"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Hack your Android like a pro: Rooting and ROMs explained

There are benefits to rooting your Android smartphone, but it can be a tricky world for beginners. Here are some tips.

by Scott Webster

April 15, 2013 11:12 AM PDT Updated: July 2, 2013 11:10 AM PDT

(Credit: Mari Benitez/CNET)

For all of Android's flexibility and customization, carriers and phone makers still manage to lock down plenty of restrictions, skins, and preloaded software that you just don't want.
There isn't anything wrong with most out-of-the-box experiences, but more-daring and tech-savvy users who tire of being at the mercy and discretion of carriers and handset makers might be interested in pushing their Android devices to new limits and root them.
Around since the early days of the T-Mobile G1 (HTC Dream), rooting can add functionality to a phone and often extend the life of the device. The T-Mobile G1, for instance, was officially supported through Android 1.6 Donut, but if you rooted the phone, you could load an alternative developer-made version of the OS that offered most of Android 2.2 Froyo's features.
I'm going to share some of rooting's benefits and risks, where to find some great replacements for the default Android OS, and a few other tips. If you have any of your own that I haven't covered here, please add them to the comments below.

Editors' note: This post was updated on July 2, 2013, with more-current information.

What is rooting?

Rooting, in a nutshell, is the process that provides users with full administrator control and access to an Android smartphone or tablet. Similar to "jailbreaking" an iOS device, this is often done in order to bypass carrier or handset-maker limitations or restrictions. Once you achieve "root access," you can replace or alter applications and system settings, run specialized apps, and more.
One of the more common reasons to root a phone is to replace the operating system with a ROM, another developer's version of the OS that also gives you more control over details. In rooting culture, we'd call that "flashing a custom ROM."
The process of rooting an Android phone varies for each device, but seems to have been streamlined over time. Google's Nexus line of phones, such as the LG-made Nexus 4, appeals to developers and techie types and are among the most often rooted models. With that in mind, you'll also find that popular devices like the Samsung Galaxy S4 and HTC One have plenty of custom ROMs to choose from.
Note that rooting will void the device warranty; however, flashing a stock ROM can revert things back to their original state.

Why root?

There are multiple reasons for you to consider rooting your Android handset, some more obvious than others. Chief among the benefits is the ability to remove any unwanted apps and games that your carrier or phone maker installs before you ever unwrap your phone. Rather than simply disabling these bloatware titles, which is often the most you can do within Android, rooting can grant you a full uninstallation. Deleting apps you'll never use can also free up some additional storage capacity.
Another main benefit of rooting is to enable faster platform updates. The time it takes for Google to announce a new version of Android to the time your carrier pushes it to your device can be weeks, months, or even longer. Once rooted, you can often get some of the new platform features through custom ROMs in short order. This could, for some users, add years of life to an Android handset -- rather than buy a new phone, flash a new ROM.
Other reasons to root a phone include being able to perform complete device backups, integrate tethering and mobile hot-spot features, and extend the device's battery life through new-found settings and controls.

What are the risks?

As I mentioned above, rooting your device can void your warranty. This is perhaps the biggest risk associated with playing around with your phone. If you run into big trouble and you've added a custom ROM build, your manufacturer and carrier likely won't help you out.
In most cases, you'll be able to overturn any ROM you flash, returning to the phone's stock Android OS with as much ease as you installed the new ROM in the first place. However, a word of caution: If you're not careful, or don't follow the steps properly, you could end up with a glorified paperweight. Yes, I'm talking about "bricking" your device. It's vitally important that you exercise caution when attempting to root your phone and pay close attention to what you're doing.
Stick to the more reputable sources for help and feedback, and look for the most recent news about ROMs and your particular Android device. Along those lines, you'll also want to ensure that you read through everything you can before starting down this road. If you're in a forum thread, skim the replies to see if there are issues or problems with your particular handset.

Helping hands

For help with rooting, I would first recommend XDA developers, AndroidCentral forums, Androidforums, and Rootzwiki. I also suggest checking Google+ as a good source for rooting and modding news and feedback. The rooting scene is not some secret underground Fight Club; you'll find plenty of documented help for rooting your phone. Filter your results by date, read through the details, and understand what it is you are about to do.

CyanogenMod is one of the oldest and feature-rich ROMs available.

(Credit: CyanogenMod)

More about ROMs

For all practical purposes, (custom) ROMs are replacement firmware for Android devices that provide features or options not found in the stock OS experience. Often built from the official files of Android or kernel source code, there are more than a few notable ROMs to consider. Among the more popular custom ROMs are CyanogenMod, Paranoid Android, MIUI, and AOKP (Android Open Kang Project). There are, of course, countless others to check out, with more arriving almost daily.
In terms of sheer support and development, CyanogenMod is the clear leader in this field. The number of supported devices is unparalleled, and the community has long rallied around this ROM. This is not meant to say that it's necessarily the "best" ROM; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Closely resembling the stock Android experience, CyanogenMod has been known to introduce features that later end up in official builds of Android. As of today there are more than 4.2 million active installations of CyanogenMod releases, with v10.1 (based on Android 4.2 Jelly Bean) being the latest.
One newly introduced feature worth noting is a "Run in Incognito Mode," which lets you privately use an app and manage its permissions. Rather than installing an app and agreeing to all permissions, this mode allows you to restrict data to certain apps. In theory, you could disallow a particular app from using GPS, accessing contacts, and more.

Paranoid Android is one of the more popular custom ROMs for Android.

(Credit: Paranoid Android)

While CyanogenMod received much of the fanfare in Android's early days, Paranoid Android has become quite popular as of late. Indeed, we could see even more momentum behind the custom ROM as it was recently released as an open-source project.
Among other features, Paranoid Android's HALO ROM provides users with a blend of Facebook's Chat Heads with Samsung's multiwindow functionality. The floating, circular notifications can be docked anywhere on the left or right side of the display and work with a variety of apps. This handy feature keeps you notified of Gmail, Hangouts, Google Now, and other system-wide alerts.

Where to look for ROMs

Forums are going to be a great place to keep yourself plugged in, but the larger ROM developers will provide their own Web sites. Aside from the aforementioned custom ROMs, others that have gained a strong following include SynergyROM, Slim Bean, LiquidSmooth, RevoltROM, and Xylon. Be warned: talking about ROMs can often result in heated debate as to which is better or offers more options.

Noteworthy apps

Aside from installing custom ROMs, rooting your phone opens the door to installing new apps and gaining extended device management and security functionality beyond what comes with the usual Android OS experience.
Should you decide to not load a new ROM interface, you can still install apps that add new levels of functionality to your rooted Android phone. Today's more popular titles include ROM Toolbox Pro, Titanium Backup, Touch Control, Cerberus anti-theft, and SetCPU. The appeal of each will vary depending upon on how much you want to tweak your Android experience.
For those of you who plan to flash ROMs on a regular basis, I recommend starting with ROM Manager. This utility lets you manage backups and recoveries, install ROMs, and other handy functions. While it is available as a free app, the premium client has ROM update notifications, nightly ROM downloads, set automatic backups, and other features.

ROM Toolbox Pro is a handy utility for rooted users.

(Credit: JRummy Apps)

Backup plans

When it comes to rooting your phone, it is always a good idea to have backup plans in place. After all, you'll need something to fall back on should you run into an issue with an untested or experimental ROM. While Titanium Backup seems to be the most popular, Carbon has gained quite a fan base. Regardless of which route you take, it's important to create a backup and test it before you apply a custom ROM.
Become familiar with the process and make sure that you'll be able to restore things in the event of a catastrophe. It might take some practice and you could spend more time than you'd like creating this backup, but it could be all that stands between you and expensive phone repair.
Indeed, there is plenty to consider when it comes to rooting your Android phone. Rest assured, though, that no matter how daunting the task might seem, there's a large community of users out there who will have your back. And while the actual rooting process varies with each handset model, on the whole, it isn't as difficult as it may sound.
If you've read through this post and still don't know if rooting is for you, my suggestion is to take the time to mull it over. Replacing the default Android OS certainly isn't for everyone and there's quite a bit more on the topic besides. For many people, myself included, the reward of tweaking your Android phone to have it exactly the way you want it is worth the risk.
Do you have any adventures in rooting and ROMs? Share them in the comments.

Muslims Use the Name of Jesus to Further Islam

December 2, 2013 mkamal Reply

“If you want to save Christianity from atheism and Islam, [the] Trinity should be declared a heresy and false [that] Jesus is Jewish [and a] human prophet of God. If not atheism will take over Christianity and Islam will take over atheism.” – Syed Iftekharuddin

In other words, Christians must believe in the Islamic Jesus and reject the Trinity. That is, Christians must become Muslims. Why didn’t Syed Iftekharudin just say that? Why his hidden dawah and taqiyya?

The Islamic “Jesus” shares nothing with the Christian Jesus except (sort-of) the name ‘Jesus’, but Muslims even have a problem with that precise name: ‘Jesus’ in the Koran is called “Issa”, which isn’t even the Arabic equivalent to the Hebrew “Yeshu’”{1} (from which is derived the English “Jesus” via the Greek “Iessous”). In Arabic “Yeshu” becomes “Yassu’”.

The “Islamic Jesus” -Issa:

Was simply “a prophet on the way to Muhammad”. (K.2:136, 3:84, 4:163,171; 5:46,75; 19:19; 33:7; 61:6)
He was a Muslim. (Moses, in the Koran, apparently, wasn’t a Jew either.) (K.3:46,49,52; 4:172; 6:85; 61:14)
He did not die on the cross but “it was made to seem that way”. (K.4:157)
He prophesied the coming of Muhammad. (K.61:6)
He was married and had children. {2}
He was not the son of God. (K.3:59; 5:17,72,116; 9:30-31; 19:19,88,91-92; 42:13)
He went to Mecca.{3}
He does things in Islamic texts that no Christian texts acknowledge him doing (e.g., “preaching from the cradle”). (K.3:49; 5:110)

(Note: In the Koran references above traditional Islamic exegesis is used in their assignation. )

The name and deeds of Jesus are just tools which Muslims use – “something we share” – at interfaith meetings (as well as elsewhere) in order to entice gullible Christians into Islam or to hold favourable opinions of Islam … and it often works. In fact, it started with Muhammad himself who used both the Jewish prophets and texts, as well as Jesus, as a neat and deceitful way to create a connection between his new invention, Islam, and those older faiths.

Muhammad knew he had to have a certain degree of shared ground in order to bring “unbelievers” or kuffar into his new religion. And that’s exactly what Muslims are doing today in interfaith meetings, on the BBC, in Guardian articles, etc. You will find that once gullible Christians convert (or “revert”) to Islam (simply because of the “shared Jesus”), Muslims will rarely talk about him. He will then become just another prophet who’s only talked about on religious programmes on the BBC or at interfaith meetings. Muslims, amongst themselves, rarely talk about Jesus – if at all.

The problem with the Trinity that Muslims have is ridiculous. Although I don’t fully understand the Trinity, the idea of one thing (of any kind) having three distinct aspects is not in the least bit self-contradictory. So why do Muslims often write, “1+1+1=1″ in order to denigrate Christians? So much for interfaith!

Think of the British Government/state which is divided into three: executive, judiciary and legislature – “three in one”.
Or how about (at the simplest level) the human body: bone, tissues and blood?

****************************************************

Isa (Jesus) is named, or alluded to, in 91 verses over 15 Suras (chapters) in the Koran. For comparison, Moses gets 136 mentions, Noah and Adam get more mentions than Issa and even “Pharaoh” gets 60 mentions.

Despite talking about Issa in approx 2000 words, there is no detail at all other than to say he was a Muslim prophet (“pointing the way to Muhammad”), a few stories from apocryphal fables (e.g., “Isa preached from the cradle”, “Isa made clay birds come alive”) and using him to attack Christian beliefs by putting words in his mouth.

The main point of Issa (the Islamic Jesus) in the Koran is simply to place him in the prophetic line leading to Muhammad “the final prophet”. Apart from serving that purpose, Jesus himself is not at all important in Islam. There are virtually no discussions in the Koran of what Jesus said and did. If his words and deeds do not serve Islam, they are ignored.

Issa is thus a tool of Islam. His memory and name are used by Muslims to further Islam and to persuade Christians to become Muslim or to adopt favourable attitudes towards Islam. That is the purest form of dawah Muslims can indulge in. And bringing Christians “back to Islam” will help secure them a place in Islamic Paradise.

Muslims also use Issa to ‘blackmail’ Christians, saying “We respect your prophet, why don’t you respect ours?” This is pure Taqiyya since the ‘prophet’ Muslims respect isn’t the Biblical or historical Jesus, but the Islamic Issa and the Islamic Issa is simply Muhammad’s mouthpiece used to ‘validate’ Muhammad’s prophetic claims whilst denying the validity of the Biblical Jesus.

Footnotes.

This is not to enter into how Jesus was actually named, “Yeshu” is the form used in Ben Yehuda‘s Hebrew dictionary and is the nearest equivalent to the Arabic, but it is interesting that the Koran’s “Jesus” has an invented name – should this be taken to imply that the “Islamic Jesus” is not the Biblical or historical one? Or was it merely ignorance that caused “Allah” to misname one of his ‘prophets’ in the Koran?
This is very much a minority view in Islam, based on a few vague references in apocryphal gospels, what was said/written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, several ideas by Holger Kerstein and others and Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci Code”. It seems to be more an idea with which to attack the Christian view of Jesus than anything actually Islamic. See also here for the latest fragment on this to come to light which bases sensational claims on very meagre evidence.
This is controversial within Islam. Some Muslims believe that Isa has performed the Hajj, based on Koran 28:27 “He said: “Indeed I intend to marry you to one of these two daughters of mine on condition that you hire thyself to me for (the term of) eight Hajjs (Arabic: Thamaniya Hijajin). Then if you complete ten, it will be of your own accord, and I would not wish to make it difficult for you. God willing, you will find me of the righteous”. Some Muslims see this as a pre-Islamic (but “Muslim”) hajj existing amongst “the righteous” (i.e. proto-Muslims). Others say that he will perform it after his second coming but before the day of judgement as part of his mission to “…destroy the cross[es]…” – i.e. wipe out Christianity. If any further proof were needed that Issa is not Jesus, this mission is it. In point of fact, Issa could not have performed the Islamic hajj since it was only instituted by Muhammad ~ 600 years after Jesus’ death and neither Issa nor Jesus would have performed the pre-existing pagan Hajj. Therefore, the only thing Issa could have done would have been a visit to Mecca to worship at the Kaaba, the “house that Abraham built” (according to Islam – note that the historical evidence denies this contention), but there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus (or Issa) actually did this. What this seems to be is another case of Muslims employing taqiyya to “Islamise” Jesus.

Article by Paul Austin Murphy

Shock poll: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings underwater, Benghazi blamed

By PAUL BEDARD | DECEMBER 2, 2013 AT 11:01 AM

The nation’s view of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, colored by the horrific Benghazi assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya on her watch, has suddenly turned upside down, with more now holding an unfavorable opinion of the likely 2016 presidential candidate.
A new YouGov/Economist poll found Clinton, whose approval ratings have typically been sky high, with an unfavorable rating of 48 percent, more than the 46 percent who have a favorable opinion of her.
The YouGov pollsters said that the change in American attitudes toward Clinton "suggests that negative press surrounding the tragic September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, may have impacted views about Clinton and her tenure at the State Department."
During her time at State, Clinton’s favorable ratings were typically 15 points higher than her unfavorable ratings. But since she left the post, the public seems to have soured on her.
Although it might be distressing to her supporters, she still crushes any potential competition for the Democratic presidential nomination, said the pollsters. Some 51 percent of Democrats favor Clinton. Her nearest competitor, Vice President Biden, is the pick of just 9 percent. In some polls taken after she left Foggy Bottom, Clinton was the pick of more than 60 percent of Democrats.
Among all groups polled, Clinton’s favorability fell in the new poll when compared to January 2013. Using a four-week average of polls, Clinton’s favorability fell among all adults from 56 percent to 47 percent. Among independent voters, she fell from an average of 51 percent favorable in January to 40 percent in November. She even fell among African Americans. In January her favorable average among blacks was 80 percent. Last month it fell to 68 percent.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

The Death of the Senate

Gingrich Productions
November 22, 2013
Newt Gingrich
To receive Newt’s weekly newsletter, click here.
No one should be confused about what happened yesterday.
The Obama Democrats killed the United States Senate as a deliberative body 226 years after the Founding Fathers created it.
The use of a simple majority to change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees and other appointments–a device that made getting 60 votes a practical necessity–was a decisive first step toward reducing the Senate to a body that operates by simple majority.
The Democrats have tried to argue that they killed the filibuster only for a handful of presidential nominees. But in fact they’ve killed a tradition that had survived more than two centuries. There will be no principle to stand on to block controversial appointments or legislation in the future.
This is a big deal, and it will change the culture of the Senate profoundly. And the Obama Democrats understood exactly what they were doing.
In 2005 as a senator, Barack Obama himself said that “everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.”
The same year Senator Joe Biden said, “We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party… We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.”
He called it “the single most important vote” he had cast during his three decades in the Senate.
He said “I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Senator Harry Reid himself praised the filibuster at the time, lauding it as “far from a procedural gimmick.” It is, he said, “part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate.”
That is what Senator Reid and the other Obama Democrats destroyed yesterday, fully aware of the permanent damage they were causing in order to achieve fleeting political goals.
That trade of long-term stability for short-term gain is exactly the opposite of the wisdom the framers of the Constitution intended for the Senate (a big part of the reason the body exists in the first place). The Founders were worried that the House, with its frequent election cycles and small Congressional districts, would be shortsighted, easily impassioned, and unaccountable for the ultimate consequences of their decisions.
The Senate was supposed to guard against this danger, as a “temperate and respectable body of citizens…to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind,” as Madison put it in Federalist 63. It would do so by making decisions for the long term, he thought–“well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation.”
Until yesterday, the filibuster was one such device–an important protection which for centuries had been inviolable.
Harry Reid and the Obama Democrats’ reckless decision to kill it will change the Senate forever.
P.S.
My Crossfire co-host Van Jones and I sat down this week for a great conversation about my new book Breakout. Watch it here.

Share this page

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

MORE right wing DESPERATION...It is hilarious that you people are still on this birther thing..This "story" is a rehashed HOAX from years ago..

Analysis: Hoax. The original April 1, 2009 posting date suggests it may have been intended as an April Fools prank, but given that the text does little else but parrot actual tenets of the so-called "Birther" movement (those who claim Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency due to a forged or invalid birth certificate, etc.), it barely qualifies as satire.

Has anyone released Obama's Occidental College transcripts?

No, the transcripts haven't been released (federal privacy laws forbid it), nor has any court of law "ordered" them released. (Source: Occidental College)
Did Obama attend Occidental under the name "Barry Soetoro"?

No. Soetoro was the surname of his stepfather, but there's no evidence Barack Obama used it when he attended college. Fellow alumni quoted in the press remember him as "Barry Obama." According to an Occidental spokesperson quoted on FactCheck.org, the college has no records showing Obama used his stepfather's last name.
Did Obama attend Occidental under a Fulbright Scholarship for Foreign Students?

No. According to various news sources Obama did attend on a scholarship, but it wasn't a Fulbright scholarship, let alone a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students. The Fulbright Foreign Student Program accepts Master's Degree and Ph.D. candidates only. Obama, an undergraduate, was neither. He couldn't have been awarded a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students even if he had been born outside the U.S. (Source: Fulbright Program)
Did the Daily Mail discuss these "revelations" in a news story entitled "Obama Eligibility Questioned"?

No. No such story turns up in a search of the London newspaper's archive.
Did Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation release research showing Obama has spent $950,000 or more "to block disclosure of his personal records"?

I've found no record of any such "research" being published. The U,S. Justice Foundation does exist and its executive director is indeed a man named Gary Kreep, but he's on record saying the above claim is a hoax.

The fact of the matter is that specific expenditures pertaining to litigation on Obama's Constitutional legitimacy aren't a matter of public record. What are a matter of public record — and what have have been continually misrepresented as moneys spent fighting citizenship lawsuits — are the total year-to-year legal expenditures of Obama's campaign finance committee. Anyone who purports to know exactly what portion of those funds were spent responding to citizenship challenges is merely speculating.

Moreover, it's disingenuous to characterize Obama's legal expenditures on these cases as funds dispensed "to block disclosure of his personal records." While various personal documents have been requested in the filings, securing their release wasn't the point of the litigation, which aimed to have Obama's candidacy ruled unconstitutional on a variety of different grounds.

Lastly, it isn't as if a presidential candidate whose legitimacy is challenged in court has the option not to mount a legal defense — just ask John McCain.

SOURCE is Here

Clayton Williams Energy Inc.

Use this link to create your Free InvestorVillage Account today: http://www.investorvillage.com/signup.asp

CWEI / Message Board / Read Message

BOARD

GROUPS

return to message board, top of board

Msg 458426 of 506068 at 8/8/2012 7:21:03 PM by

metalfluid

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=2929

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

Posted by PC Corruption, Latest news, U.S., World news Saturday, June 18th, 2011

Registration transcript states ~ Name: Barry Soetoro - Religion: Islam - Nationality: Indonesian

The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid. Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government. Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S. To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens 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.”
Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.
The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief. The military revoked the orders with no reason given. Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!
“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.
Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.
Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.
There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Newspaper print of LA Times - Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama

Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.
A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack. Regina was the first to start calling him Barack. There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.
While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?
If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery. If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding. Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—
This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama. Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

e-mail to a friend

printer-friendly

add to library

| More

Recs: 21 Views: 509037 (updated 24hrs)

return to message board, top of board

view thread Replies
Msg #	Subject	Author	Recs	Date Posted
458520	Re: Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.	guns 'n' bacon	0	8/8/2012 8:55:45 PM
458593	Re: Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.	coolreit	2	8/8/2012 10:49:57 PM
458603	Re: Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.	ignatz	3	8/8/2012 11:53:10 PM


	About Us • Contact Us • Follow Us on Twitter • Members Directory • Help • Advertise Not a member yet? What are you waiting for? Join Now Want to contribute? Support InvestorVillage by donating © 2003-2013 Investorvillage.com. All rights reserved. User Agreement

The Fulbright Program

http://eca.state.gov/

Learn About the J. William Fulbright Scholarship Board (FSB)
Learn More arrow

The Fulbright Program is the flagship international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government and is designed to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.

Explore Programs By Countries

The Fulbright Program is active in more than 155 countries - explore our world with this interactive map.

Learn More

News & Highlights

October 30, 2013

Fulbright Alumnus Awarded 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics

Photo of Evan M. Ryan and Romanian Miniestier of Education shaking hands

October 22, 2013

U.S. and Romania Sign Joint Funding Agreement for the Fulbright Program

Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence Oonya Kempadoo.

September 20, 2013

Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence Featured on Oprah Winfrey’s Summer Reading List

Common Questions

previousnext

View all questions

Fulbright Information for You

Imposter Proof: Occidental College Recalls ‘Barry’ Obama with Records to Prove it

October 13, 2013 by admin 28 Comments

PDF

Investor Village reported: The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid. Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government. Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S. To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens 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.”
Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.
The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief. The military revoked the orders with no reason given. Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!
“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.
Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.
Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.
There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Newspaper print of LA Times – Occidental recalls ‘Barry’ Obama
Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack. Regina was the first to start calling him Barack. There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.
While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?
If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery. If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding. Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Monday, December 2, 2013

Hack your Android like a pro: Rooting and ROMs explained

What is rooting?

Why root?

What are the risks?

Helping hands

More about ROMs

Where to look for ROMs

Noteworthy apps

Backup plans

Muslims Use the Name of Jesus to Further Islam

Muslims Use the Name of Jesus to Further Islam

Shock poll: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings underwater, Benghazi blamed

Shock poll: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings underwater, Benghazi blamed

The Death of the Senate

The Death of the Senate

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

Clayton Williams Energy Inc.

Clayton Williams Energy Inc.

CWEI / Message Board / Read Message

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

The Fulbright Program

The Fulbright Program

http://eca.state.gov/

Pages

Common Questions

Fulbright Information for You

The Fulbright Program

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

Promoting Mutual Understanding

U.S. Department of State

Imposter Proof: Occidental College Recalls ‘Barry’ Obama with Records to Prove it

Imposter Proof: Occidental College Recalls ‘Barry’ Obama with Records to Prove it

Monday, December 2, 2013

Related stories

What is rooting?

Why root?

What are the risks?

Helping hands

More about ROMs

Where to look for ROMs

Noteworthy apps

Backup plans

Muslims Use the Name of Jesus to Further Islam

Shock poll: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings underwater, Benghazi blamed

The Death of the Senate

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

Clayton Williams Energy Inc.

CWEI / Message Board / Read Message

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

The Fulbright Program

Pages

Common Questions

Share

Fulbright Information for You

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

Promoting Mutual Understanding

Imposter Proof: Occidental College Recalls ‘Barry’ Obama with Records to Prove it