In a hilarious  move, the JagHunter, having failed to convince a Grand Jury of the case against Obama, is now ‘ordering’ Special Agent Richard L. Lambert, Jr.of the  Federal Bureau of Investigation in Knoxville to arrest Obama. Why? Because in a misreading of facts, the JagHunter believes that

Obama forcibly subjugates United States Citizens to secret police power the United States Constitution prohibits. International criminal “police officers,” freely operate on American soil obedient to international law unknown to the United States Constitution.

What is Obama’s crime? In an executive order he revoked parts of the restrictions placed on Interpol by Reagan. Somehow this has been ‘translated’ by some into allowing Interpol full reign on US soil. Don’t these people know how Interpol functions? Why is it that ignorance is guiding these people? Asking for the arrest of the President for doing his job and following the law.

For Immediate Release

Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

Reagan’s executive order stated

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
June 16,1983.

Obama merely extended full privileges to Interpol, the same privileges which have been extended to cover many other international organizations.

Orly seems to encourage people to ‘bare arms’… But is she really suggesting an armed insurrection? How ‘patriotic’ of her…

there is a lot of corruption in the judiciary, just as it is in the government and Congress. Until people will take to the streets and demonstrate preserving their 2nd amendment rights to bare arms and organise in militias, the judges will keep deciding for the usurper

Many good references but this one caught my eyes

Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Merry Christmas and God Bless.

Undeterred by legal rules, Orly has now filed a motion for a hearing to transfer the  case to the District of Columbia. Does she really not understand what it means when the motion to dismiss with prejudice was granted by Judge Carter? Note how the original case was never a Quo Warranto case, although Orly attempted to turn it into one. Once the case was dismissed she attempts to reopen the case and have it transferred to a different Court. I am curious if Carter will finally decide to sanction her for her conduct. Orly also has admitted that all the defendants are employed by the federal government, thus accepting President Obama’s position, making impeachment the only solution. I can understand why Orly is so desperate to keep the case open since she may not have any more plaintiffs to file a suit, and since she believes that the suit was filed properly before President Obama’s Constitutional term in office began. Remember however that a case MUST be dismissed when the Court lacks Jurisdiction.

Furthermore the rule she cites states

Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section without the consent of the United States where all other parties request transfer.

It is important to note that this applies to lack of personal jurisdiction, not lack of subject matter jurisdiction issues. The case was not solely dismissed on lack of personal jurisdiction but rather because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction which renders the case moot and void. A court will not consider a motion to transfer if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See for instance

Atlantic Ship Rigging Co v. D McLellan E  288 F.2d 589, 288 F.2d 589, 1961

Recently, this court in Hohensee v. News Syndicate, Inc., 3 Cir., 1961, 286 F.2d 527, held that a court is without power to transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) absent jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.2 Where, as here, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is a more fundamental defect than an absence of in personam jurisdiction, and one which precludes it from acting at all, a fortiori a court lacks power to transfer.

or First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United Air Lines 190 F.2d 493 (1951) Cert Denied (1951)

Carter clearly ruled that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action on five bases: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing; (2) the issues in this action present non-justiciable political questions; (3) this Court is not the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims; (4) this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their Freedom of Information Act claims and all claims against Defendants Clinton, Gates, Michelle
Obama, and Biden

Orly herself admitted that there is no reason to transfer the case

The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing
this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.

It seems that Orly failed 1406(b)

Section 1406(b), 28 U.S.C. (1964 ed.), provides that:

“Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue.”

12/24/2009 105 NOTICE OF MOTION AND First MOTION to Transfer Case to District of Columbia filed by plaintiff Clint Grimes, Julliett Ireland, D Andrew Johnson, Israel D Jones, Timothy Jones, David Fullmer LaRoque, Gail Lightfoot, Lita M Lott, David Grant Mosby, Steven Kay Neuenschwander, Frank Niceley, Jerry ONeil, Robert Lee Perry, Harry Riley, Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, David Smithey, John Bruce Steidel, Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth, Eric Swafford, Neil B Turner, Richard E Venable, Jeff Graham Winthrope, Mark Wriggle, Alan Keyes PhD, Pamela Barnett, Richard Norton Bauerbach, Robin D Biron, John D Blair, David L Bosley, Loretta G Bosley, Harry G Butler, Glenn Casada, Jennifer Leah Clark, Timothy Comerford, Charles Crusemire, Cynthia Davis, Thomas S Davidson, Matthew Michael Edwards, Jason Freese, Kurt C Fuqua. Motion set for hearing on 1/25/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Taitz, Orly) (Entered: 12/24/2009)

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING AND MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

All the parties in the above captioned case are hereby notified of the motion hearing to be held on January 25, 2010, at the Central District Court of California, Santa Ana Division, Judge Honorable David O. Carter, 411 W 4^th str. Courtroom 9D, Santa Ana, California, Ronald Reagan Federal Building.  Motion to be heard is the Motion to transfer the above captioned case to Honorable judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the US district court for the District of Columbia

(more…)

Jamie Freeze at Renew America has an article where she outlines why the President is a natural born citizen.

Facts are stubborn things. They refuse to go away just because people disagree with them or wish they’d go away. The Birther Movement is a stubborn thing too. It refuses to go away even when proven wrong. It is appalling that the myth of Obama’s non-citizenship is allowed to flourish given that a simple search in LexisNexis of “natural born citizen” pulled up all of the relevant case law and statutes. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to understand it! However, I learned a long time ago that most people are sheep — they’d rather regurgitate something they’ve heard rather than doing their own research. And the old adage is true: if you say something often enough, people will believe it. For once let’s say the truth often enough and hope people believe it. Let’s forget about conspiracy theories and focus on the real issue: Obama’s policies. After all, I don’t deal well with incompetent people.

In a followup the following somewhat sarcastic but still valid observation is made

It is sad that Alan Keyes didn’t have the brilliant Jamie Freeze to advise him so he wouldn’t have displayed his apparent ignorance of the law when he brought Berg v. Obama et al., Martin v. Lingle, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Keyes v. Bowen, Hollister v. Soetoro, Cook v. Obama, Barnett v. Obama, and Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana, all for the purpose of producing an original U.S. birth certificate and all surely taking thousands of hours of legal research. I am sure if he has read Ms Freeze’s article, he must be in anguish that he hadn’t merely solicited her brilliant baccalaureat legal expertise in the first place.
Orly Taitz has been contacted with the news, so that she can rush out and withdraw her pending lawsuits.

Hint: Orly has no pending lawsuits… and yes, Keyes could have done better by familiarizing himself first with the facts. Now he is faced with 61 overall losses and 0 wins.

Extracts of an opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Bates, dated December 29, 1862.

Who is a citizen !  What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of our courts for a clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course of judicial decision in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government. For anght I see to the contrary, the subject is now as little understood in its details and elements, and the question as open to argument and to speculative criticism, as it was at the beginning of the Government. Eighty years of practical enjoyment of citizenship, under the Constitution, have not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the word, or the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly.

In most instances, within my knowledge, in which the matter of citizenship has been discussed, the argument has not turned upon the existence and the intrinsic qualities of citizenship itself, but upon the claim of some right or privilege as belonging to and inhering in the character of a citizen. In this way we are easily led into errors both in fact and principle. We see individuals, who are known to. be citizens, in the actual enjoyment of certain rights and privileges, and in the actual exercise of certain powers, social and political, and we, inconsiderately, and without any regard to legal and logical consequences, attribute to those individuals, and to all of their class, the enjoyment of those rights and privileges, and the exercise of those powers, as incidents to their citizenship, and belonging to them only in their quality of citizens.

(more…)

As reported earlier today in EUR, Tom Joyner interviewed President Barack Obama this morning on his Tom Joyner Morning Show. You can listen here or read the full transcript here

My hope is that with the health care debate winding down, we get that done. The people, everybody takes a deep breath and remembers that everybody’s an American.  I’ve got my birth certificate to prove it. We are all just trying to do what’s best for the country.  We’re gonna have our differences, but we don’t have to attack each other’s motives which I think has become a habit in Washington. You know you know me pretty well, Tom, and I’m always an optimist.  I don’t hold grudges, and I’m just interested in getting the job done.

Very funny, Merry Christmas..

THIS WAS E-MAILED TO ASSISTANT US ATTORNEYS ROGER WEST AND DAVID DEJUTTE
Posted on | December 23, 2009 | No Comments

Gentlemen

I would like to schedule a short phone meet and confer conference for today at 4pm regarding filing a motion to transfer of this case to DC.
thank you,

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orlytaitzesq.com
drtaitz.com
taitzofficesuites.com

The Health Care Bill passed a significant hurdle when 60 Senators in a test vote blocked attempts to filibuster the final passage. With a bit of luck, we can expect a nice Christmas present under our trees. The bill is expected to reduce the deficit by $132 billion over its first decade and insure 94% of US citizens.

‘SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish—  ‘‘(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or ‘‘(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.

‘‘(b) PER BENEFICIARY LIMITS.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered 18 benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law.

‘‘SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS.  ‘‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer 22 offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply  to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and  only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).

Another opinion which undermines the concept that it is International Law and not Municipal Law which determines the nationality of an individual:

§ 293. Nationality of an individual is his quality of a subject of a certain State, and therefore its citizen. It is not for International, but for Municipal Law to determine who is, and who is not, to be considered a subject. And therefore it matters not, as far as the Law of Nations is concerned, that Municipal Laws may distinguish between different kinds of subjects —for instance, those who enjoy full political rights, and are on that account named citizens, and those who are less favoured, and are on that account not named citizens. Nor does it matter that, according to Municipal Law, a person may be a subject of a part of a State, for instance of a dominion or a colony, but not a subject of the mother country, provided only such person appears as a subject of the mother country as far as the international relations of the latter are concerned. Thus, a person naturalised in a British dominion or colony is, for all international purposes, a British subject, although he may not have the rights of a British subject within the United Kingdom itself. For all international purposes, all distinctions made by Municipal Laws between subjects and citizens, and between different kinds of subjects, have neither theoretical nor practical value, and the terms ‘ subject’ and ‘ citizen’ are, therefore, synonymous so far as International Law is concerned.

Lassa Oppenheim, International law: a treatise. Vol 1, Longmans, Green and co., 1920

Can be found here and is also accessible through the tabs below the header on my site.

Poor Mario Apuzzo is having a hard time rebutting all these factual claims that show that it was not Vattel and the Law of Nations but rather Common Law practices that guided who was a natural born citizen.

Fitzpatrick writes on his blog:

I humbly opine should the health care reform bill pass this week you can Fergettabout Freedom. Start thinking about Civil War!

A Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury order to prosecute OBAMA for TREASON stops a run-away federal government in its tracks.

Unless YOU ACT, the health care reform bill to be passed in a matter of days will be the gift you give to your children and generations of thier children.

I guess Fitzy’s ‘complaint’ is less about ineligibility as it is about ‘treason’ because Obama was elected and is doing what he promised during his election: to reform the US health insurance system.

I personally cannot believe the present we may find under our tree any time soon. What a way to celebrate Christmas. Amen… I could not think of a better gift for my children and my children’s children. The only thing that holds me back from celebrating is that a watered down version seems to have passed.

As to ‘Civil War’, we will see at the next presidential elections…

What do you think, will the Monroe County Grand Jury be ’swayed’ by Fitzy’s arguments? Did they not reject them twice already?

Canada ‘Free Press’ ‘reports’

As of this update on December 16, 2009, the information “leaked” by Pettway to WVLT appears to be false, as the Monroe County Grand Jury has yet to issue any such findings. In fact, Fitzpatrick states that he has had no further contact of any kind from the court.

Calling it ‘leaked’ information suggest, contrary to the facts, that Pettway disclosed information that should have remained sealed. Of course, that appears to be flawed as the Monroe County Grand Jury historically releases its report on Tuesdays.

It was reported that

Grand Jury Foreman Gary Pettway says the grand jury’s findings will be revealed December 7th.

And indeed on December 08, the report of the Monroe Grand Jury was published. For obvious reasons the report only includes actual indictments. As far as I have been able to determine from historical records, the Monroe County Grand Jury indictments are reported on Tuesdays.

Canada ‘Free Press’

Clearly, Pettway gave WVLT News faulty information regarding a jury decision being reached by December 7, 2009. No decision has been issued as of the 16th, and nobody knows why Pettway was making any statements at all for the jury, regarding a matter which includes obstruction charges against Pettway himself.

Since the Grand Jury does not report on cases where it fails to indict, I think the conclusion should be self evident.

Fitzpatrick is still hopeful even though 2 Grand Jury reports have now been released since his December hearing

When asked how he might interpret the silence from the Grand Jury, Fitzpatrick responded – “Giving them the benefit regarding their certain realization of the gravamen of the situation, given their expectations regarding what’s sure to follow (no matter which decision they make), and given that it’s Christmas time, I’m willing to wait a little longer.”

If I remember correctly, the Grand Jury met several months earlier and did not release a bill, the December hearing was to determine the complaints against the Jury foreman and the District Attorney and it seems that the Grand Jury refused to return an indictment on this issue as well. It may be that the Grand Jury does understand the ‘gravamen of the situation’ and has chosen accordingly.

As reported earlier

James Stutts, the Monroe County District Attorney, left a message Monday night saying that in fact, Fitzpatrick testified for two hours before the grand jury in August and the jury declined to bring any charges based on his testimony. He also disputes Fitzpatrick’s characterization of that appearance and says the former Navy man was not physicially restrained in any way nor was he forced from the courtroom.

So what is Fitzpatrick expecting?

After Judge Carter’s clarification was posted, John Charlton appeared a bit upset and utter

Carter has, thus, closed the case and found himself guilty of the most grave breach of judicial ethics:  lying to plaintiffs and their counsel in July in promising them a hearing on merits, as a trick to avoid having to render a default judgment against Obama for not responding to the service of court papers; hiring as a clerk a lawyer who is politically tied to the defendants; including false and unsubstantiated claims in his ruling of Oct. 29th with a purpose of defaming and libeling Dr. Orly Taitz; and finally, with great mendacity, claiming his order of Oct. 29th was something it never was in law.

It seems that John Charlton has the same problem with understanding the necessary legal concepts as Orly. Judge Carter stated that effecting correct service on the defendants would resolve the personal jurisdiction issue of standing. It’s important to not that personal jurisdiction standing can be waived by the parties and in this case the Attorney General was generous enough to assist Orly in properly serving the defendants, even though she needed additional help when she failed once again to follow the simple and straightforward rules.

Carter never promised, and never could have promised a waiver on subject matter jurisdiction which unlike some of the other kinds of jurisdiction may be waived. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the case as it would render any judgment void. Was this a trick to avoid having to render default judgment? Again the fantasies of Orly-ites are stronger than the facts. There was no issue of default judgment on the table, especially since Orly had failed to properly effect service.

While some may have seen Judge Carter’s order as defaming and libelous, the court was in the possession of several sworn statements by (former) witnesses for the prosecution who declared under oath that Orly had asked them to perjure themselves. The court correctly observed that these statements troubled him.

Orly asked for clarification on his Oct 29th Order and the Judge provided the clarification: the order was final and with prejudice and the case was closed, or better, remained closed.

Not the least of his crimes was his trashing of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in his Oct. 29th ruling.

The Post & Email need not proclaim Judge Carter a criminal or traitor to the Republic, he has done so with his own hand, blackening his soul thereby, with a far darker hue than the robes he wears.

But he does deserve to be called a “scoundrel,” because that is what he is.

On the contrary, Judge Carter went to great extremes to protect the Constitutional rights of all involved and noticed that due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, he had no choice but to dismiss the case. Due process, etc all end when a case lacks subject matter jurisdiction. John Charlton may object to the Constitutional interpretation here but he would be arguing against hundreds of years of precedents.

Note: Is this the same George D Collins? Would be somewhat ironic…

ATTORNEY GEORGE D. COLLINS, THE BRILLIANT ATTORNEY, WHO COMMITTED BIGAMY AND PERJURY—A REMARKABLE CASE.

An article appeared in the San Francisco papers of April 24, 1905, to the effect that George D. Collins, the brilliant attorney from San Francisco, had on the day previous married Miss Clarice McCurdy at a hotel in Chicago. Miss McCurdy was the daughter of Mrs. S. A. McCurdy, a wealthy widow residing in Stockton. A few days afterward, Collins returned to San Francisco with his bride and mother-in-law and secured apartments at the Palace Hotel.

(more…)

In an article called Two Unconstitutional Presidents, self described Portland Civil Rights Examiner, Dianna Cotter argues that there must have been two unconstitutional Presidents since Chester Arthur was born to an alien father, and by extension the same applies to President Obama.

She quotes from the work of a  “lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq” to argue that Vattel should be followed. What she forget to mention is that Collins was one of the lawyers for the Appellant, the United States, in Wong Kim Ark where Collin’s arguments were explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court.

And so history is rewritten

One of our Friends of Politijab observes

Mr Charlton ‘argues’

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.  In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court.  On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

First of all Mr Charlton omits an important part “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

(more…)

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored:  http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com
this guy began as claiming Obama was “native born” and when it was shown that that wasn’t good enough to be president, changed his tune but not his message.

In fact, as I have shown native born and natural born are, with minor exceptions, equivalent. Native born includes the following groups which were or are still excluded from natural born status

1. Children born to foreign dignitaries

2. Children born to invading military

3. Children born to Indians not taxed

The reason is simple, none of these are under full jurisdiction of the United States.

Furthermore, Charlton ‘argues’ with no supporting evidence, while ironically accusing these sites of misinformation dissemination… Oh the irony. But I thank John for the useful list.

Here is a brief listing of sites collaborating in Soros’ misinformation campaign.  Mind you, don’t let yourself be trapped dialoging with these guys: truth is their enemy; pyschological warfare and misinformation dissemination is their profession:

Politijab: http://www.politijab.com

Oh, For Goodness Sake:  http://ohforgoodnesssake.com

Via OFGS – Jack Ryan’s “Birther Lawsuits”:  http://www.scribd.com/Jack%20Ryan

BadFiction:  http://badfiction.typepad.com – this guy is an IT specialist and a member of the Society for Creative Revisionism — oops! — Anachronism

BadFiction’s Birther Calender:  http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/-birther-calendar.html

Obama Conspiracy Theories:  http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

Obots.org:  http://www.obots.org

What’s Your Evidence:  http://whatsyourevidence.com

Rumproast:  http://www.rumproast.com

Barackyphal:  http://barackryphal.blogspot.com

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored:  http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com
this guy began as claiming Obama was “native born” and when it was shown that that wasn’t good enough to be president, changed his tune but not his message.

Stupid PUMAs!:  http://stupidpumas.com

Crazy Internet People:  http://crazyinternetpeople.blogspot.com