One of atheism’s most prevalent arguments against the existence of God is that when one understands the science of the universe and all that it contains, the belief in a god is illogical, that the existence of a supernatural being can not be proven, and that there is no evidence to even suggest a god might exist.Therefore, they conclude that there is, most certainly, no god and anyone believing in one is denying scientific consensus.

I offer only one one witness to the contrary. This witness is indisputably the greatest scientific mind to have ever lived. A man who dared dispute Newton and his genius, a man who literally redefined eternity and all thought of time, space, matter, and energy. I give you none other than the great Albert Einstein.

In his brilliance and insight into all things in existence, Einstein, many times, attributed the order and the mystery of all he saw and pondered to God. Einstein was, if nothing else, a very spiritual man whose love for all humanity was the only trait that dominated his quest for knowledge. It was, in fact, this deep seated, unshakeable belief in a self conscious supreme deity that drove his curiosity, a curiosity to understand God’s purpose and means.

To any who choose to disagree, do a thorough study of Einstein, the man, first, then give it your best, as inept as it will necessarily be.

As for scientists being atheists because they know better than to believe in God, I rest my case.

Glenn Flowers

We all know about the Constitution requiring a person to be a natural born citizen to be president. We also know at least seventeen lawsuits have been filed aiming to prevent Obama from becoming the president because he, allegedly, is not qualified, or to demand that he provide proof he is qualified. And, we are aware that all but one of these suits have been dismissed without considering whether Obama is or is not qualified, but because the courts say the people filing the suits had no legal right to do so. Well, after much study and research, it is my amateur and not so educated opinion that the courts have all been legally and Constutionally correct in their rulings.

Why would I come to that conclusion when so many attorneys are claiming the courts were wrong? Aren’t these courts ignoring our rights as citizens to question the qualifications of someone who wants to be the next leader of America, and the free world? I have come to agree with the courts because they are right and we are wrong.

Consider the following hypothetical situation if you will. A certain state has passed new eminent domain legislation designed to prevent private property being seized under eminent domain when there is no real benefit to the community that would substantiate the need for that seizure. A county supervisor decides to launch a study group to determine the need for a second animal control facility that would require property to be seized. A citizen of a neighboring state has knowledge that proves the existing animal control facility is only being utilized at 50% of its capability. That person files a motion seeking a temporary restraining order against the county official to prevent the seizure of personal property. What should be the order of the court as to a restraining order?

The only decision the court should render is that the filer of the motion lacks standing, and dismiss the motion. Why? First because there is no law preventing the study being undertaken, , and second, the filer is not a citizen of the county in question and is not in a position to be damaged by property seizures.

This hypothetical situation demonstrates the validity and knowledge of applicable law inherent in the sixteen dismissals of suits seeking proof of Obama’s qualifications to become the president. There is no Constitutional requirement that a person be qualified to run for the office of president, only to hold that office and, therefore, no law has been broken by Obama. Because Obama is innocent of violating the Constitution these people filing lawsuits have not been damaged and, therfore, lack standing to file any suits requiring Obama prove his citizenship.

The fact that the only suit not summarily dismissed is the original suit filed by Philip Berg, the first action taken against Obama initiating the fury of subsequent filings, is, in my opinion, a possible clue into the thinking of the courts regarding the need for any future determination of Obama’s qualifications for the presidency.

Berg’s motion was complex, seeking several separate actions by the court for various reasons and allegations to be taken to prevent Obama’s being elected or, if elected, to remove him from office. On the other hand, all dismissed cases were very narrowly defined and offering only a single allegation seeking only to prevent his being elected. I believe that the court might be waiting until Obama has been sworn into office, thereby committing the action Berg alleges is a violation of the Constitution. At that point, the court has jurisdiction to grant Berg’s request for immediate discovery and demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility to do what he has already done, hold the office of the president. If he is unwilling or unable to provide proof of his natural born status, there will be no need for impeachment as he is NOT the president but an impostor, nor will there be any need for a criminal trial to determine his guilt. Non compliance with an order by the court to provide proof of eligibility is all that is required to determine his ineligibility, and Obama would be sentenced for his fraud and violation of the Constitution, both federal felonies.

As I am not an attorney my conclusions are no more than the result of a recreational pursuit akin to a fishing expedition. But, knowing the smell of fish, and having studied Obama since March, 2007, I believe the correlation I’ve made between the two are more than just an imagined whiff of something rotten in Denmark.

Glenn Flowers

Most of us here at TownHall are aware of the facts regarding the mood of the People, the election results, what the prospects of an Obama administration hold for us, and what the future of our nation could be because of these things. We have been able to determine the reasons for these things, and, for the most part, the remedies necessary to prevent the destruction of America as we have known it. The thing that frustrates us and causes the sense of urgency and impending doom we all feel is the immense and overwhelming, almost impossible task of getting those in Congress to listen to us and then get to work doing what needs to be done.

Just getting the sincere attention of our elected officials is daunting. But the thing that stops our efforts dead is our inability to convince them that we know, better than they, what needs to be done, that there is more to gain from our plan than from the road they’re on, and that business as usual is no longer acceptible. Their arrogance of authority and the everyday opportunities to line their pockets influence their thinking and actions billions of times more than our annoying letters and phone calls do.

There is only one way that we can demand their attention and make them listen and hear what we have to say, and that is to increase our annoyance factor so much that it is impossible for them to ignore. We need to increase the number of those annoying letters and calls to the point that pink message slips cover their and their secretary’s desks, and bags and bags of letters fill the hallway outside their office. There should be so many mail trucks lined up and waiting outside that they can’t even park their Mercedes. That kind of annoyance would get anyone’s attention. That kind of a show of power will strike fear into their hearts.

Our job is to convince everyone we know and everyone we come in contact with to send those letters and make those calls, and to not quit with just one or two. To really demand their attention, to make them truly fear We, People, we need to flood them with dozens and dozens of letters, and the same amount of phone calls, every day, week after week, until that congressman buckles under the weight and makes the evening news with a press conference promising to heed our message and do the right things.

This sounds like the same ole’ same ole’, straight-out-of-the-box advice we always hear when people try to tell us what we can do about government. Well, it is the same, with one exception. I am not pretending that your call or letter is going to make any difference. What I AM telling you is that time after time, person after famous person insists that the strategery [sic] of massive amounts of letters and line jamming numbers of phone calls DO get their attention. And there is no need to be overly polite about our demands, although anger and insult won’t work either. A stearn, insistent tact without all the sugary "with all respects" and "wish to requests" will have more of an impact. And when they all demand they do what they promised when campaigning, and when they all threaten to vote for someone else next time sending them home unemployed, they DO have an influence on their actions in office. The public outcry against the McCain immigration and amnesty bill in 2007, is a perfect example of what I’m saying.

If We, the People, can have that kind of influence over a single bill with a few thousand calls and letters, just imagine what power we can generate when we ramp that up by a factor of 100x or 1000x to a larger number of officials. If we were to drown every congressman in a sea of paper and make it impossible to even dial 9-1-1, we could either drive them insane, or over to our way of thinking.

And what’s more, we need to decide, very early on, which members of Congress we can have the most influence over, and which ones will just ignore us no matter what we do. Princess Pelosi and her lover, Dingy Harry Reid, are perfect candidates for being tossed into the toilet and forgotten as they will never bend to our influence. But there ARE those elected officials who have tried to do right in their jobs, or have just given up trying, and those are worth the effort to influence until they prove that they, too, just need to be replaced by the Voter’s Revolt next election cycle.

This may be more work and take more time and effort than we are used to having to do. I mean this will require unprecedented numbers of people willing to pay higher long distance bills and buy more postage stamps to really do the job. We will need millions of folks to make calls to relatives back east or out in Californication. We need to contact those we haven’t spoken to in years or decades. It will require a dedication to this effort that some won’t be willing to make. But just look at the alternatives if we DON’T do something effective. Our very way of life, the liberties fought and died for by so many heroes, the very existence of America the Beautiful are the stakes in this battle folks. And if that isn’t worth every minute of time and ounce of effort you can possibly invest, then what do you have to say to all those in Arlington Cemetary, or in Fallujah, or to their parents, wives, and children? What would you tell old Honest Abe if he were to meet you at the pearly gates? How much more, oh, so much, much more, have so many given in protecting and insuring the survival of truth, justice, and the American way? Can we ever claim semper fidelis? Will we be forever faithful? Will we earn and deserve the title "American"? I believe we all have that in us, or we wouldn’t be here now.

So…. Let’s get to it and just DO it! JUST DO IT !! Our very lives depend on it.

Glenn Flowers

--Are you disgusted with Congress and how it ignores the best interests of the American people?

--Do you believe members of Congress are basically corrupt and are all about getting rich on taxpayer's money?

--Do you believe Congress ignores the Constitution when it suits their agenda?

--Would you like to see all members of Congress lose their jobs and new members elected that are not professional politicians?

If you say yes to these, then make a decision to be a part of a Voter's Revolt. All you need to do is go to the polling place in the primary election in 2010, (and 2012, and 2014) and get into the booth with your ballot and do not vote for any incumbent members of Congress.

Instead, find the challenger running against the current member of Congress and vote for them. Do not vote to re-elect any candidate. Do not vote for any professional politician (lawyers). Look for the airline pilot, or the pizza parlor owner, or the dentist who is challenging the incumbent and vote for him.

If all of us voters resolve to do this, every two years for the next three election cyles, we can sweep the fat cat incumbents out of office and improve the overall character of Congress. These newly elected amateurs would know how they got there, and what happened to the incumbent, and would be more willing to represent those who voted for him and toe the line. If he does screw up, just vote him out in two years.

VOTE THEM ALL OUT !!

SWEEP CONGRESS CLEAN !!

TAKE BACK AMERICA !!

BE A PART OF VOTER'S REVOLT !!

Make a difference when you vote. Be a part of a historic action by American voters.

This our best chance to get America back on the right track and back into the hands of the people.

 Glenn Flowers

Obama learned early in his life that dedication is dependant on and, in fact, semi-synonomous with the idea of dependability. If dedication is total and sincere, dependability will become a self imposed, defining character trait. Devotion and dedication demand a dependable approach. That is not to say the approach is set in stone or written in law, but it does define a policy of, once defined, being effectively predictable of future decisions and procedures. Dedication is the result of setting a goal that is inspired and chosen due to an inherent desire and self confident attitude. Dependability is a tactic chosen due to dedication to the goal and the realization that any sacrifice is worth the result.

We conservatives will do ourselves a big service to believe my claims regarding Obama’s character. To do so enables a truer, more easily accepted knowledge of everything we know and will ever learn about him. In fact, this insight into his motivational resources enables his critics with an almost supernatural ability to predict, with near perfection, his future choices and decisions, and his public speaking topics.

You might say, "Glenn, you still sound like an Obama convert". And I would say that I would choose first to die. You might be confused because we have all come to know Obama as a talented liar, a consistant policy jumper, and being undeserving, if not incapable, of being credited with traits of dependability or dedication, these usually being thought of as signs of an ethical and selfless character.

But, consider the possibility that his goals and motivations to those ends are not what he professes. Let’s assume, for the purpose of this essay, that his goal is not the office of president, but rather the attainment of worldwide authority and power, if not supreme emperor of the universe (not at all silly when you consider his ego). The motivations for that goal self evident. When we rethink our vision of Obama in that vein, we are able to perceive the dedication he has to that goal. And if we are able to convince ourselves that he is dedicated to an unspoken agenda of influnce on a global scale via a socialist system, we can then have faith and be confident in his dependability to act in the ways that have been successful and to persist in his methods and practices.

Obama has, from the beginning of his career in politics, adopted a very well defined, deeply engrained system and set of rules that he has dutifully studied and faithfully set to memory to the point of becoming second nature. He has chosen the radical road to socialism as created and taught by Saul Alinsky, the father of community organization as a profession. He has followed, with a religious devotion, the insistance by Alinsky that success is no less than the power over all who will believe your lies, and that that power is the only worthwhile pursuit for the elitist who believes himself to be a messiah.

Obama is dedicated and dependable, and now that we know that, he is also more vulnerable. Let’s decide to exploit, in every possible way, that chink in his majesty’s armor. After all, we are conservatives and are, therefore, always right. Well, almost always.

Glenn Flowers

It is estimated that there are anywhere from 12 to 18 million illegal aliens in this country. I personally believe that that estimate is at least 10 percent low and that the real quantity is nearer 20 million who have illegally entered this country and are, despite anyone’s opinion, criminals regardless of their lifestyle. Everyone of us makes decisions everyday that are intended to prevent our being arrested, incarcerated, and embarassed. The illegal immigrant in the US made a decision that breaking the law was valid and appropriate to do. They are guilty of criminal actions and there are always hundreds of opinions on how to deal with lawbreakers.

It has been proposed that we should, by various means, arrest and deport the millions of illegals, tighten our borders, and only allow those who enter legally to remain. It is the ideal solution and should be implemented, except for one small, inconvenient reality which I will explain.

Let’s look, very briefly and with squinted vision, at the Third Reich’s evil in WWII of identifying, locating, and transporting near 6 million people from point A to point B, for reasons of their own. We can the see that the US would need to do far more to identify, locate, incarcerate, and then relocate not 6 million, but possibly up to 20 million people in the USA illegally, in an effort similar to what the Nazis employed, but not as lethal. I don’t believe the US would be a part of that, not for very long, anyway.

For all intents and purposes for which it was created, the Constitution has been rendered null and void by those whose duty it was to obey, safeguard, and accurately administer that very document. And I’m not being presumptive or predicting future policy changes, I am correctly and conservatively stating the present situation today as it really exists.

Even though the Constitution has been assaulted and in peril for many years, even many decades, it has taken the abuse and challenges remarkably well, until 2006.

Federal law requires that before the Court determines whether or not it will hear a case under certiorari, it must first establish the facts and law of the suit as required by the Constitution. The federal law governing the filing a certiorari certiorari to the Supreme Court requires the appellant (the party bringing the appeal) to assert what is correct and true as to fact and law in the suit. The opposition party (appellee or defendant) is required by federal law to declare formally and officially for the public record whether these assertions of law and fact are correct and true or not. This requirement in the law is described by the phrase "misstatement of fact or law". If the appellee (defendant) believes the stated fact and law are not true and correct, they are required to so declare this and state the reasons why these asserted facts and law are not correct. If the appellee waives their right to challenge the assertions by appellant of fact and law, the appellee has formally and officially acknowledged the assertions made by the appellant in the suit are correct and true as to fact and law. In Walker v Members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States, as authorized by federal law, represented the members of Congress as attorney of record. In this dual official capacity the Solicitor General decided to waive the right to challenge the assertions of fact and law made by appellant in Walker v. Members of Congress. By waiving this right, under federal law, the attorney for the members of Congress formally and officially admitted these assertions were true and correct as to fact and law.

On October 30, 2006, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, essentially refusing to hear the case, but not before it was established and admitted, for court and public records, that all assertions made in the writ of certiorari were true and correct as to fact and law.

In sum, the federal court system, admitting it had no jurisdiction to do so, endorsed a "right" by the members of Congress to disobey the law of the Constitution in violation of federal criminal law. The court, however, did not exempt the members of Congress from the penalties of these federal criminal laws, allowing the possibility of prison sentences being imposed on every member of Congress for crimes already admitted to and on the record, if and when a federal court does claim jurisdiction in this matter.

 Because of the following reasons:

• that the Congress was required under federal law to take a formal public position disobeying the Constitution in a federal lawsuit,
• that the members of Congress knew they were violating federal criminal law by taking this formal public position,
• that they did so voluntary,
• that they accepted a report written by the Attorney General of the United States required by federal law outlining who, when and why such an action was justified,
• that the members of Congress raised no objection to this report,
• that their attorney of record at the Supreme Court admitted as a matter of fact and law these members were peremptorily required to call an Article V Convention and were in violation of federal criminal law for refusing to do so,

. . . it is highly unlikely that the Constitution will be paid attention to by Congress in the future anymore than they have so far. The Constitution is, according to Congress, null and void.

However, in the US Code, federal election law, the Constitution, and various other documents, the qualification of a candidate is a pre-requisite for such things as being put on the ballots used by the various states, receiving any votes from the official electors of the electoral college, receiving any public campaign funding, receiving classified security briefings, engaging in the hiring of staff and support employees, and being sworn in as the president. The Constitution makes it clear that any decision as to the constitutionality of a matter is the implicit responsibility of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is their duty to insure the president elect meets the constitutional requirements for holding the office of president.

In spite of valid challenges, having bases in fact, being brought to the court for their consideration, the court, instead, has dismissed each of these challenges, NOT because of the merit of the arguments made in the challenge, but because the challenger supposedly lacks the right or standing to file such a challenge to the qualifications of the candidate.
In other words, we, the people, have no right to question the qualifications of a person soon to become the president, even though there is reason to believe that person might not be qualified.

The Constitution demands the Supreme Court decide all matters of a constitutional nature, but, the court has, instead, shirked that mandate by dismissing cases claiming the people don’t have the right to question the qualifications of their new president. The justices are wary, no, scared to death, at the thought of overturning the votes of 60+ million Americans, and would gladly allow a non-citizen to be sworn in as president.

Clearly, the SCOTUS, like Congress, feels no obligation to obey the Constitution, and just ignore it. According to the SCOTUS, the Constitution is null and void.

When two branches of government, having the reponsibility to obey and enforce the Constitution, refuse to do so, the Constitution ceases to be of any importance and is, essentially, null and void.

Glenn Flowers

I received this via e-mail from sonoran news.com...

 

You must register to become president

By Linda Bentley | November 26, 2008

Kenyan Ambassador indicates Obama was born in Kenya
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? As the maainstream media covers President-elect Barack Hussein Obama’s every cabinet appointment consideration, citizens have been seeking information about Obama that, when uncovered, appears to be one fraud after another.

On Nov. 13, Debbie Schlussel, attorney and political commentator, posted on her website (www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html) a copy of Obama’s Selective Service System Registration form.

Schlussel points out all the peculiarities and inconsistencies in the document that would lead just about anyone to conclude the document is a fraud and that either Obama signed the fraudulent document in 2008, rather than in 1980 as the document portends, or he never registered for the draft, as required by law, and someone else created the after-the-fact forgery.

The DLN (Document Locator Number) at the top of the document shows a ten-digit number: 0897080632.

The first two digits indicate the year the document was created, 2008.

However, on the accompanying printout, there is an 11-digit number shown for the DLN with an 8 as the first number to make it appear the document was created in 1980.

Also, the outer circle of the round date stamp by the USPS is difficult to read other than being able to make out “HI” at the top for Hawaii and “USPO” at the bottom.

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 changed the Department of the United States Post Office (USPO) to the United States Postal Service (USPS), so there is no reason why, in 1980, ten years later, a USPO round date stamp would be used.

The center portion of the date stamp clearly reads “Jul” “29” “80” stacked on three lines. However, the “80” is off-center; the 8 appears under the 9 in 29. Round date stamps use a four-digit number for the year, which is centered under the month and day.

The requirement for all men born after Dec. 31, 1959, citizens and both legal and illegal aliens, living in the U.S., who are age 18 through 25, to register for the Selective Services is still in effect.

Failure to register is a criminal offense, punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine of not more than $10,000.

Additionally, the United States Attorneys’ Manual, under Section 9-79.400: Failure to Register With the Selective Service System, specifically states, “United States Attorneys may not decline to prosecute violations of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a) involving the failure to register with the Selective Service System?.”
>
Failure for men to register with Selective Services before turning 26, even if not prosecuted, will render them ineligible for student financial aid, U.S. citizenship, federal job training, jobs in the executive branch of the federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

It would appear then, if Obama never registered for the draft that alone would render him ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

Meanwhile, in Detroit, shortly after the General Election, Mike Clark, host of WRIF Radio’s Mike in the Morning Show, called the Kenyan Embassy to learn the reaction in Kenya to Obama becoming elected President of the United States as he jokingly congratulated Kenya on becoming our 51st state.

Clark’s call was put through to Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Ogego, who told Clark Kenya had already declared a public holiday that Thursday in Obama’s honor.

Visit http://my.wrif.com/ mim/?p=916 to listen to the on-air interview.

Approximately 12 minutes and 30 seconds into the interview, Clark's co-host asks Ogega, “President-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego answers, “It’s, uh, already an attraction. His, his, uh, paternal grandmother is still alive ?"

When Ogego was asked, “But his birthplace, they'lll put up a marker there?” he responded, “It depends on the government; it's already well known.”

Photo: While this campaign poster urges people to register to vote in order to vote for Obama in the Indiana Primary, it appears Obama may have neglected to register for the draft, which would render him ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States, or become a postal worker for that matter.

Copyright © 2008 Sonoran News

Barack Obama is not yet in the clear regarding his eligibilty to become the president. Apparently, his own website has generated a new and more probable reason why Obama is not qualified by reason of not being a natural born US citizen, although they did not realize, evidently, the consequences of their statements. OR, this is a superbly orchestrated, Salinsky-ish trap to draw in the Obama critics and then produce proof of his citizenship, branding the opposition as stupid, heartless conspiracy theorists seeking only to destroy the president elect’s integrity. I tend toward the former, myself.

Educate yourself on this at…

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html?OBAMA+ADMITS+HE+WAS+BRITISH+CITIZEN+AT+BIRTH+-+AS+SUCH+OBAMA+IS+NOT+A+NATURAL+BORN+CITIZEN+OF+US

http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/keyes-action-unlikely-to-overcome.html

Philip Berg’s suit against Obama is proceeding …

http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/as-december-looms-more-take-notice-of.html

http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/us-supreme-court-decisions-on-berg.html

And a new and more comprehensive suit has been filed by a New Jersey attorney…

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

And a superb summary and reasoning behind the belief that Obama lacks the required citizenship is here…