by Sandy Froman

 

A California lawyer seeking a default judgment against Barack Obama in her case challenging his eligibility to hold the office of president is trying multiple ways to notify him of the action in response to a a judge's order.

The judge has scheduled a hearing July 13 in a case brought by plaintiffs' attorney Orly Taitz, who believes the commander-in-chief is in default.

Taitz has told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Now Taitz told WND she is trying a number of different methods to notify the president following the ruling from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: "Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants' behalf."

Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation. She said she's trying personal service, fax and e-mail, among other options.

"I have a very clear case," Taitz said. "I think they dropped the ball. They didn't figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

"I will be asking for the release of his vital records," she said.

"The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn't applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab," she explained.

"He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position," she wrote.

"The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records."

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant "Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro."

The original service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.

"Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3)," she wrote.

Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.

Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

She said her first process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court's order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion," she argued.

"In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal."

She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.

"Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?

"It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party's status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?" she continued.

"Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs' motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b)."

As WND reported in a profile on Taitz, she was born in the Republic of Moldova which used to be part of the Soviet Union.

Recalling her life under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.

She confirms she is not willing to let the issue rest on a single case and has filed multiple complaints in an effort to reach her goal. She previously took her complaint directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and when the justices met privately with the defendant – Obama – but didn't explain their rejection of her dispute, she approached two different justices in public settings, asking them to consider the case.

She has likened not only the U.S. judiciary to the old Soviet Union establishment because of its unwillingness to resolve the dispute, but she's accused members of the media of becoming like the Soviet press, because they push for Obama's agenda.

The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  
• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
  
• Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

by David Almasi

On the occasion of "Juneteenth," the oldest and most recognized annual commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States, members of the Project 21 black leadership network suggest the civil rights-themed holiday be used to celebrate freedoms that have been won and as a warning of how easily freedom can be threatened by an overbearing government.

Project 21 members have called attention to the Juneteenth since 1999, urging black Americans to use Juneteenth to embrace their inherent talents and strengthen their ties with family and community.

Now, when the Obama Administration and Congress are increasing government intervention into the lives of all Americans, Project 21 members suggest that people reflect upon how this expansion of power can reduce the threaten individual freedom.

"The liberties we enjoy today came at a tremendous cost and after a lot of suffering," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. "Today historically marks the day of the opening of the door to opportunity for blacks to seek 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' We should take advantage of this liberty to strive to improve our lives and build upon the sacrifices of those who fought for freedom."

"It's important to remember that Juneteenth is rooted in our achieving our freedom. It is the growth of an activist government intent on regulating most - if not all - aspects of our lives that is now threatening that freedom," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "There's a lot at risk should politics be allowed to take precedence over the protection of individual rights. Environmental regulations, for instance, already substantially affect private property rights and the ability for many to conduct legitimate business. Just think of what might happen to our independence if we are forced to rely on a partisan government for health care, to determine if we can buy a car or how we can worship without offending perceived sensibilities? This is something we need to consider as we mark Juneteenth this year."

Project 21 member Ak'bar Shabazz added: "As our nation advances rapidly away from embracing personal responsibility towards government protection and oversight, we should keep in mind that these freed slaves wanted only the opportunity to be free and control their own destinies. Their attitudes towards freedom contrasts greatly from today, as many people look for more government control over their lives."

Juneteenth commemorates the anniversary of the June 19, 1865 arrival of Union soldiers in Galveston, Texas. The soldiers carried the news that the Civil War was over and that President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had abolished slavery two-and-a-half years earlier.

The annual commemoration became known as Juneteenth and quickly became a stabilizing as well as motivating presence in the lives of black Americans in Texas, who faced many uncertainties associated with newly-acquired freedom. The observance quickly spread from Texas to be recognized across the United States.

Juneteenth is celebrated in many ways, but education and self-improvement have been consistent themes at commemorative community gatherings and picnics in recent years. In 1980, Juneteenth was made an official holiday in Texas. According to the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign, 25 states currently recognize Juneteenth as a state holiday.

by Father John Corapi

I have fond memories of the 4th of July going back to when I was probably only four or five years old. We remember the parades, the picnics or barbecues, and the happy gathering of families. During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the American colonies from Great Britain actually took place on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve the resolution of independence previously put forth by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. After debate and revision Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4th.

Of note is the letter John Adams, one of only two Founding Fathers who went on to become president, wrote to his wife Abigail:

"…This day ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever more." (Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society)

Like so many of the Founding Fathers, Adams recognized that the day of deliverance came from the providential hand of almighty God. I am not sure about large numbers of duplicitous politicians and other so-called public servants today, whether elected or appointed.

Freedom is a great thing, and we do well to celebrate it on the 4th of July. That being said, it’s something rooted in truth, and apart from the truth there can be no authentic freedom.

"If you continue in my word [truth] you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31-32)

An individual, a country, or a world that does not remain rooted in objective truth cannot ultimately live in freedom.  Some highlights of this reality:

1731: Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude [true happiness].

1733:  The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes…

One of the most common errors of all time is to confuse freedom and license. Today, frequently under the specious pretext freedom, mankind acts in a manner that is really license. We are not morally free to do whatever we choose to do.  Only when rooted in truth and acting in objective truth can we hope to be free.  No one has the moral right to do evil.  No one has the moral right to choose to take an innocent life or to engage in actions that are out of accord with right reason or any objective standards of morality we have ever known.

The inevitable consequence of abusing freedom is losing freedom. Soon, if we do not alter our present course, the United States will no longer be the home of the brave and the land of the free. Loss of personal freedoms, one at a time, is already well underway.  One day we shall awake from our moral slumber and find that we have become slaves.

We must live in truth and act in truth if we are to remain free. Abuse it and I assure you we shall lose it! Wake up America! God is not a disinterested spectator.  Let’s thank God for our freedom, but let’s not sit by idly while the forces of darkness divorce freedom from truth. For, as Jesus says, “The man who sins is the slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

I’ll leave you with the motto of the United States Army Special Forces on this 4th of July: 
De oppresso liber! (To free the oppressed)

Indeed, Jesus came to set the captives free. Let’s do our part for our country and our world that we might all remain free in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

WASHINGTON, June 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court reversed Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in the now-famous New Haven firefighters case. Although Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues did not even think the case worthy of a published opinion, the Supreme Court said the case presented "two provisions of Title VII to be interpreted and reconciled, with few, if any, precedents in the courts of appeals discussing the issue."

Concerned Women for America (CWA) President Wendy Wright said, "This decision sends a disturbing message that Sonia Sotomayor, as a judge, sanctioned discrimination against people because of the color of their skin. This validates concerns that Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy reflects her personal bias, as expressed in speeches and the controversial groups to which she has belonged, that people should be discriminated against based on their ethnicity or sex. No one in a burning building cares if their fire chief is a minority. A firefighter's qualifications can determine if innocent people will live or die. Yet Judge Sotomayor denied qualified firefighters a promotion in order to advance her ethnic politics. Judge Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case proves that questions about her fitness to serve at the Supreme Court are legitimate. Her decisions suggest such an enormous bias in her philosophy that we could not fault anyone in her courtroom for questioning her impartiality."

"In choosing a Supreme Court nominee, President Obama said 'I will seek someone who understands that justice ... is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.' Judge Sotomayor's unjust decision in the Ricci case shows that she does not fit that description. She denied firefighters the well-deserved promotions and, by doing so, was willing to make people unsafe in their homes."

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA's Policy Director for Legal Issues, said the Ricci case "exposes not only bias, but arrogance on the part of a judge at the brink of getting a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. How she thought this case did not even deserve a published opinion is beyond comprehension. It seems ethnicity and gender not only 'play a role' in her judgment as she has said, but they actually control her judgment to the point where she can no longer look at the facts of a case impartially. Looking at her record, it seems her passion for minorities is such that she would need to recuse herself from any case involving a minority party in litigation.

"Unless she renounces her own statements and has some strong explanation for her actions in cases like Ricci at her hearings, I don't see how any Senator, or even the President himself, can feel confident about her fitness to serve at the Supreme Court."

by David Almasi

The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.

On June 18, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations.  Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."

Project 21 members voicing skepticism about the politics behind the resolution and the need for it include:

Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."

Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."

Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."

Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"

Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it.  It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."

Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.  

Federal Reserve Office of the Inspector General:  http://www.federalreserve.gov/oig..
 
Related:  U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailout Programs

Indiana Challenges Constitutionality of TARP Money for Auto Bailout..

 by JT Keller

by David Almasi

Washington DC - As the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today in the voting rights case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Project 21 black leadership network is joining with other organizations to ask that this outdated portion of the Voting Rights Act be found unconstitutional.

"The racist boogeyman of the past is just that -- a thing of the past," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "I think most people realize this, but the civil rights special interest lobby has been strong enough to keep this boogeyman alive to the legal detriment of our post-racial society. As we try to move forward, our children will continue to bear the burden of long-rectified mistakes."

At issue in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder is whether the federal government still has a compelling reason to oversee and approve election practices in certain areas. When the Voting Right Act was renewed in 2006, Congress did not amend Section 5 of the Act -- which mandates this "preclearance" standard -- despite the concerns of voting rights scholars. The local Texas voting district officials challenging the Act say the standard exceeds Congressional authority under the Reconstruction-era 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Project 21 has joined a amici curiae ("friend of the Court") brief on the case with the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Center for Equal Opportunity.

In the brief, it is argued:

Changes in the social and political landscape cast doubt on, not only Section 5's relevance, but its constitutionality. These changes show that the justification for Section 5's remedial measures no longer exist. For instance, when the [Voting Rights] Act was enacted in 1965 there were few, if any, black elected officials in the South. But now black elected politicians make up an appreciable percentage of many state governments of the Deep South. Forty years ago the drafters of the Act understood that widespread and persistent intentional discrimination in voting occurred predominantly in the jurisdictions targeted, and typically entailed the willful misuse of tests and devices which Section 5 was specifically designed to remedy.  But modern allegations of discrimination in voting may arise equally in both covered and noncovered jurisdictions, and involve a completely different array of problems which Section 5 is ill-suited to resolve.

For instance, the brief points out:

Today, the greatest majority of cases brought under the Act involve vote dilution claims which are not concentrated in any one part of the country and are addressed through Section 2 of the Act nationwide. Since 1990, the same number of Section 2 violations have occurred in Pennsylvania (a noncovered jurisdiction) as in South Carolina (a covered jurisdiction). Even more Section 2 violations occurred in New York.... The old style and systemic, race-based discrimination that made the Act necessary in 1965 exists only sporadically, if at all, while new allegations of minority voting problems stem from issues motivated by partisan politics rather than racial prejudice [such as long lines and ballot design].

A decision by the justices in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder is expected by the end of June. A copy of the brief Project 21 has joined can be obtained at http://tw5.us/UJ .

Project 21's Massie added: "The Voting Rights Act was first enacted during a time when skin color was considered enough to disqualify a man from full participation. Today, that same Act would bar people from full participation due to where they live -- regardless of their race. Where's the fairness in that?"

by Mass Resistance

The stunning anti-family actions and political appointments of Barack Obama since taking office, some of which we've chronicled here, are unprecedented in America, maybe even in the world.  But this even shocked us.

Obama appoints Kevin Jennings to Dept. of Education post

Kevin Jennings is the founder of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an aggressive national homosexual organization targeting children in the public schools.  In high schools and middle schools across the country GLSEN runs "gay straight alliance" clubs and promotes the Day of Silence, among myriad other destructive homosexual and transgender activities.

Now we've learned that the Obama administration has appointed Kevin Jennings to be Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education!

          Dept of Education press release announcing appointment.

And the reaction in conservative press:

          WorldNetDaily: 'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom 'safety'

          Americans for Truth: AFTA calls for withdrawal of nomination

In Massachusetts, where Jennings founded GLSEN, GLSEN is a major member of the Mass. Commission on GLBT Youth.  GLSEN also holds yearly conferences for children and teachers on the latest techniques for pushing homosexual behavior on kids as young as Kindergarten age.  Click HERE for this year's GLSEN Conference.

In 2005, GLSEN distributed the horrific Little Black Book of homosexual pornography to kids at Brookline High School..

But Kevin Jennings and GLSEN are probably best known for the horrific "Fistgate" incident in 2000, where children as young as 12 were taught homosexual sex acts by state employees.  The incident attracted national attention, but GLSEN defended the conference and activities.

          CLICK HERE for report on the infamous "Fistgate" incident

We will be posting more on Jennings and GLSEN very soon, including the actual recordings from the "Fistgate" incident which made national news.

Obama declares June to be "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month."

This is so offensive and bizarre that we don't even know how to comment on it.

The very thought of a US President doing something like has been up until now incomprehensible.  You'll have to look at it for yourself . . .

CLICK HERE for Obama's proclamation