Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Who is this Guy in the Oval Office? (Part 2)

******* *******
(Part 1) 16 February 2009
The Muslim in the Oval Office?By Lynn Stuter
June 9, 2009
There is an old saying, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can figure it's a duck."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, rumors circulated that Also Known As (AKA) Obama was a Muslim; that he had studied Islam extensively while an Indonesian citizen attending school in Jakarta, Indonesia.
In response to these rumors, AKA's website fightthesmears posted the following:
"Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone’s faith to denigrate them politically, that’s an attack on people of all faiths. Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception."
Unfortunately, it seems, fightthesmears is the one "fabricat[ing] stories." The more the American people watch AKA perform, the more convinced they are that AKA is a closet Muslim. A few of the incidents that give indication:
1. His bowing in fealty to the Saudi King.
2. His comments before the Turkish parliament, in April 2009, that many "Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them."
3. His repeated comments that America is not a Christian nation. In 2008, in an email to CBN News senior national correspondent, David Brody, "I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." (He also states this in his book, The Audacity of Hope, page 258, pb, Vintage Books, July 2008.)
4. His comments, in early June 2009, before French television cameras, that, "… if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." (Not true, but in AKA's narcissistic eyes, that he said it makes it true.)
5. His constant pandering to the Islamic nations of the Middle East.
6. His promise, in May 2009, to the Palestine Authority that Jerusalem would be theirs.
7. His recent comments made to French President Nicholas Sarkozy in reference to the French ban on Muslim head scarves and crosses in schools (as if French laws and policies are any of his concern).
The comment has oft been made that AKA sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and nodded his head in agreement of the racist, bigoted, anti-American message of the man at the pulpit. When the words of Jeremiah Wright began to find their way into the public sector during Campaign 2008, AKA's excuse was that he "didn't hear" those words; he then abandoned his "friend of twenty years" in the name of his political aspirations. Like a bunch of sheep being lead to slaughter, hating what Bush had done to America, too many Americans bought AKA's lies hook, line and sinker! Little did they realize they were buying into the philosophy of a Marxist hardliner. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, AKA admits to his "progressive" (a surreptitious way of saying Marxist) ideology.
Ron Marlar wrote in his article, Barack Obama's Dislike for the United States,
"Before changing its website at the church honored W.E.B. DuBois, self-avowed Communist, and Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, headquartered in New York City. Wright preached black separatism and hatred for the U.S., 'Goddamn America' his most infamous remark publicized so widely and available at one time on videotape(s) sold by the church."
But AKA didn't hear any of that, just as he didn't hear the words of his good friend, Reverend Joseph Lowry, as he spoke the words of a racist bigot as the whole world watched and listened on January 20, 2009. Amazing! In The Audacity of Hope, AKA excuses his immersion in racist bigotry, however, as a product of his being "human", a character flaw he obviously believes he has a right to, but no one else; a true sign of a narcissist.
Recently, I entered into conversation with a lady regarding AKA. She told me that she had a Muslim friend who told her that she pegged AKA for a Muslim the first time she heard him speak. Being a Muslim, she obviously would know. The lady could not believe that anyone would vote for him; she pronounced his philosophy "scary" and "anti-American" and said she had lost life-long friends who considered him a messiah, a savior. He is neither, of course; what he is is a Marxist, aptly described by 2 Thessalonians, 2:3-12. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 reminds us that those who follow Satan present themselves as apostles of Christ.
Last week an e-mail came my way, author unknown. But what the e-mail had to say struck a chord with what the lady's Muslim friend stated,
"I was at a [video store] on Saturday renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called 'Obama'. I told the two men next to me that I wouldn't waste my time. We talked about Obama. These guys were Arabs and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband.
They told me she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq. I said 'Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai.' They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his wife into countries that accept Sharia Law. Just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at [the video store] accept the idea that we're being 'led' by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed. They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world."
And just last Thursday, AKA again pandered to the fanatics of Islam in his speech made from Cairo, Egypt to the Arab world. AKA went to Cairo to, in his words, "seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition." These words so easily spoken by AKA three days after an Islamic fundamentalist fanatic more than adequately demonstrated the Islamic willingness to live in peaceful co-existence with Christians and Jews by killing one soldier and gravely wounded another at an Army recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. At a time when a true American is angry, AKA panders to the very religion responsible for that act of violence, repeatedly referring to the book of Islam as the Holy Koran!
Said Aaron Klein in a recent article,
"I can attest from scores of interviews with some of the region's most dangerous terrorists that they are not waging a jihad against the U.S. because they are poor, or angry or desperate, but because they believe it is their Islamic duty to spread their belief system around the world."
This bottom-line fact of Islam AKA deliberately chooses to ignore while Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (a term he carefully avoids) engage in jihads like the one in Little Rock, Arkansas. While AKA obviously has great reverence for his Muslim brothers, he has more than amply demonstrated his disdain for the security and safety of the American people and America as a whole. That gives a whole new meaning to his words, "America is a great nation … help me change it."
WorldNetDaily also reports that AKA has requested of the Supreme Court that Saudi royalty, named in a lawsuit brought by families of people killed on September 11, 2001, be given immunity. While he wants to prosecute Americans for torturing Islamic fundamentalists who have committed acts of terrorism against Americans, he wants immunity given to Saudi royalty accused of involvement in 9/11. The reality of where his loyalty lies is hard to miss.
That is because AKA is not now, never has been, an American; it is obvious to all but the dull witted that if he were, he would not need to hide all his records: birth, adoption, education, passport, selective service; all purposely obscured from the American people.
It seems, however, that Obamanoids, the lamestream media, Congress and the United States Supreme Court are adamant in their refusal to address the fact of the obscured records. Now, if that were you or I, we would be ordered to produce those records post haste in lieu of being thrown in the pokey or denied such things as a drivers' license, marriage license, or entrance to a government school. That's what you call unequal justice under the law (democracy as opposed to the rule of law); where it depends on who you are, who you know, and how much money you have whether justice is served. If you have little money, no power, and aren't well-known, you get the shaft; if you have lots of money and can buy off or bribe the politicians, judges and other public figures, nothing is done. Such was never the intent of our Founding Fathers but such is the reality of our political system today.
In the past week, lamestream media giant and major AKA suck-up, CBS, refused to sell billboard space (via their subsidiary, CBS Outdoors) to the "Where's the Birth Certificate" campaign of WorldNetDaily. Surprise, surprise! While the free market system says CBS has the right to rent their billboards to whomever they please, it is also the right of the citizens, in a free market system, to boycott CBS and anyone who advertises on their affiliates.
And word on the street is that General Electric (GE), bailed out by the AKA/Congress theft of taxpayer money via HR 1, recently instructed its subsidiary, NBC, to go easy on AKA. Aren't we all just surprised. Another lamestream media "giant" down the tube. The boycott of anyone who advertises on NBC affiliates will work just as well as for CBS.
And a White House website, inviting "open government dialogue" is being scrubbed of all requests for AKA's long-form birth certificate and questions concerning his eligibility to the office of president. In the world of systems philosophy, where the paradigm (world view) is shifted completely to the opposite of what it was (freedom under God to Marxism under elitists), in which that which was up is now down, that which was down is now up, open and transparent really means closed and opaque! The bottom line is that "open government dialogue" really means your "suggestion" is accepted if it meets the criteria needed for the outcome predetermined before the webpage was ever uploaded. Of course, it's understood that data is easily lost and glitches do happen! It is just amazing how much data can be "lost" at the drop of a e-wave, those gremlins that run around inside computers and make data disappear as if by magic! Isn't technology just great?
And true to his penchant for racist bigotry, as more than adequately displayed by his friendship with the likes of Reverend Jeremy Wright and Reverend Joseph Lowry, AKA has nominated a racist bigot, Sonia Sotomayor, to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Not only is Sotomayor a racist, she also has connections to La Raza (means "The Race") and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a sister organization to MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund), all racist organizations promoting Latino rights, whether legal citizens or illegal aliens. She also has connections to leftist groups and has more than adequately demonstrated that she is an activist judge, using her judicial power to not only pervert the law but to interpret the law as she sees fit. As adequately demonstrated by her participation in the decision that took Ricci v DeStefano before the U.S. Supreme Court, Sotomayor believes racial discrimination against whites in the workplace is somehow justified if not preferable. It goes unreported that Sotomayor tried to block the Ricci v DeStefano appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Sotomayor being a racist presents no problem for AKA who is promoting amnesty for the approximate 45 million illegal aliens now in America, taking American jobs from American citizens; murdering, raping and sodomizing Americans on a daily basis; and bankrupting American social systems because they are leaches who believe they have the right to covet that which is not theirs to covet. In keeping with his idea of taking from the haves (who have worked for it) and giving it to the have nots (who are too lazy to get off their butts and do for themselves or who expect others to pay for their self-destructive choices), AKA has more than amply displayed his willingness to covet that which is not his to covet either!
Read this account or this account for insight into the thinking and actions of this scum of the earth that AKA thinks has a right to be in our country and to take what others have worked hard to attain. But then, considering AKA isn't an American either, it stands to reason that he would see no problem with these type people being in our country illegally for they further his Marxist anti-American cause.
Last week came the news that the federal government "accidently" released a report "that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons." Of course, the lamestream media, while reporting on the incident, never came close to suggesting that maybe this was no accident. Given AKA's Muslim loyalties, his ties to foreign countries, especially those of the Middle East, given his Marxist ideology, how better to aid and abet the destruction of the United States than to release "highly confidential" information that is bound to end up in the hands of Islamic terrorists bent on the destruction of the United States.
It wouldn't be the first time. AKA also released the Bush torture memos, placing in the hands of the Islamic terrorists information they can use in training their operatives on how to respond to interrogation if captured. This is beyond the fact that in releasing the torture memos, he effectively placed a target on the forehead of every young American man and woman serving in the armed forces on foreign soil and in foreign waters. His disdain for America and Americans is so obvious, so in-your-face, that only the mentally challenged could miss it!
And, of course, the lamestream press has made no mention of the fact that AKA is not required to have a security clearance. It should scare the hell out of every American that this man, with his pro-Islamic religious beliefs, Marxist ideology and obvious hatred of America, has access to the secrets of this nation; that he holds the security of this nation and every American in his hands.
On May 23, 2009, AKA went on record, saying that "we are out of money." What a surprise! Wonder what his first clue was that spending money he didn't have and had no prospects of getting in an economy careening toward a depression, wasn't going to work; that no one can spend money they don't have and come out ahead of the game? When AKA took office, the deficit stood at $10,626,877,048,918.08. On June 4, 2009, the debt stood at $11,388,997,387,553.01. In 4.5 months, Obama has increased the deficit by $762,120,338,639.93. It becomes rapidly apparent to all but the mentally challenged that this type spending is not sustainable. True to his lying nature, however, AKA blames the rapid increase in the deficit since January 2009 on health care; obviously a well-orchestrated ruse to justify government take-over of health care, such that the government can decide who does and does not get needed health care under the mantra of "cutting costs."
The deficit, however, didn't stop AKA from a night out on the town at taxpayer expense; jetting his wife off to New York City to see a Broadway show and have dinner. Next up, AKA's wife and daughters jetted off the Paris for sightseeing and shopping, while AKA was busy apologizing to the Middle-East for big bad America and schmoozing his Islamic brothers, all at taxpayer expense. Aren't we all just so impressed at how AKA expresses the pain he feels for the "unwashed masses!" More of AKA's irresponsible partying while the country suffers because of his policies and those of his predecessors. While it is the policies of the White House and Congress that has caused the deficit, these elitists believe it the undying duty of the "unwashed masses" to provide the money for them to spend in whatever way they choose to spend it.
Any doubt, before the election, that the duck that now lives in the White House, that has usurped the Oval Office, is a Muslim is rapidly disappearing.
In his speech in Cairo, AKA intoned, "And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum."
Speak for yourself, AKA, you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for any true American.

Obama’s Enemies List Grows
Obama has established several embarrassing presidential firstsBy Mark Hyman

Tuesday, June 9, 2009
American Spectator
Just having the appearance of someone who might possibly vote for an opponent of Barack Obama could land them on the President’s enemies list where proxies do the dirty work. Political appointees in the Justice Department killed a six-month investigation by career DOJ lawyers into the most blatant voter intimidation case in 40 years. Last November, jack-booted, uniformed, baton-wielding thugs from the New Black Panther Party calling themselves “security” obstructed a Philadelphia polling location and behaved in an intimidating manner toward white voters.
Days after dismissing charges against the menacing thugs, the Justice Department moved in the opposite direction by blocking responsible steps to stem voter fraud. The DOJ barred the administrative procedures Georgia authorities put into place – under federal court guidance—to verify voter registrations. The DOJ claimed the procedures violated the rights of minority voters.
A de facto Obama enemies list and dirty political machine have been expanding since last year. Obama has established several embarrassing presidential firsts including targeting private individuals by names, assigning a well-known “partisan dirt-digger” and non-lawyer to the White House Counsel’s Office to likely gain access to Bush Administration documents protected under attorney-client privilege, and moving the senior political advisor into the West Wing. These are heretofore unseen partisan practices.
Career opposition researcher Shauna Daly left the White House Counsel’s Office after a mere month and returned to the Democratic National Committee where using privileged attorney-client information in the opposition research department would set a new low in unethical practices.
Attempting to build-up the Obama Administration by criticizing that of his predecessor has become a near-daily exercise. Obama has personally led efforts to demonize George W. Bush. There has been a full-court press to label enhanced detainee interrogation techniques, approved by Democratic leaders and discontinued for the past six years, as “torture.” Interrogation techniques used on tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women for more than two decades were suddenly considered criminal acts and Bush officials in the review and approval chain have been smeared as criminals.
Two military psychologists who supervised the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used on only three terrorist leaders were publicly outed by Democratic Senator Carl Levin placing both doctors and their families in personal danger. The doctors’ identities had previously been kept under wraps.
Obama’s lawyers are attempting to financially ruin individuals party to the most absurd soap opera involving the 44th president. There is unabated controversy regarding his birth, citizenship and foreign travel. Obama could immediately silence his critics by authorizing the release of his original birth certificate and passport. One has to wonder what could possibly be in either document that has caused Obama to wage a fierce and expensive legal battle to keep the files secreted. Aside from Joan Rivers, nearly every American would willingly make their birth certificate available and Obama’s stubborn refusal to do so only adds to the controversy.
Petty personal politics, while damaging to the dignity of the White House, have allowed the Obama Administration to elevate political allies and their causes and denigrate valid critics. David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, appeared on National Public Radio last month and belittled a 21-year old beauty pageant contestant, insisting she was one of three finalists for the Obama family dog. The target of Axelrod’s churlish remarks was Carrie Prejean, the reigning Miss California. Weeks earlier, Prejean was victimized by a militant homosexual judge who was angry she did not enthusiastically endorse gay marriage in response to his “have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife?” question during the Miss USA competition.
Hours after a doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions was slain, both Obama and U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder issued statements strongly condemning the killing. Further, Holder deployed scores of U.S. Marshals to protect abortion clinics nationwide. The emphatic denunciation of this slaying differed wildly with a nearly identical murder only 24-hours later. A Muslim shot two U.S. Army soldiers outside a Little Rock recruiting station killing one. Days later, the White House quietly faxed a subdued statement to a single Arkansas news outlet while Holder remained silent regarding the act of Islamic terrorism.
This antagonistic attitude toward servicemen and women is not surprising. A few months earlier, the Department of Homeland Security issued a document warning counterterrorism and law enforcement authorities of an alleged threat to the U.S. posed by “domestic rightwing terrorists.” Included in the group of potential rightwing terrorists are individuals who are pro-life, support the Second Amendment and oppose the flood of illegal aliens. The DHS pamphlet also singled out military veterans for possible recruitment into domestic terrorist cells.
The targeting of perceived political enemies by the Obama Administration has grown from mere individuals to entire groups. Evidence emerged that a common thread among the list of 789 Chrysler dealerships ordered closed by the White House is that the owners donated to GOP candidates, Republican-leaning causes or donated to Hillary Clinton or John Edwards during the Democratic presidential primaries.
Auto industry observers and others report that apparently successful franchises (such as Chrysler’s highest-rated 5-star dealerships) were ordered closed in favor of less successful car lots and the consistent discriminator was which political party the owners supported. One report suggests the closure list may have been drawn up by the car czar’s office.
In some instances, dealerships ordered closed were those that competed with franchises whose owners were prolific supporters or contributors to Democratic politicians. Thomas “Mack” McLarty, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, had virtually all of the competition to his six dealership locations wiped out.
Also targeted during the auto industry purge were companies that did not willingly agree to Obama’s political demands. Representatives of three secured creditors that did not receive any government bailout money reported they were threatened if they did not agree to White House demands in Chrysler’s restructuring. The White House insistence that secured creditors accept only 29 cents on the dollar while inflating the value of unsecured credit claims held by the United Auto Workers turned two century-old bankruptcy policy on its head.
One fund manager reported being on the receiving end of a profanity-laced tirade by Auto Industry Task Force head Steve Rattner that included threats to use the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission in gangster-like enforcement roles.
In another exchange, Thomas Lauria, a lawyer for financial firm Perella Weinberg Partners, reported the car czar threatened that “the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its [Perella Weinberg’s] reputation” unless the firm agreed to Obama administration demands in Chrysler’s bankruptcy. The failure by the White House press corps to repudiate Rattner’s threat speaks volumes and underscores their role as an ally of the Obama Administration.


Obama's Speech in Egypt
By Chuck Baldwin
June 9, 2009
Much has been made of President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to report this story. See the WND report. As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:
"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source:
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.
In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another will inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In order for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can be preferred over another--not even our own. In a word, no country can be allowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or military superiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty and independence to the new "world order." Furthermore, all nations must be willing to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, my friend, all of this is inferred in Obama's statement.
The last half of Obama's statement is equally chilling: "Whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." In other words, Americans must forget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of national sovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of "America First" is passé. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with the international principles of a new "world order."
In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker's dam if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCain repeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becoming President would be to implement a new "League of Democracies." In fact, look no further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. According to McCain, "The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order." (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution, CFR Publication, May 1, 2007) At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are taking the United States headlong into an international "New World Order." The national news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of the Religious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, and movements.
As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read or heard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say that many readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as they read this column.
The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate institutions sell our country into global tyranny?
Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothing to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in Washington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue, and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.) Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if they love big national government, think how they will love big international government.
Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors. They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busy fighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadership necessary to "rally the troops"--as did the patriotic clergymen of Colonial America's "Black Regiment."
That leaves you and me--and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, and guts was all it took in 1776, wasn't it?
So, while all of the attention of the "talking heads" was focused on virtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentially destructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all but ignored.
Muslim Messiah steps out of the shadows
Despot, Barack Hussein Obama
By Judi McLeod
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Why all the pussyfooting about identifying Barack Hussein Obama for what he truly is, a despot? Now that his Muslim roots have emerged in time for Muslim Brotherhood members to attend his Cairo speech, you can make that, a Muslim despot.
Just as surely as he had his own records sealed from public view, out on the campaign trail, he snookered at least some of his voters on hidden Muslim roots.
For those who consider the despot tag too harsh, a president who works to take down his own country is a despot. This despot acts as though the United States of America is his private toy to do with as he wishes. Without much backlash, he’s already all but shredded the Constitution, and is now fluttering its confetti-like pieces on the heads of the people to whom it matters most.
“The Emergence of Obama’s Muslim roots” is tonight’s headline on the Drudge Report. Today Obama was quoted on French television boasting that America is one of the largest Muslim countries.
Obama’s handlers wrapped him in rhinestone-studded gift wrap and passed him off as the Beatles and Elvis Presley rolled into one. “The Messiah” and “King of the World” are only two of his nicknames.
Obama is only a Robert Mugabe with charisma
But for all of their hype, Obama is only a Robert Mugabe with charisma.
In the past few days alone, the American president has invited Iranians to July 4th celebrations, demanded halts to Jewish construction in Jerusalem, and said it’s okay for America’s enemies to have nuclear power but not the U.S.
That lineup does not even include his takeover of GM making it GovernmentMotors, or leading an administration that allows the sale of the Hummer to Communist China.
Now the Manchurian candidate has emerged as the Muslim Messiah.
The trademark of the despot is the suppression of the people that they govern. Despots like to spend, spend, spend. Take a look at how Robert Mugabe lives in the face of the starvation of the people of Zimbabwe.
Obama seems hellbent to punish the US for its glorious and noble pastThe trouble with despots is that they invariably get power drunk on the house wine. When they start showing high handed signs as Obama is doing, more is never enough.
They climb into their ivory towers, slam the doors shut and ignore the pleas of their subjects.
Despots have a lot in common with desperadoes. With a hunger that can never be fed and a burning itch that cannot be scratched, they can’t be sated until the destruction they yearn has been made complete.
Obama seems hellbent to punish the US for its glorious and noble past. The signs of his wanting to do that could not possibly be more clear.
In other words, the President of the United States does not have the best interest of his own country at heart.
Even the body language of America’s first couple tells a story whose warning should not be denied.
Look at the expression of the Obama’s faces in the New York Post photograph, showing them on their $74,000 (and still counting) `date’.
Don’t their facial expressions say it all?
The Obamas don’t look happy, but malcontent. Even with all the change, America is not yet the America of their remaking.
Perhaps the curse of the malcontent is that they must become despots to bring about change.
Despots are always the same so there is nothing original about the man who waited to put the “Hussein” back in his name in time to emerge as the Muslim Messiah.
The Naiveté of Barack Hussein Obama
So has The Messiah spokenBy Arthur Weinreb & Judi McLeod
Thursday, June 4, 2009
President Barack Obama is now in the Muslim Middle East, so now like him we can use his middle name. What was interesting about his speech at Cairo University today is not so much what he said but the applause of the audience. It wasn’t just the applause that was significant--but the deadly silence at other statements that the president made.
Obama was cheered loudly when he said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It’s time for these settlements to stop.” But the silence was deafening when the president called on the Palestinians to renounce violence. The references to rockets being fired into Israel and old women being blown up on buses was met with absolutely no reaction from the audience. Of course, if the two-state solution will ever be achieved, the Palestinians will have to not only renounce violence but agree to Israel’s right to exist. The audience was clearly not impressed with any suggestion that Muslims need to give up violence against Israel. They did applaud the suggestion that there be a two-state solution, no doubt because after one is created, the Palestinian state will proceed to attempt to rid the world of the Jewish state. If Obama truly believes that his speech did anything to bring about peace in the Middle East, he is clearly delusional.
Ditto for Hussein’s solution for nuclear material that is weapons capable in the Middle East. According to the president, no state should have nuclear weapons so he’ll just get all the countries in the world to give up their weapons and the world, even Israel, will be saved from nuclear annihilation. What an easy solution; it’s surprising that no other American administration has ever come up with that one before!
It’s hard to believe that that the United States of America could have elected a president who thinks that Muslims in the Middle East want to end attacks against Israel in order to achieve a two-state solution. Even the fact that his speech loudly criticized Israel did nothing to make his audience applaud the notion of ending Palestinian violence. It’s hard to believe that the United States of America could have elected a president, who thinks that the solution to Iran’s nuclear threat is to have all countries voluntarily surrender their nukes. After all as Obama said, no country really has the right to tell another country that they can’t have nuclear material. Then again, it is hard to believe that Americans have elected a president to run General Motors and Chrysler.
It would be nice to have been a fly on the wall while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was watching the speech. He must be shaking in his sandals at the thought of how he will be dealt with by the United States.
What is really hard to believe is how someone who has reached the pinnacle that Barack Hussein Obama has reached could still be and so naïve.
It’s a naiveté fed by an ego that Barack Obama alone can change the world; a naivete that the Islamic world gives a damn about what he thinks.
The cult that is Barack Hussein Obama is alive in the Muslim world. Twice the cult cry of “Barack, I love you!” was shouted from the crowd.
Obama must truly envision himself as The Messiah. With his message of Peace and Goodwill to all men, he seemed to step right off the face of a traditional Christmas card in the final points of his 55-minute speech. "We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.”
In his finale, he mentioned the Holy Koran first..."The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’
“The Talmud tells us: `The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.’
“The Holy Bible tells us, `Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’.
“The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.”
So has The Messiah spoken.
My President Was an Honor Student at Alinsky AcademySaul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Agitate, aggravate, educate, then organize
By Joy Tiz
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
"The most significant part of Barack Obama’s education was not at Columbia University or Harvard Law School, but the years he spent being trained in the Saul Alinsky system for community organizing and then practicing what he learned.”
All practicing leftists have been influenced by Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals; the essential primer for all good America hating radicals. Written by the great granddaddy of all community organizers, Alinsky’s book lays out the tactics to be employed in creating a revolution.
When I was growing up in Chicago in the 1960’s, these folks were known as “paid agitators”, a far more accurate description of what they do. Community organizers were carpet baggers who blew into town for the express purpose of whipping the locals into frenzy over some grievance, real or imagined. This type of “organizing” is not to be compared with legitimate, local grass roots organizations that get together to put pressure on local officials to bring about a change for the better. Alinsky style organizers are not concerned members of the community who pressure city hall into putting in a new stoplight. For the Alinskyite, the actual issue is of no consequence. The organizer doesn’t care about the community. The agenda is to gin up a revolt which gives the organizer power. As Alinsky put it: “You want to cause fear, confusion and retreat in the enemy, i.e. the Haves.” (Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Toronto: Random House, 1971. Pg. 127).
Remember Hoffer’s work on mass movements: the organizer’s task is to inject the society with an ailment and then offer the movement as the cure. “Agitate, aggravate, educate, then organize.”
As is always the case with socialism, Alinsky’s programs never succeed. Barack Obama’s lack of success as a community organizer is what motivated him to pursue a law degree.
By all accounts, Barack Obama was a model Alinsky student; evidently results are not considered in the grading process. In actual practice, the results of Obama’s agitating were less than spectacular. He organized the residents of the Altgeld Gardens public housing project to have dangerous asbestos removed. It was a small victory, at best. Workers sealed the asbestos in some units but quickly abandoned the project. Some tenants still have asbestos today. A $500,000.00 initiative for a jobs bank was a flop. Despite a few bright moments, overall, Obama’s community organizing was ineffective in bringing any genuine help to the people he claimed to want to represent. Obama had the benefit of receiving his training from disciples who had studied with Alinsky himself; he went on to train hundreds of others in Alinskyism. Barack Obama has said that his Alinsky training was the best education of his life. A former fellow organizer told the New Republic that Obama was the “undisputed master” of agitation. (Freddoso, David. The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2008).
What distinguished Alinsky from your run of the mill revolutionary is Alinsky’s preference to wreck the system from within the existing order rather than resort to violence; not that violence out of the question, however. Alinsky was a big believer in the end justifying the means.
Saul Alinsky also subscribed to a style of ethics that has been described as “very fluid.” In other words, there is no right or wrong in any absolute sense. Marxists despise religion, the original source of morality; the Marxist has substituted the state for the church. The future president’s mentor didn’t believe integrity was an important quality, but creating the illusion of integrity is essential.
Just how does one qualify for Alinsky training? Saul had specific traits he wanted to see in his pupils, number one and most important: ego. Alinsky believed the best organizers were the ones driven to play God; who were irreverent; could demonstrate a sense of humor, and had confidence.
Undeniably, Barry Obama was just the kind of guy Alinsky was looking for.
It is astounding that Obama is using the White House to harass private citizens. But Obama surely would have earned a gold star if Saul Alinsky was still with us. L. David Alinsky, son of Saul, submitted a letter to the Boston Globe which was published, extolling the virtues of dad’s star pupil. Right after the Democratic National Convention, Alinsky Jr. wrote: “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
"Transparency," "Change," and "Yes we can": I have been for almost 4 months. trying to explain away the many inappropriate decisions and choices being made by President Obama. I, along with millions of others, voted for Mr. Obama hoping he would bring transparency and change to our Country. But as with his earliest appointments (i.e.,Summers, Geithner, Gates, et al), the President has shown a great propensity to play to the Center, to play it so safe, and to maintain the status quo. This is not change. It is more of the same with a new face and demeanor.
He is allowing all the worst policies of the Bush Gang to stay in play (i.e., military tribunals, indefinite imprisonment, posse comitatus, the absence of habeas corpus: all the makings of an opaque government).
Many of us have constantly tried to rationalize his refusal to investigate Wall Street and the Banks, as well as the Bush Administration for their apparent and actual misdeeds. But the picture is becoming inescapably clear. Our President is little interested in challenging the powers that be, i.e., the Military Industrial Complex, the insurance companies, Wall Street or the Republicans.
We have a health system that is sinfully based on profit. We have become an undereducated and unemployed country where the divide between rich and poor has grown geometrically since the Reagan years. The world's population as well as our environment is about to come crashing down on us all the while we still pay attention to those who tell us that we must continue doing what we have been doing. Our media has been so deregulated that there are now only a few voices heard. While it is true that the internet has given us some democracy, there are the same old forces now trying to gain control and profit off our internet.
It seems that enemies of CHANGE have just a few priorities. They are profit, the right to own many guns, no taxes, and the defeat of Choice, immigrants, and homosexuals.
With so many things amiss and amess, why is President Obama so insistent in running from the Progressive wing of the Democrats while running to the political- status quo- corporate- nochange- Center? Why is he so insistent on not allowing light onto the Bush people and their dealings such as torture? Why is the President not shouting support for labor and its unions. Why hasn't he done away with "don't ask, don't tell"? Why has he abandoned the notion of undoing the great big Bush tax breaks for the rich? Why is he still an enabler of Israel's apartheid and savage war in the Gaza and Israel? What will he do to the Supreme Court?
It is time for President Obama to hear from all of us who are not pleased by his leadership to date. It is time to tell the Republicans as well as those Democrats who refuse to stop feeding their masters, to join in true change or get out of the way. For if he refuses to bring the change and transparency his campaign spoke of, we must work to make him a one term candidate, while finding someone who will help to bring change.
President OrwellObama speech, It is Orwellian, It is pure evilBy Alan Caruba
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I listened to President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame and there is no denying this is one of the most gifted orators of our times.
Given a carefully crafted speech, Obama can deliver a spellbinding performance; one that sounds so good during its performance that you have to read the text to fully grasp how completely Orwellian it is.
It was George Orwell who gave us the phrase “Double Speak” in his famous novel, “1984”, an allegory of totalitarian dictatorship and a warning against the threat of Communism embodied in the then Soviet Union. The Russians and the people in the captive Soviet satellite nations all knew they were being lied to by the leadership and their media.
The glow is beginning to dim around President Obama. It hasn’t taken long because of an intense flow of legislation and appointments, virtually all of which has been dubious, if not directly harmful to the nation’s economy and security.
That said, he was warmly greeted by the many students and others attending the commencement at Notre Dame. It wasn’t merely that he is President, but that the students in that audience were simply too young, too naïve, too unschooled in the history of our nation and the world to recognize a great deceiver like Obama.
Obama’s ability to impose crushing outlays of billions from the public treasury and then warn against the dangers of those same actions were captured recently in a Bloomberg News article that began, “President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending ‘unsustainable’, warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.”
In his first hundred days, with the complicity of the Congress, President Obama has saddled more debt on U.S. citizens than all of the combined Presidents that preceded him. The debt we’ve had has always been sustained by borrowing from other nations; in more recent years, China and Japan.
It is utterly and completely duplicitous to create such debt and than warn against it.
It is Orwellian. It is pure evil.
It is illegal by the terms of the U.S. Constitution to tap into public funds, the U.S. treasury, to give billions in bailouts to private industry and to financial firms such as banks and insurance companies.
It is a crime to dismiss the sanctity of contract law by turning over ownership of an automobile company to the union that brought it to ruin and to ignore the legal rights of those who loaned billions to it under terms guaranteeing they would be the first to be repaid in the event of bankruptcy.
It is the worst folly to claim that rich people, no matter how one defines “rich”, do not have a right to the money they have earned.
President Orwell…er, President Obama is engaging in the familiar and wicked practice of class warfare, the essence of socialism and communism. It seeks to divide Americans from each other and to play on the worst emotions of envy, ignoring the abundance of opportunity our society and economic system has always offered everyone.
The ultimate goal is to impoverish every one. To destroy or drive out leading industries in America, to deny the growth of the energy industries and sources needed to power America.
In January, President Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. . . . Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas—you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
So, beyond the soothing calls to be open to opposing points of view lies the implacable agenda of President Obama and his administration to do terrible harm to the United States of America.
It is Orwellian. It is pure evil.
Obama’s Jewish Problem
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President ObamaBy Joan Swirsky
Monday, May 18, 2009
In times past, coalminers working in the depths of the earth took along caged canaries. As long as the canaries warbled, the miners knew they were safe from the methane and carbon monoxide that would kill them in minutes. But when the tiny songbirds stopped singing, the miners knew to run for their lives.
Jews have always been the canaries in the coal mines of civilization, serving as a warning of impending doom to those who believed, as Churchill said, that the crocodile—of tyranny—would eat them last. The Jews of Hitler’s Germany who listened carefully to the savage dictator’s early words, and watched as his promises of hope and change morphed into incremental losses of freedom and ultimately genocide, fled their country and survived, while the six-million who said “it can’t happen here”—as well as six-million non-Jews who believed they were immune—perished in the largest mass-murder in history.
After Hitler’s brutal annihilation of half the Jews on earth, the straggling survivors established the State of Israel, which in less than 50 years became a formidable power, and also a world obsession—admired and respected but also envied and loathed.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, America has been the Jewish state’s most steadfast supporter, even when this or that president was not particularly enamored of “the Jews”—with the stark exception of Jimmy Carter who, to this day, oozes Jew-hatred from his aging pores. Why? Because, unlike every state in the Middle East and every anti-freedom regime on earth, Israel embodies all of our country’s values—the ideal of democracy, the rule of law, a determination to fight the enemies of Western civilization, and a fidelity to the Judeo-Christian ethics that have made both America and Israel shining lights among freedom-loving nations.
Today, with the advent of the Obama administration, Israeli canaries are chirping loudly, warning the entire world, particularly America but also Europe, that if Israel is sacrificed to Obama’s far-left anti-Israel and anti-American agenda, then freedom-loving, God-fearing countries around the world will be suffocated and sacrificed to a new American caliphate—to the harsh and inflexible rule of Islamic theology, philosophy and law.
Sharpening the Machete
To prepare for his meeting on May 18 with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama prepared a menu of poison pills—the kind given to people with the same Hobson’s Choice that Mafia attorney Tom Hagen gave to the imprisoned and about-to-testify-before-Congress Frankie Pentangeli in “Godfather Two”—either commit suicide or we’re going to kill you. Examples abound.
Just the other day, Obama announced he will be addressing the Arab and Muslim world from a mosque in the city of Al-Azhar in Egypt—a location writer Ruth S. King has described as “the locus of Koranic-inspired Jihad.” Indeed, this Sunni bastion supports suicide-bombings. And only last week, according to, Sheikh Ali Osman of the Egyptian government said “Pigs are Jews cursed by Allah, and thus can be lawfully slaughtered.”
This week, by Executive Order, Obama directed the expenditure of $20.3 million—of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars—in “migration assistance” to the Palestinian refugees and “conflict victims” in Gaza, which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas and its Islamic Resistance Movement to resettle in the United States. Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009 was recorded in the Federal Register on February 4.
Also this week, Obama submitted a budget to Congress that while increasing military aid to Israel for the Arrow 3, cut in half aid for the Arrow 2 and significantly reduced aid for short-range missile interceptors, just as Iran is strengthening its conventional ballistic missile force.
This month, Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu for the P.M.’s planned visit to address the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference in D.C.
At the same AIPAC meeting Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told donors that America’s ability to face Iran depended on Israel’s ability to make progress with the Palestinians, once again echoing the tired Leftist canard that all conflicts in the Middle East are the result not of the jihadist mentality, but rather the failure of Israel to accept their virulently anti-Semitic propaganda (in the media and in schools), non-stop homicide bombings, and relentless rocket attacks.
In numerous Obama-sanctioned public statements, his henchmen have, in the common vernacular, put the screws to Israel, among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who threatened: “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-√†-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts ... they go hand in hand,” and National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones who recently told a European foreign minister that the U.S. is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
Obama let it be known that his plan for a “two-state solution” was perfectly in-sync with the wipe-Israel-off-the-map crowd, including terrorist-sponsoring Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. And what sweet nothings do you suppose Obama whispered into the ears of Iran’s Ahmadinejad that just prompted the sudden release from jail of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi?
And let’s not forget that Obama’s first phone call to a head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory, and who also wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. Did I mention Abbas’ loyal second-in-command fealty to “the father of terrorism,” Yasir Arafat?
Or that Obama gave his first TV interview to Al Arabia television.
Or that Obama summarily dismissed all charges against the Muslim murderers of 17 American sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2001.
Or that Obama, according to David Patten at, “is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances.”
Or that Obama bowed so repugnantly on his recent European trip to the Saudi Arabian potentate.
This “genocidal hostility toward Israel,” as writer Mona Charen describes it, is Obama & Co.’s way of insuring that they succeed where former administrations have failed in bringing about the ever-elusive “two-state” solution—a “solution” Leftists like Obama have cravenly tried to delude much of the world into believing will magically resolve the world’s other conflicts.
Anne Bayefsky of explains Obama’s nefarious plans perfectly: “President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.”
The Obama formula, based not on an American or Israeli plan but rather on the “Saudi Peace Initiative,” involves:
Forcing Israel to withdraw to 1967 cease-fire lines, or as the late Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban called them, “the borders of Auschwitz.”
Demanding that Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, leaving behind important Biblical sites, the Temple Mount, and the country’s border security.
Surrendering of over one-third of Israel’s water supply.
Dividing Jerusalem in half, to make way for a Palestinian capital.
Coercing Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which writer Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation said is tantamount to “demanding that a man in a rough neighborhood give up his shotgun when the criminal next door is getting a Kalashnikov.”
Inundating Israel with millions of Palestinian refugees and their relatives from 1948, thus stripping the country of its Jewish ethos.
De facto surrounding Israel with jihadists who live and die to kill the “infidel” Jews. As Judith Apter Klinhoffer writes, “Let us not forget, Iranian satellite Hezbollah is perched on Israel’s Northern border and Iranian satellite Hamas on the Southern one. An Iranian satellite on the Western one would complete the encircsslement.”
As King Abdullah of Jordan told journalists after his recent meeting with President Obama—clearly referring to the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)—“That is not a two-state solution; it is a 57-state solution.” Mmmm...Obama himself said during his campaign that he had visited “all 57” of the United States! And let’s not forget that during an interview with George Stephanopoulos, he said ..."in my Muslim faith...”—which he didn’t correct but his host rushed to correct.
Going in for the Kill
In spite of more than a half-century of Arab belligerence, war-mongering, suicide bombings, and virulent anti-Israel propaganda blaring from mosques and the media, brainwashing school texts, maps that eliminate the Jewish state, and obdurate resistance to all peace initiatives, Caroline Glick says that “as far as the Obama administration is concerned, Israel is the only obstacle to peace....the Obama White House’s bald attempt to force Israel to take full blame for the Arab world’s hostility toward it is not the only way that it is casting Israel as the scapegoat for the region’s ills. In their bid to open direct diplomatic ties with Iran, Obama and his advisors are also blaming Israel for Iran’s nuclear program.”
“Even Ethan Bronner of the The New York Times pointed out,” Glick continues, “that Obama’s Middle East policy is not based on facts. If it were, the so-called ‘two state solution,’ which has failed repeatedly since 1993, would not be its centerpiece. Obama’s Middle East policy is based on ideology, not reality. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument. By blaming Israel for the absence of peace in the Middle East while ignoring the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist; by seeking to build an international coalition with Europe and the Arabs against Israel while glossing over the fact that at least the Arabs share Israel’s concerns about Iran; by exposing Israel’s nuclear arsenal and pressuring Israel to disarm while in the meantime courting the ayatollahs like an overeager bridegroom, the Obama administration is telling Israel that regardless of what it does, and what objective reality is, as far as the White House is concerned, Israel is to blame.”
Sound familiar? As I documented in recent articles—“Obama’s Revenge” and “The President Who Hates His Country”—Obama and his Leftist cronies revile Western civilization and all those evil white men who established the U.S. Constitution and the most productive, most generous and freest country in world history, as he so amply demonstrated in his recent apologize-for-America trip to Europe.
In an article, “The United Hates of America,” David Solway comments on “...the long and destabilizing campaign of the American Left against the political interests of its own country and its rush to embrace the dictatorial agendas of America’s most resolute enemies...’the unholy alliance’ between the radical Left and the Islamic Right.” Solway also comments on a new book by Jamie Glazov, “United in Hate”:
“Glazov’s “analysis,” Solway continues, “seems the only conceivable means of making sense of the leftist orgy of national treason, betrayal of genuine liberal principles, and passionate support of tyrants and demagogues. It also clarifies the bizarre and singular marriage between the Left and Islamism. Glazov writes that the ‘common denominator’ between two such improbable bedfellows—the one ostensibly promoting gender equality, freedom of speech, and a pluralistic society, and the other predicated on gender apartheid, theocratic coercion, and conformity to Sharia law—is a belief in redemptive violence. This is why so many on the secular Left...exulted in the carnage of 9/11, as did their fundamentalist counterparts in the Islamic world, like the Palestinians who danced in the street and handed out candies to celebrate the great event. For the members of the anti-American Left, their papers and speeches were the candies they distributed to mark this sublime and long-awaited triumph.
“Yet another important common denominator, Glazov explains, between the Western Left and Islamism is their shared hatred for the state of Israel, the only true, democratic nation in the Middle East and the West’s forward position in the war against an undeviating adversary. The Left abominates Israel as a mini-America, that is, as a colonial occupier of third world innocents, and as a symbol of all the things it loathes: ‘modernity, freedom, corporate capitalism and globalization—all things reviled by Muslim fundamentalists. It has thus allied itself with militant Islam on the principle that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend.’”
So we know where Obama and his henchmen-and-women stand. And we know that they’ve read every Jew-hating, Israel-hating word of The Fatah (Palestinian) Constitution and agree with every defamatory, racist, genocidal tenet of this kill-the-Jews-and-destroy-Israel manifesto, which they apparently find less objectionable than the U.S. Constitution.
Obama's Anti-Israel Collaborators
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, has long and deep ties with the enemies of America and Israel. This is what Dick Morris, former advisor to President Clinton, and his wife, Eileen McGann, wrote last year:
[Hillary’s] relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization [when] the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. In 1996, the First Lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in the Wall Street Journal, ‘Curiously, nearly all of the leaders...came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations....Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas...The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view...Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, [said], ‘We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy.”
Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel. Ed Lasky at TheAmericanThinkercom writes that “Rice was John Kerry’s chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride “roughshod” over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice.”
Lee Hamilton, as Lasky writes, is a key Obama advisor on Middle Eastern affairs. A former Indiana Representative, Hamilton led the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which concluded, among other things, that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should be coordinated with Syria and Iran! And that the U.S. should develop Syrian “goodwill” by pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank—but not a word about dismantling Hamas or Hezbollah! Hamilton wrote in the NY Times that Hezbollah’s “hatred was created by Israel; it wasn’t there at the beginning.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor, has been one of Israel’s most consistently hostile critics and Hamas’s most ardent supporters, as well as a staunch admirer (both in writing and verbally) of Stephen Walt’s and John Mearsheimer’s virulently anti-Israel book, “The Israel Lobby,” which, among other things, contends that Jewish pressure, and not shared values, binds America and Israel together.
James ("F… the Jews") Baker, among the harshest detractors of Israel, has often engaged in raw anti-Semitic remarks, is known for coddling Middle East dictators (including Syria’s Assad), and has been heavily invested (through the Carlyle Group) in the Israel-hating country of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Baker’s law firm defended the Saudi Defense Minister who was sued for alleged complicity by the families of the World Trade Center victims.
Samantha Power, now on Obama’s National Security Council, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and written of her willingness to “alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews] may more crucially mean sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.”
Believe me, the above is the short list. As Glick has written: “In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policy makers and opinion shapers were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable brandishing their anti-Israel positions as qualifying credentials for high in Washington there are powerful circles of political players for whom a person’s anti-Israel bona fides are his strongest suit.”
Obama's Court Jews
Oh, I can hear the blather as I type: But what about all the Jews who voted for Obama and are in his cabinet and among his advisors? Make no mistake—Obama’s Court Jews are identical to those of the past who financed, supported, licked the boots of and sold out their people in order to gain the personal influence, privileges, wealth, and protection that the “nobles” afforded them. They helped Roman emperors kill Jews. They helped Hitler kill Jews. But after their groveling and traitorous service, they were blamed for economic downturns and used as scapegoats to explain away the failures of the evil regimes and leaders they abetted. Fools and dupes, to a person!
Journalist Melanie Phillips writes that “Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he’s getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him...none of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama’s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.”
In an article entitled THE FINAL SOLUTION—What Hitler didn’t finish, Obamawill, blogger Daniel Greenfield ( explains:
Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama’s appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.
While outwardly courting Jews, Obama’s people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70’s have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries were intimidated and silenced. The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.
But why would people who hate Jews surround themselves with so many of them? As Don Vito Corleone warned his son Michael, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” As much as the enemies of Jews hate them, they also fear them. They can’t figure out how a historically besieged people—whose population today is about 14 million, as compared to, say, Muslims, whose population is 1.3 billion—have not only managed to survive the Jew-targeting Inquisition, Crusades., pogroms. Concentration camps and pandemic outbreaks of anti-Semitism, but to flourish and rise to the top echelons of any community they’ve ever lived in. In short, they want the brains of the Jews and also the ability to blame them when things go wrong.
But don’t these smart Jews know they’re being used? Yes and no. They’ve studied history, but they think that the passage of time has made them immune from mistakes of the past. Of course they’re wrong. Fools and dupes always get fooled and duped. Unfortunately—actually, stupidly—too many Jews, over the ages, have been seduced by the hope-and-change rhetoric of the Left, so yearning are they to be “included” and “accepted” into cultures that have ultimately rejected them.
Just who are Obama’s Court Jews?Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff and, in my opinion, Chief of Dupes. As writer Judith Apter Klinghoffer reminds us: “By choosing a Jewish chief of staff to do the dirty work, Obama showed himself a ‘worthy’ successor to LBJ. Arthur Goldberg was LBJ’s point man to read the riot act to Israel. It was his Jewish U.N. representative that was charged with berating Israel for daring to retaliate against Palestinian acts of terror in 1966 and to inform Israel that it should not rely on any American assistance against Nasser in may 1967.” And now Emanuel is taking the bait, currying favor for his figurative 10-minutes of fame, the better to sell out his Israeli-born father and the land his father heroically fought for in the early years of Israel’s existence.
David Axelrod, the chief strategist and media advisor for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and now a White House insider, is not front-and-center about his hero’s antagonism toward Israel. But as the old chestnut says: Silence is Consent!
Robert Malley is another fan of Hamas and Hezbollah. According to Wikipedia, Malley is the son of Simon Malley, an Egyptian-born Jewish journalist, and Barbara Silverstein, a New Yorker who worked for the U.N. delegation of the Algerian National Liberation Front. Both loathed Israel and apparently passed their toxic DNA onto their son. Malley has often called for an end to all aid to Israel.
Dennis Ross, Obama’s special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, which includes Iran, participated in 12 years of failed Israeli-Palestinian “peace” efforts. In 2001, he suggested that future negotiations ought to be based on “something the parties have put on the table, and not [what] the United States has put on the table.” Translated today, that would mean listening to the 22 hostile states that surround Israel and saying “majority rules!”
George Soros, the Budapest-born multibillionaire (and Nazi collaborator) has devoted his entire life, as writer Srdja Trifkovic points out, to supporting “increased government spending and tax increases, drug legalization, euthanasia, open borders and immigration, immigrant entitlements, feminism, free abortion-on-demand, affirmative action, and gay rights” and “remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith...” He is also devoted to vilifying Israel and funding numerous groups that work unstintingly to bring about its destruction.
Again, this is the short list. But the entire list of Obama “advisors” on Middle East affairs is comprised of hard-core Leftists who want nothing more than to see America humiliated and Israel destroyed. As Laskyhas said, “This is the company Barack Obama keeps.”
Consequences be DamnedMelanie Phillips calls the Obama administration’s “malice” toward Israel “incomprehensible in its suicidal stupidity.”
It is trying to make Israel play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Britain under Neville Chamberlain told it that if it didn’t submit to the Nazis it would stand alone—with the result that the following year, Hitler invaded Poland. Determined to prove that history repeats itself the second time as tragedy, America is trying to force Israel to destroy its security by accepting the creation of a terrorist Iranistan on its doorstep, under the threat that otherwise the U.S. will not help protect its security by de-fanging Iran...but in doing so, the Obama administration is jeopardizing the security of America itself and the free world, not to mention the Arab states which have good reason to fear Iranian regional hegemony.
Indeed. As DEBKAfile reports:
Tehran itself will not let Washington dictate the limits of its expanding influence (or) nuclear aspirations.
Cairo and Riyadh will resist with all their might the U.S. bid to anoint Iran the crowning Middle East-Gulf power [and are] extremely concerned by Obama’s public endorsement of Turkey as the senior Muslim power in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, a boost for Ankara’s aspirations to resuscitate the Ottoman Empire.
Jerusalem will resist being cast into a peripheral role in the strategic and military processes going forward with regard to Iran, the Palestinians, Syria and their terrorist arms, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which bear pivotally on Israel’s future existence.
Like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Netanyahu government may not accept being crushed between two hostile regional powers, Iran and Turkey, whose aggressive pretensions Washington is promoting.
Amil Taheri points out: “Convinced that the Obama administration is preparing to retreat from the Middle East, Iran’s Khomeinist regime is intensifying its goal of regional domination. It has targeted six close allies of the U.S.: Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan, all of which are experiencing economic and/or political crises...Khomeinist propaganda is trying to portray Iran as a rising ‘superpower’ in the making while the United States is presented as the ‘sunset” power.’ The message is simple: The Americans are going, and we are coming...with pro-American and other democratic groups disheartened by the perceived weakness of the Obama administration, Tehran hopes its allies will win all the elections planned for this year in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
And writer Tom Gross says that “the threat of a nuclear arsenal in the hands of the only government in the world (Iran) that promotes suicide bombing as a matter of state policy (by its client militias in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere), and celebrates ‘martyrdom of its fellow Muslims’ in such attacks, is a threat quite unlike any the world has ever seen. The combination of weapons of mass destruction and jihadist ideology poses a problem of much greater magnitude than that when secular dictatorships and semi-dictatorships, such as Russia, China and North Korea and Pakistan, possess nuclear bombs. In addition to posing an existential threat to Israel, a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. Tehran, not Washington would dominate oil in the region.”
But none of these threats, not only to the Middle East but also to America, are of any import to President Obama. In his single-minded obsession to appease our enemies and get rid of his “Jewish problem,” he is willing to sacrifice the safety and security of America, the country he can’t stop apologizing for. Or is that he has a Muslim problem and the Jews and Israel are simply in the way?
Barack Obama U-turn over military terror trials
By David Gardner
16th May 2009
President Obama has been accused of a major policy U-turn after he decided to restore the controversial military commissions set up by George Bush to prosecute terror suspects.
The surprise White House announcement reversed his campaign pledge to rely on the conventional court system.
The move was last night criticised by human rights groups, who believed Mr Obama intended to dismantle the terror tribunals after calling them 'an enormous failure' during last year's presidential campaign.
It was the president's second U-turn this week, after he changed his mind and pledged to try and block the court-ordered release of photographs showing U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners.
In one of his first acts as president, Mr Obama obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Last night, he was expected to ask for an additional 120-day delay in nine pending cases to revamp the trials.
Mr Obama is asking Congress to expand the rights of defendants to ban evidence gained from torture or cruel treatment, limit the use of hearsay and give detainees more rights to pick their own lawyers. He also wants some defendants to face trial in civil courts.
But aides said the president now plans to retain the Bush administration's military commissions to try a smaller number of around 20 terror suspects.
High security: Guards stand on either side of a line-up of Guantanamo detainees, in white, to perform a search for unauthorized items at the detention facility
The White House insisted that Mr Obama had not gone back on his word. Aides maintained the president 'never promised to abolish' military tribunals. He 'has always envisioned a role for commissions, properly constituted,' added an official. But critics said Mr Obama repeatedly called for change.
'Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure,' said Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First.
'The results of the cases will be suspect around the world. It is a tragic mistake to continue them,' he added.
Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: 'It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment.'
Even with the additional rights being proposed, defendants would not get the same protection at a military hearing as they would under the civilian system. Hearsay evidence, for example, is banned in American courts.
Detainees: Ramzi Binalshibh (left) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are among detainees at Guantanamo Bay charged with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks
Under the Bush administration tribunals, hearsay testimony was allowed unless a defendant could prove it unreliable. Mr Obama plans to shift the burden onto the prosecution.
The Bush tribunals won three convictions in eight years, with charges pending against 21 suspects. Trial plans for more than 200 other Guantanamo detainees are still undecided. Some 241 inmates remain in Guantanamo.
The president's decision came as he faces increasing pressure to come up with a plan for dealing with detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he has promised to close by next January.
Mr Obama was already under fire for his decision to bow to the advice of his military chiefs and block the release of photos detailing the U.S. abuse of prisoners.
After initially saying he would go along with a court order to release the pictures, he then said he was 'uncomfortable' with the decision as it could put U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at more risk.
Is There Enough Righteous Anger Out There?
Incredibly arrogant and blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama
By Dave Macy
Friday, May 15, 2009
Many journalists and columnists, all much smarter than I am, have begun to chronicle the incredibly arrogant and blatantly unconstitutional actions of one Barack Obama. The anger is not just from the right-- but it is becoming apparent that some on the left are also appalled at the extent of unlawful overreaching of the federal government. It’s as if Obama thinks this past election was a mandate to kingship. And the sad reality is that the mainstream media for the most part stand and cheer the deconstruction of laws upon which America was built.
Just how big is the bus under which Obama is throwing those who allowed an imposter to rise to the presidency? Pick a group that lent its support and you’ll find tire marks all over them. American Catholics believed in Obama, but since his baby killing lust have been deeply divided in their loyalty. Witness the fiasco of Notre Dame’s invitation to their commencement. The Catholic vote will never again be as unified as it was in 2008. But God help us-- what the Devil were Catholics thinking in the first place by cozying up to the most pro-abortion politician ever to be elected to the US Senate? How about the unions, especially the UAW? With BHO as CEO Obama Motors is running them over.
Allow me to drop a few names on you as reminders of how idiotic and stupid the majority of voters in America have become? Pelosi! Gore! Ayers! Soros! Biden! Geithner! Clinton! Socialism! Communism! Fascism! Totalitarianism!
What is the antidote to this runaway freight train of constitutional destruction? Impeachment? Probably not since the Dems have a bulletproof majority in congress. A call to arms by conservatives? Yes, you’ll have more tea parties and talk shows. But the truth is this: there are many more Americans who care less about the preservation of freedom, liberty, and the constitution than there are those who would rise up in its defense.
I am not being overly dramatic or pessimistic. I am being a realist when I say that too many citizens have bought into the liberal lie which says that the “government” is the answer to our country’s problems. Conservatives know that is a lie. They know that markets, corporations, manufacturing, and essential services work best when they are free to compete on a level playing field. This administration knows that most Americans will trade freedom for security. And as a wise man once said, when you do that, you will have neither.
This well orchestrated and manufactured economic “perfect storm” is exactly what was needed to engineer major changes in America. The educational dumbing down of successive generations, the detachment from solid moral, religious, and ethical principles, and the distractions of the electronic age have all combined to allow a Mother Government to suckle the stupid.
In America we have stopped thinking. The Greek word muse means to think, reflect, and ponder. When you put an “a” in front of it, it becomes amuse. Amusement is the absence of deep thinking. America was once that city on a hill, the light that reflected the glory of God’s providence. Now it is becoming a tawdry amusement park ruled by a cheap carnival huckster.
Obama Is Becoming an Accessory after the fact to War Crimes
By Matthew Rothschild, May 14, 2009
Barack Obama is fast becoming an accessory after the fact to the war crimes that the Bush Administration has committed.
By not prosecuting the torturers and those who ordered the torture, and now by not even going public with the photo tortures he’d already agreed to release, Obama is doing Dick Cheney’s business for him.
Cheney’s been telling every news outlet that will have him on that a) we didn’t torture or do anything wrong and that b) everything we did was necessary to keep us safe.
The photos of our brutality that are in Obama’s possession could disprove these points in a hurry.
But now Obama, like Cheney, wants to hide the evidence.
Obama says he’s worried that releasing the photos might enflame hatred against Americans and imperil the troops.
But Obama can douse that flame by acknowledging that a previous Administration committed these crimes, that we find them abhorrent, that they will not occur under his watch, and that those who committed the crimes and ordered the crimes will be held responsible.
Instead, he’s caving in to the Cheneys and the Limbaughs and the O’Reillys.
This is profoundly undemocratic.
Our system is based on openness. And if people acting in our name did something heinous, we have a right to know that, and we need to come to grips with that, in all its heinousness, so it won’t happen again.
Beyond being undemocratic, hiding the evidence may itself be a criminal act.
The statute says: “Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
Obama is relieving, comforting and assisting all those who tortured and countenanced torture.
He is staining himself with the crimes of his predecessor. And that’s a crime.
Obama will continue Bush-era military tribunalsBy Stephen C. Webster
Published: May 14, 2009
Breaking a key promise from his campaign, President Barack Obama is expected to announce Friday the return of military commission trials for a small number of terrorism suspects. Obama had previously promised to abolish them.
The tribunals, often criticized as overly protective of state secrets and willing to accept evidence obtained while defendants were allegedly tortured, were suspended mere hours after Obama took office.
Many organizations expected the move to be a death knell for the system, launched by the Bush administration.
But, it was not.
Unnamed administration officials told the Associated Press on Thursday that the revived commissions will afford greater legal rights to prisoners by barring evidence obtained under coercion or torture and restricting how hearsay evidence is applied.
“The military commissions established under the Bush administration allow the use of evidence, such as that gathered from other detainees, which would be disallowed in civilian courts,” reported The Wall Street Journal. “Critics of the commissions say regular courts are adequate to handle terrorism trials.
“The White House declined to comment. An Obama administration official said the president, while serving in the Senate, ‘had been supportive of a reformed version of military commissions that included increased due process protections as a means of bringing detainees to justice.’”
“The administration intends to try some of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in federal courts, as President Obama has pledged,” reported The Los Angeles Times. “But officials have concluded that some detainees can only be tried in military tribunals, said a U.S. official familiar with the changes.
“Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said the international community was unlikely to view the tribunals as legitimate.
“‘Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure,’ Rona said. ‘The results of the cases will be suspect around the globe.’”
It will be several more months before tribunals begin anew, the AP reported.
“An administration official said between 10 and 20 of the 241 detainees currently at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be tried in military commissions,” the wire service added.
Some employees are simply irreplaceable
Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama, for example. The University of Chicago Medical Center hired her in 2002 to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000--nearly twice what her husband made as a U.S. senator. Oh, did we mention that he had just become a U.S. senator? He sure had. Requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to network, Michelle! But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000? We can think of only one explanation: Roland Burris's wife wasn't interested.
I Did Not Vote for Barack ObamaFeckless lad who sent Air Force One to buzz New York City, employs tax cheats, needs a telprompterBy Alan Caruba
Friday, May 8, 2009
Whenever I am feeling a bit despondent and need to shake off the mood, I remind myself that I did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
The other day, feeling buyer’s remorse, I returned an item I had purchased and requested credit. It looked so good in the catalog, but turned out to be a bad idea. While those who voted for Obama are said to still regard him quite fondly, one suspects large numbers of them are experiencing the same feeling. I, however, did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
I did not vote for the feckless lad who sent Air Force One to buzz New York City, accompanied by a fighter jet, neglectful of the panic that would ensue among people who had a sudden frightening flashback to 9/11.
I did not vote for the man whose choices for his cabinet and advisors included tax cheats and others who have been an on-going succession of embarrassments. His science advisor went on record suggesting we shoot stuff into the atmosphere to stop global warming. His Environmental Advisor and EPA Director want to regulate carbon dioxide as “a pollutant” and threat to health. (We each exhale about six pounds of CO2 every day.)
I did not vote for the man whose Energy Secretary was gleeful over the prospect of $8-a-gallon gasoline prices or whose Homeland Security choice thinks entering the United States illegally is not a crime and returning veterans of the Iraq War are potential “extremists.”
I did not vote for the man whose constant use of a TelePrompter has become a running joke, accurately revealing that he is frequently unable to communicate well without one.
I did not vote for the man who, in the first three months of office, has requested three prime time televised press conferences. The ratings for each successive one dipped precipitously while he droned on providing “answers” that mostly blamed the previous administration for everything.
I did not vote for the man who has essentially thrown Poland, Tibet, and Israel under the bus while opening the door to Cuba. His globe-trotting rapidly became known as “The Apology Tour.” At one point, in Turkey, he announced that America was not “a Christian nation” when any reading of history reveals it was founded by Christians, all its Presidents have been Christians (until now?), and the vast bulk of the population are Christians.
I did not vote for the man who signed a “stimulus” bill with 8,570 “earmarks” after having campaigned against wasteful spending. He deemed it “imperfect.”
I did not vote for the man whose budget, by Congressional Budget Office calculations, would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year in red ink over 2010-2019; about $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade; more than four times the deficits of the Bush presidency. I did not vote for the man who has taken control of Chrysler and General Motors while handing majority ownership of the former to the United Auto Workers union. At the same time, he denounced “hedge funds” who act as the fiduciaries for pensioners, teacher’s credit unions, personal retiree accounts, college endowments, etc. It is these investments which by law should receive first consideration that Obama dismisses.
I did not vote for the man who precipitously closed “Gitmo” but had no idea where to transfer its current detainees, nor did I vote for the man who released memos concerning “enhanced” interrogation techniques, depicting the nation as one that endorsed torture. On average, the detainees have gained twenty pounds during their stay and some of those previously released have gone back to their terrorist trade.
I did not vote for the man who thinks Afghanistan is the new “front” in the global war on terror, ignoring the defeat that caused the former Soviet Union to collapse.
I did not vote for the man whose Interior and Energy Secretaries have rescinded the move to open up our offshore continental shelf to exploration and extraction of what is estimated to be billions of barrels of oil and even greater volumes of natural gas while at the same time restricting the mining of new, vast deposits of coal.
I did not vote for the man who refuses to release his birth certificate and a list of other documents that would ordinarily be available for public perusal.
The list of reasons why I did not vote for Obama is growing daily and, despite his current personal popularity, is generating grave misgivings among the same public for his policies and the legislative agenda of the Democrat Party, much of which is an attack on talk radio, the Internet, and private enterprise.
My conclusion is that Obama, for all his academic credentials, is either very stupid or very anti-American, or both.
Hmmmm, do you think yet that Obama might not be what he says he is?What is President Obama’s goal in leadership?By Dr. Laurie Roth
Thursday, May 7, 2009
“I am a Christian, never a Muslim.” It’s incredible to me as I revisit the emotional and spiritual seduction so many millions had when Obama was running for office. So many were sick of globalist Bush, the Iraq war and Republicans in general. We found ourselves with a handsome, young, rock star black guy who was vividly democrat and liberal competing against the usual Rhino type conservative who was older and was proud of being a compromiser and frankly a globalist, McCain.
I had a little hope when they brought in Sarah Palin, a real woman, wife, mom and servant to the people of Alaska who could speak. However, they quickly and stupidly pulled her back and like McCain they tried to moderate her. Bad and fatal move to the campaign interviews and debates!
Like so many others in conservative talk radio and journals, I studied Obama’s voting record and associations pitting them against his articulate and entertaining speeches staring at the prompters. I was stunned that so many, though obviously sick of the Iraq struggle and mad at Bush would think that this empty shirt, Obama could actually bring the change America needed! NO, I won’t call him an empty shirt because he has nasty things in all his pockets. “Empty” at least reflects ignorance that would be bad but more understandable.
Just the facts pleaseIs Obama the sincere Christian so many believe he is?
He told the G 20 folks in his last big overseas series of meetings that We Were Not a Christian Nation.
He gladly bowed low to the King of Saudi Arabia, something a U.S. President has never done.
He broke a long-standing tradition when the White House demanded that the symbol of Jesus Christ be covered up before his speech at Georgetown University on April 24th. This was unprecedented by and American President. Most recently, former President Bush and Laura Bush spoke at the same podium and never asked for the symbol of Jesus Christ to be covered up. Obviously, someone has a little issue with Jesus……….hmm.
Now we have him refusing to even attend the National Day of Prayer gathering on May 11th, 2009.
What is President Obama’s goal in leadership?
Obama wants and plans for the U.S. to submit to international leadership and the UN.
It doesn’t take a great IQ to see the over reach of Obama and this administration trying to force our country into submission with the International community and UN. He is supportive and so are many liberal members of this congress, of the U.N. Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It sounds at first glimpse innocent until you study what they want to do. It would render the rights of all parents to raise their children, impotent. There could be no more love pats, or swats, don’t be thinking about forcing little Suzie to church. If she was distressed about going to church one Sunday and told a school counselor it would be a violation of the rights of your child to make her go. Foster care and authorities might just show up at your door. Don’t mess with the rights of your child with the Internet either….. on and on.
For that matter, with Barney Frank’s Hate Crimes bill, protecting pedophiles and over 500 different sexual absurdities, crimes and much deviance, don’t be thinking you can bonk a pedophile over the head if he is attacking your young daughter. You could be committing a felony and hate crime and he could be committing a misdemeanor. Isn’t that precious?
We have also seen Obama and his administration pushing FOCA, the freedom of Choice Act which would force all Doctors, hospitals, Christian/Catholic or not and all states (even if laws were on the books against abortion) to give abortions on demand. Maybe that is why one of the many things listed in the Homeland Security Report, the day before the April 15th Tea Parties as a potential domestic terror danger were people who believed in state and federal sovereignty.
We have seen Obama and his administration recently pressuring and allegedly threatening many lenders who didn’t want to sell Chrysler. They were threatened with ruination if they didn’t cooperate and sell. GM will even be more complicated and horrific as they fall apart and the Government swoops in to control them.
We have already heard of and I have spoken and written about in previous articles, the many banks who did not want the bail out money. They were all pressured to take at least 5 billion each or none would get it. I talked directly with two high up banking contacts that were straight up and verified that. Then when the banks tried to pay it back as soon as possible congress would not take the funds back.
The only thing you can figure with this ridiculous scenario is that Obama and this administration want total control of the banking industry, auto industry, if he has his way, parental rights. The control attempts and plans continue on. We will see a strong push for forced gun registration and manipulated environmental controls and taxation. You know, the huge worldwide, global warming melt down that doesn’t really exist?
What can one assume from the first 100 days in this administration?
* Obama is NOT a Christian.
* Obama is NOT a Capitalist but a totally dedicated socialist/Marxist.
* Obama is in love with being popular to the world but hates the US and its sovereignty.
* Obama has little or no loyalty at all to our best allie in the Middle East, Israel.
* Obama believes in big Government control in all areas of our lives.
This is not my vision for America; I hope to God it isn’t yours. Organize and plan Larger Tea Parties July 4th. Work very hard to find and back Real leaders to run in each of your states and get behind them in an assertive way. Let’s regain the House in the mid term elections and work on getting back the Senate. Finally, let’s vote this nightmare out of office after 4 years and start to repair the damage!
Obama and the Bogeymanidi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama, Cult of PersonalityBy Bill McIntyre
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Since time immemorial wannabe dictators and despots have repeatedly used the same tactics to achieve their tyrannical but disguised intentions.
Their collective agenda generally consists of imposing some twisted ideology or nefarious system of rulership on a society duped by lies, real or manufactured threats to the state and the fracturing of societies along racial, religious, political or economic lines.
Among the more favoured devices is the creation of a bogeyman in the country. The bogeyman can be presented as internal or external threats from which everyone needs protection. The bogeyman is not only a frightening figure designed to scare children. It is also used to scare entire populations.
Adolf Hitler marshalled the German nation to his cause by using the Jews as his bogeyman. They were portrayed as ruining the country. They were blamed for the Depression and the plight of the mostly unemployed German people at the time. The call to arms against them was incessant, vicious and dehumanizing. By dehumanizing the Jews, Hitler and his supporters made it possible to murder more than six million of them.
Closer to our own time we have seen the likes of Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin who used the prosperous East Indian community as the country’s bogeyman. This allowed him to kick them out of the country then seize their money, property and businesses. Once they were gone, he turned on his own people.
Wacky Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe used the white farmers as his bogeyman. He seized their farms, forced them to leave the country, turned the farms over inexperienced former gunmen and the country, with the exception of the ruling class, has not enjoyed a decent meal since. The country is now a wasteland of poverty and despair but still getting money from the Western democracies to ensure the survival of the Mugabe dictatorship.
In Venezuela Hugo Chavez, turned on the United States as his bogeyman and whipped the country into an anti-American frenzy, taking freedom with him into a lifetime strangle-hold on that country’s presidency. U.S. President Obama would probably argue with me that Chavez is not such a bad fellow since he reads and distributes books to visiting politicians. He probably also has a firm handshake.
So what does all this have to do with the United States and President Obama? You have to look at Obama’s activities during his first 100 days in office then decide for yourself just what is going on.
Obama swept into office while the nation’s media was busily promoting a fear campaign involving the fastest moving recession known to man. The media fear campaign drove American society to suddenly cut billions of dollars out of the economy sending it into a tailspin.
Some blame the recession on the Bilderbergers since they are said to control who becomes president in the U.S. I am not a conspiracy theorist but suggest you check them out for yourself.
So here, then you have the bogeyman emerging from the shadows during a tight election campaign. Meanwhile, en masse, the U.S. media aligns itself with Obama ensuring he gets elected. Follow this closely because several bogeymen are unleashed against the American people almost simultaneously.
They are:
The mainstream media propagandist creates the “racist” bogeyman. Anyone who disagrees or speaks out against Obama is labelled a racist. That tactic persists to this day.
The automotive sector is cast as a corporate bogeyman that is not to be trusted and needs the guidance of business experts in the White House to control them. Suddenly the American government is dictating how companies must be run if do not couple they won’t get any money. The Communists tried this for years and created the Lada and some of the shoddiest products in the World. You must remember the Lada? It was designed to become a tractor for use in growing your own crop of turnips when needed, which was almost always, in the People’s Paradise.
Gun owners were the next target for demonization. Several recent shooting events are giving gun opponents all the ammunition needed to convince a supportive administration that Second Amendment rights must be trampled down and citizens disarmed. Disarm the population and you can do pretty much anything you like.
A really interesting bogeyman is the rich. Taking a page right out of Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, President Obama has targetted the rich for special tax attention. The flaw in this Brave New World thinking is, it is designed to make the poorer folks think they are going to get some of the money from the rich. At only five per cent of the tax-paying population, unfortunately there are not enough rich people to meet the demand. It just means more people will be poorer. After all, who creates the jobs and opportunities for the poor or middle-class? The government? No, the rich. In the Communist countries they had equality. Everyone was poor except for, you guessed it, the politicians. The smart people fled to the U.S., Canada and other countries where they could operate businesses and create wealth and jobs.
Current external bogeymen are threats posed by Iran’s nuclear aspirations, Pakistan, a country armed with nuclear weapons, and precariously close to falling into the hands of the Taliban, Afghanistan and trade with Canada. Since the Obama administration has launched a Buy American campaign, I am assuming he does not want Canadian oil or natural gas and possibly even water in the near future. I suppose if one does not want to pick a fight with an enemy one can always pick a fight with a friend. It’s safer that way.
Media-created Obamaphoria
Another ploy used by would-be dictators is the Cult of Personality. Remember Moa Tse-tung in China? Huge pictures of him were pasted everywhere. His thoughts were published; his every move followed, his every speech praised. It was incessant. Sound familiar?
This is standard fare from the Guide to Being a Dictator. They can do no wrong. They are compared to great leaders of the past. Come to think of it, is Obama not being hailed as a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln? Can you recall any other president who got more fawning media exposure than President Obama? He is seen in hamburger shops like an ordinary guy. He fires people in private industry. He walks on water. If you disagree you’re a scummy racist deserving of death.
His wife Michelle is being portrayed as a powerhouse of everything stylish; exceptional mother (move over Mother Theresa) concerned about the lesser being around her and is everything an American woman should aspire to be. The kids are pictured as upper intelligent, beautiful, fashion savvy and dog-friendly while still just your average American kids.
With all the evidence floating around out there as to the Obama agenda, it surprises me that more Americans are not waking up and smelling the coffee. Yes, many are. There are signs of it everywhere in the new media. Warnings about Obama’s intentions were publicized before the last election but the media-created Obamaphoria overwhelmed common sense and what little scepticism actually reached the voting public.
One last point. During the election campaign Obama rode into the White House on the mantra of Change/Yes We Can. Who knew what that meant? Change what, who? We can what? Change? Change can be good, bad or indifferent. Again, another deceitful practice. Sound like you are promising something that you are not. Tell people what they want to hear. But then, nobody dared call him on it. They were all too busy chanting.
And it’s really too bad, because a long and difficult road lies ahead for those who are brave enough, conscious enough and incensed enough to reverse the direction in which the American people are being deceived into taking.
Whoever they are, criminals must face the consequences
Rule of Law Vetoed by President Obama
How bad does it have to get before insiders face the same law everybody else does?by Joel S. Hirschhorn, May 2, 2009
There are no headlines or pontificating pundits, but the real news that has become crystal clear to any but the most delusional and distracted Americans is that President Obama has no commitment to applying the rule of law where it counts. Certainly, not applying it to the large number of rich and powerful people that have violated our Constitution and plunged the nation into economic disaster.
Again and again we hear the flimsy argument from Obama and his top advisors that he wants to look forward and not backward. This is tortured logic when it comes to delivering justice in a nation supposedly cherishing the rule of law.
The fundamental logic of honoring and applying the rule of law fairly to absolutely everyone is that people who have broken the law in the past must be held accountable and placed into the justice system after they have misbehaved. In other words, there is no actionable rule of law other than by looking backward into past misdeeds. So how can rational and intelligent people follow the logic of Obama and still believe that he truly understands and honors the rule of law?
It is not believable when Obama says he will honor the rule of law in the future. Why should we trust his rhetoric when he refuses to enforce the rule of law for past actions by some of the most powerful people in America?
There is warranted and massive public disapproval of government as evidenced in the tea parties held across the nation. How can Americans respect government when it is so evident that the president stubbornly refuses to seek justice and punishment for those that have violated the public trust? Obama’s reluctance to seek justice for those that have damaged the nation undermines his credibility as an honest public servant.
All of this has taken on new importance as official documents from the Bush administration totally support the view that the US tortured prisoners in violation of international and domestic laws. President George W. Bush lied to us. And even before the latest events there were surely incredible amounts of evidence that high Bush administration officials savaged our Constitution. The constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government has become a fiction.
What Americans have every right to see is a large number of former elected and appointed officials in the Bush administration as well as many in the financial sector being arrested, indicted, and confronted with criminal trials. Americans want to see aggressive prosecution and punishment. They want and deserve revenge and retribution, considering the astounding pain and suffering the vast majority of Americans now experience.
We have every right to see in the public limelight what the world saw after World War II when Nazi criminals were tried and punished on the world stage.
This is not happening because Obama seems to have more allegiance to the plutocracy that brought him to the presidency than to the public that has seen thousands of Americans killed in the unjust war in Iraq and now see their families, friends, and neighbors suffering loss of jobs, retirement nest eggs, financial security, personal health, and homes. When any politician does not enforce the rule of law then I worry that he or she may fear having the rule of law applied to them.
We have witnessed crimes against humanity. We want President Obama to show complete commitment to the rule of law so that the many lying, corrupt and criminal Americans from both the public and private sectors that have caused so much harm are punished. That includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many, many others in the Bush administration, including those that were supposed to regulate the financial sector.
Obama and his underlings seem to say that doing this would be a distraction and a waste of time. Nuts! It is exactly what the nation needs to rebuild confidence in government and the justice system. On the positive side, there are some in Congress showing interest in prosecuting many culprits. But the White House may be exerting pressure behind the scenes to limit their actions.
Applying the rule of law: If not now, then when? Yes, we can and should.
Enough Change Already
Cyber Security Act, Hate Crimes bill, profiling and targeting veterans, auto bailouts, buyouts, TARP expansionBy Armand C. Hale
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Obama & Co. have been throwing so much change at American, the average citizen can’t keep their heads above it all. This is more than anyone wanted or could have every imagined in this country. Here is just a small amount of “change” that the new kid at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is fostering:
· Fanatical anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is sponsoring S.B. 843 calling for background checks on all gun sales in America to include gun shows.
· Senators Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.V.), Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), and Bill Nelson, (D-Fla) introduced the Cyber Security Act of 2009. It would give the U.S. Government authority over all networks considered part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Under the proposal, Obama would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.
· Representatives’ John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced the so-called Hate Crimes bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, H.R. 1913. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Hate crimes legislation is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it elevates one class of citizen based upon their sexual behaviors above other people. The bill passed in the House by 249-175, and came despite intense Republican opposition to the creation of the privileged class.
· The administration is considering $900 million dollars for swine flu research. Spending more money than we have is not a recipe for success in a family budget or a national budget. Stop supporting special interests and government handouts, start supporting the voters who pay taxes and who sent you to D.C.
· The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) reports at least three major groups, the ACLU, Americans United (AU), and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are pushing to ban prayers in Jesus’ name by our military chaplains. The ACLU has actually threatened a federal lawsuit against the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis over the 160-year tradition of voluntary grace offered before meals there. They’re insisting that the Naval Academy cut off prayer.
· The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headed by Janet Napolitano issued a report profiling and targeting veterans, Americans opposed to the social policies of Obama, abortion, same sex marriages, restrictions on firearms ownership and one world government as “rightwing extremists and potential domestic terrorists”.
· Sec. of State Hillary Clinton promises the U.S. will spread abortion around the world, most likely paid for by U.S. taxpayers of America.
· Obama will appoint federal Judge David Hamilton, former fundraiser for ACORN and former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU who issued controversial rulings banning public prayers offered in Jesus name and hastening the abortion of unborn children, to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was rated as not qualified by the American Bar Association.
· Americas for Legal Immigration (ALPAC) reports the so called Dream Act amnesty bill is making its way to Congress. ALPAC called Congress for special hearings to demand that our borders be secured and to give our health care professionals and scientists as much time as we can to get ahead of the Mexican Swine Flu problem.
· Over 80% of the failing car company General Motors (GM) will be owned by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and the American taxpayer. The Administration and Congress should not ignore the voice and concerns of thousands of average Americans, taxpayers, seniors and retirees who hold a significant portion of their retirement savings in GM bonds. These people will fall victim in the current fight of this Administration and the UAW versus the big banks over GM.
· On April 21, the Inspector General’s (IG) report documents the stunning and at least partly illegal expansion of the TARP program from the $700 Billion allocated by Congress to what is now a Three Trillion dollar complex of programs. The IG notes that some of these programs are still developing. Three Trillion is by no means a final number!
· Arlen Specter’s defection gives Democrats 59 senate seats. If Al Franken is seated as Minnesota’s senator, any and all socialist policies will pass with a 60 vote filibuster proof senate! Can you imagine it’s only been 100 days? How many additional “100 days” can American’s taxpayer afford along with a one party ruling élite? Time for a “gigantic” tea party, now!
747 Skims New York Skyline
New American
28 April 2009
Why would Louis Caldera, a member of the White House military office, okay a plan to have the 747 that's used as Air Force One, the president’s plane (the president was not on board), fly low over New York’s skyline on April 27, followed by a fighter jet, considering New Yorkers’ experiences with 9/11? Because image is important.
For half an hour the planes swooped near Manhattan as panicked New Yorkers streamed out of office buildings, fearing a replay of the September 11 attacks. But there wasn’t an attack. The 747 and its fighter accompaniment (and a third plane carrying a military photographer) were merely doing laps past the Statue of Liberty so that some publicity photos could be taken. Though New York cops were forewarned about the flyover, they were not allowed to inform the public about the photo shoot. Even the mayor didn’t know (his office was contacted, but apparently a staffer didn’t inform him).
When asked about the incident, President Obama said, according to AP: “It was a mistake. It was something we found out about along with all of you. And it will not happen again.” But why would Obama functionaries allow it to happen in the first place, especially since President Obama promotes himself as the “green” president and a 747 burns approximately a gallon of fuel per second (An F-16 uses somewhere around one-third that much)? Again the answer is, “Because image is important.”
The president’s subordinate was just following Obama’s lead. On Earth Day, president Obama flew to Des Moines, Iowa, to give a speech about green energy. White House correspondent Mark Knoller did the fuel-math. To give a speech about making the United States more energy efficient, Obama’s plane and helicopter burned approximately 9,116 gallons of fuel. That’s not including the fuel burned in the planes carrying reporters to cover the event.
It has been said that actions speak louder than words. I know what these actions tell me. What do they tell you?
A Culture of Surveillance
By Chuck Baldwin
April 28, 2009
Obama Taking Up Where Bush Left OffIt is truly amazing how much news the American news media chooses to ignore. If one wants to discover what is actually going on in the world, he or she often has to go to the foreign press. This has again been the case with a story that every American should be extremely interested in, but which has been totally ignored by the American news media. I found this story in Russia Today.
According to, "The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person's hard drive.
"President Obama's administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists."
The report also states, "In extreme secrecy from the public, the United States is hammering out an international copyright treaty with several other countries and the European Union. Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (or ACTA), governments will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy?"
Russia Today quotes Richard Stallman, prominent American software freedom activist, as saying, "Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it's going to be nasty, because if it weren't going to be nasty, they wouldn't need to keep it a secret."
The report also said, "Up until now, the breach of copyright has been a civil matter. The Obama administration seems to now want to criminalize it."
The report continued saying, "Some say modern America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance."
A culture of surveillance indeed. What began in earnest under former President George W. Bush is now sharply escalating under President Barack Obama.
According to Ecommerce Journal, President Obama and his Big Brother fellow travelers in Congress are seeking power to "cut the whole world off the Internet." The report says, "Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe proposed the Cybersecurity Act that would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Its powers are detailed in The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.
"If the President so chooses, he can call a 'cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit any 'net traffic or a 'critical' network 'in the name of national security,' though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is 'critical' or what constitutes an 'emergency.'"
The report goes on to say, "This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. What begins as a method of defeating terrorism and protecting telecommunications, can quickly become a method to regulate 'hate speech' to assign 'motive' or 'intent' to harm and even to regulate and legislate the flow of information that is deemed by the 'thought police' to be inflammatory or counter-productive to their cause."
The report says that the new cybersecurity legislation can be a "framework for future, more invasive legislation. It is a first step to the loss of internet privacy, free speech and the free flow of information."
So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of "national security," the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.
I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention? During the Bush years, my "conservative" brethren (especially the ones calling themselves Christians) repeatedly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the myriad foibles and falsehoods, and frequent fraudulence of President Bush because he was a Republican. Now we will see how many Obama supporters will look the other way in order to protect President Obama because he is a Democrat. I suspect most of them will show themselves of no better character than the Bush supporters.
Consider: Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. But what has he done since being elected? He merely moved the major combat theater to Afghanistan. He is even in the process of escalating the war in Afghanistan to possibly include Pakistan. So, where are the "peacenik" liberals who supported Obama? Why do they not loudly proclaim their opposition, as they did when Bush was in office?
Furthermore, Obama criticized Bush's undisciplined deficit spending, but what has he done since becoming President? He has deeply expanded Bush's failed financial policy of excessive deficit spending. Again, where are all the loud voices of protest?
George Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens. Barack Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens. George Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Barack Obama supports the assault weapons ban. George Bush wanted to limit the legal rights of certain people charged with crimes. Well, friends, Barack Obama also wants to limit the rights of people charged with crimes.
Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, "The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
"The administration's action--and several others--have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign."
So, where are Obama's supporters who thought they were voting for change? Will they do nothing, as did Bush's supporters, and accept this abridgment of personal liberty, simply because "their man" is in the White House? Probably.
In addition, George Bush created a Big-Government monster known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Can there be any doubt that DHS is in the process of manufacturing a ubiquitous surveillance society that eavesdrops, snoops, and monitors virtually our entire lives? And what does Barack Obama do immediately after assuming office? He multiplies and expands the surveillance society to even greater degrees. So again I ask, where are all the Bush critics to denounce Barack Obama's draconian anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies?
The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on--and curtail access to--the Internet. Plus, in the name of "cybersecurity," they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone's personal computer at will.
The Russia Today report is right: we do have a culture of surveillance. We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic.
Obama Reverses Rule, Gives Unions Cover for Corruption
Rules to stop union fraud, theft, and embezzlementBy Warner Todd Huston
Monday, April 27, 2009
Well, we can’t say no one saw this one coming, but Obama has turned back rules that had been put in place to force unions to be more transparent in their financial reporting. These rules were meant to stop union fraud, theft, and embezzlement but in an effort to pay back his supporters, Obama has turned these rules back so that unions can find it easier to hide illicit financial transactions.
Naturally, one of the chief opponents to union transparency that fought the Bush administration, Deborah Greenfield, is now in the Obama administration. It was Greenfield that fought the financial reporting rules when she was a lawyer for the AFL-CIO. She was against forcing unions to account for all their illicit cash and secret accounts then. Now that she is in charge of implementing such rules she has been a major part of eliminating them so that unions could more easily hide their financial dealings from union members and the government.
The Washington Times reports this expected turning back of transparency rules.
So, what we see here is the Obama administration making more efforts to payback his supporters from the campaign. What could be a better gift than eliminating rules that keeps union criminality at a minimum?
Tyranny Watch: Obama Begins Process to Remove US Citizens’ Rights
Legalistic process of eliminating the rights of law-abiding US citizensBy Sher Zieve Sunday, April 26, 2009
While Barack Obama continues to protect and expand the rights of detained terrorist Islamist enemies of the USA, he has quickly begun the legalistic process of eliminating the rights of law-abiding US citizens. Note: This is but another phase of Obama turning the once US Republic into his own totalitarian state.
Obama officially began his policy with a report—written and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security—that labels and classifies all US citizens who oppose him, voted or plan to vote for 3rd party candidates, display bumper stickers recommending said 3rd party candidates or are pro-life (therefore anti-abortion) as “right-wing extremists.” This is only one of an ever-increasing number of Obama attacks against the First Amendment. Obama’s DHS Chief Napolitano has notified state and federal police forces that these individuals are to be monitored closely. In fact, the Obama Administration’s intrigues against US citizens are becoming so egregious that even the left-leaning media outlet Associated Press is reporting on his latest attempt to undermine any remaining liberties in America. The AP’s Mark Sherman writes in his article “Obama legal team wants defendants’ rights limited”: “The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.” The deletion of all Miranda rights in select cases (one suspects the select cases will be the legal persecution of conservatives and libertarians) will be next.
Through his anti-Second Amendment US Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama is working toward limiting individuals’ ownership of guns and making ammunition almost impossible to obtain. Holder’s secret “watch lists” ostensibly contain the names of the Obama opposition members and they would be denied legal gun ownership. Holder is also calling for severe restrictions on the sale and tracking of guns and ammunition. “Micro-stamping” of new guns sold is to begin implementation in California in 2010. Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb said: “Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right.” Attorney General Despite any and all of his verbiage to the contrary, Holder’s actions state loudly that he does not believe private citizens have to right to own guns. Apparently, he believes only governments should own them—a belief held by each and every tyrant and tyrant-supporter on the planet.
The countdown to the end of our nation as a democratic republic and its reestablishment and reemergence as a totalitarian state controlled and run by the Communo-Fascist elite is underway. Is the dismantling of the USA’s freedoms and liberties into despotic and tyrannical suppression the “change” for which you voted? Is this the “change you have been waiting for?”
Keyes vs. Obama Political News and Conservative Commentary on the Obama Birth Certificate
Sunday, April 26, 2009
By Douglas V. Gibbs
This is an Exclusive to American Daily Review courtesy of Douglas V. Gibbs of Political, American Daily and Canada Free It is the result of his interview with Dr. Alan Keyes regarding the Keyes vs. Obama lawsuit effort to force President Barack Obama to reveal his birth certificate and prove he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America and legally able to serve as President.
As President Barack Obama leads the United States of America into the brave new world of “Hope” and “Change,” one begins to wonder what kind of change we are in for. The policies President Obama is implementing are not just changes in American policies. Dr. Alan Keyes characterizes Barack Obama’s changes as regime change. Barack Obama, according to Dr. Keyes, means to “… change the form of government in the United States away from a system of Constitutional self-government, which is based upon respect for individual rights, to a system of party dictatorship… a government dominated society in which the government controls the resources, it controls the banks, it controls the corporations, makes decisions as to who shall work, and how much they shall be paid…
“By the close of Obamas first 100 days, the Democrats have changed the face of American Politics in ways that may take generations to repair. Barack Obama has delivered on what the Conservatives have claimed he would do. The Democrats are implementing programs that are pervasively dominant in the lives of citizens.
Liberal policies being enacted by the current Congress, and President, are of no surprise. Barack Obama has a history of radical Leftism. Evidence of his far left radical agenda was present even as far back as during his state senate years, to which he was elected without opposition (coincidence?) three times.
Barack Obama ran for the United States Senate in 2004. His opponent in Illinois was Dr. Alan Keyes, a well known black conservative with a strong knowledge of the United States Constitution. This was the first time Obama had opposition, and he won with 70% of the vote. The victory led to Barack Obama delivering the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which raised his profile nationally, and eventually led to Obama being elected President of the United States in 2008.
Illinois politics helped shape Obama’s agenda, and few understand the Barack Obama system of Hope and Change better than Alan Keyes. Obama’s agenda, however, did not move forward under only Barack’s power. After all, when George W. Bush’s stimulus package was set into motion, Bush said himself that he was throwing away free market principles to save capitalism. Adopting socialism does not save capitalism, no matter how many times you say it.
On April 3 Alan Keyes joined me on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution for nearly two hours to discuss the regime change being enacted by the Democrats, and how Obama’s eligibility regarding the lack of a valid birth certificate continues to be a big question. Aside from Obama’s Birth Certificate, Alan Keyes also discusses with me on the air how Obama is bringing about the end of liberty, and an end of constitutional liberties. Included in the interview is a discussion about how some people say they are disappointed in Bill O’Reilly, Government control of our economy, what the government taking over the credit system does to our economy, how Government is becoming the life and death gate keeper of whether or not you get health care, how politicians are concerned about nothing but servicing their own power, illegal immigration, and programs in the hands of the president to shut down the Internet as he desires.
The debate over the Obama phenomenon began long before you and I truly knew who Barack Hussein Obama truly was, but being a part of Illinois politics, Dr. Alan Keyes understands exactly what we are up against.
Obama Doesn’t Act Like a ChristianThe last thing I would declare our presidential usurper to be is Christian
By Jerry McConnell
Friday, April 24, 2009
I can remember clearly a time when Obama made the statement during his campaign for the presidency that he had converted to Christianity “about 20 years ago.”
My first question at that time was, and still is by the way, what did you convert FROM, sir? He seems to go to great lengths to avoid any mention of what faith he practiced before his transmogrification. It would surprise me not, if there were many hundreds of thousands of others who, like me, would like to know.
The best guess for me would undoubtedly be Islam/Muslim. His entire background exudes reasons why I would make that pick, not the least of which is some years in an Islamic/Muslim country, Indonesia, and as a student in one of its schools.
If that is the case why does he resist admitting it? Is this why he refuses to make public his birth certificate and scholastic records that might show his real birthplace as well as religion? Is there some shame or embarrassment connected with being of that faith for him or is he worried that Americans might be able to guess what his motives might be for wanting to control and destroy the United States?
These last hypotheses would be my pick.
The last thing I would declare our presidential usurper to be is Christian. He just doesn’t act like one; and he is very friendly and in approval of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union; AKA, Anti-Christian Liberals United) a Communist founded organization dedicated to renouncing and destroying all things Christian. This alone should give most God-loving souls pause for concern. But just consider some of his recent actions such as totally bowing to pay homage and obeisance to the Islamic/Muslim leader of Saudi Arabia, and all the protestations to the contrary from the White House administration groupies, the video is far too clear and convincing. American presidents are considered to be the most powerful leaders of the world and never bow to any other ruler; however, questions remain about the current one.
Just recently on April 14, 2009 Obama was scheduled to speak on the disastrous state of the economy of our country at Georgetown University an extremely prodigious Catholic school located Washington, DC. Prior to arriving at the school for his address, officials at the school removed all signs and symbols of Catholicism, a huge part of Christianity in the world.
White House personnel offered no reasons why such a drastic action was requested, and for that matter, granted. The betting here is that the new Pope Benedict XVI would not have been pleased that the name of Jesus Christ be obliterated to pacify any worldly person.
Also recently, in the barrage of scandal-tainted appointments to positions directly connected with the sitting president Obama selected a Christian hating judge to be on Circuit Court of Appeals who disallows the words Jesus or Christ to be used in government documents, but Allah is OK. This dangerous liberal extremist, anti-Life, anti-Liberty, anti-Jesus Judge named David Hamilton is one of the most appalling nominations to come out of the current Oval Office. More fodder for the suspicions of Islamism?
And among the most recent spate of obnoxious pieces of legislation being considered for permanent law in our formerly Christian-Judeo country is the obaminable writ called the “Hate Crimes Bill”. This ugly piece of garbage is another weapon for liberals to punish dissenters to the actions or thoughts of the growing “ruling class” of elected officials in our governing chambers. Is it to prosecute anyone who uses religious or biblical terms to make their points, such as anyone speaking against Islamic terrorism?
Is Obama lying when he says he is Christian? You be the judge.
Obama and habeas corpus -- then and nowGlenn Greenwald
Saturday April 11, 2009
It was once the case under the Bush administration that the U.S. would abduct people from around the world, accuse them of being Terrorists, ship them to Guantanamo, and then keep them there for as long as we wanted without offering them any real due process to contest the accusations against them. That due-process-denying framework was legalized by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Many Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- claimed they were vehemently opposed to this denial of due process for detainees, and on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest the accusations against them.
In the wake of the Boumediene ruling, the U.S. Government wanted to preserve the power to abduct people from around the world and bring them to American prisons without having to provide them any due process. So, instead of bringing them to our Guantanamo prison camp (where, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, they were entitled to habeas hearings), the Bush administration would instead simply send them to our prison camp in Bagram, Afghanistan, and then argue that because they were flown to Bagram rather than Guantanamo, they had no rights of any kind and Boudemiene didn't apply to them. The Bush DOJ treated the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game -- fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process. Put another way, you just close Guantanamo, move it to Afghanistan, and -- presto -- all constitutional obligations disappear.
Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue -- the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges. That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.
Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo. [Read entire article at:]
Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush On State SecretsBy Zachary Roth - April 9, 2009 Is the Obama administration mimicking its predecessor on issues of secrecy and the war on terror?
During the presidential campaign, Obama criticized Bush for being too quick to invoke the state secrets claim. But last Friday, his Justice Department filed a motion in a warrantless wiretapping lawsuit, brought by the digital-rights group EFF. And the Obama-ites took a page out of the Bush DOJ's playbook by demanding that the suit, Jewel v. NSA, be dismissed entirely under the state secrets privilege, arguing that allowing it go forward would jeopardize national security.
Coming on the heels of the two other recent cases in which the new administration has asserted the state secrets privilege, the motion sparked outrage among civil libertarians and many progressive commentators. Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote that the move "demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called it "deja vu all over again". An online petition -- "Tell Obama: Stop blocking court review of illegal wiretapping" -- soon appeared.
Not having Greenwald's training in constitutional law (and perhaps lacking Olbermann's all-conquering self-confidence), we wanted to get a sense from a few independent experts as to how to assess the administration's position on the case. Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?
In a word, yes.
Ken Gude, an expert in national security law at the Center for American Progress, supported the administration's invocation of the state secrets claim when it was made earlier this year in an extraordinary rendition case. But its position in Jewel is "disappointing," Gude told TPMmuckraker, calling himself "frustrated."
Gude confirmed that the Obama-ites were taking the same position as the Bushies on state secrets questions. "They've taken the maximalist view that the judge has hardly any role in determining whether national security" would be compromised by the release of classified information," he said. "There's going to be people who are very unhappy, and justifiably so."
He added: "I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that the people who get to decide [whether national security would be jeopardized] is the government."
Gude's general view was echoed by Amanda Frost, an associate professor at Washington College of Law who has written extensively about issues of government transparency. Frost made clear that she hadn't followed the Jewel case, but called the Obama administration's assertion of the state secrets privilege in a similar high-profile wiretapping case involving an Oregon-based Arabic charity "indefensible." The NSA, she said, has already acknowledged the existence of the wiretapping program, and some of its details are publicly known, so the claim that national security would be jeopardized merely by allowing the trial to proceed doesn't hold water. The government is making that argument in both the Oregon case and Jewel.
Not everyone agrees. Stewart Baker, a former top lawyer with the Bush Department of Homeland Security, told TPMmuckraker that there can be an inherent conflict between protecting national security and allowing lawsuits to go forward. "It isn't possible to litigate these cases and still have classified programs," said Baker, who worked in the Carter administration and was chief counsel to the National Security Counsel under Presidents Geirge H. W. Bush and Clinton. He added of the Obama team: "I think they made the right call."
But that seems to be the minority view. In an email to the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin -- who himself calls the Obama administation's position "utterly un-American" -- Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress, writes:
"1. The administration defends the state secrets privilege on the ground that it would jeopardize national security if classified documents were made available to the public. No one argues for public disclosure of sensitive materials. The issue is whether federal judges should have access to those documents to be read in their chambers.
"2. If an administration is at liberty to invoke the state secrets privilege to prevent litigation from moving forward, thus eliminating independent judicial review, could not the administration use the privilege to conceal violations of statutes, treaties, and the Constitution? What check would exist for illegal actions by the executive branch?"
And writing on Slate, the noted conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein notes:
President Obama pledged to restore the rule of law. But the state-secrets-privilege wars with that promise.
That looks like a pretty broad consensus in opposition to the Obama administration's position. And it's the opposite of change we can believe in.