Friday, December 13, 2013

Who is This Guy in the Oval Office? (Part 19)

Make Way for Mae West at Michelle’s 50th
Barack and Michelle copy Mae West’s mantra, “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”
By Judi McLeod
Earth to Britain’s Daily Mail: America’s 1st couple don’t likely care what you write about their so-called marriage-on-the-rocks so long as you keep putting their names in headlines.
“Is the Obama marriage on the rocks? Astonishing claims emerge of ugly fights over that selfie, and even a Presidential affair, is the cumbersome headline on yesterday’s Daily Mail story by Tom Leonard, updated today.Michelle Obama alleged to have discovered her husband has been unfaithful Reports claim they will separate at the end of his presidency in 2016 Follows claims in two books that couple neared divorce in early 2000’s.
“With invitations warning guests to ‘EBYC’ — Eat Before You Come — and rumours they’ll be dancing to star turns from Beyonce and her rapper husband Jay Z, it won’t be your usual White House knees-up.
“Michelle Obama was 50 yesterday and President Barack Obama will be feting his redoubtable First Lady tonight with a party that will give them the chance to let their hair down and forget their troubles for a few hours.”
(Guess Daily Mail wasn’t really in the loop about Michelle’s super-duper, 24-day Hawaiian holiday, ending with her return to D.C. only three days before tonight’s birthday bash).
Some worry about folks going hungry at at Michelle’s 50th.:
“The email inviting guests to the ‘snacks & sips & dancing & dessert’ advised them to wear comfortable shoes and practise their dance moves.”
“Snacks, & sips & dancing & dessert” is no real break from Hank Williams Jr.-style Family Tradition. Only the Wagyu steak and mashed are missing.
Having pored several times through the article, the presidential affair is a mystery to readers. But whomever Barack is fooling around with, it’s the Secret Service’s fault:

“Under the headline Obama Divorce Bombshell!, the National Enquirer claims their 21-year marriage has dissolved in a string of ugly fights that were prompted by the Mandela memorial incident and — far more outrageously — Mrs Obama’s discovery that Secret Service bodyguards had been covering up infidelity on her husband’s part.”
Why? No one knows from whence he came, let along where he is any given time.

“It’s an allegation the White House has declined to comment on, though after Bill Clinton’s trouser-dropping scandals, Americans would be rather less sanguine about any extra-marital activity than the French appear to be over President Francois Hollande’s behaviour.
(At least it’s women Hollande is fooling around with).
Folk already know that Barack steps outside the White House for the occasional hamburger, ice cream, smoke break, golf game, smoke break?, they just don’t know with whom he meets during his many breaks.

“Mrs Obama, the Enquirer claims, intends to stand by her husband until his presidency is over, at which time he will move back to Hawaii, where he grew up, and she will stay in Washington with their children.

The following description mentioning how the Obamas have always been “keen to appear accessible”, is downright hilarious:
“Purse-lipped Washington etiquette experts have tutted at the informality of it all, but the Obamas have always been keen to appear accessible, even if the stand-offish reality is somewhat different.”
Barack and Michelle copy Mae West’s mantra, “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”
Meanwhile, expect no one to faint from lack of rib-sticking food at tonight’s birthday party. Fainting only happens when Barack is addressing an audience or if you happen to attend one of those schools where Michelle imposes her rabbit food on students.

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency
Pat Dollard
Sep 28, 2012

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons.
Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.
Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard
Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally.
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.”
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama.
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion.
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968.
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

A private e-mail admission by Bill Ayers
"I WROTE DREAMS!!! Read p 197 198 of Public Enemy. I wrote it, but nobody believes me." Bill
By Doug Hagmann
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The plot of a film noir of a half-century ago consisted of an unassuming man confessing to police his involvement in a number of murders in London while each remained unsolved. The murders took place over a period of a few months and were ostensibly performed at the hands of a serial killer.
He purposely gave police incorrect information about the killer’s signature which was publicly withheld by the police, although he learned of this critical bit of information through an obscure contact he had in the department. Soon, the police tired of his confessions and treated him as a serial confessor, rather than the murderer that he was. When an innocent man was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death, the real actor wanted to do the right thing to spare the innocent man, but no one believed him, including the police. Could this pattern of behavior apply to Bill Ayers with regard to his sarcastic admissions of authorship of Barack Obama’s highly acclaimed ‘Magnum opus’ Dreams From My Father? A recent private admission in an e-mail sent by Ayers suggests so.
I was provided with a lengthy thread of e-mail exchanges by Dan Popa, a private citizen who, for better or worse, decided to aggressively engage Ayers through that medium. The initial e-mails from Popa to Ayers were quite “spirited,” and included characterizations of Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dorhn’s breath to that of a camel’s rear, among other things. To his credit, Ayers handled the unpleasant electronic impositions calmly, addressing legitimate issues with Popa while astutely deflecting the crass remarks with reason.
Then, on October 8, 2013, Ayers’ latest book, Public Enemy, Confessions of a Public Dissident was released. Included in Ayers’ book were the more salacious excerpts of Popa’s e-mails to Ayers, illustrating the unsolicited attacks and personal insults Ayers and his wife are being forced to endure. Upon learning of this, Mr. Popa was himself not pleased. To be fair, however, what might he have expected? The e-mails between Popa and Ayers continued, although something interesting happened during the exchanges during the spring. Mr. Popa abandoned the ad hominem attacks and began a serious dialogue with Ayers, who welcomed and embraced the newly found civility. In fact, Ayers and Popa began to agree on a number of critical issues, including the managed media and the policy of war. It was an astounding and very important evolution of their “relationship.”
After several more exchanges where civility and intellectual thought dominated, Mr. Popa asked Bill Ayers the one question that has been asked of him in numerous venues, and answered by Ayers in either a sarcastic or cryptic manner. On Sunday, December 8, 2013, Mr. Popa wrote to Bill Ayers about the release of his new book, and posed the following:
“Now, why don’t you come out for REAL and admit you wrote DREAMS and throw a monkey wrench in Obama’s war plans by derailing him. If you are truly so war despising as you claim…PROVE IT. Give Obama a real Christmas present.” (emphasis by Mr. Popa and present in the actual e-mail).On Monday, December 9, 2013, Bill Ayers answered Mr. Popa with the following response, copied in exact form from the exchange: “I WROTE DREAMS!!! Read p 197 198 of Public Enemy. I wrote it, but nobody believes me.” BillWhile your first reaction might be to dismiss this admission as a continuation of Ayers’ cagey, sarcastic and sometimes ‘playful’ responses to the seemingly omnipresent, rabid, right-wing ideologues who are often their own worst enemies, his reply should be considered in the context and within the venue it was made. It is here that a measure of critical thinking and analysis must be applied. Is this a genuine admission that Bill Ayers did, in fact, write Barack Obama’s most masterful work by comparison, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time magazine called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,” and where the New York Times heaped praise on Obama as “that rare politician who can write … and write movingly and genuinely about himself?”The reason this issue is so important extends far beyond the obvious. It must not be equated with an average college student taking advantage of the more superior intellect of his classmate who completes an essay for his literary challenged peer. No, for it provides a window into Barack Obama as a man, as a leader, and as an icon to so many should this be the case. It represents the thin veil of an enormous lie, multiple lies, a veil that more and more people are beginning to penetrate the longer the lies persist. It also speaks to the mystery of Obama’s murky past, and some of those who helped elevate him to the messianic status he enjoys, only to be thrown under the proverbial bus once he had finished with them.
Think back to that movie plot where the man who really did something for which he needed to confess was rendered impotent and not to be believed by his own hand. Could it be that in this case, William Ayers the so-called unrepentant terrorist wants to come clean, set the record straight, and establish his legacy against the formidable odds of an illusion that so many people have accepted as reality?
Regardless of whether you agree with the ideology of Bill Ayers, his book Public Enemy is a profile of the consistency of his ideology. With Ayers, unlike the denizens of DC, much of what you see is what you get. His past belief in Barack Obama has been shaken, and there is a real sense of abandonment and a hint of despair from a man who wanted to see his ideology implemented by the man so well defined in Dreams From My Father. Now unceremoniously discarded by his one-time lesser literary peer caused by the politics of unfavorable public perception, perhaps Ayers has become of victim of his own making.
Could it be that Public Enemy is Bill Ayers’ second best work, second only to Dreams From My Father?
 Could it be that Public Enemy is Bill Ayers’ second best work, second only to Dreams From My Father? Could it be that Bill Ayers, a literary superior to his one-time understudy, is attempting to protect the advancement of at least part of his vision of a Progressive utopia? Perhaps the tire tracks across the back of Bill Ayers, left by the proverbial bus driven by Obama and his circle of insiders, serve to remind Ayers that the legend of Obama is so great that in his words, “nobody believes me.”
Clearly, painstaking analysis and anecdotal evidence that has been presented by others, including a detailed linguistic study by Jack Cashill, provide a legitimate and reasonable basis to question the authorship of the most celebrated of all presidential memoirs. Now we have a written admission, which if taken at its face, deepens the controversy. To be clear, we’re not talking about a college essay, but a critical historical document by which many honest and sincere Americans made a decision to put their trust, and the fate of their future, and the future of their country, in the hands of the author.
In light of this blatant admission memorialized in writing, sans the parenthetical snarky follow-up comments about royalties, Americans deserve the truth. Americans deserve genuine answers from the two people who really know the truth, if not for the sake of their own integrity and place in history, for the sake of truth itself.
What say you, Barack Obama… and who is willing to ask the question?
Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host
The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the
Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at:

Yes, America, We Have A Dictator
Yes, America, we do have a dictator, and thanks to some Republicans his path to power has been made that much easier
By Paula Helton
Thursday, December 12, 2013
In 1987 a little 8-year-old girl named Virginia O’Hanlon wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Sun asking “Is there a Santa Claus?”. It seems some of her friends had told her there was no Santa Claus. A Sun newsman named Francis Pharcellus Church penned a response that was printed in the form of an editorial on September 21, 1897, assuring Virginia that indeed there is a Santa Claus.
To quote Mr. Church, “VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.”

The handshake between Barack Hussein Obama and Raul Castro that is drawing oohs and aahs from the left came as no surprise to me. It was a congratulatory handshake from one dictator to another. The time has come for us to open our little minds and grasp the whole truth of what has transpired in this country and realize that, “Yes, America, We have a Dictator”.
We are living under the tyranny of a man who sees himself as the equivalent of Castro, the late Hugo Chavez, and the Kings and Emperors to whom he bows. While it’s easy to blame Obama and the far left, his rise to power could not have been achieved without the help of the Republicans in Congress. The premier “aide-de-camp” to the Obama dictatorship has been none other than Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Minority leader of the Senate during the five years of Obama’s reign.
While he has been given the moniker “The Cowardly Lion of the Senate”, I believe the real Mitch McConnell is an evil, scheming hypocrite that, while professing to be a Conservative that stands for smaller, limited government, relishes the power that a bloated government gives him over We the People. But, not to worry, America, after going after the tea party and calling us bullies, on Tuesday McConnell told Neil Cavuto, “I’m a big fan of tea party”. Well, I certainly feel all better. I’m sure his statement has nothing to do with the fact he has a strong, tea party backed challenger for his Senate seat by the name of Matt Bevin. To learn more about Mr. Bevin and learn how you can help in his bid to unseat McConnell, visit his website
Barack Hussein Obama’s meteoric rise to power, from nationalizing healthcare, the banks and the auto industry to Executive Orders and oppressive regulations, has been aided and abetted every step of the way by the Republican Establishment. Power begets a quest for more power.
Much has been made of the Republicans standing strong against ObamaCare. Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe it was just because they didn’t get to enact it first? And, who led the charge to demonize Ted Cruz and Mike Lee when they stood up for the American people in an attempt to defund ObamaCare? Which party is now running scared after Barack and his minions shut down the government? Which party is now trying to convince their constituents they will end ObamaCare by working to fix it? Which party is standing by as Obama arbitrarily and unconstitutionally rewrites and violates his own law? While a handful of conservatives in Congress actually work to get rid of the ObamaCare abomination, the Establishment Republicans work to retain the power it affords them.
When the banks were nationalized under Dodd-Frank, which rather than ending the “too big to fail” policy that led to the bank bailout known as TARP actually reinforced it, three Republicans, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, helped the Democrats reach the 60 vote threshold needed for passage. While they voted against the final bill, let us not forget that Senators Richard Shelby and Bob Corker helped craft it. After all, it created bigger government and more bureaucracy and, thus, more power for Senators on both sides of the aisle.
As Obama and the left violate our immigration laws and work to grant amnesty to at least 11 million ILLEGALS who broke our laws to invade the country, who worked tirelessly toward helping them achieve their goal? While the support of John “McAmnesty” McCain and Lindsey “Shamnesty” Graham was no surprise to conservative Americans, the biggest disappointment came via the betrayal of Marco Rubio. In August, Sen. Rubio stated, “I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, to issue an Executive Order as he did for the Dream Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen”. What did Marco Rubio do in response? He worked with the likes of Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez to craft his own amnesty bill. As his approval rating tanked, the good Senator has professed to backtrack from his bill. Sure, and I have a bridge in the desert for sale cheap. Senator Rubio is now back to touting limited government, the economy and good jobs for Americans. Are those the same jobs he was giving to illegals not all that long ago?
Senators Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham, whom both voted to legitimize illegals, are facing re-election in 2014. Both will be primaried. Tea party-backed Joe Carr is challenging Alexander. His website is here There are numerous challengers to Graham and the final candidate has not been established. Also running for re-election in 2014 are John Cornyn, Thad Cochran and good old Mitch McConnell, who voted for the immigration bill via their cloture vote before they voted against it. Rep. Steve Stockman, who has tea party backing will challenge Cornyn in Texas. His website is here Thad Cochran’s challenger is tea party backed Chris McDaniel. For information check his website here
Speaking of amnesty, the most open borders member of Congress, Paul Ryan, who is also touted as a CONSERVATIVE budget wonk, just capitulated to Obama and the left in reaching a budget deal with Sen. Patty Murray. Not to worry, it will only add $8 trillion to our national debt bringing it to over $25 trillion by 2023. Much like Wimpy and I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today, this deal increases spending by over $44 billion in 2014 and $18 billion in 2015 with the promise of spending cuts later in the decade. Talk about aiding our dictator further enslave our children and grandchildren. That bridge in the desert is still for sale! At what point do we stop referring to Paul Ryan as a conservative and admit he is a big government control guy all the way?
In another example of McConnell aiding Obama in his quest as Supreme Ruler of the United States, was his deal with Harry Reid that resulted in the Nuclear Option being instituted to push through Obama’s far left appointees. Yesterday, activist judge Patricia Millett was appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals and far left radical Mel Watt to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. For those not aware, the D.C. Appellate Court handles challenges to federal agency actions and regulations such as ObamaCare, EPA rules and recess appointments. Harry Reid plans to push through 2 more appointments to the court giving the Democrats a 7 to 4 majority on the court. There will be no way to stop the rule of Obama. Don’t look to the Supreme Court. Think John Roberts and ObamaCare. Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted to approve this Obama takeover. Look for substantially more home loans made to people who have no means to repay them under the stewardship of Watt. The taxpayers are being set up to again be left holding the bag for toxic home loans. Republicans Richard Burr and Rob Portman thought that sounded pretty good and voted to confirm him.
The latest addition to cement the power of Barack Hussein Obama is the appointment of the newest White House Czar, Center for American Progress head, John Podesta. Mr. Podesta, another Clinton era retread, is a staunch supporter of using executive powers to bypass Congress. He co-authored a paper in 2010 titled ” The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change”. He will aid Obama on policies related to ObamaCare and executive actions, with his primary focus on climate change issues. He is a staunch opponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Nonetheless, Republicans Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham were trying to outdo each other in heaping praise on Podesta.
Yes, America, we do have a dictator, and thanks to the aforementioned Republicans his path to power has been made that much easier.
Paula Helton is a tea party activist at the local level in Gainesville, FL as well as belonging to both a Statewide and National Coalition.

Note: An older article but nevertheless.......
Niall Ferguson on Why Barack Obama Needs to Go
By Niall Ferguson
August 19 2012
I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”
Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.
Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.
Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.
Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.
His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.
The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.
There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.
On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.
According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)
This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.
It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.
Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.
And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.
Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.
Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.
The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.
The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.
Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.
For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.
In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another ... The United States does not seek to contain China ... On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.
His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum ... I’ve come here ... to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based ... upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”
Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.
In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.
“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”
Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”
The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.
America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.
It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.
Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.
Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.
Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.
I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.
It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.
But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.
Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.
The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.
Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.
I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.
I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.
Why did Obama seal his transcripts?
Exclusive: Jack Cashill looks at discrepancies involving BHO's Columbia stint
“Most presidents have given their college records,” Donald Trump recently told Greta Van Susteren on the subject of transparency. “All presidents have given, to the best of my knowledge, their passport records.”
Newt Gingrich made a similar appeal. As he told the Daily Caller, “I think every Obama request for transparency should be met with ‘do we get to see your senior paper at Columbia?’”
The question that needs to be asked, of course, is: Why has Obama sealed all of his transcripts, his theses and his test scores? David Maraniss had the opportunity to find out when he interviewed the president for his half-baked biography, “Barack Obama: The Story.” He failed to do so.
Instead of checking his college records, or even asking why they have been sealed, Maraniss simply took Obama’s word on his grade point average. Obama claimed a 3.7 (out of 4) at Columbia. This is unlikely. Although Obama did graduate from Columbia, he did not graduate with honors. This much we know from the graduation program.
In “The Bridge,” Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick concedes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student at Columbia and at every stop before that. A professor who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.”
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between the 98th and 99th percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.8 and 4.0 is a subject neither Maraniss nor Remnick chose to explore.
Yet it seems unlikely that mediocre grades or LSAT scores would have led to this complete an informational shutdown. It seems unlikely, too, that Obama would have deemed a college thesis too radical for exposure. That he could have written off to youthful indiscretion.
Trump’s linking of passports and transcripts, however, suggests a potential secret that would demand concealment: passage through Occidental and possibly Harvard as a foreign student.
We know now that Obama was willing to claim foreign birth when it suited his purposes. In 1991, he famously described himself in his literary agent’s publicity brochure as having been “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
We know, too, that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, and stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, claimed Indonesian citizenship (and “Islam” as religion) for their son “Barry Soetoro” when they enrolled him as a first grader in an Indonesian school in 1968.
Soetoro married Dunham in 1964 when Obama was 2. Whether Soetoro formally adopted young Barry is not known to me. Maraniss, like previous biographers, never raised the question.
In 1972, Dunham and Soetoro and their daughter Maya left Indonesia and returned to Hawaii. Barry had returned a year earlier. Soetoro, according to the INS, was “admitted as a lawful permanent resident.”
When he filed his 1973 tax form, however, Soetoro falsely claimed the more favorable “nonresident status” and so was denied re-entry to Hawaii after a subsequent business trip to Indonesia.
The documentation surrounding Soetoro’s re-entry is maddeningly scrubbed from the record. It appears, however, that the INS relented and allowed Soetoro back into Hawaii a few months after he left.
Obama biographers prefer the “son of a single mom,” riff, so they usually write Soetoro out of the Hawaiian picture. But it appears that he remained in Hawaii with daughter and stepson for the remainder of the time Dunham was there.
A review of Soetoro’s INS files shows a young couple fully willing to game the system to keep Soetoro in Hawaii. To do this, they employed any number of scams from claiming nonresident tax status to faking stomach surgery for Dunham.
Dunham returned to Indonesia for fieldwork in 1975. She and Soetoro would not divorce until 1980, a year after Barry left Hawaii for the mainland and Occidental College.
Although he went by “Barack Obama” after leaving Indonesia, Obama had Soetoro as stepfather from the time he was 2 until he was 18. If his scam-artist parents thought it improved his life chances, they may well have claimed Indonesian or dual citizenship for Obama during this period.
This is where the passport comes into play. In the 13th paragraph of a March 2008 Washington Post article, the reader learns that of one of the three contract employees caught in the act of breaching Obama’s passport files at the State Department worked for the Analysis Corporation, the CEO of which was John Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran.
The Post does report that Brennan donated $2,300 to the Obama campaign but suggests no deeper tie. In fact, Brennan was no casual donor. To its credit, CNN Politics saw the real news angle in the passport scandal: “Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser.” As CNN reported, also on March 22, Brennan “advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues.”
After its initial article, the Post said not a single word about the incident or Brennan’s connection to it. Today, Brennan is Obama’s deputy national security adviser.
A month later, at an April 2008 fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama countered Hillary Clinton’s boast of having met leaders from 80 foreign countries with his real-world experience.
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college,” said Obama in the way of illustration. “I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic – Obama has always had problems with noun-verb agreement] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”
This declaration took ABC reporter Jake Tapper by surprise. He thought it odd that he had not heard of this trip – no one had – especially “given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign.”
Had Tapper inquired further, he would have learned that Obama did not mention the Pakistan visit in either of his books, the 1995 “Dreams From My Father” or the 2006 “Audacity of Hope.”
The very real possibility remains that Obama traveled to Pakistan the same way to traveled to Occidental – on the Indonesian citizenship he claimed as a boy. The passport breach may have allowed Obama to open up about Pakistan.
It is a shame we have to speculate about such matters eight years after Obama first descended onto our planet. If we had a legitimate media, we would not have to.
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved.
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue. His latest book is "If I Had a Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman."
Also See:
Who is This Guy in the Oval Office?
(Part 1)
16 February 2009
(Part 2)
22 April 2009
(Part 3)
16 June 2009
(Part 4)
03 August 2009
(Part 5)
03 January 2010
(Part 6)
20 May 2010
(Part 7)
21 November 2010
(Part 8)
14 February 2011
(Part 9)
03 August 2011
(Part 10)
10 October 2011
(Part 11)
11 December 2011
(Part 12)
18 April 2012
(Part 13)
01 July 2012
(Part 14)
25 October 2012
(Part 15)
14 December 2012
(Part 16)
22 May 2013
(Part 17)
27 July 2013
(Part 18)
07 October 2013