AS YOU CAN SEE FROM JUST A COUPLE - OF A MULTITUDE - OF AVAILABLE, SIMILAR VIDEOS IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THIS, AND DETAILS HERE, OBA-HUSSEIN'S INABILITY TO SEE BEYOND HIS NARCISSISTIC CORRUPT NOSE TIP, HIS SUPPORT FOR HIS MARXIST-ISLAMIST IDEOLOGIES, HAS PLUNGED THE WORLD INTO A LIFE THREATENING AND ALTERING MODE AT THE HANDS OF HIS BUDDIES - FERVENT ISLAMISTS.
CBS international reporter Lara Logan is a well known public figure. And CBS and other media have accepted that she was brutally assaulted. However, Youtube and some Arab Websites are offering some further claimed shocking details not reported by the U.S. media and even some video about the extreme brutality of the attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan .
Reportedly, some videos did show a crowd of about 200 or more men surround and separate Lara Logan from her security, and the crowd shouted 'Jew, Jew!', and 'American bitch!'. Lara Logan is not Jewish or American, she’s a South African native.
Reportedly some of physical and sexual assault activity was caught on camera phones as well. One video purportedly involved some boy fondling the breasts of the reporter. However, another purported video that was described by a controversial YouTube video claims that a bearded man (too often a badge of an Islamist) ripped the top off the reporter and began slapping her face and breasts. He then pinned her to the ground, and by this time she stopped resisting, apparently accepting the fact that she was overpowered.
The bearded man then removed her pants and masturbated in front of her before raping her. He also reportedly clawed at her breasts with his hands. The YouTube video claims that at least six men raped her vaginally, and a number of men also raped her anally as well. She was reportedly masturbated on and urinated on by some men as well according to the YouTube video claims which was supposed to be pieced together from information and videos posted on Arab Websites and other sources.
It was claimed by various reports that the sexual assault and beatings might have lasted anywhere from 20-30 minutes on the short side, and as long as about 3 hours on the other hand. It was also claimed that her left breast might have been bitten or might even had the left nipple bitten off as well. One report claims that somewhere from 6 to about 50 men might have sexually assaulted or beat the attractive reporter.
One one hand, Lara Logan deserves her privacy. On the other hand being a major public figure, this international crime story is a very important one. It is also important to understand how anti-Americanism seemed to play a major role in the extreme level of brutality here. Reportedly, the reporter was left bloody, with semen and urine on her as the crowd shouted anti-American slogans. This reporter deserves far better respect than these claims of the brutality suggest. This mob violence against an attractive reporter who risks her life by reporting from the world’s hot spots only illustrates the type of danger that reporters potentially face when they report the news.
The assault on Lara Logan illustrates just how much order has recently broken down in the MidEast region which is now far more dangerous for Westerners. Further, some dangerous heads of Al Qaeda have been released from prison in places like Libya as rioting crowds demanded that political prisoners are released. When reporter Lara Logan heals from her injuries, she will no doubt bravely go right back to reporting on all the perils of this region.
Update: Some of the videos such as a controversial YouTube video have been recently pulled down by YouTube about this brutal attack. And reportedly, a number of camera phone videos of the attack may exist as well. But, what is known is that a crowd of perhaps 200 men were witnesses, while some participated in this crime in addition to the Egyptian women and police that were witnesses to this crime.
Yet, CBS has had a peculiar double standard as to openly reporting this news story. At first CBS ignored this major news story, first allowing other news sources to report the story before finally admitting that international reporter Lara Logan 'suffered a brutal and prolonged sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers'. This has only led to a series of stories such as the YouTube video and postings on foreign Websites that claim to have viewed camera phone videos, photos or witness accounts of this story.
Only weeks ago when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded by a gunman at a constituent meeting at an Arizona Safeway store, CBS had no problem reporting in detail the injuries to the congresswoman and other victims of the attack. However, in the case of this attack and violence against one of their own reporters, CBS has been unusually silent, only allowing other accounts, or even possible speculation to fill the void.
Further, CBS hasn’t been helpful in answering the question about whether rape was involved. However, legally the term 'sexual assault' under U.S. law does usually stand for some form of sexual penetration.
We feel very sorry for reporter Lara Logan here. She’s an extraordinary journalist. However, CBS should be as open and honest about this story as Logan has been about her honest reports at hotspots around the globe. CBS could also be as honest and open about her injuries as they were in reporting the injuries to Rep. Giffords recently. The public wants to know how badly injured Lara Logan was. They identify with her because she’s such a popular public figure, seen in their living rooms several times a week on the CBS news.
CBS has a real opportunity to clear the air here, and honestly report the facts of this story, and not to whitewash the facts here. It appears that even the Obama Administration has pushed officials in Egypt to bring those that attacked Lara Logan to justice, strongly suggesting that real documentation of the crime, such as cell phone videos do exist which could identify those who beat or sexually assaulted the popular reporter. Meanwhile, Lara Logan continues to have our best wishes and prayers for her full and complete recovery.
WAKE UP AMERICA TO THE FACT OBAMA HAS CROSSED THE LINE OF TREASON TO THE USA - BY STUPIDITY OR ON PURPOSE - MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE.
HIS ACTIONS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED OUR ALLIES , NEUTERED OUR MILITARY ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES FROM OUR ENEMIES AND CONTINUALLY SUPPORTED OUR ENEMIES LIKE IRAN. AND RESTRUCTURED - BY FIAT NOT CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE - OUR NATION - TO SUIT HIMSELF NOT OUR WISHES.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
SAUDI PUPPETMASTER GIVES OBA-HUSSEIN MARCHING ORDERS ON EGYPT
Saudis told Obama to back Mubarak
By Hugh Tomlinson n Riyadh (with editorial comment by Alan at the end)
February 10 2011
Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually.
America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.
Two sources confirmed details of the King’s call, made four days after the people of Egypt took to the streets.
The zig-zag Obama Egypt policy flip-flops emanated from his ignorance of delicate world power balances, even worse mishandling than idiot Carter's in 1979, was enflamed by his overwhelming desire to put his Islamic buddies the Moslem Brotherhood in controlling power in Egypt, regardless of this crashing regional and Middle East stability plus our global economy.
The struggles among his advisors to cobble together a strategy based on common sense and his narcissistic desires caused confusion around the world till Saudi Arabia's King , one of those pulling the strings on the Oba-Hussein puppet we stupidly allowed to usurp the Oval Office read Obambi the riot act and ordered him to back off on his attacks on President Mubarak. And as we have seen, Oba-Hussein, much to his own astonishment that the Saudi leader of Sunni Islam from who he expected praise for his dastardly moves to bring Islam to take over secular Egypt, would object.
Blinded by his own Islamic ideology, naive Oba-zero failed to figure out that the Moslem Brotherhood is also a formidable enemy of his Saudi mentor and boss, the Saudi King, but as a obedient vassal he announced he would not demand Mubarak leave immediately - as he had been doing in an increasingly insistent way. Revelling in anticipation of the triumph of installing the Moslem Brotherhood as the major power.
We are so far past the point of rescue, even by a Republican Congress majority that I have a wry smile when I write about Oba-Zero's policies and activities.
America seems to have finally woken up but implementing but may not be able to find the needed defensive gambit to avoid being destroyed.
By Hugh Tomlinson n Riyadh (with editorial comment by Alan at the end)
February 10 2011
Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually.
America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.
Two sources confirmed details of the King’s call, made four days after the people of Egypt took to the streets.
===================================
ALAN NOTE:The zig-zag Obama Egypt policy flip-flops emanated from his ignorance of delicate world power balances, even worse mishandling than idiot Carter's in 1979, was enflamed by his overwhelming desire to put his Islamic buddies the Moslem Brotherhood in controlling power in Egypt, regardless of this crashing regional and Middle East stability plus our global economy.
The struggles among his advisors to cobble together a strategy based on common sense and his narcissistic desires caused confusion around the world till Saudi Arabia's King , one of those pulling the strings on the Oba-Hussein puppet we stupidly allowed to usurp the Oval Office read Obambi the riot act and ordered him to back off on his attacks on President Mubarak. And as we have seen, Oba-Hussein, much to his own astonishment that the Saudi leader of Sunni Islam from who he expected praise for his dastardly moves to bring Islam to take over secular Egypt, would object.
Blinded by his own Islamic ideology, naive Oba-zero failed to figure out that the Moslem Brotherhood is also a formidable enemy of his Saudi mentor and boss, the Saudi King, but as a obedient vassal he announced he would not demand Mubarak leave immediately - as he had been doing in an increasingly insistent way. Revelling in anticipation of the triumph of installing the Moslem Brotherhood as the major power.
We are so far past the point of rescue, even by a Republican Congress majority that I have a wry smile when I write about Oba-Zero's policies and activities.
America seems to have finally woken up but implementing but may not be able to find the needed defensive gambit to avoid being destroyed.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
ANOTHER TRY TO CHECK OUT ELIGIBILITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?
Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 04, 2011
By Bob Unruh - WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.
Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama's eligibility, for review.
The lawsuit alleged both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Kreep and California attorney Orly Taitz. In the state case, only Kreep is involved.
In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.
A commentary at Ballot-Access.org reported that the state's highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.
He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.
"The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver," said the commentary.
The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, "Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. … With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates."
Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen."
It is Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" that is being questioned. WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility, and at least 10 state legislatures this year are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal had been introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The Certification of Live Birth posted online by the Obama campaign is a document Hawaii officials have made available to those not born in the state.
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
In the appellate decision, the court also suggested that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility.
That suggestion came in a ruling that affirmed a state district court's dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
In addition to the case involving the removal of Cleaver from the ballot, the attorney who argued the case also has cited the court precedent that chief executives of government can be removed by the courts over eligibility issues.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
The court precedent comes out of North Dakota, where the governor was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.
The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.
In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.
But it was in "State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie," after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, "it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor."
North Dakota's historical archives document the case.
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.
The original Obama case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California's electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified in future elections.
Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1DDFvMQEF
BORN IN THE USA?
Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 04, 2011
By Bob Unruh - WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.
Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama's eligibility, for review.
The lawsuit alleged both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Kreep and California attorney Orly Taitz. In the state case, only Kreep is involved.
In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.
A commentary at Ballot-Access.org reported that the state's highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.
He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.
"The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver," said the commentary.
The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, "Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. … With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates."
Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen."
It is Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" that is being questioned. WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility, and at least 10 state legislatures this year are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal had been introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The Certification of Live Birth posted online by the Obama campaign is a document Hawaii officials have made available to those not born in the state.
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
In the appellate decision, the court also suggested that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility.
That suggestion came in a ruling that affirmed a state district court's dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
In addition to the case involving the removal of Cleaver from the ballot, the attorney who argued the case also has cited the court precedent that chief executives of government can be removed by the courts over eligibility issues.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
The court precedent comes out of North Dakota, where the governor was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.
The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.
In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.
But it was in "State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie," after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, "it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor."
North Dakota's historical archives document the case.
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.
The original Obama case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California's electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified in future elections.
Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1DDFvMQEF
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
AL QAEDA ON BRINK OF USING NUCLEAR BOMB
By Heidi Blake and Christopher Hope, The Daily Telegraph February 1, 2011
Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.
A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".
Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.
Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.
At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.
As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years.
The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb".
Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium.
Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a "small time hustler" in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.
In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder - yellowcake - out of the compound in plastic bags.
"Acute safety and security concerns" were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog.
Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a "nuclear 9/11" if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists.
But diplomats visiting the IAEA's Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was "no way to provide perimeter security" to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins.
Senior British defence officials have raised "deep concerns" that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear program "could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon", according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009.
Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to "extremists" who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.
Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.
The security of the world's only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by "a growing chorus of voices" at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.
Courtesy Vancouver Sun
Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.
A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".
Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.
Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.
At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.
As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years.
The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb".
Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium.
Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a "small time hustler" in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.
In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder - yellowcake - out of the compound in plastic bags.
"Acute safety and security concerns" were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog.
Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a "nuclear 9/11" if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists.
But diplomats visiting the IAEA's Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was "no way to provide perimeter security" to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins.
Senior British defence officials have raised "deep concerns" that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear program "could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon", according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009.
Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to "extremists" who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.
Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.
The security of the world's only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by "a growing chorus of voices" at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.
Courtesy Vancouver Sun
Sunday, January 23, 2011
CHINESE PIANIST PLAYS ANTI-AMERICAN SONG AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER
OBAMA HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THIS INSULT TO AMERICA BY CHINESE AS HE PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED - OR APPROVES!
Pianist Lang Lang in many ways embodies the Sino-American comity that both President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama emphasized during their summit this past week—which is no doubt why he was chosen to perform at the White House state dinner for Mr. Hu on Wednesday.
Born in China, Mr. Lang went to the U.S. as a teenager to study at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He is fluent in both English and Mandarin. He is probably equally adored by classical music fans in the U.S. and in China, and splits his time between the two countries.
Zuma Press
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that he is now being praised by nationalist Internet users in China for a perceived anti-U.S. slight supposedly implied in the 28-year-old’s choice of music that night.
As part of the state dinner’s “quintessentially American” program, Mr. Lang was invited along with a number of U.S. jazz musicians in an “Evening of Jazz.” He and the legendary jazz pianist Herbie Hancock played a four hands version of a Maurice Ravel song, exchanging hugs afterward (see video of the performance here, and on Mr. Lang’s website here). Journalist James Fallows, who was at the dinner, describes the evening here).
Then, the plot thickened—at least, that’s how some read it. After bilingual comments to the assembled VIPs in which he said it was a “great honor” to be playing, he proceeded to perform a solo piece, which he introduced as a “Chinese song called ‘My Motherland.’”
The song is not just any old song. As Chinese netizens have pointed out, “My Motherland” is the theme song for a famous anti-U.S. movie about the Korean War from 1956, titled “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”
The song lyrics do not mention the war and are very peaceful, speaking of memories of a hometown and how “young ladies are like flowers.”
But the film depicts a particularly brutal battle between Chinese and American troops during the Korean War, or what the Chinese call “The War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.” The movie also depicts Chinese troops enduring freezing weather with no food or water and American soldiers using flame throwers and laughing at burning Chinese soldiers. In retaliation, there’s a lot of killing of American troops later in the film.
Lang Lang himself appears to have been blissfully unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into. In a blogpost on Sina.com headlined “Sharing a Day at the White House”, he describes the beauty of the song and its resonance with Chinese people. “I’m deeply honored and proud that I was able to play this song that praises the strength of China and the solidarity of the Chinese people in front of many foreign guests, especially leaders from all over the world.”
He posted a string of photos on his website of him posing with the celebrities at the dinner.
Yu Jianhong, director of the movie management department of Beijing Film Academy, says “Battle on Shangganling Mountain” is a “famous movie that deeply influenced a whole generation,” especially people born in the 1940s to 1960s (Mr. Lang was born in 1982). The song, Mr. Yu says, “transcends all historic events and times,” he says. Mr. Yu thinks that the song’s main theme is not about beating American imperialism, but rather, “about the love of the motherland and the longing of peace and a happy life.”
In any case, the irony of playing an ode from an anti-American Chinese movie at a White House event dedicated to Sino-U.S. cooperation and friendliness has set the Chinese web abuzz—and more than a few people are convinced it wasn’t an accident.
Both the Sina and Sohu news portals reposted an article that they attributed to the Beijing Evening News, with the headline: “Lang Lang Played ‘My Motherland’ at White House, Flaunting National Power.”
“Those American folks very much enjoyed it and were totally infatuated with the melody!!! The U.S. is truly stupid!!” wrote a user named You’re In My Memory on Sina’s micro-blogging site. This particular post was re-posted many times.
Some speculated whether Lang Lang knew of the significance and questioned whether it was his idea to play the song. Certainly nothing about Mr. Lang’s demeanor that night suggested that he intended to send a politically charged message, however subtle. Nor is he known to be an especially political figure. And one has to wonder whether he would really jeopardize his standing in the U.S., where he has a loyal fan base and where he lives much of the time.
Mr. Lang’s representatives could not be reached. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said that they were not aware of what songs Lang Lang played at the state dinner.
Regardless, Mr. Lang seems to have found himself some new fans among the patriotic set in China.
“I think Americans should also be familiar with this song, whose meaning is so notorious that you don’t even need an explanation,” wrote user Winter Frost Rain on Sina’s micro-blog. “Lang Lang is too cool.”
Born in China, Mr. Lang went to the U.S. as a teenager to study at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He is fluent in both English and Mandarin. He is probably equally adored by classical music fans in the U.S. and in China, and splits his time between the two countries.
Zuma Press
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that he is now being praised by nationalist Internet users in China for a perceived anti-U.S. slight supposedly implied in the 28-year-old’s choice of music that night.
As part of the state dinner’s “quintessentially American” program, Mr. Lang was invited along with a number of U.S. jazz musicians in an “Evening of Jazz.” He and the legendary jazz pianist Herbie Hancock played a four hands version of a Maurice Ravel song, exchanging hugs afterward (see video of the performance here, and on Mr. Lang’s website here). Journalist James Fallows, who was at the dinner, describes the evening here).
Then, the plot thickened—at least, that’s how some read it. After bilingual comments to the assembled VIPs in which he said it was a “great honor” to be playing, he proceeded to perform a solo piece, which he introduced as a “Chinese song called ‘My Motherland.’”
The song is not just any old song. As Chinese netizens have pointed out, “My Motherland” is the theme song for a famous anti-U.S. movie about the Korean War from 1956, titled “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”
The song lyrics do not mention the war and are very peaceful, speaking of memories of a hometown and how “young ladies are like flowers.”
But the film depicts a particularly brutal battle between Chinese and American troops during the Korean War, or what the Chinese call “The War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.” The movie also depicts Chinese troops enduring freezing weather with no food or water and American soldiers using flame throwers and laughing at burning Chinese soldiers. In retaliation, there’s a lot of killing of American troops later in the film.
Lang Lang himself appears to have been blissfully unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into. In a blogpost on Sina.com headlined “Sharing a Day at the White House”, he describes the beauty of the song and its resonance with Chinese people. “I’m deeply honored and proud that I was able to play this song that praises the strength of China and the solidarity of the Chinese people in front of many foreign guests, especially leaders from all over the world.”
He posted a string of photos on his website of him posing with the celebrities at the dinner.
Yu Jianhong, director of the movie management department of Beijing Film Academy, says “Battle on Shangganling Mountain” is a “famous movie that deeply influenced a whole generation,” especially people born in the 1940s to 1960s (Mr. Lang was born in 1982). The song, Mr. Yu says, “transcends all historic events and times,” he says. Mr. Yu thinks that the song’s main theme is not about beating American imperialism, but rather, “about the love of the motherland and the longing of peace and a happy life.”
In any case, the irony of playing an ode from an anti-American Chinese movie at a White House event dedicated to Sino-U.S. cooperation and friendliness has set the Chinese web abuzz—and more than a few people are convinced it wasn’t an accident.
Both the Sina and Sohu news portals reposted an article that they attributed to the Beijing Evening News, with the headline: “Lang Lang Played ‘My Motherland’ at White House, Flaunting National Power.”
“Those American folks very much enjoyed it and were totally infatuated with the melody!!! The U.S. is truly stupid!!” wrote a user named You’re In My Memory on Sina’s micro-blogging site. This particular post was re-posted many times.
Some speculated whether Lang Lang knew of the significance and questioned whether it was his idea to play the song. Certainly nothing about Mr. Lang’s demeanor that night suggested that he intended to send a politically charged message, however subtle. Nor is he known to be an especially political figure. And one has to wonder whether he would really jeopardize his standing in the U.S., where he has a loyal fan base and where he lives much of the time.
Mr. Lang’s representatives could not be reached. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said that they were not aware of what songs Lang Lang played at the state dinner.
Regardless, Mr. Lang seems to have found himself some new fans among the patriotic set in China.
“I think Americans should also be familiar with this song, whose meaning is so notorious that you don’t even need an explanation,” wrote user Winter Frost Rain on Sina’s micro-blog. “Lang Lang is too cool.”
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
ANOTHER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT SABOTAGES OUR SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Where did that come from?
U.S. failed to detect Chinese stealth fighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's J-20 stealth fighter
U.S. intelligence apparently failed to figure out how quickly the Chinese were developing their newest fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter, which U.S. government analysts now say was based on critical U.S. stealth technology transfers that happened while Bill Clinton was president, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Alan Note: Clinton also provided China (his replacement surrogate for his defunct Soviet masters) with our nuclear secrets and Hughes MISSILE GUIDANCE technology. If you look at the global damage caused by Democrats Jimmy Carter (best Soviet President America ever had) - decades of ongoing world terrorism, - Bill Clinton (avowed Socialist/Marxist) - upgrading Chinese technology ability to destroy us, - Hussein Obama (fervent Marxist-Islamist, America hater) - you do not need to remember, just watch his destruciton of America on a daily basis.
Vice Adm. David Dorsett, director of naval intelligence, said that officials were aware of the development of the J-20, which is supposed to be comparable to the U.S. F-22 stealth fighter, but "the speed at which (the Chinese) are making progress, we underestimated."
The U.S. has halted production of the F-22 and is switching to the more advanced F-35, whose production and cost overruns make any timely operational status problematic.
The Chinese hope to deploy the J-20 by 2017.
Dorsett further indicated that intelligence failed to detect how quickly the Chinese are developing more than a dozen other weapons systems such as new and quieter submarines, long-range cruise missiles and other asymmetric warfare capabilities that differ significantly from the U.S. in terms of military power and resources.
Other military analysts say that the Chinese J-20 is an interim fighter until it can perfect a more robust jet engine that will be in a position to challenge the F-35. Experts say that the J-20 exhibits radar-evading stealth features, an advanced electronically scanned array radar and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances using less fuel.
With refueling, analysts say that the J-20 gives the Chinese force projection to be able to reach Guam where the U.S. has major military assets.
The reason for the accelerated pace at which the Chinese have developed the stealth J-20 is due to critical U.S. technology transfers through joint ventures with BP America in precursors and resins; Hexcel in pre-impregnated composite fiber technology; and Sikorsky in the manufacture, layup, shaping and know-how.
Read more: Where did that come from? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252165#ixzz1BW74pbti
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Where did that come from?
U.S. failed to detect Chinese stealth fighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's J-20 stealth fighter
U.S. intelligence apparently failed to figure out how quickly the Chinese were developing their newest fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter, which U.S. government analysts now say was based on critical U.S. stealth technology transfers that happened while Bill Clinton was president, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Alan Note: Clinton also provided China (his replacement surrogate for his defunct Soviet masters) with our nuclear secrets and Hughes MISSILE GUIDANCE technology. If you look at the global damage caused by Democrats Jimmy Carter (best Soviet President America ever had) - decades of ongoing world terrorism, - Bill Clinton (avowed Socialist/Marxist) - upgrading Chinese technology ability to destroy us, - Hussein Obama (fervent Marxist-Islamist, America hater) - you do not need to remember, just watch his destruciton of America on a daily basis.
Vice Adm. David Dorsett, director of naval intelligence, said that officials were aware of the development of the J-20, which is supposed to be comparable to the U.S. F-22 stealth fighter, but "the speed at which (the Chinese) are making progress, we underestimated."
The U.S. has halted production of the F-22 and is switching to the more advanced F-35, whose production and cost overruns make any timely operational status problematic.
The Chinese hope to deploy the J-20 by 2017.
Dorsett further indicated that intelligence failed to detect how quickly the Chinese are developing more than a dozen other weapons systems such as new and quieter submarines, long-range cruise missiles and other asymmetric warfare capabilities that differ significantly from the U.S. in terms of military power and resources.
Other military analysts say that the Chinese J-20 is an interim fighter until it can perfect a more robust jet engine that will be in a position to challenge the F-35. Experts say that the J-20 exhibits radar-evading stealth features, an advanced electronically scanned array radar and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances using less fuel.
With refueling, analysts say that the J-20 gives the Chinese force projection to be able to reach Guam where the U.S. has major military assets.
The reason for the accelerated pace at which the Chinese have developed the stealth J-20 is due to critical U.S. technology transfers through joint ventures with BP America in precursors and resins; Hexcel in pre-impregnated composite fiber technology; and Sikorsky in the manufacture, layup, shaping and know-how.
Read more: Where did that come from? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252165#ixzz1BW74pbti
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION - IT IS A GOVERNING DOCTRINE
Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and U.S. homegrown jihad are where our fight in the US has to be focused.
Sharia law is responsible for the other two. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira are the basis of Sharia law, a deadly legal system for the rest of the world.
Sharia was illegal in America from the day our Constitution was ratified; We need
to keep reminding our elected officials (which includes all judges and justices) of that by producing state and federal legislation that reinforces that fact.
Whenever ANYbody says that the Islam is a theocracy based on the Qur'an and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment, remind them that the Qur'an is the basis for Sharia law, which requires the death of America . . . which means the Qur'an does, too.
Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law
By JR Dieckmann
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211
The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion.
Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.
Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws.
Islam has the Quran that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings.
If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.
We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam's Qur'an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values.
Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else.
How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Quran?
What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world?
If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law.
How can we call that a religion?
What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws?
No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed.
Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).
As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation - financed by Saudi Arabia - they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government - take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom. Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.
What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one.
They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded "thou shall not kill" - it is the law of Mohammed who commanded kill them all who will not convert.
The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law.
The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state?
To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.
Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people?
Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in �Dreams Of My Father� - �When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?� It is always nice to know
that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.
L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.
The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.
The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature.
Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.
These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people.
Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life.
Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.
What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law?
They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.
Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created?
I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists.
It must be one or the other.
Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say.
To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.
Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.
Are you tired of being called �an immigrant� right here in your home country? I know I am.
America is a nation of immigrants, they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American.
My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?
We are not immigrants, we are Americans - and America is a nation of Americans - not a nation of immigrants.
How much longer will we be able to call ourselves �Americans� with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don't even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.
When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant - from Europe.
That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American - but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies?
Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs, Kennedy said. Oh really?
If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem.
But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line.
It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.
Sharia law is responsible for the other two. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira are the basis of Sharia law, a deadly legal system for the rest of the world.
Sharia was illegal in America from the day our Constitution was ratified; We need
to keep reminding our elected officials (which includes all judges and justices) of that by producing state and federal legislation that reinforces that fact.
Whenever ANYbody says that the Islam is a theocracy based on the Qur'an and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment, remind them that the Qur'an is the basis for Sharia law, which requires the death of America . . . which means the Qur'an does, too.
Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law
By JR Dieckmann
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211
The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion.
Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.
Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws.
Islam has the Quran that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings.
If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.
We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam's Qur'an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values.
Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else.
How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Quran?
What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world?
If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law.
How can we call that a religion?
What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws?
No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed.
Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).
As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation - financed by Saudi Arabia - they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government - take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom. Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.
What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one.
They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded "thou shall not kill" - it is the law of Mohammed who commanded kill them all who will not convert.
The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law.
The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state?
To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.
Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people?
Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in �Dreams Of My Father� - �When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?� It is always nice to know
that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.
L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.
The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.
The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature.
Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.
These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people.
Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life.
Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.
What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law?
They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.
Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created?
I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists.
It must be one or the other.
Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say.
To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.
Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.
Are you tired of being called �an immigrant� right here in your home country? I know I am.
America is a nation of immigrants, they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American.
My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?
We are not immigrants, we are Americans - and America is a nation of Americans - not a nation of immigrants.
How much longer will we be able to call ourselves �Americans� with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don't even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.
When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant - from Europe.
That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American - but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies?
Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs, Kennedy said. Oh really?
If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem.
But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line.
It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
CLUELESS OBAMA AND UNVERIFIABLE, ANTI-AMERICA START TREATY
Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.
Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev
Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."
Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.
Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.
He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.
He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.
The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.
Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.
But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.
Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.
The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.
Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.
In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.
"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.
Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev
Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."
Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.
Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.
He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.
He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.
The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.
Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.
But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.
Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.
The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.
Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.
In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.
"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
LET THE WUSS WIN OR GO TO JAIL?
It took 12 stitches to sew President Barack Obama’s lips together after he received an elbow to the mouth during a pick-up basketball game at Fort McNair.
The owner of the offending elbow was wrestled to the ground by the president’s bodyguard and is presently in custody. “What charges will be filed against this individual remain to be seen,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Attacking the president, even by accident, is a serious matter. We need to make an example that will serve as a warning to others. If the president is driving to the basket you get out of his way and let him score. If the president is guarding you let him steal the ball. This is simple common sense. Those who don’t have it may not be smart enough to be allowed to go free.”
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sought to reassure the nation that “the president is expected to make a full recovery. Contrary to what some are saying, there is no need for the Vice-President to assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”
Others were not so sure. Vice-President Joe Biden assiduously affirmed his willingness to “step into the breach during this most perilous of times. An injury of this nature impairs the President’s ability to communicate with the people of this nation and with the leaders of foreign nations. His mellifluous voice is his greatest asset. Until his full command of it is restored our country will be at risk. It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
Under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, whenever the Vice-President and a majority of the members of the Cabinet declare the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office the Vice-President shall immediately assume these powers and duties as “Acting President.”
A CNN “snap poll” showed that Americans approved of the injury by nearly a two-to-one ratio. “If anybody deserves a shot to the chops it’s Obama,” said one poll respondent. “He’s running this country into the ground. I just wish I’d have been the one to let him have it.”
Another poll respondent averred that “anything that can shut this guy up for even a little while is a blessing. He is the most insufferable blatherer to ever hold the office.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-asks-for-broader-screening-powers/
The owner of the offending elbow was wrestled to the ground by the president’s bodyguard and is presently in custody. “What charges will be filed against this individual remain to be seen,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Attacking the president, even by accident, is a serious matter. We need to make an example that will serve as a warning to others. If the president is driving to the basket you get out of his way and let him score. If the president is guarding you let him steal the ball. This is simple common sense. Those who don’t have it may not be smart enough to be allowed to go free.”
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sought to reassure the nation that “the president is expected to make a full recovery. Contrary to what some are saying, there is no need for the Vice-President to assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”
Others were not so sure. Vice-President Joe Biden assiduously affirmed his willingness to “step into the breach during this most perilous of times. An injury of this nature impairs the President’s ability to communicate with the people of this nation and with the leaders of foreign nations. His mellifluous voice is his greatest asset. Until his full command of it is restored our country will be at risk. It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
Under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, whenever the Vice-President and a majority of the members of the Cabinet declare the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office the Vice-President shall immediately assume these powers and duties as “Acting President.”
A CNN “snap poll” showed that Americans approved of the injury by nearly a two-to-one ratio. “If anybody deserves a shot to the chops it’s Obama,” said one poll respondent. “He’s running this country into the ground. I just wish I’d have been the one to let him have it.”
Another poll respondent averred that “anything that can shut this guy up for even a little while is a blessing. He is the most insufferable blatherer to ever hold the office.”
read more...
http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-asks-for-broader-screening-powers/
Monday, November 22, 2010
OBAMA'S GEORGE W. BUSH FIXATION - CAN'T BLAME ME!
 |
| OBAMA SUCKS! BLAMES BUSH! |
by Victor Davis Hanson
Barack Obama remains fixated by George W. Bush. For nearly two years, President Obama and his team have prefaced their explanations for the tough economy, tough finances and tough situation abroad with a "Bush did it" chorus.
Apparently, they believed that most of our problems, here and abroad, either started with George W. Bush, or at least would not transcend him.
At first, it was an easy enough habit to fall into. Things were not in great shape in January 2009 when Obama took over. More importantly, Obama's started out with a nearly 70 percent approval rating.
In contrast, Bush, like the punching bag Harry Truman, left office with an approval rating in the low 30s.
(Narcissist) Obama's serial fixation with his former predecessor made little sense when he first took office -- and has now become a disastrous misreading of political realities.
Recent polls reflect that Bush and Obama are now just about even in popularity.
Obama's supporters in the House have suffered the worst Democratic shellacking since 1938. The president got out of Washington on a foreign tour immediately after the election -- only to be cold-shouldered by fair-weather foreign leaders who sensed weakness.
Bush, in contrast, is basking in endless media exposure as he expounds on his best-selling memoir -- appearing above the partisan fray, past and present.
Voters two years ago elected Obama for a variety of reasons -- from unhappiness with Bush and Iraq to the landmark novelty of seeing our first African-American president. The financial meltdown of September 2008 ended for good John McCain's small lead in the polls. That panic also reminded voters of their unease with the Bush deficits and his expansion of government.
Unfortunately, Obama misread all that, and ended up trumping many of the things that Bush did to alienate voters.
Bush deficits of $500 billion soared to $1.4 trillion ones. Vast but unfunded Bush programs like Medicare prescription drug benefits and No Child Left Behind soon were overshadowed by even bigger ones like ObamaCare.
An initial Bush bailout evolved into a gargantuan stimulus and multifaceted takeovers.
The result, fairly or not, was that Bush's financial "felonies" began looking like misdemeanors in comparison. Tea Party voters saw the Obama medicine as worse than the original Bush disease.
There was the same obsession with, but misreading of, Bush in foreign affairs.
The public was turned off by the violence and costs in Iraq -- but otherwise not especially concerned about Bush's largely traditional foreign policy or his anti-terrorism protocols.
Too bad a Bush-obsessed Obama was again blind to that simple fact. So when Iraq became largely quiet as Obama entered office, the entire "Bush did it" refrain was rendered obsolete and should have been dropped.
The antiwar Obama had campaigned on closing Guantanamo, ending tribunals and renditions, and critiquing the Patriot Act and Predator drone attacks.
But once Iraq was taken out of the equation, Obama quickly discovered that these old bogeymen Bush policies were both useful and relatively popular.
So he was forced to keep or expand them. Obama's flip-flop only confused Americans: Why, in hypocritical fashion, was he now embracing the Bush legacy that he used to constantly demonize?
When Obama tried to chart a new and much-heralded "reset-button" foreign policy in loud opposition to Bush's, the irony continued.
Most Americans did not want to try the accused architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a civilian court, replete with legal gymnastics.
They did not think that announcing artificial deadlines for troop withdrawals in wartime was an especially bright idea.
They also did not expect that the much-heralded antidote to Bush's swagger and "Dead or Alive" Texanisms would include bowing to Saudi princes and Chinese dictators, apologizing abroad for America's purported sins, or spreading mythologies about the Islamic world's contribution to the Western Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Just because Bush turned off Europe over Iraq did not mean that an "I'm not Bush" Obama could not turn it off even more by printing billions of dollars, urging European countries to borrow more in reckless American style, and downplaying old alliances with everyone from Britain to Poland.
So here is a polite suggestion for President Obama: After nearly two years of governance, free up your own policies to either succeed or fail on their own merits without chaining them to the Bush past.
In a word: Let go of a now-smiling and relatively rehabilitated Bush -- before such a fixation consumes you and your presidency.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
AUSTRALIAN JIHAD BY ILLEGAL, THRICE DEPORTED CLERIC
MEANWHILE
A warning in Farsi we received advises users of Yahoo inside Iran not to open an Email which offers a Free Yahoo Internet Card as it installs a KeyLogger that will from that moment on send every key stroke to "research @ irantelcom.ir" (hyperlink disabled) a Mullah regime monitoring site.
The warning Email (in Farsi) has too many links embedded for it to be posted safely here but the warning stands and should be passed on to your friends.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
PREVIEW OF CHANGE IN TERROR TACTICS?
By Drew Zahn
A rash of unsolved sniper shots in Washington, D.C., is resurrecting concerns that terrorists may once again be on the loose in the nation's capital, following an al-Qaida blueprint – not for large-scale bombings, but for smaller, seemingly "random" acts of violence.
According to a Fox News report, the FBI is investigating four nighttime shootings from over the past month, including incidents in which an unknown gunman has taken aim at military buildings, using a high-powered rifle to leave bullet holes in the windows of the Marine recruiting station in Chantilly, Va., the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, Va., and the Pentagon.
FBI spokeswoman Katherine Schweit has suggested the shooter is simply a "struggling" individual.
"This guy hasn't hurt anybody. We don't think he wants to," she says. "We're hoping that he'll turn himself in."
But a Washington Times editorial worries the shootings are "reminiscent" of the Beltway Snipers, a pair of Muslim men named John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed 13 people in D.C. in the fall of 2002.
Notably, authorities in 2002 consistently denied Muhammad and Malvo's connections to terrorism, even after it was revealed they spoke sympathetically about the Sept. 11 hijackers and Malvo filled nearly 100 pages with sketches obsessed with jihad and shedding American blood for Islam.
Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
The Times editorial, however, isn't allowing questions about the new sniper's motives and potential ties to terror to be so easily dismissed.
"The Islamic duo has since been held up by al-Qaida as an example of the kind of low-tech, low-cost terrorism that gets results," the Times editorial states of the Beltway Snipers. "Now, someone is following [orders by Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud to target American cities] and attempting to implement a new small-arms offensive."
Indeed, only a month before Muhammad and Malvo began their sniper attacks, WND reported on an al-Qaida training tape that was captured in Afghanistan and revealed terrorists planning not only attacks with weapons of mass destruction but also with drive-by shootings, home break-ins, ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations.
John Holschen of Insights Training Center, produced a report on the 2002 tape for military and law enforcement officials.
"The major take-home lesson here," Holschen wrote, "is that although the enemy is known to be seeking the ability and opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction and of an unconventional nature, such as hijacked airliners, they are also spending a lot of time training to carry out attacks the old-fashioned way – attacks executed by small groups of dedicated personnel equipped with little more than small arms."
The training video showed al-Qaida operatives practicing the following kinds of assaults:
using pickup trucks with shooters concealed in the bed of the trucks;
using motorcycles as a shooting platform for drive-bys and assassinations;
execution of prisoners;
ambushes of law-enforcement officers
residential assassinations;
assassination on a golf course using a rocket-propelled grenade and rifle fire;
drive-up kidnapping of target walking on a street;
use of tunnels, storm drains and sewers for infiltration during urban raids;
rappelling from rooftops of buildings to make entry on upper floors;
use of motorcycles for grenade attacks; and
raids on buildings with large numbers of occupants – perhaps schools or office buildings.
When asked if these techniques are intended for use in the U.S., one military intelligence operative said without hesitation, "Yes."
In one scenario on the video, terrorists pretend to be stranded on a six-lane highway, their vehicle disabled. When a police officer stops to assist, shooters concealed in the trunk of the car open fire.
Hole drilled in trunk of Beltway Snipers' car to permit gunfire
Similarly, when Muhammad and Malvo were finally apprehended, police discovered the duo carried out their sniper fire from the trunk of a car, through a hole drilled near the license plate.
Ever since the large-scale attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, the growing incidence of "freelance" Islamic terror across America has often been regarded officially as the work of "criminals" or "deranged individuals," not jihadists and certainly not as an orchestrated attempt to spread terror with small-scale attacks.
For example, the police chief of Bellingham, Wash., where federal agents searched a school that Malvo attended briefly, said the FBI assured him the 2002 D.C. snipers were not acting with any group.
"It appears they have acted on their own," said the chief.
And following the Nov. 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Islamic American soldier Major Nidal Malik Hassan – who reportedly cried out "Allahu akbar" before killing 14 and wounding dozens of others – President Obama refused to call the Ft. Hood massacre an act of "terrorism," but instead suggested to ABC news that Hassan's shooting may have merely been an instance "in which an individual cracks" under "severe stress."
American Civil Rights Union Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell blasted the administration for its official wrap-up of the incident:
"The Obama administration promised us an 'investigation,'" Blackwell writes. "What they delivered is nothing more than a whitewash of years of bureaucratic coddling of terrorism and winking at treason. It didn't even mention Islamism or jihad."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., also released a commentary in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting, concerned that Americans "underestimate the threat" of a web of terrorists at work in the U.S.
"There has been a troubling refusal by Obama officials to acknowledge that the shooting likely was an act of homegrown terrorism," Hoekstra wrote. "I fear that our nation is returning to the naive security outlook of Sept. 10, 2001, when radical Islamic terrorist attacks were considered law-enforcement and criminal problems and not threats to our national security."
He continues, "The president said it is inconceivable that this would happen in America. Wrong. It is not inconceivable and is a growing global problem that needs to be addressed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Note: If you look at Obama's actions to defend and protect Islamic terrorism by BANNING use of Islam and terror in the same document and even the use of the word terror, not only is it CONCEIVABLE but being encouraged by the current Administration to take root and flourish.
A rash of unsolved sniper shots in Washington, D.C., is resurrecting concerns that terrorists may once again be on the loose in the nation's capital, following an al-Qaida blueprint – not for large-scale bombings, but for smaller, seemingly "random" acts of violence.
According to a Fox News report, the FBI is investigating four nighttime shootings from over the past month, including incidents in which an unknown gunman has taken aim at military buildings, using a high-powered rifle to leave bullet holes in the windows of the Marine recruiting station in Chantilly, Va., the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, Va., and the Pentagon.
FBI spokeswoman Katherine Schweit has suggested the shooter is simply a "struggling" individual.
"This guy hasn't hurt anybody. We don't think he wants to," she says. "We're hoping that he'll turn himself in."
But a Washington Times editorial worries the shootings are "reminiscent" of the Beltway Snipers, a pair of Muslim men named John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed 13 people in D.C. in the fall of 2002.
Notably, authorities in 2002 consistently denied Muhammad and Malvo's connections to terrorism, even after it was revealed they spoke sympathetically about the Sept. 11 hijackers and Malvo filled nearly 100 pages with sketches obsessed with jihad and shedding American blood for Islam.
Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
The Times editorial, however, isn't allowing questions about the new sniper's motives and potential ties to terror to be so easily dismissed.
"The Islamic duo has since been held up by al-Qaida as an example of the kind of low-tech, low-cost terrorism that gets results," the Times editorial states of the Beltway Snipers. "Now, someone is following [orders by Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud to target American cities] and attempting to implement a new small-arms offensive."
Indeed, only a month before Muhammad and Malvo began their sniper attacks, WND reported on an al-Qaida training tape that was captured in Afghanistan and revealed terrorists planning not only attacks with weapons of mass destruction but also with drive-by shootings, home break-ins, ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations.
John Holschen of Insights Training Center, produced a report on the 2002 tape for military and law enforcement officials.
"The major take-home lesson here," Holschen wrote, "is that although the enemy is known to be seeking the ability and opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction and of an unconventional nature, such as hijacked airliners, they are also spending a lot of time training to carry out attacks the old-fashioned way – attacks executed by small groups of dedicated personnel equipped with little more than small arms."
The training video showed al-Qaida operatives practicing the following kinds of assaults:
using pickup trucks with shooters concealed in the bed of the trucks;
using motorcycles as a shooting platform for drive-bys and assassinations;
execution of prisoners;
ambushes of law-enforcement officers
residential assassinations;
assassination on a golf course using a rocket-propelled grenade and rifle fire;
drive-up kidnapping of target walking on a street;
use of tunnels, storm drains and sewers for infiltration during urban raids;
rappelling from rooftops of buildings to make entry on upper floors;
use of motorcycles for grenade attacks; and
raids on buildings with large numbers of occupants – perhaps schools or office buildings.
When asked if these techniques are intended for use in the U.S., one military intelligence operative said without hesitation, "Yes."
In one scenario on the video, terrorists pretend to be stranded on a six-lane highway, their vehicle disabled. When a police officer stops to assist, shooters concealed in the trunk of the car open fire.
Hole drilled in trunk of Beltway Snipers' car to permit gunfire
Similarly, when Muhammad and Malvo were finally apprehended, police discovered the duo carried out their sniper fire from the trunk of a car, through a hole drilled near the license plate.
Ever since the large-scale attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, the growing incidence of "freelance" Islamic terror across America has often been regarded officially as the work of "criminals" or "deranged individuals," not jihadists and certainly not as an orchestrated attempt to spread terror with small-scale attacks.
For example, the police chief of Bellingham, Wash., where federal agents searched a school that Malvo attended briefly, said the FBI assured him the 2002 D.C. snipers were not acting with any group.
"It appears they have acted on their own," said the chief.
And following the Nov. 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Islamic American soldier Major Nidal Malik Hassan – who reportedly cried out "Allahu akbar" before killing 14 and wounding dozens of others – President Obama refused to call the Ft. Hood massacre an act of "terrorism," but instead suggested to ABC news that Hassan's shooting may have merely been an instance "in which an individual cracks" under "severe stress."
American Civil Rights Union Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell blasted the administration for its official wrap-up of the incident:
"The Obama administration promised us an 'investigation,'" Blackwell writes. "What they delivered is nothing more than a whitewash of years of bureaucratic coddling of terrorism and winking at treason. It didn't even mention Islamism or jihad."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., also released a commentary in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting, concerned that Americans "underestimate the threat" of a web of terrorists at work in the U.S.
"There has been a troubling refusal by Obama officials to acknowledge that the shooting likely was an act of homegrown terrorism," Hoekstra wrote. "I fear that our nation is returning to the naive security outlook of Sept. 10, 2001, when radical Islamic terrorist attacks were considered law-enforcement and criminal problems and not threats to our national security."
He continues, "The president said it is inconceivable that this would happen in America. Wrong. It is not inconceivable and is a growing global problem that needs to be addressed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Note: If you look at Obama's actions to defend and protect Islamic terrorism by BANNING use of Islam and terror in the same document and even the use of the word terror, not only is it CONCEIVABLE but being encouraged by the current Administration to take root and flourish.
Monday, October 25, 2010
WHY DEMOCRATS ARE SO CONFIDENT OF WINNING THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS
The Obama Administration (an arguably criminal enterprise) hastens thousands of Union and Acorn and Islamic operatives, deployed and deploying around America with tactical and strategic plans to illegally steal the mid-term elections.
WARNING FROM NEVADA - JUST ONE OF MANY SIMILAR EVENTS HAPPENING ALL AROUND THE USA AS THE GEORGE SOROS TACTIC OF TAKING CONTROL OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.
I have some very grave news for you. We are leading Harry Reid in the polls and meeting our early vote goals--and yet, Sharron Angle could still lose... Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are reportedly offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid... Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright.
As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics ... clearly illegal.
Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, "A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130."
However with a tame DEMOCRAT Nevada Secretary of State running interference and OBAMA'S lapdog DEMOCRAT Eric Holder of the DOJ refusing to prosecute what is in fact a FEDERAL crime, Obama is probably getting away with his high crimes and criminal treachery.
SHARE THIS WARNING TO PROTECT AMERICA AND OUR FREEDOM
WARNING FROM NEVADA - JUST ONE OF MANY SIMILAR EVENTS HAPPENING ALL AROUND THE USA AS THE GEORGE SOROS TACTIC OF TAKING CONTROL OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.
I have some very grave news for you. We are leading Harry Reid in the polls and meeting our early vote goals--and yet, Sharron Angle could still lose... Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are reportedly offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid... Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright.
As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics ... clearly illegal.
Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, "A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130."
However with a tame DEMOCRAT Nevada Secretary of State running interference and OBAMA'S lapdog DEMOCRAT Eric Holder of the DOJ refusing to prosecute what is in fact a FEDERAL crime, Obama is probably getting away with his high crimes and criminal treachery.
SHARE THIS WARNING TO PROTECT AMERICA AND OUR FREEDOM
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
"DARK HEART" BOOK CENSORSHIP A BIT STRANGE
BEHIND THE CENSORSHIP OF OPERATION DARK HEART By censoring Anthony Shaffer's new book "Operation Dark Heart" even thoughuncensored review copies are already available in the public domain, theDepartment of Defense has produced a genuinely unique product: arevealing snapshot of the way that the Obama Administration classifiesnational security information in 2010.
With both versions before them, readers can see for themselves exactlywhat the Pentagon classifiers wanted to withhold, and can judge forthemselves whether the secrecy they tried to impose can be justified onvalid national security grounds. In the majority of instances, theresults of such an inspection seem disappointing, if not very surprising,and they tend to confirm the most skeptical view of the operation of theclassification system.
The most commonly repeated "redaction" in Operation Dark Heart is theauthor's cover name, "Christopher Stryker," that he used while serving inAfghanistan. Probably the second most common redactions are references tothe National Security Agency, its heaquarters location at Fort Meade, Maryland, the familiar abbreviation SIGINT (referring to "signalsintelligence"), and offhand remarks like "Guys on phones were always greatsources of intel," which is blacked out on the bottom of page 56.
Also frequently redacted are mentions of the term TAREX or "TargetExploitation," referring to intelligence collection gathered at asensitive site, and all references to low-profile organizations such asthe Air Force Special Activities Center and the Joint Special OperationsCommand, as well as to foreign intelligence partners such as New Zealand. Task Force 121 gets renamed Task Force 1099.
The code name Copper Green, referring to an "enhanced" interrogation program, is deleted.
Perhaps 10% of the redacted passages do have some conceivable , including the identity of the CIA chief of station in Kabul, who has been renamed "Jacob Walker" in the new version, and a physical description of the location and appearance of the CIA station itself, has been censored.
Many other redactions are extremely tenuous. The name of character actor Ned Beatty is not properly classified in any known universe, yet it blacked out on page 15 of the book. (It still appears intact in the Index!) In short, the book embodies the practice of national security classification as it exists in the United States today. It does not exactly command respect.
With both versions before them, readers can see for themselves exactlywhat the Pentagon classifiers wanted to withhold, and can judge forthemselves whether the secrecy they tried to impose can be justified onvalid national security grounds. In the majority of instances, theresults of such an inspection seem disappointing, if not very surprising,and they tend to confirm the most skeptical view of the operation of theclassification system.
The most commonly repeated "redaction" in Operation Dark Heart is theauthor's cover name, "Christopher Stryker," that he used while serving inAfghanistan. Probably the second most common redactions are references tothe National Security Agency, its heaquarters location at Fort Meade, Maryland, the familiar abbreviation SIGINT (referring to "signalsintelligence"), and offhand remarks like "Guys on phones were always greatsources of intel," which is blacked out on the bottom of page 56.
Also frequently redacted are mentions of the term TAREX or "TargetExploitation," referring to intelligence collection gathered at asensitive site, and all references to low-profile organizations such asthe Air Force Special Activities Center and the Joint Special OperationsCommand, as well as to foreign intelligence partners such as New Zealand. Task Force 121 gets renamed Task Force 1099.
The code name Copper Green, referring to an "enhanced" interrogation program, is deleted.
Perhaps 10% of the redacted passages do have some conceivable , including the identity of the CIA chief of station in Kabul, who has been renamed "Jacob Walker" in the new version, and a physical description of the location and appearance of the CIA station itself, has been censored.
Many other redactions are extremely tenuous. The name of character actor Ned Beatty is not properly classified in any known universe, yet it blacked out on page 15 of the book. (It still appears intact in the Index!) In short, the book embodies the practice of national security classification as it exists in the United States today. It does not exactly command respect.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
OBAMA SPOKESMAN FOR DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL
TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
Obama warns: Support 'Palestine' or 'more blood' will flow
Comment prompts question whether "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs
----------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Without world support for establishing an independent Palestine, President Obama warned the United Nations General Assembly today that "more blood will be shed" and "Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state."
Though couched with references to Israeli security and a "neighbors who are committed to coexistence," Obama's observation prompted a provocative question and little known insight into the Palestinian-Zionist identity conflict from the author of a bold new book about the Nazi links to Islamic jihadists.
"Are the Palestinian Arabs a distinct people apart from other Arabs?," asks Chuck Morse, author of "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj. Amin Al-Husseini."
Before 1948, Morse explained, the term "Palestinian" described "Jews and was used interchangeably with the term Zionist."
"The Arab residents of Palestine," he says, "most of whom emigrated there alongside the Jewish emigration and did so in order to take advantage of the increased economic opportunities that accompanied the Jewish immigration, considered themselves to be either part of the emerging Jewish state or as part of a greater Arab state."
The "underreported" role of al-Husseini "reveals volumes" about the confusion and controversy, says Morse. The founder of Arab Palestine, al-Husseini, was appointed as Mufti of Jerusalem and as the head of the Arab Higher Committee by the British in the Palestine Mandate in 1921.
Before the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Morse continued, the region – named Palestine by the British – spent more than four centuries as part of the Ottoman province of Syria.
"Husseini," said Morse, "was a pan-Arabist who viewed the region first as part of Syria and later as part of the Ummah, or the Arab motherland."
During World War II, Husseini stayed in Berlin where "after meeting with Hitler, he was regarded by the Nazis as the exiled head of a future Nazi-Arab state."
Husseini, Morse says, raised "the profile of Jerusalem as a site important to Islam."
"He raised funds in Arab and Islamic countries to gold plate the Dome of the Mosque known today as the Dome of the Rock by claiming that there was a Jewish conspiracy to blow it up," Morse says.
In researching "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," which reveals the forgotten roots of Islamic radicalism during World War II and documents how Hitler's ideology still impacts the Middle East today, Morse reached some stark conclusions about Islam's "deceptive nature and merciless intents."
Even an ardent critic of Morse's claimed "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," was a "well-researched and, strangely enough, factually accurate though its conclusions are questionable [since it links] elements of Middle Eastern Islam with the original Nazi Party, and was able to bring the influence forward to the modern day, however questionably."
Interestingly, Morse says, the main holy sites of Islam are Mecca and Medina and the few references to Jerusalem and Israel in the Quran "actually call for the creation of a Jewish state."
Winston Churchill, says Morse, divided the British Mandate of Palestine along the Jordan River into East Palestine – or Trans-Jordan – and West Palestine or Cis-Jordan.
Trans-Jordan, Morse continues, "would be recognized by the U.N. as the Kingdom of Jordan in 1947" and was to be exclusively Arab Palestine, while Cis-Jordan, or Palestine, "would likewise be recognized as Israel by the U.N. in 1947."
From the 1948 Israel war of Independence and until the 1967 Six Day War, the region west of the Jordan River that was occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan was known as West Jordan and the Arabs living there were Jordanian citizens, said Morse.
"Ahmad Shukairi – the founder of the PLO – stated in 1969 that 'Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,'" said Morse. "PLO member Abu Iyad recounted in his memoir 'Palestinian without a Motherland' that he and other PLO members had been advised by the North Vietnamese to develop the 'two-state' idea in 1973."
So the North Vietnamese, said Morse, actually "advised Iyad to 'stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.'"
Soon, he said, the "Soviet-sponsored PLO continued their war against Israel both through terrorism" and through promoting the "diplomatic artifice that has become known as the 'two-state solution.'"
"But always," said Morse, "the movement for Palestinian Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan River remains nothing more than a vanguard movement seeking the eventual destruction of the State of Israel.
And President Obama is simply its latest spokesperson."
Obama warns: Support 'Palestine' or 'more blood' will flow
Comment prompts question whether "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs
----------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Without world support for establishing an independent Palestine, President Obama warned the United Nations General Assembly today that "more blood will be shed" and "Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state."
Though couched with references to Israeli security and a "neighbors who are committed to coexistence," Obama's observation prompted a provocative question and little known insight into the Palestinian-Zionist identity conflict from the author of a bold new book about the Nazi links to Islamic jihadists.
"Are the Palestinian Arabs a distinct people apart from other Arabs?," asks Chuck Morse, author of "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj. Amin Al-Husseini."
Before 1948, Morse explained, the term "Palestinian" described "Jews and was used interchangeably with the term Zionist."
"The Arab residents of Palestine," he says, "most of whom emigrated there alongside the Jewish emigration and did so in order to take advantage of the increased economic opportunities that accompanied the Jewish immigration, considered themselves to be either part of the emerging Jewish state or as part of a greater Arab state."
The "underreported" role of al-Husseini "reveals volumes" about the confusion and controversy, says Morse. The founder of Arab Palestine, al-Husseini, was appointed as Mufti of Jerusalem and as the head of the Arab Higher Committee by the British in the Palestine Mandate in 1921.
Before the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Morse continued, the region – named Palestine by the British – spent more than four centuries as part of the Ottoman province of Syria.
"Husseini," said Morse, "was a pan-Arabist who viewed the region first as part of Syria and later as part of the Ummah, or the Arab motherland."
During World War II, Husseini stayed in Berlin where "after meeting with Hitler, he was regarded by the Nazis as the exiled head of a future Nazi-Arab state."
Husseini, Morse says, raised "the profile of Jerusalem as a site important to Islam."
"He raised funds in Arab and Islamic countries to gold plate the Dome of the Mosque known today as the Dome of the Rock by claiming that there was a Jewish conspiracy to blow it up," Morse says.
In researching "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," which reveals the forgotten roots of Islamic radicalism during World War II and documents how Hitler's ideology still impacts the Middle East today, Morse reached some stark conclusions about Islam's "deceptive nature and merciless intents."
Even an ardent critic of Morse's claimed "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," was a "well-researched and, strangely enough, factually accurate though its conclusions are questionable [since it links] elements of Middle Eastern Islam with the original Nazi Party, and was able to bring the influence forward to the modern day, however questionably."
Interestingly, Morse says, the main holy sites of Islam are Mecca and Medina and the few references to Jerusalem and Israel in the Quran "actually call for the creation of a Jewish state."
Winston Churchill, says Morse, divided the British Mandate of Palestine along the Jordan River into East Palestine – or Trans-Jordan – and West Palestine or Cis-Jordan.
Trans-Jordan, Morse continues, "would be recognized by the U.N. as the Kingdom of Jordan in 1947" and was to be exclusively Arab Palestine, while Cis-Jordan, or Palestine, "would likewise be recognized as Israel by the U.N. in 1947."
From the 1948 Israel war of Independence and until the 1967 Six Day War, the region west of the Jordan River that was occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan was known as West Jordan and the Arabs living there were Jordanian citizens, said Morse.
"Ahmad Shukairi – the founder of the PLO – stated in 1969 that 'Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,'" said Morse. "PLO member Abu Iyad recounted in his memoir 'Palestinian without a Motherland' that he and other PLO members had been advised by the North Vietnamese to develop the 'two-state' idea in 1973."
So the North Vietnamese, said Morse, actually "advised Iyad to 'stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.'"
Soon, he said, the "Soviet-sponsored PLO continued their war against Israel both through terrorism" and through promoting the "diplomatic artifice that has become known as the 'two-state solution.'"
"But always," said Morse, "the movement for Palestinian Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan River remains nothing more than a vanguard movement seeking the eventual destruction of the State of Israel.
And President Obama is simply its latest spokesperson."
Saturday, September 18, 2010
PRAVDA HAS JOINED THE BIRTHERS (FULL ARTICLE)
AKA Obama fans: All together now – say OMG!!
by Sam Sewell
1. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
It isn't hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA's behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.
This disorder is frequently misunderstood as "self-love." A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one's self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, "I have nothing to hide, but I am hiding things anyway."
AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.
If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist Mark S. McGrew, The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama.
Most Americans do not want their president to be secretive about his past. However, if one is living a lie to preserve the ego compensating, idealized reflection of self, one will go to great lengths to hide things that most would routinely reveal.
For the person who has NPD tendencies, the lies used to create the reflection become so numerous that eventually the man in the mirror cracks, and so does the real human being hiding behind the reflection.
A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam's razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
I condense this to the simple question: what is most likely? In our discussion of the documents which AKA has hidden, most of this article is an examination of which explanation is most likely.
For example, which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure. " The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records." New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo
There are so many potential sources that can end AKA OBAMA's Presidency that it is impossible to keep them all quiet.
It's just a matter of time. As columnist Davvy Kidd says, IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED. First, let's think of all the lawyers and support staff involved in keeping the birth certificate issue quiet. Isn't it likely that some of them know what they are hiding? Isn't it likely that several people at the Hawaiian Department of Public Health know what is, or is not, on the original birth certificate that AKA OBAMA refuses to release?
Did you know that there is a one million dollar reward offered for AKA OBAMA's Hawaiian birth certificate?
2. Please get this straight:
Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA's place of birth. What they have said is that they "have the original document" on file. They haven't offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor's signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit?
The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from "our" Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama's "vital records" showed that he was born in Hawaii.
It is entirely possible for the "vital records" of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.
Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.
Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.
One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.
Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.
One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States.
The wording on Sun Yat-sen's Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he "made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands." Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?
The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.
Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.
In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu.
After it was concluded in February 2008 that Obama and his mother were never there , Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.
Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!
Which is most likely?
• AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
• AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?
3. The birth document published on AKA Obama's web site isn't adequate evidence of place of birth even if it isn't a forgery
The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA's campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA's campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
Sandra Lines says, "I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.
Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born" at FactCheck?
Joe Miller and Jess Henig, that's who! They are a couple of partisan Obots -- just what you'd expect -- Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph. Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it -- and so do Henig and Miller.
Here is another thing to consider. Birth Certificates might be protected by privacy laws in Hawaii but transactions for purchase should be available as public record. The COLB that AKA Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation.
There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about AKA Obama requesting a copy of his BC. Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from?
These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone someone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitter's copy of a money order.
Someone should have this without a doubt. Has anyone asked the State of Hawaii if there is a record of payment for a COLB from AKA Obama?
This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt or record of payment of any kind has been offered.
Could the reason for this be that Obama's COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii?
To be continued
PART TWO
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt (non-existent) for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs
AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View
4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?
As for AKA Obama’s birth in Kenya we hear this from attorney Mario Apuzzo “We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, O8-cv-04083: Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.
The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."
It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.”
That is a real mind bender. Let’s see; AKA Obama wasn’t born in Kenya but his birth place is declared to be “top secret” by Kenyan officials. There are no records of AKA Obama being born in Kenya and those nonexistent records are being withheld and are “top secret”. That sounds so much like what the official position of AKA Obama could be; “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s Back
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts, both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.
For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate .
6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?
What about the legal team that is keeping AKA OBAMA’s college records hidden? Several people probably know what they are hiding. The best guess as to what is so secret isn’t likely to be bad grades. More likely his admission papers will say he was a foreign student, or that he was receiving financial aid as a foreign student. How many people do you estimate already know what is on AKA OBAMA’s college documents? Those records were handled routinely for more than 20 years. How many personnel in the registrar’s offices of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University have seen AKA OBAMA’s records and know what is in them? How many of those people would be willing to talk about it, or maybe even “leak” just one sheet of paper that would put even more cracks in AKA OBAMA’s mirror? Is that number likely to be zero? Do you think that AKA OBAMA worries about how many people know something that could destroy his career? Fear of being “found out” is an obsession for NPD types. The Cost to hide Obama's past now 1.35 million.
7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
So far we have only talked about the original birth certificate, supposedly locked up in Hawaii, and AKA OBAMA’s draft and college records. Already the potential sources for leaks are numerous. And you can bet that AKA OBAMA and his lawyers are concerned about many more possible leaks than these.There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them. This list is one of many available and comes from one of my favorite blogs
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15.
Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit – Case and Affidavits
Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com
Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit – Document Locator Number update – another FOIA request
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Illinois Bar Records — Not released.
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Kindergarten records – this” lost or hidden” incident deserves more detail:
8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
“Obama began his education in Hawaii's public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.
The first little boy in the third row, left is "Barry Obama." Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama.
The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. I still want to know what happened to their birth announcement. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. More specifically, I want to know what happened to the space their birth announcement was in.Or am I expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama's name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here: Birth Announcement here -- expand to regular size to read.
Those who strive to legitimize AKA Obama have made much of the questionable “birth announcement” that may have been published in the Hawaiian newspapers. This “evidence” if so flimsy that refuting it may actually lend substance to the claim.
There are literally dozens of anti-Birther articles in the media that continue to claim that AKA Obama's birth announcement was in "two different newspapers". These two newspapers are printed by the same publisher and share the same stories and sources. The purpose of this “two newspaper” claim is to falsely imply that these newspapers are independent of each other, and therefore, unlikely to run the same birth announcement.
Birth announcements were called in or mailed in all the time. The Nordyke twins were announced, then recently (about a year ago) that announcement was replaced with the AKA Obama one. And the original owner of the “birth” residence died about 2 years, before the newly discovered birth announcement was touted by the Obama campaign after AKA Obama's Hawaiian 'birth” was challenged. There is also evidence of splicing in the microfilm. The most likely scenario is that the Nordyke twin’s birth announcement was spliced out and replaced by a post-dated AKA Obama announcement. The fact that the home address in the fake AKA Obama announcement was never occupied by Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, and that the birth announcement just happened to appear right after the actual tenant of the home died, pretty much drives a stake though the heart of this story. Here is WND's story about the birth address.
A more comprehensive analysis debunking the birth announcement claim; Here is “jbjd’s” answer:
There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=M1&Date=20090728&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=907280345&Ref=V3
Eleanor Nordyke of Manoa shows the birth certificates of her twin daughters. They were born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the day after Obama was born
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/assets/gif/M1139416728.GIF
Here's a surprise! Hawaii's Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama’s Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.
Obama's Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological "coincidences" that obscure AKA Obama’s history.Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) -- and that document was discovered by independent investigators.
This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama's REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not "lose" the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly "excuse" the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.
This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education. Why is there no documentation?
This is the beginning of an intentionally erased life of a fraud and conman and it reeks of complicity by officials within the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Education.” Hat tip to Don Fredrick at http://www.colony14.net/
International columnist Mark S. McGrew sums up AKA Obama’s missing history succinctly: “With all of Obama’s different names, with his documented long term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent “Office of The President Elect,” with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups, . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.”
I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government. But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.
9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.
We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA’s biological father was Barack Obama SR, a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama SR’s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA’s birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act. A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother’s, lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya. Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.
One thing he does NOT DO is work. Not even in between his multiple vacations. He does what his puppeteers (mostly Marxist-Islamic ones) tell him to do.
There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA’s possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA being listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.
So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.
*not likely, given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret. By AKA OBAMA's and Bob Bauer, AKA OBAMA's Lead Lawyer's, own reports, AKA OBAMA has spent Hundreds of thousands of Dollars on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible.
Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?
10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:
"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth,” just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." Leo C. Donofrio
The facts are clear, and the law is clear. All it will take is for a judge to issue a ruling. Do you think AKA OBAMA and his lawyers fret about this? They certainly are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this issue. So far, no court or judge has issued a ruling on the merits of any legal case against AKA OBAMA. Cases have been dismissed on legal technicalities, but no actual case has yet been heard.
There are other potential leaks that come from AKA OBAMA’s international history. If Obama was born in Kenya, there should be a record of that birth in UK records. There are probably people in England and Kenya who already have information that would put cracks in AKA OBAMA’s distorted reflection of himself, and there is other information that can be mined from archives. The same is true for Indonesia.
In the unlikely outcome that none of the people talk, and none of the documents surface, would AKA OBAMA than be free of obsessive fear of being found out? No, even if none of his secrets are revealed and none of his lies are exposed, he will continue to remain vulnerable.
11. AKA Obama’s crimes
Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes; More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee, etc, AKA Obama is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In spite of all this Congressional Democrats still want ACORN to be eligible for federal money.
This is the first president in history to flout election campaign laws and receive millions from foreign countries (including Gaza), blockbusting stories that broke at Atlas all during the campaign.
“Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”
The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
“Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.
Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead. Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live. The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians. In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of "deadwood" voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct. The data is here . . .
You may have noticed that the usual role of the media in ferreting out high jinks in high places has not been mentioned. There is no “All the President’s Men” movie in the making. No one is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for investigating AKA OBAMA. Is journalism dead in America? Well no, not quite.
Somebody, a major news outlet executive, has done the Pulitzer research. On his To The Point News website, Dr. Jack Wheeler said he will “Let the source of the information reveal it, in his own time. "...the details of what he told me are for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild."So get ready folks. One of these days I will be asking all of you AKA Obama fans to, “All together now, say OMG!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
