Sunday, February 28, 2010
Below are three videos that will be a big help. Listen up! This guy talks fast. Also see the links at the bottom.
Obots are obsessed AKA Obama supporters who robot-like keep posting the same propaganda over and over and they can not pass the Turing Test.
Astroturfers are fake grass roots activists who hide their programmed agendas and organized political affiliations.
The other side uses ridicule, name calling, personal attacks and changing the subject.
The truth is on your side. Use facts and logic. That won't have an effect on them but the lurkers and other posters will know who has the best position
How to Stop Obot Spammers in their Tracks!
Post these articles when you detect one of AKA Obama’s agents.
Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/exposing-obamas-psyops-agents-and.html
Cass Sunstein – The Red General - and Saul Alinsky his Ideological Father http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/01/cass-sunstein-red-general-and-saul.html
Also see: Obots, meet the beast which sired you!http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/01/obots-meet-beast-which-sired-you.html
Outing Obama’s Internet Brownshirts ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, LET’S SHINE A LIGHT ON OBAMA POLITICAL OPERATIVES!
No matter what the say in response make it clear that you know they haven’t read the articles or they would know that their objection has been exposed and debunked already.
Only do that twice. Then make it clear that you are not on the forum to debate them but to expose their sleezy tactics.
If they respond again post this comment; ”Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference”.
Then post: “Click the link below for the punch line and my final comment:”
Saturday, February 27, 2010
It is difficult for Americans to conceive and almost impossible for them to accept that they have elected a Marxist as president, but they have.
There is nothing in Obama's history or the “change” that he is attempting to effect that indicates otherwise. Nothing.
He is counting on the public's political naivete, support because he is black, unquestioned backing from the mainstream media, academia, and indoctrinated, progressive ideology to subvert our Constitutional Republic.
It is so obvious that Pravda has marveled at our stupidity (Vladislav Mishin, Pravda June 1, 2009). If we do not understand the threat and react as educated, loyal Americans we will lose our liberty. It is that simple.
"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
Friday, February 26, 2010
Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.
Filed under: 2010 • CNN Polls
Clever Legislators in Arizona Hit on New Way to Find Obama’s Birth Truth
By Jerry McConnell Thursday, February 25, 2010
I can’t speak for all of you out there reading this, but I sure do get a lot of concurrence from the readers of CFP articles regarding the absolute necessity to establish the validity of one Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” of the United States in accordance with the requirements as set down in Article 2 of the U. S. Constitution; Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding.
It seems that with each passing day more news is presented of cases of challenges from every corner of this country. Many of these cases have met with Judicial intransigence from the lethargic or shady decisions of many judges at many levels of our society all the way up the chain of command. But even so, there always seems to be some still pending a full hearing of even an open discussion which gives me, at least, the feeling of ‘what’s going on with this birth business’?
But as in life in these ever surprising United States, every now and then a bright light suddenly shines on a brilliant new attempt to solve a riddle or stalemate.
In the area of “Why didn’t I think of that?”, the AP authored an article that appeared in the February 23, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled, “Ariz. Lawmakers: Verify Citizenship of Candidates” in which it reported that 40 of the state’s 90 legislators sponsored a measure that would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.
The article further stated that “a state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure that was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges.” Though it was not reported, the new requirement presumably will now appear on the state ballot in the Fall 2010 election to be held in Arizona.
It is an apparent attempt by the Arizona Legislature to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.
Just imagine the consternation that will be passing through the minds of the Obama campaign organization as early as probably today on how to counter this action after they have spent close to 2 million dollars in legal fees to prevent having to disclose the information from the public.
White House officials have passed the controversy off as “politics” in an effort to discredit efforts to have Obama prove he is actually Constitutionally eligible to serve in the office of president.
While many have blamed Congress for not performing their official duties of clearing applicants prior to certification and acceptance of applications, there are equally as many who discredit them for conducting hearings in official sessions to force John McCain to produce his birth certificate prior to the presidential primaries in 2008.
In that charges of misfeasance of duty could be considered if it were to be proven that Congress deliberately neglected to perform that part of their assigned duties, such a proposition as the Arizona requirement of ballot application requirements could be extremely contentious to say the least.
Arizona will undoubtedly be in the spotlight during the upcoming months leading to the 2010 Fall National Elections, with a factious battle for a U. S. Senator seat by incumbent John McCain and challenger J. D. Hayworth, a former Arizona Congressman. Such a contest will often refer to McCain’s similar position in the 2008 proof of citizenship Congressional hearings.
Wanna bet the Obama apologizers will find a way to declare it un-Constitutional? Wouldn’t that be a ‘hoot’? The man who has thumbed his nose at the U. S. Constitution getting to use it to keep on abusing it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
By Susan Thompson
In a survey released on Wednesday, 71% of those polled by Rasmussen now disapprove of Congress. Even as the administration and Congress have repeatedly tried to hit the magic “reset button” the disapproval rating of Congress has increased 10 points in the last month. What is surprising is the statistics behind the statistics.
Even Democrats Are Dismayed
In a shocking statistic, fully 48% of Democrats now disapprove of Congress. Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” mantra has all but evaporated in a desert of economic turmoil, an activist Republican minority, and humbling Democratic defeats in recent elections. Democratic supporters largely feel disenfranchised with the inability of the administration and Congress to quickly pass health care and cap and trade legislation, both centerpieces of Obama’s legislative agenda.
And Republicans Smell Blood
Republicans are benefiting from an economic recovery that seems stalled and in pointing out contrasts between the Democratic leadership’s words and actions. While Congressional Democrats appear to be content to use their majority voting power to shut out Republicans, Republicans are content in placing responsibility for the legislative quagmire squarely in the laps of Democrats. This has led to a growing Republican confidence in the mid-term elections in November. Most commentators now believe it is possible for Republicans to gain control of both houses of Congress after the mid-term elections in November.
Vote The Bums Out…Or Make Them Retire
Fully 63% of respondents now think the country would be better if incumbents were sent packing, and 42% think that Congress is corrupt. This has given the fledgling Tea Party movement not only momentum but also credibility as a real manifestation of political unrest. As a result, numerous Democratic legislators are now deciding it is wise to retire rather than facing crushing election defeats. As long as Congress is stuck in a political stalemate over major issues, Congressional disapproval is not expected to decrease.
USJF chief: 'This is completely uncharted territory'
Posted: February 25, 201012:15 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn't eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.
And that's just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama's presence on the 2008 election ballot.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
WND several weeks ago reported when Kreep's legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state's requirements.
Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.
"If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him," Kreep told WND.
Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.
"This is completely uncharted territory," Kreep told WND. "It could all be challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid. If he's not qualified, if he's not the president, it isn't valid."
The research, done on Kreep's behalf by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker, cited the following statutes that could apply:
False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912). It states: "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."The USJF analysis said, "Basically this statute calls for 1) Fraudulent intent, and 2) an overt act to accomplish the inducement of one giving over a thing of value. If it were found that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Art. II § 1, he will have assumed the office of president fraudulently to obtain money (among other things) by way of his annual salary. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for False Personations in U.S. v. Lepowitch, (63 S.Ct. 914), and Lamar v. U.S., (36 S.Ct. 535)."
Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C. 371).It states: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."The USJF analysis said, "As in all conspiracies, there must be two or more persons working in concert to achieve an illegal act, so the president would need a co-conspirator for this statute to apply. The state of Hawaii is being very secretive about the whereabouts or even existence of Mr. Obama's supposed birth certificate. If the officials in charge of keeping these records know of its non-existence, then they would be co-conspirators with the objective of defrauding the United States as to the citizenship status of Barack Obama. There, however, must be an 'in concert' element met, meaning that these officials are withholding the proof at the direction of Mr. Obama. Is it possible that these officials love Barack Obama so much that they are withholding these documents out of the goodness of their own hearts? Yes, possibly, however unlikely. It is reasonable to infer that the Hawaiian officials are working 'in concert' with Mr. Obama to suppress this information, since each would face both civil and criminal suits, not to mention the loss of furthering their own political goals."
Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a)).It states: "(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or"Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."The USJF analysis said: "Intent is fully at issue here; however, President Obama made it clear during his campaign that his full intent when entering office would be to scale down the conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq, eventually leading to a full withdrawal. His statements of being a natural born citizen to obtain the office of commander in chief were in effort to interfere with the attempts by the former commander in chief's attempt at engaging the enemy in these two countries, for the purpose of national security."In the case of Schulze v. U.S. (259 F. 189) Petitioner was convicted under this statute, and the question of intent was at issue. The court stated, 'It is true that in charging the offense it is unnecessary to allege the intent; the offense being one whose very definition necessarily includes intent. In such a case it is necessary only to aver in apt terms the acts done. The intent will be inferred. The charge is not unlike that of treason, the indictment for which needs go no further than to follow the language of the statute which defines the offense. (United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb.U.S. 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254)…"This means that intent is inferred from the act itself. Mr. Obama has already announced that the efforts in Afghanistan will be scaled back, and a full withdrawal is planned for 2011. Furthermore, the announcement of this strategy works to the aid of our enemy, who now knows to sit in caves and wait out the U.S. for only a year or so. This certainly works interrupt our operations and promote the success of our enemy."
False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542).It states: "Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or"Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both."The USJF analysis said: "To obtain a U.S. passport one must show a valid birth certificate or some other form of identification showing U.S. citizenship. Barack Obama would have to have furnished some sort of birth certificate or other document showing he is a citizen. Of course, even if he was not a natural born citizen, he could show naturalization or some other citizenship papers. However, if these documents are spurious, then he would be guilty pursuant to the first paragraph, and to then use his illegally obtained passport, he would also be guilty under the second paragraph as well."
False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).It states: "Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."The analysis said: "If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well."
Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621).It states: "Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or"(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."The USJF analysis said: "Mr. Obama has taken the oath of office of POTUS, in front of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, in which he promises to 'defend the Constitution'. As an illegal alien, or even a non-natural born citizen, he would be acting as an ineligible president. Furthermore, as an attorney, and a former professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama would have full knowledge of the requirements for an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS. This shows that he has willfully stated that he will and is acting contrary to his presidential oath."
The USJF document showed that all of the charges require a specific intent.
"Mr. Obama knows, or at least should know, the place of his birth and the status of his citizenship, as all, or nearly all, adults in the world do. He has, therefore, willfully and knowingly made repeated false claims as to his citizenship, and this makes him absolutely liable for the above mentioned crimes," the analysis said.
The organization's earlier research, now included in its appeal documentation, found that in 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States.
The then-California Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president. Jordan, using his administrative powers, threw him off the ballot.
The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.
"Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States," the USJF brief states. "In 'State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,' after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor," the brief explains.
North Dakota's historical archives document the case.
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.
The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that president's must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.
In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.
WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility in addition to efforts to raise the question at the state and national levels.
Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.
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."
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
The White House has not replied to numerous requests for comment.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, 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.
Another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
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.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
JONATHAN J. COOPER
Associated Press Writer
6:27 PM PST, February 23, 2010
PHOENIX (AP) — Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state's 90 legislators. It would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.The idea was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges. She says if people have to prove their citizenship to apply for a job or get a passport, they should have to prove it to run for president.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
President Obama's approval numbers in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll have been quite volatile the last few weeks but today reached a new basement level -- with only 22% expressing strong approval, and 41% strong disapproval. The 19% margin favoring strong disapproval is the 2nd widest registered since Obama took office, and the 22% strong approval number is a new low.
Right after the State of the Union address, the strong approval/strong disapproval level was 35% to 39%. Overall approval/disapproval is now 45%-54%, after briefly tipping into positive territory for Obama at 50%-49% following the State of the Union. If unemployment numbers remain high, and the Democrat-controlled Congress attempts to jam an unpopular health care reform bill through using reconciliation rules in the Senate, these numbers may drop further.
For several months, Rasmussen poll numbers on Obama have been much less favorable than those from other pollsters. That is no longer the case, as many other surveys now show Obama's approval numbers in the mid to high 40s, including polls that have routinely in the past contained samples with a questionable (high) percentage of Democrats and liberals (e.g., Newsweek, Washington Post/ABC, CBS/New York Times).
The Rasmussen survey shows support for the health care bill at 39% and opposition at 58%. For liberals in Congress, a massive new entitlement that will bring 30 million more Americans into a program relying on federal subsidies to provide insurance is a 50 year dream. Leaders from safe districts (like Pelosi) seem willing to sacrifice the seats of other members, and even control of the House after 2010, in order to get a comprehensive health care reform passed. Anyone who thought that the election results, in New Jersey and Virginia in November 2009 and in Massachusetts Senate race in January, would lead to a reassessment of the Administration's priorities seems to have misunderstood the liberal passion for a big, expensive, health care reform bill. There has been no pivot to focusing on a job bills, or deficit control, which seem far higher priorities with American voters than health care reform. No televised summits are planned for these subjects.
Democrats in Congress, now face a possible loss of control in the House, with 70 or more vulnerable seats (the Republicans with fewer than 10) and Republicans leading in races for 8 Senate seats held by Democrats. Democrats in Congress are far less popular than President Obama, and the number of Americans who think the country is heading in the wrong direction is more than twice as large as the number who think the country is heading in the right direction in the latest Rasmussen survey at 65% to 28%. These are numbers similar to those in the last years of the Bush administration.
There is ample reason for Michael Barone to say the Democrats now face their worst political environment in more than half a century. The question is why they are doubling down on what brought them from the messianic approval heights of early 2009 to the current sinking levels.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.
Obama admits that he is a Muslim. Obama bowing before a Muslim king. Obama talking about his Muslim family. Obama quoting from the Koran. Obama defending Islam. Obama visiting a Mosque. And many more clips of Obama and his Muslim connections.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Obama is Nobody’s Messiah Now
By JB Williams
CBS News ran an internal internet poll asking Americans to grade the Obama administration on performance in the key areas of federal government. CBS didn’t dare report on those findings, but as of this writing, you can still vote in the CBS poll and see the staggering results here.
The results are currently as follows
Economy—70.4% - F
Foreign Policy—61.8% - F
Health Care—81.6% - F
Terror Threat—65.2% F
Energy & Environment—59.2% - F
Social Issues—57.7% - F
Bipartisanship—80.6% - F
Afghanistan—83.1% C or lower—31.2% - F
Iraq—86.5% C or lower—35.7% F
Obama Overall—89.4% D or lower—63.4% F
Only 2.82% of CBS fans gave Obama an A for overall job performance and CBS is no bastion of conservative readers
In November 2008, approximately 52% of American voters elected Obama as President. On inauguration day 2009, 67% of Americans said they were hopeful about the new “messiah,” 41% showing “strong support” for the newly elected resident of the people’s White House.
Thirteen months later, only 23% “strongly approve” and 40% now “strongly disapprove” of the Obama administration, according to Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll, which appears much kinder towards Obama than the CBS News poll that even CBS won’t write about.
No American administration is U.S. history has fallen from favor so fast…
Heads are Rolling
CNN reports that 63% of Americans want everyone in congress fired, which makes the “progressive” run congress even more unpopular than Obama. Support for congress is down to between 8% and 18%, depending upon which poll you look at on which day.
It’s official, we have the most unpopular federal government in 235 years of U.S. history and heads must roll.
“Progressives” are dropping out of re-election bids like flies in a vacuum sealed container. Obama’s campaign help has been the kiss of death for Democrat candidates in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia. A recent campaign stop in Las Vegas to help Sen. Harry Reid’s failing bid for re-election is driving Reid even deeper into trouble.
Byron Dorgan (D) and Christopher Dodd (D) have announced unscheduled retirement due to unhappy constituents back home who intended to put them on the unemployment line come November. Even more moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D) has announced his retirement, despite leading in the polls and $13 million in his campaign war chest.
Putting a fine point on his reasons for leaving, Bayh stated—“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned. For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress—too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.”
Two of the nation’s most progressive members of congress passed, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) and Rep. John Murtha (D). Another will be leaving due to health concerns, as 86 year old New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), announces a diagnosis of stomach cancer.
Rumors of a coming shake-up in the White House staff persist, and no Obama insider appears safe at the moment, with mounting public pressure to walk away from the heavy-handed Pelosi partisanship that has left the people’s business tied up in DC gridlock like never before.
Nobody’s Messiah Now
Obama can’t get a passing grade in any category today, and the Pelosi led congress is even more unpopular than what’s left of the man who was called a “messiah” only a year ago.
At any other time in U.S. history, predicting a complete Republican sweep in the 2010 mid-term elections would be a done-deal and no Vegas odds-maker would dare take a bet to the contrary.
But 2010 is the year of the Tea Party…
Inside the beltway politicos are growing increasingly desperate to figure out exactly who these Tea Party folks are, and what they really want. It’s not hard to figure out though…
The Tea Party is made up of the 48% of Americans who voted against this mess in 2008, plus about half of the people who fell for Obama’s centrist sounding campaign rhetoric only to find out after inauguration day, that they had elected a Marxist wrecking ball to power. The Tea Party represents most Americans of all political stripes, though all constitutionally conscious and it can’t be hijacked or controlled by either political party. So, it must be put down!
Hence, news of the Clintonistas cranking up the old war-room for an all-out counter-attack on the Tea Party movement demonstrates just how concerned the progressive left is, at a time when it appears that Democrats are not only likely to be replaced with Republicans, but constitutional conservatives…—God forbid!
The heavy Marxist hand of Obama, Pelosi and Reid have certainly awakened the sleeping giant and Carville and McAuliffe hope to put a choke-hold on the movement before millions of angry Americans can successfully snuff out the current march to Marxism (aka progress).
Meanwhile, even the most far left core supporters of the Obama-nation movement have lost hope for the kinds of change they thought certain with control of all branches of the Fed in their death grip.
Code Pink is angry over Obama’s surge in Afghanistan, which might be the only correct thing he’s done since taking office, and the fact that he has made no progress in pulling out of Iraq, a war that was “illegal” under Bush, in the minds of Code Pinkos.
MoveOn is so desperate for a “new messiah” that even rocker John Cougar Mellencamp offers more hope from his little pink house, than Obama offers from the White House.
International socialists demanding the closure of Club Gitmo and civil rights for known terrorists are disappointed that Obama has dropped the ball on setting those terrorists loose after an OJ Simpson styled public lashing of the US Military.
Nothing has gone well for Obama. He can’t even address his kids at the dinner table without a teleprompter and as a result, people who foolishly placed their faith in a man from nowhere with a blank résumé a little over a year ago, find themselves waking up to a nightmare of monumental proportions today.
And, since Obama & Co. have never run anything before, they have no idea how to run the country now. Despite holding back 2/3 of the stimulus money to be spent during the election year, aimed at creating another false impression of economic improvement before the election, things can only get worse when spending us deeper into debt seems to be the only solution for every problem.
Higher taxes, more regulation and deeper debt spell disaster no matter what business you’re in… Only if you live inside the DC beltway can you make any sense of that strategy.
But most Americans don’t live inside the DC beltway, and as DC elitists cinch the debt belt tighter and tighter around the neck of the average American, sooner or later, there will be no place to run and no place to hide.
From hero to zero in a single year - No former U.S. president has ever fallen from grace faster.
Prior to Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter was the most unsuccessful president in U.S. history. But even Carter looks bright compared to Obama…
With or without his traveling teleprompter, he’s nobody’s messiah now…
JB Williams Bio
JB Williams Most recent columns
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/
JB Williams can be reached at: email@example.com
Older articles by JB Williams
Hey, AKA Obama Voters! Ready to Apologize yet?
Voted for Obama? Ready to apologize yet?
See Aristotle the Hun's commentary at the end of the article linked above!
Joseph Stack: Disillusioned Leftist, Not “Racist Right-wing Teabagger”
by Liz Blaine
Despite the leftist ideology revealed in Joseph Stack’s manifesto, shortly after he crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX, progressive media lept to align him with the Tea Party movement, describing him as right-wing, racist, anti-tax, patriot, or militia. Sensing the danger the average American citizen in the Tea Party movement represents to Democrats in 2010 and 2012, they seized the opportunity to insinuate Stack’s alliance hoping to halt the movement’s rising populist wave across the nation.
As expected, leftists at the NY Times, Washington Post, NY Mag, Time, Newsweek, ABC and Daily Kos swiftly established the talking points. ABC News went so far as to resurrect Janet Napolitano’s quickly retracted Depatment of Homeland Security April 2009 report citing,
“Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propoganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.”
Quoting Mark Potok, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, ABC maligned,
“the result is what [is] referred to as a ‘broad-based, right-wing populist rebellion.’”
But Joseph Stack cannot be branded as a member of the right. Stack was neither a teapartier nor right-winger. And he was more than just a loon who attempted to avoid paying income taxes. Although incoherent and underdeveloped, his rants are decidedly left-wing and his manifesto, or at least parts of it, are very similar to diaries at the Daily Kos. Stack expressed hatred for George W. Bush, the Catholic Church, and capitalism. He attacked “fat cat” owners, railed against the health care industry and bemoaned the lack of consideration for the masses. Joseph Stack was devastated that his dreams of a benevolent government have been shattered.
In his manifesto he proclaims,
““The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. “
“There are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us.”
“Now when the wealthy f*ck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution. “
“The joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple”
“The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.”
Even the leftists at the Democratic Underground recognize one of their own,
“I think he presented his case well, lucidly, and has expressed what many of us here on DU have expressed: Anger at the injustices done to the American people, frustration at the unwillingness of our government to help us, and helplessness at the realization that we ultimately have no power.”
“There are many points made that I read on DU everyday.”
Overtly embracing Karl Marx, Stack chose to end his manifesto with an attack on free-market capitalism,
“The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”
It is the Left who are slaves to Marxism, the foundation of today’s Democratic Party. A foundation which celebrates resentment and advocates control of the individual while rejecting the notions of liberty and freedom. This foundation forms a trap for the idealogue who will eventually become saddened by the failure of his expectations. Joseph Stack fell into the trap formed by the fraud of statism. In the end his leftists ideals left him disillusioned, a consequence both destructive and deadly.
Posted on Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:57:41 AM by ETL
"A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was "obsessed" with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."--Boston Herald, February 15, 2010
'Oddball' portrait of Amy Bishop emerges:http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0___________________________________________________
"The woman accused of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was a suspect in a 1993 attempted mail bombing, according to a report by The Boston Globe.
The report broke the day after it was learned that Bishop fatally shot her brother in Braintree in 1986.More than fifteen years ago, Bishop worked with Sylvia Fluckiger at Children's Hospital in Boston."I thought she was an odd-ball. Maybe socially a little awkward," Fluckiger said. "I felt she was a little bit sloppy working in the lab. But we were not friends. She came to do her experiments in our lab. I had my stuff to be done. We didn't hang out."In 1993, Bishop and her husband, James Anderson, were reportedly questioned about a mail bomb that was sent to the Newton home of Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Paul Rosenberg.Colleagues at Children's Hospital were suspicious at the time, because Bishop was apparently angry at Dr. Rosenberg, although no one knew why.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Could this have been the single worst week for the Radical Green Agenda ever? Let's review:
Following the discovery of a series of embarrassing errors in the UN Climate Change report, Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, will resign from his post in July.
Oil companies BP and ConocoPhillips along with Caterpillar, the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, and industrial gas turbines, decided to pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of big businesses devoted to calling for action on Climate Change from the U.S. Government.
Only 35% of the public believes in Man-made Global Warming. 47% believe it's natural.
A number of scientists took on the establishment, claiming that the world, in fact, isn't warming at all.
And perhaps most significantly, one of the most prominent scientists behind the global warming movement admitted that there has been no Global Warming since 1995:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
"Let us screw you, right now, or the world will end and it will all be your fault!"
That just doesn't work with American citizens any more.
Terrific! Funny and "razor wit" insightful.....perfect!
The Perpetual-Crisis Machine Of The Apocalyptic Left
By Don Feder
The left is in crisis-overdrive.
Imminent disaster is its rallying cry. The world will end, if we don’t appropriate billions, launch another massive government program, shower condoms on 6-year-olds, socialize another sector of the economy, cede more of our freedom to Washington, and venerate the polar bears.
Since at least the early 1960s, the left has been in a constant state of agitation, prophesying doom at every turn. Any who question its hysteria-mongering are labeled anti-science, a tool of corporate interests, insensitive or just plain Republican.
The refrain is always the same: Don’t question. Don’t examine the evidence too closely. Don’t debate the proposals. Whatever you do, don’t read the legislation before you vote. Just give us what we want, or civilization, as we know it, will cease to exist, millions will die horrible deaths – and it will be your fault.
Like its progenitor, Karl Marx, the left is always wrong – often hilariously so.
On September 24, 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (to speak of a Kennedy scion from the low end of the gene pool implies there’s another end), in a commentary for the Los Angeles Times, pointed to recent mild winters in the D.C. area (“anemic” he called them) as conclusive evidence of global warming.
Junior disclosed, “Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home … for lunch. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow of our back yard.” Yet, in the face of irrefutable evidence of lack of igloo-building, “Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.” Kennedys know a lot about deceiving the American public.
Meanwhile, the blizzard from which Washingtonians just dug out surpassed the record snowfall of 1899. At one point, Dulles Airport reported that 72 inches had fallen. The response of the apocalyptic left? Well, we told you global warming will result in extreme weather conditions. You see, mild winters prove global warming – as do severe winters. Any questions?
Karl Marx was the original progressive doom-and-gloomer. In the mid-19th century, Marx (who never set foot in a factory or met a blue-collar worker) confidently predicted the “crisis of capitalism” – the rich would keep getting richer, while the proletariat would have children, until, on the verge of starvation, the latter would throw off their chains in a worldwide revolution.
Instead of poverty, the proletariat got collective bargaining, employer-paid health insurance, and comfortable pensions. Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your 401-k plans.
It wasn’t quite a straight line from “The Communist Manifesto” to Rachel Carson’s “The Silent Spring” (1962). The Al Gore of her day, Carson warned of environmental catastrophe from the widespread use of DDT to control the mosquitos that spread malaria.
Considered the mother of the environmentalist movement, Carson was responsible for the 30-year ban on DDT, finally lifted by the World Health Organization in 2006. Her book claimed the compound caused cancer in humans and genetic damage to birds and beneficial insects – all based on anecdotal evidence and rats doing laps in vats of DDT.
In 1981, Rachel Carson got a commemorative U.S. postage stamp. Millions in the Third World – especially pregnant women and children – got early deaths from malaria, which DDT had largely eliminated by the mid-60s.
From “The Silent Sprint” to “An Inconvenient Truth" and beyond, it’s been a steady march of hysteria, manufactured statistics and speculation totally detached from reality. Stroll down memory lane and meet the ghosts of liberal crises past.
• The Homeless – The “homelessness crisis” suddenly appeared in the early ‘80s, conveniently, just as the left was looking for an emotional way to indict Reaganomics.
Supposedly, millions of homeless wandered the streets of our cities, pushing shopping carts, sleeping on heating grates and mooching change. Shelters were filled to capacity. Rising unemployment, lack of affordable housing and the disappearance of the proverbial safety net were to blame, liberals charged. We were all just a few steps away from the streets, they told us.
Mitch Snyder, self-anointed advocate for pavement people (Martin Sheen played him in a made-for-T.V. Movie – “Samaritan: The Mitch Snyder Story”), informed an ever-credulous media that there were 3 million homeless, a statistic he later admitted making up.
In a campus address, Snyder, who committed suicide in 1990, tearfully told us that in America, 45 homeless people die every second. That would mean 1.4 billion (four times the total U.S. population) expire annually, and then are resurrected to die again the following year.
P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that if you put all of the homeless in affordable housing, half are so crazy they’d jump out the windows and the other half would sell the plumbing for drugs or booze. According to one study, between 65% and 85% of the homeless are mentally ill, alcoholics, addicts, or a combination thereof.
We were all just a few cases of Thunderbird or a psychotic episode away from the streets.
• The AIDS Epidemic – Discovered about the same time as the homeless crisis, the dread contagion wasn’t a gay disease, we were assured – on the theory that, if it was, we wouldn’t care enough. Everyone was susceptible. If we didn’t spend billions pronto, AIDS would sweep the nation like wildfire.
“Now No One Is Safe From AIDS,” screeched the cover of Life magazine. It was worse than the Black Plague, a Joe Biden speech and daytime television combined. Then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (who was co-opted by the AIDS lobby) forecast a “heterosexual AIDS explosion.” Oprah said that by 1990, 20% of all heterosexuals would be dead from AIDS. Clinton’s HHS Secretary Donna Shalala said AIDS may leave “nobody left.”
These projections were delusional, to put it mildly. According to The Centers for Disease Control, in 2007, 14,561 died from AIDS – not much of a mega-plague, when compared to 631,636 deaths from heart disease, 559,888 from cancer and 137,119 from stroke in the same year.
A 1988 New York Times story (“Researchers List Odds of Getting AIDS in Heterosexual Intercourse’) gave away the game. According to the paper, which never misses a chance to proselytize for the gay agenda, the chances of contracting AIDS from a single act of heterosexual intercourse – with an infected partner and without a condom -- were 1 in 500.
No one was safe from AIDS – no one who was gay, bisexual or into sharing (needles).
• The National Epidemic of Hate Crimes – The late Sen. Edward Kennedy called hate crimes “domestic terrorism” – thereby suggesting that they were just as much a threat to our nation’s security as al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah and every jihad-preaching imam around the world. Neo-Nazis, Ku-Kluxers and freelance haters were roaming our streets looking for victims on which to inflict their vile animus. The alleged epidemic led to the passage last year of The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added “sexual orientation” to the category of protected classes.
Just how much of a hate-crimes crisis there is may be seen from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. (The FBI is required to compile statistics of so-called bias offenses.)
According to the UCR, in 2007, there were 16,929 murders and over 855, 000 cases of aggravated assault in the United States.
There were also a grand total of 7,624 hate crimes of all kinds – motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, whatever.
Of that number, 78% involved either intimidation (words alone), or simple assault (no serious injury occurred), which included pushing and shoving. In 2007, 9 murders were classified as hate crimes – which constituted .0005 % of total homicides. Your chances of being the victim of a hate crime – any hate crime – are comparable to being struck by lightening twice while bungee-jumping on Groundhog Day.
For this, we abrogated the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause.
• Global Warming—To justify spending trillions of dollars, drastically altering our way of life and wrecking our economy with idiocies like Cap and Trade, in “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore forecast that the sea level could rise by as much as 20 feet, due to melting polar ice caps.
Even, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, run by the global-warming alarmists, was more modest – predicting that sea levels would rise 17 inches by 2100.
Besides his Oscar, Gore deserved a Nebula Award for science fiction writing.
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish geologist and physicist who formerly headed the International Commission on Sea Level Change, says that, despite fluctuations, the sea level “has not risen in the past 50 years.” And if there is any change in this century, it will “not be more than 10 cm (4 inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm.” The mainstream media would call Dr. Morner a “global-warming denier.”
Still, Gore’s forecast could come to pass. If the 1.4 billion homeless who die in America every year each had a burial at sea … .
• Over-population – The world was “overpopulated” in 1798, when Thomas Malthus wrote “Principles of Population” and planet earth contained less than a billion people. In his tract, Malthus predicted mass starvation in the coming century. Instead, we got the Industrial Revolution and the greatest expansion of material well-being in history.
The world was overpopulated in 1968, when there were 3.63 billion on earth and Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb,” in which he predicted mass starvation in the 1970s – and thus joined the ranks of Malthus and Marx as a prophet of dumb.
Today, the world’s population is 6.8 billion. It’s been said that you could fit everyone currently on earth into Texas, and they’d have 1,000 sq. feet of living space. If those quarters are too tight, you could send them all to Brazil, where they'd each have three acres.
If starvation and overcrowding won’t do the trick, how about climate change? Now, it’s argued that a growing population increases carbon fuel consumption, depletes the ozone layer and – aaaaarah! We’re all going to die! Thus, the left has one of its newest myths (global warming) driving one of its oldest myths (overpopulation).
• The Health Insurance Crisis – In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama warned, “By the time I’m finished speaking …. more Americans (45 a second?) will have lost their health insurance.” “Millions will lose it this year.” Plus, (you guessed it) we’re all just a job away from being one of the health insurance-less.
Obama and the Democrats are wedded to the figure 46 million for the number of uninsured in America. For a change, the stat comes from a reliable source, the U.S. Census Bureau. But this is a snapshot of a point in time. It does not mean that 46 million Americans are uninsured over the course of a year. It also doesn’t tell us why they’re uninsured. (Some are between jobs.)
The same data shows that 38% of the uninsured earn more than $50,000 a year and 9.1 million earn more than $75,000. They could afford health insurance. Many are young and healthy and willing to gamble the cost of insurance against the prospect of a serious illness.
Another 14 million qualify for government programs that they’re not currently using. And almost 10 million aren’t U.S. citizens. Obama swears on a stack of Korans they’ll never get federally mandated health insurance.
The chronically uninsured are about 8 million, in a population of 305 million. For this we’re expected to turn the best health-care system in the world over to the politicians and bureaucrats who gave us sub-prime mortgages, $1,000 toilet seats and the U.S. Postal Service – and get rationing, death panels, and federally funded abortion in the process.
If they were honest, liberals would confess: “There’s a severe power crisis in this country. When it comes to power over your own life, you have too much and we have too little. Please help us to rectify this situation.”
Of course, that would get them nowhere. Hence, the left’s perpetual-crisis machine – apocalypse now. ”Unless you let us do something drastic right away, you could get AIDS, end up homeless, lose your health insurance, see your beachfront property under 20 feet of water, and watch as beach towels are airlifted to the Eskimos."
Goebbels wouldn’t have the gall to concoct the lies they’ve been peddling for half a century.
But more than a power grab is involved. The left hates the middle-class, hates private property and hates limited, constitutional government. It wants to make us feel guilty for what we have. Whatever the crisis, ultimately, it’s our fault – it’s our greed, stupidity, callousness or bigotry that fuels the catastrophe.
In the movie “The Invention of Lying,” Ricky Gervais lives in a world where everyone tells the absolute truth. The protagonist becomes the first person to intentionally tell a lie. (Could the invention of liberals be far behind?)
To see how much he can get away with, in one memorable scene, Gervais approaches a beautiful woman on the street and tells her, “If we don’t have sex right now, the world will end.” She responds, “Do we have time to go to a motel, or do we have to do it here?”
That's the way liberal crisis-mongers operate – Let us screw you, right now, or the world will end.
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Also see these supporting articles:
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation By Aristotle the Hun, The Rev. Big Goon and Good Shepherd Sam
Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, fascinating narrative of undercover events that began nearly forty years ago.
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation
Here is an absolutely brilliant piece by Jim Simpson that details the connection of Barack Obama to those who practice the Cloward-Piven strategy of creating crisis to manipulate political goals.
“Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”
Frances Fox Piven: ACORN-style Mass Movement May Deepen Foreclosure Crisis, Forcing Government & Banks to Address Homeownership Rightsby Kyle Olson
Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
See Commentary at: http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=100214
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Gaynor's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the "Vital Statistics of the United States Here is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth used by all states including Hawaii., This is the information being hidden by Obama. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank-birth-certificate-form-aka-obama.html
Plus read the article that is included with the blank copy.
Here is what a real Hawaiian Birth Certificate looks like:
Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born"? http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-from-obama-file-one-of-best.html
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?
The only conspiracy is the media and the obots who suppress the revelation of AKA Obama's history
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
The float is pictured during the traditional Rose Monday carnival parade in the western German city of Duesseldorf, February 15, 2010. The Rose Monday parades in Cologne, Mainz and Duesseldorf are the highlight of the German street carnival season.
Looks like it translates to, "Obama, the Loser," to me. It looks like the rose is off the bloom in Germany as well as America.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Saudi controlled FOX moves against Gubernatorial candidates who question Obama’s Eligibility
POLITICAL MANEUVER TO INSURE CONTINUANCE OF REGIME CONTROLLED BY MUSLIM INTERESTS
by John Charlton
It is naive to presume that an ardent Saudi nationalist like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal would not use his fortune to promote the interests of Saudi Arabia and Islam throughout the world.
(Feb. 15, 2010) — In a move which openly and shamelessly manifests FOX’s anti-American agenda, the former conservative news agency has launched a propaganda campaign against U.S. Citizens who, having announced their candidacy for State Governor in their home states, also question the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of U.S. President.
In an unsigned report published at their website, on Friday, Feb. 12, 2010, Fox News takes aim at Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Nathan Deal and Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Debra Medina.
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
This explains it all! AKA Obama has cooties and he is getting them all over the whole country.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Last week I contributed an article to American Thinker on Obama's origins that evoked a good deal of informed response. In it, I argued that the failure of the mainstream media to document the first year of Barack Obama's life has rendered the media accounts of the year before his birth suspect.
Here is what we know about Obama's first year. On August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama's presumed birth, his mother, "Stanley Ann Dunham," enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle.
The apolitical Washington State historical blog HistoryLink confirms Ann's arrival in August 1961, identifies her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle, names the courses she took, and documents an extended stay by Ann and little Obama into the summer of 1962.
Incredibly, not one of the mainstream media accounts I consulted -- including four book-length biographies, several long-form magazine and newspaper bios, Obama's official campaign biography, and Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father -- places Ann and Obama anywhere other than in Hawaii during that first year.
Given this collective failure and the Obama camp's squirrelly response to questions about his birth certificate, another look at the circumstances leading up to that birth is warranted. To restore logic and order to this investigation, I turn to a structure we know as Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.'' This translates roughly as "Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity." Let me start with the timeline and cast of characters.
Late summer, 1960
Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and 17-year-old daughter Stanley Ann (henceforth "Ann") leave the Seattle area for Hawaii. Ann does not want to go.
Ann enrolls at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where 23-year-old Barack Obama, Sr. is a student.
Spring semester, 1961
Ann fails to enroll at the University of Hawaii.
February 2, 1961
Barack Sr. and Ann marry in Maui.
August 4, 1961
Barack Obama is reportedly born in Honolulu's Kapiloani Hospital for Women and Children.
August 19, 1961
Ann Dunham enrolls at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Ann and baby Obama return to Hawaii.
Barack Sr. leaves for Harvard.
Ann re-enrolls at the University of Hawaii.
Ann files to divorce Barack Sr.
What follows are four possible scenarios to explain the circumstances of Obama's birth. Each involves a different set of biological parents.
Ann Dunham and unknown Seattle male
In the original article, I floated the possibility that the progressive and adventurous 17-year-old Dunham was impregnated by a black man while the family was still living in the Seattle area. If so, this pregnancy could have prompted the family to uproot to Hawaii where no one knew them and where mixed-race babies were more accepted.
Although this theory would make sense of the family's abrupt move to Hawaii and Ann's seemingly sudden departure to Seattle after Obama's birth, it introduces too many variables that I was unable to substantiate.
Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham
In football jargon, this scenario would be the ruling on the field. It stands until conclusive evidence can be found to overturn it. The most formal evidence for it is a divorce document issued in 1964, to wit, "[t]hat one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961." The libellant in question is Stanley Ann D. Obama. The libellee is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
This document aligns with names and dates on the more questionable "certification of live birth" that the Obama campaign posted online, as well as with the newspaper postings soon after the August 4 birth.
This scenario conforms to the story line that the young Obama heard growing up from his mother and grandparents, namely that the brilliant, charismatic Barack Sr. had swept the quiet Ann off her feet, impregnated her, married her, and left reluctantly for Harvard after a year of nurturing baby Obama in Hawaii.
Propping up this narrative is chatty Hawaii Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie, who knew Barack Sr. at the University of Hawaii. "Little Barry, that's what we called him," Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune about baby Obama while "recalling his days with Obama Sr. and his future wife, Ann Dunham, at the University of Hawaii."
There could not have been many such "days." The most compelling evidence against this scenario is Ann's documented enrollment at the University of Washington immediately after Obama's reported birth and Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard immediately upon Ann's return to Hawaii.
In addition, all details about the marriage remain elusive. Obama himself writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore."
A couple marries in a different county like Maui to keep the notification out of the local news. No one attended the wedding -- not Abercrombie, not Ann's parents. In fact, no one in Barack Sr.'s clique seemed to know there was a relationship, let alone a wedding.
Neil Abercrombie's brother Hal never saw Ann and Barack Sr. together. Another clique member, Pake Zane, who had distinct memories of the outsized Barack Sr., could not recall Ann at all. If the young couple were making their home on Kalanianole Hwy. as the newspaper announcements claim, some friend should have at least remembered.
When Abercrombie and Zane visited their pal in Nairobi in 1968, Barack Sr. shocked them by not inquiring at all about his wife and then-six-year-old child (although he would visit the Dunhams four years later). In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him." This may not have been a slip of the tongue.
At least a few respondents to the last article cited the likeness of Obama to his half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, also mothered by a white woman, as proof of Barack Sr.'s biological paternity. Beyond color, I do not see any particular resemblance (photo here). The adult Obama does not look like Barack Sr., and as Abercrombie concedes, he does not sound at all like him either.
The evidence for this scenario is all circumstantial. "You know," Stanley's brother Ralph has said of Obama, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark." Admittedly, grandsons can look like their grandfathers, but Ralph is right. The similarity between the two is striking.
The photo below, likely taken upon Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard in 1962, shows not only Stanley's stunning resemblance to Obama, but also his inexplicable fondness for a black man who allegedly knocked up his daughter and is now abandoning her and his grandson. This photo is not an anomaly. As Obama recounts in Dreams, "Gramps" has only good things to say about his prodigal son-in-law.
One other critical bit of evidence for this theory is a poem Obama wrote as a 19-year-old called "Pop." The poem begins:
Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
As I reported last week, most reviewers think this poem is about Stanley Dunham, and with some cause. "I can still picture Gramps leaning back in his old stuffed chair after dinner," writes Obama in Dreams, "sipping whiskey and cleaning his teeth with the cellophane from his cigarette pack."
If "Pop" refers to Gramps, then Obama seems to be confronting him with the recognition that Gramps is actually his father. Obama calls the poem "Pop," after all, not "Gramps."
"Under my seat, I pull out the Mirror I've been saving," writes Obama. Yes, the two look alike and they smell alike. Pop has big ears, and he even has "the same amber stain on his shorts that I've got on mine." The poem ends with bittersweet reconciliation when Pop stands and asks for a hug. Writes Obama:
I see my face, framed within
Pop's black-framed glasses
And know he's laughing too.
Gramps did wear black-frame glasses, and as to the "amber stain" reference, more on that later.
The mother in this scenario would have to have been black. Obama tells us in Dreams that Gramps frequented otherwise-all-black bars and hung out with the card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American with Kansas and Chicago roots. In communist circles, the sharing of sex partners was not uncommon.
If a black woman, perhaps a friend of Davis's, gave birth to a child of Dunham's, Barack Sr. would have obliged the Dunhams by marrying Ann and claiming paternity in return for all the potential benefits of having an American wife and baby.
We also know that Stanley Dunham so desperately wanted a boy that he named his only child "Stanley Ann." Raising the young Obama would fulfill that desire. It would also explain the special relationship between him and Obama and the subsequent coolness of Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, or "Toot," to the whole charade. It might also explain Ann's distance from her presumed son, whom she would desert for long periods to advance her career.
This theory makes sense of the secret marriage in Maui, Stanley's enduring fondness for Barack Sr., the powerful resemblance between Stanley Dunham and Obama, and the Dunhams' apparent willingness to subsidize mother and baby in Seattle.
What remains unclear is what Ann would get out of the deal. True, she never wanted to leave Seattle in the first place, and Obama would have been (in this scenario) her little brother, but the burdens she would have assumed do not seem balanced by the benefits gained. This scenario also introduces one major unsubstantiated variable: the unknown black mother.
Several of the respondents to last week's article, including a literary analyst I have previously referred to as Mr. West, argued for a relationship between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Although there is no particular physical resemblance between Obama and Davis other than color -- the undeniable resemblance is to Stanley Dunham -- there are some other connections worth pursuing.
An outspoken progressive, 17-year-old Ann arrived in Hawaii in 1960 angry and rebellious. She did not want to be there. An affair with the married, 54-year-old Davis would have suited her politics and sated her need for revenge. In 1946, Davis, then 40, married a 21-year-old white socialite. Young white women obviously did not scare him off -- not by a long shot.
This is all speculative and would be wildly so were it not for the poem "Pop." The whiskey-drinking, the smoking, the dispensing of sage advice, and the black-frame glasses fit Davis as well as they do Stanley Dunham. "I was intrigued by old Frank," Obama writes in Dreams, "with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes." One sequence in "Pop" actually fits Davis better.
Makes me smell his smell, coming
Writes Obama in Dreams, "[Davis] would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar." It was Davis who instructed Obama in the ways of blackness. "I'm just telling you to keep your eyes open," Davis told him on one occasion. "Stay awake." Davis is an important figure in Obama's life. Obama alludes to him on nine separate occasions in Dreams. If "Pop" were Davis, then Obama may use the honorarium to suggest no more than an African-American godfather. Then again, "Pop" may have been a literal designation.
As something of a side note, what caught Mr. West's eye were the similarities in poetic style between Davis and the Obama of "Pop." What struck both of us is that "Pop" is much more sophisticated than "Underground," a silly poem about fig-eating apes that also appears under Obama's name in the spring 1981 edition of Occidental College's literary magazine, Feast.
One other issue that needs to be addressed, and a sensitive one, is that of sex. As reported in the U.K.'s Telegraph (and elsewhere), in 1968 Davis published under the pseudonym Bob Greene an only slightly fudged autobiographical manuscript titled Sex Rebel: Black. In the book, Davis concedes that "under certain circumstances I am bisexual" and that he was also "a voyeur and an exhibitionist." If Davis is "Pop," then this could explain the "amber stain" on the shorts of both mentor and initiate. How else to explain those stains?
One chapter of Sex Rebel deals with the seduction by Davis and his wife of a 13-year-old girl called "Anne," who was introduced to him by a trusting relative. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20," he writes, "But there are exceptions."
An amateur photographer, Davis had once started a photography club in Chicago. It has not been verified that he shot the nude photos floating around the internet of a woman who looks stunningly like Ann Dunham, nor has "Anne's" identity been confirmed. Still, there would have been nothing out of character for either Ann or Davis to have collaborated on this project.
Were the married Davis the father, and had Dunham introduced his daughter to Davis, it may explain what Obama has described as "the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men." In this scenario, both would have had a vested interest in finding someone else to take the paternity rap. By keeping the marriage secret, they would have allowed Barack Sr. to continue living the life of a single man.
Barack Sr. had a lot to offer, starting with his pigmentation. Besides, as a Kenyan, he would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an "African" -- his race listed on the certification of birth -- a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than "Negro." Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after Frank Marshall Davis or any other American, he may never have been elected president.
This scenario would help explain why Barack Sr. blithely blew off his new family when he headed for Harvard a year after Obama's birth, rejecting a reported opportunity to take both wife and child to New York. More importantly, it would explain why Ann went to Seattle so promptly after the birth and with so little fuss. This would have been her baby, and she was proud of him. In addition, her departure would have allowed Barack Sr. to live life as he pleased in Hawaii. If Abercrombie saw "little Barry," it was almost assuredly after Ann returned.
This theory might also iron out some chronology wrinkles. An August 4 birth would suggest an early November conception. Obama biographer Christopher Andersen, however, reports that Ann told the Dunhams of her pregnancy in "late October." Presuming a missed period as first alarm, this would put conception in early September -- before Ann would have met Barack Sr. This earlier conception date better explains both why Ann did not enroll for a second semester and how she was able to leave by mid-August for Seattle. If all this is true, however, it presumes active date-manipulation by Team Obama -- a big "if."
Then, finally, there is the Chicago connection. Davis first arrived in Chicago in 1927 and ultimately left for Hawaii in 1948. Upon moving to Chicago nearly sixty years after Davis first arrived, Obama "imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." In a very real way, Chicago may have been his homeland, not Kenya, and he would have known it.
The Davis-as-father scenario may not be conclusive enough to override the ruling on the field, but it would explain the Obama camp's fear of documentation, and it deserves, at the very least, further review in the booth.