(Religious Content) Baroak Obama forthcoming Global Dictator (Antichrist Part 2.)

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

HR 3200 Trojan for allowing RFID microchip implant Included In Obama's Healthcare bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5OMyY5FhOY

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

I'm sorry if I'm being ignorant, but what exactly does Neplilims (mythical Cannite giants) or fallen angels from Africa have to do with the president of the USA or any bills he passes? How is he an/the antichrist?

edit?* lol,post number 69 *

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

How a man who came into the United States with illegal falsified documents was able to unlawfully worm his way right up through politics to become the president of the most powerful nation in terms of international influence and nuclear military might on the face of the planet.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Show us.

The Hawaii State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a "long form" birth certificate.

"We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawaii," Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. "I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawaii."

On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama's request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.

As they had with the Certification of Live Birth made public by the Obama campaign in June 2008, birthers immediately claimed that the long form birth certificate was also a forgery. The primary arguments advanced to demonstrate that the certificate was forged were claims that some textual elements of the certificate were anachronistic, and that the existence of layers found when the PDF file was opened with Adobe Illustrator proved that it had been altered. All of these arguments are erroneous.

The claims of anachronism stemmed from three elements in the certificate:

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack

Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth,
it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father
was born in "Kenya, East Africa". This wouldn't seem like anything of
concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole
years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could
Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and
until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "Kaui Keolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?

Claims that these elements are anachronistic to 1961 (the year of Barack Obama's birth) are incorrect:

Nowhere on Barack Obama's birth certificate does the term "African-American" appear. The space for "Race of Father" is filled in with the word "African," which was a commonly used descriptor for blacks who (like Barack Obama's father) were actually native-born Africans.

In 1895 the British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate, the forerunner of the country now known as the republic of Kenya. Although Kenya did not achieve complete independence from the United Kingdom until 1963, it was known as the Kenya Colony from 1920 onwards and was typically referred to as Kenya long before 1963. A search of news reports from 1961 (the year of Barack Obama's birth) turns up hundreds and hundreds of news articles referencing that entity simply as "Kenya."

The former Kapi'olani Maternity Home became the Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (where Barack Obama was born) in 1931, and it retained that appellation until 1971, when its name was shortened to Kapi'olani Hospital. The Kauikeolani Children's Hospital (where Barack Obama was <U>not</U> born) was a separate entity which merged with the Kapi'olani Hospital in 1978 to become the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children.


A listing of social services available in the Hawaiian islands documents that the facility bore that name prior to 1961:


Moreover, a copy of a birth certificate issued to a child born in Honolulu one day after Barack Obama also shows "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" listed in the "Name of Hospital" field.

As for the argument that opening the birth certificate's PDF file in Adobe Illustrator reveals the presence of multiple layers, which proves that the image was altered, that claim was debunked by an Adobe-certified expert:

It didn't take long for some of President Obama’s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House had been altered or might be a fake.

But a leading software expert says there's no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.

The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — "reveals" evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it's "proof" the file has been altered.

But that's not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.

He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. "I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings; and it looks exactly like this," he said.


Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work — and nothing more.

"When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn't look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn't look like this," he said. "Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers."

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

"I know that you can scan a document from a scanner [and] most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there's no software that's doing this kind of stuff," he said, adding that it's really quite common.

John Woodman, author of 'Is Barack Obama's Birth Certificate a Fraud?: A Computer Guy Examines The Evidence for Forgery', also debunked the "layers" argument in a series of videos

Controversies
Main article: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies#Joe Arpaio
Arpaio has been a controversial sheriff. His practices have been criticized by government agencies such as the United States Department of Justice, United States District Courts, and organizations such as Amnesty International,[42] the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,[43] and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.[44] The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".[45] Controversial issues surrounding Arpaio have included allegations of racial profiling, in which the ACLU has sued the sheriff.[46][47]
[edit]Unconstitutional jail conditions
Neil V. Wake ruled in 2008, and again in 2010, that the Maricopa County jails violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care related issues.[25][26] This ruling was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, which alleged that "Arpaio routinely abused pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food, housing them in cells so hot as to endanger their health, denying them care for serious medical and mental health needs and keeping them packed as tightly as sardines in holding cells for days at a time during intake."[48]
In a ruling issued in October 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Arpaio to follow Judge Wake's 2008 ruling, which required Arpaio to end severe overcrowding and ensure all detainees receive necessary medical and mental health care, be given uninterrupted access to all medications prescribed by correctional medical staff, be given access to exercise and to sinks, toilets, toilet paper and soap and be served food that meets or exceeds the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines.[49][50][51][52]
[edit]Lack of cooperation with Department of Justice
In June 2008[53], the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division began an investigation of Arpaio amid accusations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The investigation was conducted under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination related to programs that receive federal funds. On July 7, 2009, Arpaio held a press conference, and announced that he would not cooperate with the investigation, either by providing documents, or permitting interviews with personnel. On September 2, 2010, the Department of Justice filed suit against Arpaio,[54] to compel his cooperation with the investigation. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department stated that it was unprecedented for an agency to refuse to cooperate with a Title VI investigation, and that this is the first time the Justice Department has sued to compel access to documents and facilities.[55][56][57] The suit was settled in June, 2011, after Arpaio allowed federal officials to interview Sheriff's office employees, and review hundreds of thousands of documents for the investigation.[58] [59]
[edit]Racial profiling
On December 15, 2011, the U.S. Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."[60]
The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.[61] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. History.[62]
[edit]Loss of authority to identify illegal immigrants
Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices within the MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security revoked the MCSO's federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.[63]
In a separate action on December 23, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow enjoined Arpaio and the MCSO from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States," halting anti-illegal immigration enforcement by MCSO in its current form.[64]
[edit]Federal grand jury inquiry
A federal grand jury has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.[65]
[edit]Abuse of power
In February 2010, Judge John Leonardo found that Arpaio "misused the power of his office to target members of the (Board of Supervisors) for criminal investigation".[66]
In 2008 a federal grand jury began an inquiry of Arpaio for abuse of power, in connection with an FBI investigation.[67][68] Arpaio is being investigated for politically motivated and "bogus" prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called "utterly unacceptable".[67][68] Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's "long list" of questionable prosecutions "a reign of terror".[68]
The targets of Arpaio's alleged abuse of power have included or currently include:
Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor;[67]
Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County;[67]
Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General;[67]
David Smith, Maricopa County Manager;[67]
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors;[67]
Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge;[67]
Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge;[69]
Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge[67]
Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney;[67]
Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent;[68]
Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times[68]
To date (July 10, 2010) of the above only Sandra Dowling has been successfully prosecuted.[68] Indicted on 25 felony counts, Dowling eventually pled guilty to patronage for giving a summer job to her daughter, a single class 2 misdemeanor which was not among the original counts, although as part of the plea bargain she also agreed to recuse herself from the Maricopa County Regional School District. Dowling has since filed suit, alleging negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and several constitutional violations.[70]
[edit]Feud with Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa Superior Court
Over the two years prior to September, 2010, feuding between Arpaio and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas on one side, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on the other side cost at least $5.6 million, most of which was paid to private attorneys. Arpaio and Thomas filed several lawsuits against the Board of Supervisors, including a federal civil-racketeering suit against the supervisors, four judges and attorneys who work with the county. Arpaio and Thomas lost every case, either by ruling of the courts, or by dropping the case.[71]
In early 2010, Arpaio and Thomas sought to have a grand jury indict a number of Maricopa County Judges, Maricopa County Supervisors, and employees of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The grand jury, in an unusual rebuke, ordered the investigation ended. This action has been described as meaning that "...the case is so bad, there's no further evidence that could be brought [to substantiate it]". Legal experts agree this is a rare move.[72] Thomas and a subordinate attorney on his County Attorney staff face a hearing later in 2011 before the Ethics Committee of the Arizona Bar, the result of which could be a number of sanctions up to permanent loss of their law licenses.
In November and December 2010, lawsuits naming Arpaio were filed by Judge Gary Donahoe, retired Maricopa County Superior Court judges Barbara Mundell, Anna Baca, and Kenneth Fields, County Supervisor Don Stapley, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, and Susan Schuerman, executive assistant to Supervisor Don Stapley.[73][74][75][76][77][78] Conley Wolfswinkel (a business associate of Stapley) filed suit in January, 2011.[79][80] Other targets of Arpaio's investigations, including Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox,[69] and Maricopa Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson[72] have filed notices of claims (the precursor to filing suit) totalling about $56 million dollars.[72]
[edit]Election law violation
During the month of July 2010, a committee established by Arpaio, the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012, funded advertisements critical of Rick Romley, a candidate in the Republican Primary for Maricopa County Attorney and Arizona Attorney General candidate Tom Horne, despite the fact that Arpaio is not currently running for re-election (his term does not expire until the end of 2012).[81]
An order issued on the behalf of the Maricopa Elections Department on August 24, 2010, found that one of the advertisements, a direct mailer, advocated the defeat of Romley, and was an in-kind contribution to Bill Montgomery (Romley's primary election opponent), in violation of Arizona election law. The order stated that the Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012 will be fined three times the amount of money that was spent on the mailer.[82] In September, 2010, Arpaio's campaign was fined $153,978 in this matter.[83] Montgomery ultimately defeated Romley in the primary election, with Romley stating Arpaio's ads "hurt" his results.[84]
[edit]Misuse of funds
An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, completed in April 2011, found Arpaio has misspent almost $100 million in taxpayer dollars over the previous 5 years.[85][86][87]
The analysis showed that money from a restricted detention fund which could only legally be used to pay for jail items, such as food, detention officers' salaries and equipment, was used to pay employees to patrol Maricopa County.[85] The analysis also showed that many Sheriff's Office employees, whose salaries were paid from the restricted detention fund, were working job assignments different from those recorded in their personnel records. Arpaio's office kept a separate set of personnel books detailing actual work assignments, different from information kept on the county's official human-resources records.[86]
Arpaio used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals, and activities involving his human-smuggling unit.[85][86]
The analysis also showed a number of inappropriate spending items, including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.[86][88]
Separate investigations by The Arizona Republic uncovered widespread abuse of public funds and county policies by Arpaio's office, including high-ranking employees routinely charging expensive meals and stays at luxury hotels on their county credit cards.[89]
The Republic also found that a restricted jail enhancement fund was improperly used to pay for out-of-state training, a staff party at a local amusement park, and a $456,000 bus, which was purchased by Arpaio in violation of county procurement rules.[85][90]
[edit]Munnell memo
In September, 2010, a 63 page internal memo, written by Maricopa Deputy Chief Frank Munnell, was made public. The memo alleged years of misconduct and mismanagement by Arpaio's second in command and other top MCSO officers, including the use of a public-corruption task force to conduct politically motivated probes into political opponents. The memo alleged that top officials in the MCSO "willfully and intentionally committed criminal acts by attempting to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence."[91] Arpaio forwarded the memo to the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, requesting they conduct an administrative investigation. Former top MCSO staffers have claimed that Arpaio knew of the acts alleged in the Munnell memo, but took no action to stop them.[92] Arpaio has not commented publicly on the allegations.
In October 2010, the US Attorney for Arizona confirmed that the FBI and Department of Justice have received copies of the Munnell memo, and are conducting criminal investigations into its allegations.[93]

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

His Healthcare Reichsadler looks about right.

gibraltar wrote: »

First of all this is religious nonsense, second it has been posted before, you are wrong, the "number of the beast" is not 666. Theory failure at the first hurdle your own choosing.

Using trainspotting and bar codes to backup an argument for biblical evil and the antichrist would be laughable if it was no saddening.



You "look into things with a clear mind", a mistranslated bible and a desire to find symbolism, check your kitchen, how many bar codes have the number of the beast within them and how many items there have "occult symbolism"?. If you look really hard I'm sure you can find plenty.