sunday, the Egyptian military reported that its operation against armed groups in the Sinai believed to have been plotting attacks on security forces and other targets was ongoing. At least seven people were killed over night and six arrested in a raid.
The Egyptian military statement went on to report that the raid followed an air strike by the Egyptian military on Friday, which saw at least four people killed. The assault on Saturday happened when Apache helicopters hit areas south of Sheikh Zuwaid in north Sinai, according to Egyptian state media.
Israel’s Defense minister commented: “The Egyptian army is fighting first and foremost to defend Egyptian citizens and sovereignty. We will not let rumors and speculation impair the peace relations between our countries.”

US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

Anthony Gucciardi
by
August 9th, 2013
Updated 08/09/2013 at 2:30 am
It has been common knowledge to anyone paying attention within the alternative news community for years, but once again the media is now admitting that the US military and intelligence agencies are indeed running massive propaganda campaigns that cover a vast array of online networks. 
us-military-psyop-social-media
US military soldier on social media.
How many times now has such ‘conspiracy nonsense’ now been reported years later by the mega media as undeniable fact? In the case of the US intelligence propaganda machine that even the New York Times has covered in an article entitled ‘The Real War on Reality‘, we are seeing just that. The New York Times report goes on to detail information uncovered from hacked data regarding the military operation to stage ‘grassroots’ responses and organizations in order to deceive via psyop.  Professor of philosophy Peter Ludlow writes for the Times:
“The hack also revealed evidence that Team Themis was developing a “persona management” system — a program, developed at the specific request of the United States Air Force, that allowed one user to control multiple online identities (“sock puppets”) for commenting in social media spaces, thus giving the appearance of grass roots support.  The contract was eventually awarded to another private intelligence firm.”
This cyber warfare is clearly not just in the capacity of ‘improving international reputation’ as military commanders are claiming on record (just like there is ‘no such thing’ as domestic spying and it’s only for terrorists). Instead, we’re talking about running a major network of computers that are constantly running code specifically written to post to social media and news comment pages. Something that was revealed all the way back in 2011 by RawStory and brushed off in the name of national security by the military.

Intelligence Agencies Running Mass Number of Propaganda Accounts

And remember, this is the same military that says political activists are terrorists and need to be targeted. At the highest levels, combating ‘terrorism’ simply means going after law-abiding citizens and journalists — especially so-called ‘leakers’. With propaganda scripts that run 24/7 and are intended to discredit people like Edward Snowden, top level intelligence agencies are teaming up with the military to combat whistleblowers through such phony means.
An excerpt from a particularly concerning summary of a recent German report on how political activists are targeted reads:
“The targets of these attacks are scientists… It does not stop at skirmishes in the scientific community. Hackers regularly target various web pages. Evaluations of IP log files show that not only Monsanto visits the pages regularly, but also various organizations of the U.S. government, including the military. These include the Navy Network Information Center, the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Army Intelligence Center, an institution of the US Army, which trains soldiers with information gathering.”
Now admittedly the news is not getting nearly as much coverage as it should, especially when considering it highlights two essential points:
1. This means that the United States military and intelligence communities are highly afraid of alternative networks and the overall public perception when it comes to the United States government and the state of the corrupt political mafia at large.
2. This also means that the United States military and intelligence agencies are losing the informational battle, and the only way they can even fight back is to run a conglomerate of fake accounts attacking legitimate users and journalists. You know, the terrorists that dare to question anything.
Social media pages, comment systems on top news websites, and various other areas online are the targets of a pinpointed ‘cyber psyop’ by a government that simply can’t answer real questions. And instead of actually doing anything about the outrage, disinformation campaigns are of utmost priority.

Britain's foreign aid has fallen into hands of al-Qaeda

Britain's foreign aid has fallen into hands of al-Qaeda, DfiD admits

Almost half a million pounds of British taxpayer-funded aid and equipment has fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda, the Department for International Development has admitted.

It is no coincidence that David Cameron recently hosted a conference about Somalia in London which attracted heads of state and pledges of help from around the world.
£480,000 worth of 'humanitarian materials and supplies' was written off following repeated 'confiscations' by al-Shabaab Photo: REUTERS
The terror group’s Somali franchise, al-Shabaab, “confiscated” the equipment from DfID contractors in multiple incidents over at least three months before any action was taken.
The admission is contained in the small print of the department’s latest accounts, which say that £480,000 worth of “humanitarian materials and supplies” was written off following repeated “confiscations” by al-Shabaab.
The confiscations are one of a series of developments disclosed by the department, which will increase controversy over the British aid budget, the only item of government expenditure that is rising sharply in an era of cuts.
British aid is due to reach about £11billion by 2015, to meet the Government’s promise that aid spending should be 0.7 per cent of gross national income. Critics say the 0.7 per cent figure encourages wasteful spending to meet the target.
Investigations by The Telegraph show a number of areas of questionable spending and results that are open to question, including how:
* The proportion of British aid spent on the poorest countries has dropped from 80 per cent to just over 65 per cent;
* DfID’s performance has fallen behind its already poor record since the Coalition came to office;
* More than £60million in British aid was paid to countries in Europe in 2011, the last year for which full figures are available;
* British aid money was spent subsidising hospitality at five star hotels during the Olympics last year.
Sir Gerald Howarth, a Conservative MP, said: “There is huge public concern at the relentless increase in overseas aid. Incidents like this, where British taxpayers’ money is diverted into people fighting against us, are not acceptable. DfID owes it to the public to exercise the utmost care with its money.”
DfID refused to specify what the lost supplies were, but an aid industry expert said the value suggested a “huge amount” of material that could keep the terrorists going for a “fairly long time”.
Aid industry sources said dried foodstuffs of that value could feed 20,000 people for more than a year. “It is surprising that no action was taken, which suggests that, at best, DfID was asleep to the loss of its property and, at worst, that its local partners were colluding with the terrorists,” the aid expert said.
DfID said its contractors had “no prior warning of the confiscations” and therefore “no time to prevent the loss by relocating goods”.
The accounts show the confiscations took place between November 2011 and February 2012 and from multiple locations. It said an investigation was made into the losses but did not reveal the findings.
Last year, al-Shabaab threatened an attack on Britain that would “eclipse the horrors of 7/7 and 21/7 combined”. Several British citizens have travelled to train with the group.
DfID was set goals concerning 20 “priority countries” for aid throughout the Coalition’s time in office. This newspaper has found that 38 per cent of these targets were assessed as “achieved or on track” in 2010, which fell to 31 per cent by this year. Fifty-four per cent of the targets were considered “off track” or “severely off track”, up from 49 per cent in 2010.
A series of countries classified as “middle income” have received aid funding. Most of the money given to prosperous countries was channelled via aid bodies such as the EU, Unicef and the World Health Organisation. Such bodies have been criticised as inefficient and as denying Britain control of where its money is spent.
To meet its spending target, DfID has channelled growing proportions of its budget into such groups, which spend almost two thirds of British aid money.
A spokesman for DfID said: “DfID works in some of the most dangerous places in the world, including Somalia, because tackling the root causes of poverty and instability there ensures a safer world and a safer UK.
“Working in conflict-affected and fragile states carries inherent risk. DFID does all it can to mitigate against this but, on occasion, losses will occur.
“We work with our partners to design programmes that protect our investment from misuse or theft.”
The supplies were in warehouses seized by al-Shabaab and were later believed to have been set ablaze, they added.

BREAKING-Claim: Obama Hid His Gay Life To Become President- Documented Report Is this much of a surprise to anyone ?

BREAKING-Claim: Obama Hid His Gay Life To Become President- Documented Report
Is this much of a surprise to anyone ?

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack
Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well
known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran
for president and finally won the White House.
“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was
going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip
columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city
as a community organizer and later a state senator.





“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.


DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website
HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different
sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”
“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been
frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,”
DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most
often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white
guys.”
Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”


Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National
Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst,
confirmed DuJan’s claims.
“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama
actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an
Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.
WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who
confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The
upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay”
facility. But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,” where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity.
In April, WND reported
a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a
homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to
rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had
sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state
senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”
WND also reported
former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when
Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his
then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.
In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss.
Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising
photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.
WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here,
that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he
attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law
School.
DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there
was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being
homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald
Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United
Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.
“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.


“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who
would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak
the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.
‘Obama’s secrets’


DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”


He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.


“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally
wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the
Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.
DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he
holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton
in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”
“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I
just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.
He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate
magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev.
Wright.
“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.


DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.


Man’s Country


Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010
claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same
bathhouse in Chicago.
“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime
members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to
informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran
political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.
He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,”
noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of
uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”
Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.


DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers
hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented
visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.
Writing in HillBuzz.org Tuesday,
DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as
the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current
President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois
state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”
DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as
public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women
he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”
“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all
about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of
sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader
of the free world.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/?cat_orig=politics

Warning Signs of a Domestic Abuser


Characteristics of Abusers

Characteristics of Abusers

If the person you love or live with does these things, it’s time to get help:
  • Keeps track of what you are doing all the time and criticizes you for little things.
  • Constantly accuses you of being unfaithful.
  • Prevents or discourages you from seeing friends or family, or going to work or school.
  • Gets angry when drinking alcohol or using drugs.
  • Controls all the money you spend.
  • Humiliates you in front of others.
  • Destroys your property or things that you care about.
  • Threatens to hurt you or the children or pets, or does cause hurt (by hitting, punching, slapping, kicking, or biting).
  • Uses or threatens to use a weapon against you.
  • Forces you to have sex against your will.
  • Blames you for his/her violent outbursts.

Characteristics of Abusers...Warning signs of potential violence:

  • Abuser pacing the floor
  • Clenching/unclenching fists
  • Facial expression (glaring)
  • Shouting/yelling
Always be conscious of your own safety needs in all interactions involving an abusive person.  Do not meet privately with a violence-prone individual.  If you must do so, be sure someone is available close by in case you need help.

Abusers frequently have the following characteristics:

  • Often blow up in anger at small incidents. He or she is often easily insulted, claiming hurt feelings when he or she is really very angry.
  • Are excessively jealous: At the beginning of a relationship, an abuser may claim that jealousy is a sign of his or her love. Jealousy has nothing to do with love.
  • Like to isolate victim: He or she may try to cut you off from social supports, accusing the people who act as your support network of "causing trouble."
  • Have a poor self-image; are insecure.
  • Blame others for their own problems.
  • Blame others for their own feelings and are very manipulative. An abusive person will often say "you make me mad", "you’re hurting me by not doing what I ask", or "I can’t help being angry".
  • Often are alcohol or drug abusers.
  • May have a family history of violence.
  • May be cruel to animals and/or children. 
  • May have a fascination with weapons.
  • May think it is okay to solve conflicts with violence.
  • Often make threats of violence, breaking or striking objects.
  • Often use physical force during arguments.
  • Often use verbal threats such as, "I’ll slap your mouth off", "I’ll kill you", or "I’ll break your neck". Abusers may try to excuse this behaviour by saying, "everybody talks like that". 
  • May hold rigid stereotypical views of the roles of men and women. The abuser may see women as inferior to men, stupid, and unable to be a whole person without a relationship.
  • Are very controlling of others.  Controlling behaviours often grow to the point where victims are not allowed to make personal decisions.
  • May act out instead of expressing themselves verbally.
  • May be quick to become involved in relationships.  Many battered women dated or knew their abuser for less than six months before they were engaged or living together.
  • May have unrealistic expectations. The abuser may expect his or her partner to fulfill all his or her needs. The abusive person may say, “If you love me, I’m all you need- you’re all I need". 
  • May use "playful" force during sex, and/or may want to act out sexual fantasies in which the victim is helpless.  
  • May say things that are intentionally cruel and hurtful in order to degrade, humiliate, or run down the victim’s accomplishments.
  • Tend to be moody and unpredictable. They may be nice one minute and the next minute explosive. Explosiveness and mood swings are typical of men who beat their partners.
  • May have a history of battering: the abuser may admit to hitting others in the past, but will claim the victim “asked for” it.  An abuser will beat any woman he is with; situational circumstances do not make a person abusive.

How dangerous is the abuser? Assessing lethality in an abuse situation:

Some domestic violence is life threatening. All domestic violence is dangerous, but some abusers are more likely to kill than others and some are more likely to kill at specific times. The likelihood of homicide is greater when the following factors are present:
  1. Threats of homicide or suicide: The abuser may threaten to kill himself, the victim, the children, relatives, friends, or someone else;
  2. Plans for homicide or suicide: The more detailed the abuser’s plan and the more available the method, the greater the risk he will use deadly force;
  3. Weapons: The abuser possesses weapons, and has threatened to use them in the past against the victim, the children, or himself. If the abuser has a history of arson, fire should be considered a weapon;
  4. "Ownership" of the victim: The abuser says things like "If I can’t have you no one can" or "I would rather see you dead than have you divorce me". The abuser believes he is absolutely entitled to the obedience and loyalty of the victim;
  5. Centrality of victim to the abuser: The abuser idolizes the victim, depending heavily on him or her to organize and sustain the abuser’s life, or the abuser isolates the victim from outside supports;
  6. Separation violence: The abuser believes he is about to lose the victim;
  7. Repeated calls to law enforcement: A history of violence is indicated by repeated police involvement;
  8. Escalation of risk-taking: The abuser has begun to act without regard to legal or social consequences that previously constrained his violence; and
  9. Hostage taking: He is desperate enough to risk the life of innocent persons by taking hostages.  There is a very serious likelihood of the situation turning deadly.

Battered and Abused Men:

Most of us recognize that men experience verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of women, less well accepted or admitted is the fact of physical abuse. In our society, we think of women as the victims and men as the aggressors in physical abuse.  The fact that women are more likely to be severely injured in domestic violence adds to the problem of recognizing male abuse.  Nevertheless, it happens - frequently.  In fact, men are just as likely to be seriously injured when a woman becomes violent because women are more likely to use weapons in the course of an assault.  If a male client indicates that his girlfriend or partner assaulted him, believe him.  A man will find it harder to discuss his pain with you than will a woman, and even harder to admit to being a victim. It is easier to attribute an injury to a sports mishap or workplace accident than to admit to a doctor or police officer it resulted from domestic violence.

Facts:

  1. Fewer men report abuse. They are ashamed to report being abused by women.
  2. Health care and law enforcement professionals are more likely to accept alternative explanations of abuse from a man. They will believe other reasons for the presence of bruises and other signs of injury.
  3. Our justice system often takes the word of the woman above the word of the man in abuse cases. It is just more believable that the aggressor was the man, not the woman.
  4. Men are more likely to tolerate the pain of abuse than women. They "grin and bear it” more. And again, many are ashamed to seek medical help for abuse.
  5. Unless a woman uses a weapon, she usually does not have the strength to inflict injury.
Abused men are as likely as their female counterparts are to have low self-esteem.  People can come to believe that they are somehow responsible for what happened.  People cling to the hope that things will get better: that the woman he "loves" will quit when their relationship is better adjusted, or the children get older and show more responsibility.  These are all pretty much the same excuses women make for remaining with men who batter them.

Are you abused?  Does the person you love…

  • "Track" all of your time?
  • Constantly accuse you of being unfaithful?
  • Discourage your relationships with family and friends?
  • Prevent you from working or attending school?
  • Criticize you for little things?
  • Become angry easily when drinking or abusing drugs?
  • Control all finances and force you to account for what you spend?
  • Humiliate you in front of others?
  • Destroy your personal property or items with sentimental value?
  • Hit, punch, slap, kick, or bite you or the children?
  • Use or threaten to use a weapon against you?
  • Threaten to hurt you or hurt the children?
  • Force you to have sex against your will?

Below is a list of things Jerry can do to help himself:

  • Tell friends he trusts.
  • Make safety arrangements such as:
    • Leaving the relationship;
    • Finding a safe place to go; and
    • Changing his phone number and/or locks.
  • Telephone a domestic violence hotline or shelter and:
    • Talk to a worker;
    • Find out about his legal rights; or
    • See a counsellor - separately or with Lisa. 
  • Gain the support of witnesses, when possible.
  • Take notes detailing dates, times and what occurred.
  • Phone 911 when Lisa becomes physically abusive.

Abuse Checklists:

Below is a self-assessment quiz to help you determine if you are being abused. You may be suffering abuse even if you answer, “Yes” to only a few questions.

You may be becoming or already are a victim of abuse if you:

  • Feel like you have to "walk on eggshells" to keep him/her from getting angry and are frightened by his/her temper.
  • Feel you can't live without him/her.
  • Stop seeing other friends or family, or give up activities you enjoy because he/she doesn't like them.
  • Are afraid to tell him/her your worries and feelings about the relationship.
  • Are often compliant because you are afraid to hurt his/her feelings; and have the urge to "rescue" him/her when he/she is troubled.
  • Feel that you are the only one who can help him/her and that you should try to "reform" him/her.
  • Find yourself apologizing to yourself or others for your partner's behaviour when you are treated badly.
  • Stop expressing opinions if he/she doesn't agree with them.
  • Stay because you feel he/she will kill him/herself if you leave.
  • Believe that his/her jealousy is a sign of love.
  • Have been kicked, hit, shoved, or had things thrown at you by him/her when he/she was jealous or angry.
  • Believe the critical things he/she says to make you feel bad about yourself.
  • Believe that there is something wrong with you if you don't enjoy the sexual things he/she makes you do.
  • Believe in the traditional ideas of what a man and a woman should be and do -- that the man makes the decisions and the woman pleases him.

Top 10 Signs of an Abusive Man

Top 10 Signs of an Abusive Man

+ enlarge
 
Abusive men are often survivors of abuse themselves. Signs of an abusive man can range from emotional, verbal, physical, or sexual abuse. Frequently an emotionally abusive man is also a verbally abusive man or a combination of all abuse types. A sign of an abusive man can usually be found after a few dates if you pay attention, ask a lot of questions and do some investigating into his past.

Spot Abusive Men

Abusive relationships are characterized by control games, violence, jealousy and withholding sex and emotional contact. An emotionally abusive man is harder to pin-point and a skilled, abusive man can easily make you think you aren’t good enough or that everything is your fault. It is just as difficult to recover from emotional abuse as it is from physical abuse. Emotional abuse causes low self-esteem and depression. An abusive man may tell you he loves you or that he will change, so you won’t leave. However, the more times you take him back, the more control he will gain. Empty promises become the norm. Make sure you pay attention to his actions and not merely his words. As the old saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.” Abusive relationships are never abusive in the beginning. If they were, women would dump the abusive men immediately in search of a good man.

According to the American Psychological Association Force on Violence and Family, over 4 million American women experience a serious assault by a partner each year! Who can forget when heavyweight champ Mike Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington and sentenced to six years in prison. Tyson served three years before being released on parole. Thereafter, he married Robin Givens but they divorced on Valentine’s Day only a year later because Givens claimed Tyson abused her. Abusive behavior touches all ranges of society.

We have broken down the top 10 signs of an abusive man. If your partner exhibits one or more of these signs, it may be time to reevaluate your relationship and seek help or get out.

1. Jealousy and Possessiveness—Becomes jealous over your family, friends, co-workers. Tries to isolate you. Views his woman and children as his property instead of as unique individuals. Accuses you of cheating or flirting with other men without cause. Always asks where you’ve been and with whom in an accusatory manner.

2. Control—He is overly demanding of your time and must be the center of your attention. He controls finances, the car, and the activities you partake in. Becomes angry if woman begins showing signs of independence or strength.

3. Superiority—He is always right, has to win or be in charge. He always justifies his actions so he can be “right” by blaming you or others. A verbally abusive man will talk down to you or call you names in order to make himself feel better. The goal of an abusive man is to make you feel weak so they can feel powerful. Abusers are frequently insecure and this power makes them feel better about themselves.

4. Manipulates—Tells you you’re crazy or stupid so the blame is turned on you. Tries to make you think that it’s your fault he is abusive. Says he can’t help being abusive so you feel sorry for him and you keep trying to “help” him. Tells others you are unstable.

5. Mood Swings—His mood switches from aggressive and abusive to apologetic and loving after the abuse has occurred.

6. Actions don’t match words—He breaks promises, says he loves you, and then abuses you.

7. Punishes you—An emotionally abusive man may withhold sex, emotional intimacy, or plays the “silent game” as punishment when he doesn’t get his way. He verbally abuses you by frequently criticizing you.

8. Unwilling to seek help—An abusive man doesn’t think there is anything wrong with him so why should he seek help? Does not acknowledge his faults or blames it on his childhood or outside circumstances.

9. Disrespects women—Shows no respect towards his mother, sisters, or any women in his life. Thinks women are stupid and worthless.

10. Has a history of abusing women and/or animals or was abused himself—Batterers repeat their patterns and seek out women who are submissive and can be controlled. Abusive behavior can be a generational dysfunction and abused men have a great chance of becoming abusers. Men who abuse animals are much more likely to abuse women also.

If you continue to stay in an abusive relationship because you think he will change and start treating you well, think again. An abusive man does not change without long-term therapy. Group counseling sessions are particularly helpful in helping abusive men recognize their abusive patterns. Type A personality types seem to be more prone to abusive behavior due to their aggressive nature. Drugs and alcohol can create or further escalate an abusive relationship. Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are excellent programs for an addict. The abuser’s partner should also seek help for their codependent behavior at Codependents Anonymous.

If the abusive man is not willing to seek help, then you must take action by protecting yourself and any children involved by leaving. By staying in an abusive relationship, you are condoning it. If you are scared you won’t be able to survive because of finances, pick up the phone book and start calling shelters. Try calling family, friends, and associates and ask them if they can help or know of ways to help. Once you leave, the abuser may cry and beg for forgiveness but don’t go back until you have spoken to his counselor and he has completed long-term therapy successfully. Be prepared for the abuse to increase after you leave because the abuser has lost control. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that on the average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day so please be careful. If you partner is not willing to seek help for his abusive behavior, your only option is to leave.

By Stephany Alexander

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Reasons why men abuse and batter women and why the women don't leave the relationship

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Reasons why men abuse and batter women and why the women don't leave the relationship



Domestic violence, abuse and battering should
not, and does not, need to happen.


WHY MEN ABUSE AND BATTER WOMEN


There are many theories that attempt to explain why some men use violence against their partners. Some of those theories include the following: chemical dependency, economic hardship, family dysfunction, lack of spirituality, poor communication skills, provocation by women and stress. While these issues can be associated with the abuse and battering of women, they are not the causes. If the associated factors are removed the violence of men against women will not come to an end. The abuser begins using violence as an effective method for gaining and keeping his control over someone else. He continues the abuse and battering for the same reasons. It is sad to say but the abuser usually does not suffer any adverse consequences because of his behavior. History shows us that violence against women has not been treated as a “real” crime. Lack of severe consequences such as economic penalties and incarceration for the men guilty of abuse and battering makes this apparent. Men who are known abusers and batterers are rarely ostracized. Most abusers and batterers are accepted by the people in their communities regardless of how they treat their partners. Usually no one can tell by looking at them that they are abusers and batterers because they come from all backgrounds, groups and personality profiles. But there are some characteristics that fit the profile of abusers and batterers such as:
  • The abuser/batterer sees women as objects. He does not view women as people. He has no respect for women as a group. He sees women as property and sexual objects.
  • An abuser/batterer has low self-esteem. He feels powerless and ineffective. Although he may appear to be successful, inside he feels inadequate.
  • An abuser/batterer finds external excuses for his behavior. He will blame his violence on having had a bad day, alcohol or drug use, his partner’s behavior or anything that comes to mind to excuse his violent actions.
  • He may be charming and pleasant between his acts of violence. Outsiders may view him as a nice guy.
  • An abuser/batterer may display some warning signs such as: a bad temper, cruelty to animals, extreme jealousy, possessiveness, verbal abuse and/or unpredictability. Has you partner displayed any of the above warning signs? Have you experienced any abuse or battering from your partner? If you have, begin making your plans to get out and stay out. Once the abuse and battering starts it usually will escalate so leave before you end up dead.






    WHY WOMEN STAY IN VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS


    The question, “Why do women stay in a violent relationship?” is often answered by the victim being blamed. Victims of abuse and battering often hear statements like: “you must like it or you would leave.” or “you’re just one of many women who love too much.” or “you must need to be treated badly.” or “you must really have low self-esteem.” But the truth is that no one wants to be or enjoys being abused or battered. Their emotional state or self-image does not cause them to want to be in a violent relationship. A woman’s reasons for staying in a violent relationship are more complex. Making statements about her strength of character does not explain why she stays. It can be dangerous for a woman to leave her abuser. More problems can be caused for the woman if her abuser is in control of all of the economic and social status of their relationship. Leaving could mean she will live in fear for her life, the loss of custody of her children or loss of financial support. She may even be afraid of harassment at work.
    While there is no profile for the “typical woman” who will be abused or battered, there is documentation on what generally happens once the violence begins. Abused and battered women will experience embarrassment, isolation and shame. She may not leave the violent relationship immediately because of the following reasons:
    • She realistically fears that the violence will escalate and may become fatal if she tries to leave.
    • She may not have the much-needed support of her family and friends if she leaves.
    • She knows how difficult it will be to be a single parent with reduced financial support.
    • She may still be experiencing good times, love and hope mixed in with the manipulation, intimidation and fear.
    • She may not know where to get help or have access to a safe place and support.
    Some women may believe that getting a divorce is not a viable alternative. Many women have been taught and believe that a single parent family is unacceptable and that a violent father is better than no father. Many women have been taught that they are responsible for making their marriage work. Many women believe that a failed marriage means that they have failed as a woman. Many women were taught that their identity and worth is dependant on her getting and keeping a man in her life.
    Being isolated by a jealous or possessive abuser may cause a woman to lose touch with her family and friends. She may have even isolated herself to hide the signs of being abused or battered from the outside world. Isolation may have contributed to her sense that there is nowhere for her turn. A woman may rationalize the violent behavior by blaming alcohol or drug abuse, problems at work, stress, unemployment or anything else that comes to mind.
    A woman is rarely abused or battered all of the time. There may be periods of non-violence. During the non-violent phase her abuser may fulfill her dreams of romantic love. She may be lulled into believing her abuser is basically a good man. She may believe that she should hold on to her “good man”, reinforcing her decision to stay in the relationship. She may believe that her abuser is basically good until he lets off steam because something bad happened to him.
    Do you see yourself using any of the above rationalizations? If you do, do you really want to live the rest of your life in fear of the next violent outburst? The violent circle won’t change. Make plans to get out and stay out. Do it now before you end up dead.




    FOLLOW THESE LINKS TO NAVIGATE MY SITE

    WHO THE VICTIMS ARE AND
    PREDICTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE


    AN IMPORTANT CHECKLIST AND
    PLANNING WISELY


    WORKPLACE GUIDELINES AND
    GETTING LEGAL HELP


    RESOURCE AND HELP LINKS

    AWARDS

    BACK to DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    (Front Page)


    CLICK HERE to visit my personal web pages that include my stories on being kidnapped at age four, my abusive marriage titled "Living Lies", my poetry, plus a little lagniappe.

    Warning signs of an abusive person

    Warning signs of an abusive person

    This is a list of behaviors that are seen in people who abuse their partners. The first four behaviors (past abuse, threats of violence, breaking objects and any force during an argument) are almost always seen in an abusive person. If someone exhibits more than three of any of these warning signs, there is a strong potential for abuse in the relationship. An abuser may exhibit only a few of these behaviors, but they may be quite exaggerated. 

    Past abuse
    An abuser may say, "I hit someone in the past, but she made me do it." An abusive person who minimizes what happened with a previous partner is likely to be violent with their current partner. Abusive behavior does not just go away; long-term counseling and a sincere desire to change are necessary.
    Threats of violence or abuse
    Threats can involve anything that is meant to control the victim. For example, "I'll tell your parents about your drug use if you don't do what I want." Healthy relationships do not involve threats, but an abusive person will try to excuse this behavior by saying that "everybody talks like that."
    Breaking objects
    An abuser may break things, beat on tables or walls or throw objects around or near the victim. This behavior terrorizes the victim and can send the message that physical abuse is the next step.
    Use of force during an argument
    An abuser may use force during arguments, including holding the victim down, physically restraining the victim from leaving the room, and pushing and shoving. For example, an abuser may hold a victim against the wall and say, "You're going to listen to me."
    Jealousy
    An abuser will say that jealousy is a sign of love. In reality, jealousy has nothing to do with love. It is a sign of insecurity and possessiveness. An abuser may question the victim about whom they talk to or be jealous of time spent with other people. As the jealousy progresses, the abuser will call the victim frequently, stop by unexpectedly or monitor the victim's activities.
    Controlling behavior
    An abuser will claim that controlling behavior is out of concern for the victim's welfare. They will be angry if the victim is late and will frequently interrogate the victim. As this behavior gets worse, the abuser will control the victim's appearance and activities.
    Quick involvement
    An abuser will often pressure someone to make a commitment after a very short amount of time. The abuser comes on quickly, claiming "love at first sight," and will tell the victim flattering things such as "You're the only person I could ever love."
    Unrealistic expectations
    The abuser is dependent on the victim for everything and expects perfection. The victim is expected to take care of everything for the abuser, particularly all emotional support. The abuser will say things like, "You're the only person I need in my life."
    Isolation
    The abuser will attempt to diminish and destroy the victim's support system. If a female victim has male friends, she is accused of being a "whore." If she has female friends, she is accused of being a "lesbian." If she is close to her family, she is accused of being "tied to the apron strings." The abuser will accuse people who are close to the victim of "causing trouble."
    Blames others for problems
    Abusers will rarely admit to the part they play in causing a problem. She will blame the victim for almost anything that goes wrong.
    Blames others for their feelings
    An abuser will tell the victim, "I hurt you because you made me mad," or "You're hurting me when you don't do what I ask." Blaming the victim is a way of manipulating them and avoiding any responsibility.

    Hypersensitivity
    An abuser can be easily insulted. The slightest setbacks are seen as personal attacks. An abuser will rage about the everyday difficulties of life as if they are injustices -- such as getting a traffic ticket or not doing well on an exam.
    Cruelty to animals or children
    An abuser may brutally punish animals or be insensitive to their pain or suffering. Pets can be used to control the victim or to emotionally abuse them.

    "Playful" use of force during sex
    The abuser may like to hold the victim down during sex. They may want to act out sexual fantasies in which the victim is helpless. An abuser may show little concern about whether the victim wants to have sex and use sulking or anger to manipulate the victim into compliance. They may demand sex or start having sex with the victim when they are sleeping or very intoxicated.

    Rigid sex roles
    Male abusers often expect women to serve and obey them. They view women as inferior to men and believe that a woman is not a whole person without a relationship with a man.

    Jekyll-and-Hyde personality
    Explosiveness and mood swings are typical of abusers, and these behaviors are related to other traits such as hypersensitivity. This is not always a sign of mental health problems but may be a way of controlling the victim by being unpredictable.

    Adapted from Wilson, K.J. When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending Domestic Abuse. Alameda, CA: Hunter House Publishers, (1997).

    Article II Facts

    Article II Facts

    1. Constitutional Convention -
    • Alexander Hamilton – “Citizen”
    • John Jay – “Natural Born Citizen”
    2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Adopted 9 July 1868 -
    3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -
    4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -
    • Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    • Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    • Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
    • Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    • United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    • Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
    5. Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution -
    6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -
    7.Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011 -

    1. Constitutional Convention – “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen":
    When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
    Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
    Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
    Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President. 
    John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
    Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
    Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
    See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
    Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
    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.
    There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
    Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
    So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -

    2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
    The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
    Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
    Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
    After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
    As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
    Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –

    3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

    As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

    Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
    John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

    All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

    Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
    And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –

    4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
    was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
    "But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
    The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]
    Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. -

    5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

    The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
    Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
    1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
    2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
    3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
    4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.
    5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
    6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
    7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
    8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
    From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
    In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
    Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
    S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
    However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
    The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
    Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
    The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
    The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

    6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -


    As you can see our past presidents eligible after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 were all born on U.S. soil to Citizen parents.

    7. Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011

    Then we have the 13 eligibility bills introduced between 2009 and 2011 by Republican’s in their respective state general assemblies. Two made it to a Governor’s desk for signature – New Hampshire’s Governor signed HB1245 into law and Arizona's Governor, who was the Secretary of the State Board of Elections in 2008, vetoed HB295/529 – with the rest dying in committee,


    So there you have the facts of this roaring debate in a nutshell. The people are dismissed as clueless while the congress, the media, the current crop of presidential contenders, the Republican and Democrat Parties and the legal system are all living in a fantasy land. The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door.

    SOURCE CREDITS:
    1. Constitutional Convention - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
    2. The Fourteenth Amendment - Attorney Mario Apuzzo www.Puzo1.blogspot.com
    3. Rep. John Bingham - Attorney Leo Donofrio www.NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com
    4. Supreme Court Cases - John Charlton www.ThePostEmail.com
    5. Attempts to Amend Article II - J.B. Williams www.NewsWithViews.com
    6. Citizenship Under Article II - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
    7. Thirteen Eligibility” Bills -  Art2SuperPAC www.Art2SuperPAC.com

    ####
     
    Donate by Mail made payable to Article II Super PAC,
    Article II Super PAC
    PO BOX 7011
    Richmond, VA. 23221
    Questions,
    Info@Art2SuperPAC.com
     

    Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Article II Super PAC does not make contributions to candidates. Art2SuperPAC may accept unlimited corporate contributions and unlimited individual contributions. Funds raised by Art2SuperPAC will be used for independent expenditures. Contributions to Art2SuperPAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals and federal-government contractors are prohibited. www.Art2SuperPAC.com

    FOIA: Obama Mama Formerly Changed Name To 
    Obama In 1963; Not 1961 When Allegedly Married

    Joe Mannix: Orly Taitz has some new information she received from the Social Security Administration. She has information that shows that Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham didn't formerly change her last name to Obama until 1963 when she was divorcing Obama Sr.. Not February 1961 when she allegedly married him. ...

    Press release: more information received today from the SSA. FOIA officer was given until September 9th to provide SS-5 of Harry Bounel, whose Social Security number 042-68-4425 Obama fraudulently used in his 2009 tax returns

    Press Release: Law offices of Orly Taitz

    A FOIA response to 04.26.2013 request was received today in the Law Office of Orly Taitz. (See response attached below)

    A response that was required to be provided within 20 working days was received only after 4 months.

    There are a number issues and concerns related to this response.

    1. Social Security administration is claiming that they cannot find records for Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel.

    Attorney Orly Taitz responded immediately to the claim of inability to find records and FedExed today such response and attachment, showing that on November 16, 2012 SSA had the records for Harry Bounel and refused to provide them due to considerations of privacy. In 2013, when SSA received the request with notation that Bounel was born in 1890, considered to be an “extremely aged individual” and he privacy excuse no longer applies, they are claiming that they do not have records.

    Taitz noted that the only discrepancy was that in 2012 the letter noted Harry Bounel, without middle initial, while in 2013 the request included middle initial.

    In order to put an end to any and all further excuses, Taitz submitted today yet another request for SS-5 for Harry Bounel without initial “J”, as well as another check and FOIA request. Due to FOIA 20 day provision, the response has to be received by Taitz on September 9th, 2013. This is a matter of National security, as Bounel’s SSN 042-68-4425 was used by Barack Obama in his 2009 tax returns.

    Incidentally, as decision from Judge Lamberth in Taitz v Astrue is expected any day now, suddenly, nearly 4 months after the request was made, SSA is providing a response and co-incidentally the very same a very reclusive former commissioner of SSN, Michael Astrue, appeared on National TV on FOX . Noteworthy, is that Obama did not nominate a new commissioner, who would be subject to congressional grilling and approval, but is using Carolyn Colvin, as a temporary acting commissioner.

    2. This is the second time Taitz is requesting SS-5 for Stanley Ann Dunham, deceased mother of Barack Obama. It is of interest that the first time Taitz received only one form. Today she received three different forms. Based on the information received today Ann Dunham changed her SSA card twice: in 1963 and 1995.

    There are a few areas that Taitz is investigating and asking her supporters to assist in such investigation:

    a. according to Obama’s official biography, when he was growing up, Ann Dunham was a poor single mother on Social Security. Additionally, when she was older and was afflicted with cancer, according to Obama, his health insurance company denied benefits, so it was widely assumed that the benefits came from the SSA. However, according to the letter July 29, 2013 from Dawn Wiggins, FOIA officer, which was received by Taitz today, Ann Dunham never received any SSA benefits. Taitz is trying to reconcile these inconsistencies.

    b Signature on the three forms appear to be different. Most significant is the difference between 1959 and 1963 forms. One can see a very heavy slant to the right in the 1959 signature. You do not see this slant to the right in 1963 form. Such slant to the right is very common among individuals coming from Eastern European countries, where kids were taught to place their notebooks sideways and right with the slant to the right. There might be no significance in this, but an opinion of a writing expert will be sought and would be appreciated. Typically there should not be such a pronounced difference in the slant in the handwriting, particularly within a short period of time, only 4 years span between 1959 application and 1963 request for a change in the Social Security card. Additionally, there are some inconsistencies in the 1959 card, specifically at the bottom of the card the form number is 7-55. Under magnification one can see that two digits “5″ are of a different font and size. Taitz previously requested an explanation from the SSA, why the two digits in the form number are of a different size and font, no explanation was provided as of yet.

    c. It is not clear, why did Ann Dunham apply for a change from Dunham to Dunham Obama in 1963, when she divorced Barack Obama senior. One would expect her to change her name in February 1961, when she reportedly married Obama, not in 1963, when she divorced him. This application for SSN change for Ann Dunham was released for the first time today.

    d. It is not clear, why did Ann Dunham apply for yet another change of her SSN card in June of 1995. This June 1995 application for a change of the SSA card was released for the first time in SSA July 29 2013 letter to Taitz and was received today. This change was made only a few months before Ann Dunham passed away on November 7, 1995. Incidentally, November 7 happens to be the day when the Communist revolution in celebrated in Russia. Ann Dunham passed away at home with only her two children present. There was no attending physician at the time of her death, no autopsy by a coroner. Her remains were cremated and buried at sea. Typically there is a requirement for a permit for a burial at sea. There is no record of such permit ever being granted or requested.

    Taitz is expecting the SS-5 for Harry Bounel on September 9th. More information of FOIA requests to different agencies and ongoing legal actions will be provided later and will be available at the official web site for Attorney Taitz at OrlyTaitzESQ.com. Taitz is working pro bono. Donations to her efforts are appreciated and can be made at orlytaitzesq.com through pay-pal or mail. - Dr. Orly Taitz.

    SUPPORT: Contact Representatives; Encourage Them To Take On The Scandal Of All Scandals Now  - DETAILS HERE.

    - See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/foia-obama-mama-formerly-changed-name.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BirtherReportObamaReleaseYourRecords+%28Birther+Report%3A+Obama+Release+Your+Records%29#sthash.Xgufngx9.dpuf