Posts Tagged ‘Nazi


Obama’s New Propaganda Minister?

Seriously Obama… just go ahead and announce that you are also forming a White House Schutzstaffel and putting up Gestapo fences. Original here.

The White House is stepping up its rapid response media operation, creating a communications position to respond to unfavorable stories on the Web, the Huffington Post reports.

HuffPo’s Sam Stein writes that Jesse Lee, a member of the Obama administration’s new media department, will take on a new role in replying — at times aggressively — to stories that paint the administration in a bad light.

In a preview of what his duties may be, Lee blasted Fox News commentator Glenn Beck in a White House blog post, accusing Beck of lying and engaging in a “partisan attack to boost ratings.”

“This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response,” said Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in an internal memo obtained by the Huffington Post.

“For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House’s liaison with the progressive media and online community,” the memo read. “Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response.”

Lee is also expected to deal favorably with the “progressive media,” according to the memo.


The Destruction of the First Amendment

The Constitution. The highest law in America.
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“I declare this to be an unlawful assembly. I order all those assembled to disperse.”

Can someone please tell me what law is overriding the Constitution that is not allowing these people to peacefully assemble?

This really disgusts me. I wish they would have just stood their ground and got arrested and taken it to court on Constitutional law grounds.


Sept 8, Obama Eligibility Hearing


So why are we hearing nothing of this? Nobody knows anything about it – the mainstream media surely is not reporting on it. I think the answer is simple… September 8th, 2009, is the day in which Obama has chosen to address the school children. Coinscidence? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. This is the biggest break through in the Obama eligibility controversy and Obama is not about to let it make the headlines. So, what do you do to cover something up like this? Easy – you make something equally as controversial and let that controversy cover the other controversy. In showbiz, I believe we call it smoke-and-mirrors. I will try to keep updated on this subject.

By Norton Nowlin, here

I wonder what is going on in the mind of sixty-five year old Federal District Judge David O. Carter since he proclaimed, on July 13, 2009, in his Santa Ana, California courtroom that the case filed by attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Keyes v. Obama, will move forward in the attempt of the plaintiff to seek a court mandate to force President Barack Obama to disclose his original birth certificate for public scrutiny. I wonder how many censuring calls he has received from his fellow judges around the country, the ones who have curtly dismissed the same, and similar, cases seeking public disclosure of Barack H. Obama’s original birth certificate and his other professional and educational records. Perhaps Obama, himself, has given the judge a call to discuss his provocative decision.

From what I know about the man, Carter, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran, must vividly recall, and occasionally reflect on, the oath he took in 1967 upon being commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. military, which was only to protect, preserve, and defend Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Similarly, he took another oath of office before assuming the duties of a federal judge, on October 22, 1998, after nomination by President Bill Clinton on June 35, 1990, and confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 2009. The oath, per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is worded as shown below:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as U.S. District Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Quite evident to the reader, in the above oath, is the allegiance sworn by any federal district judge to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Moreover, that individual judge swears to God, and to the people of the United States, a promise to properly administer justice according to all prevailing laws of the United States. If this is so, I wonder why Judge Carter has been the only federal judge, prior to and subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, to consider the requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution, for the President to be a natural born citizen, as a law that should be enforced. Judge Carter’s statement, that, as a former U.S. Marine, he realizes the importance of a person being constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, indicates his apparent willingness to see that constitutional law is properly administered and followed in his court. His actions seem to reflect the statement by the great John Adams, that “we are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

Yet, in the face of all the blatant suspicion that Barack Obama has brought to bear on the legitimacy of his election as President, by the million-plus dollars he has spent in legal fees since October 2008 to oppose public disclosure of a 12 dollar certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and copies of his other professional and educational records, I wonder if Judge Carter is going to end up ultimately thinking politically, instead of legally. I am referring to the state of mind displayed, for example, by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, when she dismissed the federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco Attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victim’s families, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush administration, on a basis of sovereign immunity instead of a lack of credible evidence. From what I have discovered factually concerning Dr. Hilton’s lawsuit, he had, and still has, some very damning evidence in his possession showing that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military, orchestrated what occurred on 9/11; and the only proper forum for presenting such evidence is in a court of law, where a preponderance of such evidence will vindicate, in a jury trial, the petition of the plaintiff, a forum which was denied Dr. Hilton and his clients.

While it is a truth that a standing U.S. President cannot be sued in federal court over what is deemed to be the ordinary legal, and just, processes for the enforcement of federal law, substantial evidence of criminal acts committed deliberately by the President or his agents, under color of executive authority, is certainly actionable. This would be true even if the impeachment process has not been initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives due to innocent ignorance, or as a result of the placating machinery of corrupt political manipulation. In other words, Machiavellian political maneuvering in Congress should not be permitted to displace, or hamper, proper judicial review, that equity, justice, and, if need be, punishment are properly dispensed.

The exact opposite of this is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, when, supposedly, honorable judges, who had assumed their duties prior to Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power, allowed themselves to become servants of the evil Nazi Party, in order to keep their jobs. There are quite a few historical examples of lawsuits that were brought by law-abiding German men and women, between 1936 and 1942, against Adolf Hitler and his thugs, which were quickly dismissed on a basis of Hitler’s sovereign, all powerful, immunity. Currently, if it can be proven in a court of law that Barack H. Obama knew, at the time he declared himself a presidential candidate, that he was not born in the United States, that he has deliberately misrepresented himself as a natural born citizen, and that he has spent over a million dollars perpetuating a lie to the American people, a charge of criminal fraud would be the only appropriate action to be brought against the man.

Perhaps Judge Illston has called Judge Carter to express her dismay over his willingness to question Obama’s eligibility to be President; or maybe she is so politically oriented, and biased, toward Republican neo-conservatism that she would be more than happy to see Obama discredited and forced to vacate the Oval Office. In reality, it is difficult to know where the allegiances of most federal judges really lie, for after they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to their offices for life tenure, they can do essentially whatever they want, for or against the U.S. Constitution, and if they are not impeached, do it with total impunity; for impeachment, in reality, is not a legal process, but one thoroughly political. I recall that a high percentage of the nation’s electorate endorsed the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1958, but nothing ever came of it in the U.S. House of Representatives; and during the last 214 years, you can count on one hand the number of federal judges and justices who have formally been impeached, and on four fingers the number who have been convicted and removed from office.

From what I know about Judge David O. Carter, he seems to be a stand-up individual and one not likely pressured into handing down a decision determined by the effect of political influence. While neither Republican nor Democrat, I only hope that political party affiliation has had no bearing on the decision of Carter to proceed in his court toward a proper examination of the evidence. Nonetheless, only time will tell what type of federal judge Carter actually is. If suddenly the case, Keyes v. Obama, is dismissed, and disappears under a ruling of sovereign immunity, or on a less than cogent basis of the political forces exerted against Carter, the true colors and allegiance of a federal judge will be clearly revealed.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin as attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist and columnist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

I am an Individual, Are You?


Everyone would tend to agree that what happened against the Jews (and others) by Nazi Germany to be an attrocity. It was at this time that humanity demonized a people and felt privledged to do what they pleased to them – enslave them, talk to them like dogs (actually, better then dogs), strip them of their posessions, and kill them at will.

And, we should remember these events as if they happened yesterday.

We should remember them because this same mindset continues today. The mindset that we can negate the fact that people are individuals. Today, it is called collectivism.

Think about it. During the general election we heard a lot about collectivism and individualism. Barack wanted to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. What about that 5%? Aw, screw em! They make too much anyways right? This is a fine example of collectivism – he essentially is saying “Mob rule, baby! Forget the rich, they can afford to pay more.” Of course, forget the fact that the “rich” already pay 96% of our tax burden while the bottom 50% of people pay <4%. It is the “rich” vs “everyone else” – collectivism folks.

How about Obama’s church pastor – Rev Wright – of which he listened to for years. (Yes, I am going here). In this church Barack heard how the white man is out to get the black man. Sure Rev Wright, there are some white people that hate you because you are black. However, I’m sure there are plenty of black people that would do the same to a white man. But not all white people are like this just like not all black people are like this. Honest! To put me, a white man, into this “black hater group” is dispicable. I happen to be friends with many black people – I was even out having fun out on the town with a few last night. They were fun individuals. Why is it OK for Obama to sit in on this [collectivist] racist garbage and be given a pass but if I happened to sit in on a church sermon where my white pastor said something about blacks that I would be a racist? Bologna.

Face it, the Left loves to bring race up. They brought it up against Clinton when she was running against Obama. And recently they brought it up with the Tea-Parties. Jane Garofalo said it best, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” Nope Jane, it is about a bunch of individuals being tired of getting their money, their government, and their rights taken away. Guess what, the tea parties drew in all sorts of individuals – Democracts, Republicans, Independents, black, white, yellow, smart, ignorant, young and old. This is another fine example of the collectivist ideals – if you don’t tow line with us and Obama and our current politicians, then you are just a “teabagging redneck” or a “white power activist.”

Abortion? Well here, the individual life is less important then the collectivist group of “women” (even though, shouldn’t the choice be made by women and men, both before and after conception?). And who supports abortion (and thus does not support the individual life) – the Left.

Gun control? Take guns away from everyone and let the governement protect us. Don’t let individuals protect themselves because individuals are too incompetent to safely handle firearms. And who supports more gun control (and thus does not support the individuals right to protect themselves) – the Left.

Health care? Give the health care to the government. Don’t let individuals chose who they want to see. Don’t let individuals chose what procedures/operations they want to receive. And who supports Universal Health Care (and thus removes the privledge of doing what the individual wants to their body and by who) – the Left.

Unions? You can’t represent yourself, bucko. You need a Union to show your boss (of whom you work with every day) to come in and tell them how good you are doing! And who wants to make sure that Unions stay alive even when the workers don’t want them (and thus removes the individuals option to represent and vouch for themselves) – the Left.

And the list really goes on and on.

I know I’ve gone way far off base with the movie, but what I’ve said is something that just drives me nuts. I cannot stand collectivism. I don’t ever want anyone to put me in some group and judge me as such. I want everyone to meet me and decide what they think of me. The movie does a fine job of showing how bad collectivist ideas/actions are. Unfortunately, many people, like in the movie, don’t realize how bad it is until it directly affects them.

Wake up people. Be an individual. (And go watch the movie!)


The Real ID – A Real Bad Idea

Digg This Americans – my dear fellow Americans. The new millennium has ushered in times of great uncertainty. We are a society that seems to be unsure of many things. For granted, life is confusing… and scary. However, as I look around, we seem to be overtly fearful.

Now, I am not going to pull a Bowling for Columbine on you here and say that we should not have guns because having guns means that we are fearful. No guns are a different story and a story that I think can only be fully discussed in another post – one about the role of guns in this country. (Actually, I think gun control in general is asinine). I am talking about the general fear that exists in our everyday lives.

Next month (May 2008) States will slowly start implementing the Real ID. Indeed safety is important. But should we give up our liberties for potential security? As Benjamin Franklin said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” And as Ron Paul said, isn’t the government’s responsibility to protect our privacy, not to invade our privacy?

Oddly enough, I am here speaking down about being fearful; however, I am fearful – I am fearful that we will become a nation that is required to carry papers around like Communist Russia or Nazi Germany. In those examples, if you were stopped, you had to show your papers and tell the ‘enforcers’ where you were going, etc. In this country, I think we should be free – free enough to go wherever we want without having to provide papers and reasons for our doings.

I think one of the biggest problems with the Real ID is the bureaucracy and information security. We already have a big problem of identity theft – and now we are try to make a mega-database that combines them all? This is going to be an identity theft thief’s dream come true. I am ‘OK’ with giving my information to Discover Card. After all, if I find out that Discover leaked my information, I can use the laws in place to recoup my losses caused by Discover. However, with the government, how am I going to go after them? What happens if they have a massive leak and a lot of people try to recoup their money from the government – we just bankrupt the government? LOL, please…. Point is that the government will not be liable for any mishaps that happen (and this includes any sort of bad information that is in your “file,” which could prove to be impossible to clear up a discrepancy. “Sorry sir, we have conflicting data on who you are. We are going to have to get with the Naturalized Citizens Bureau Office to see if we can clear this up. Until then, please stand by.”).

And what when they start requiring you to submit to biometric identification?

What are you going to do? I’ve already written my Representative and two Senators twice each (just to make sure they got my message).


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain