Archive for the month “April, 2012”

The coming chaos from the Obama-Soertoro playbook

Doug Hagmann  Monday, April 23, 2012

America and the world today is in chaos. Wars, rumors of wars, high gasoline prices, increasing food prices, growing divisions among races and between classes, current and impending financial collapses dominate the headlines. Critics and detractors of Barack Hussein Obama claim that it is a result of his failed policies that our house and much of the world is in such disarray. Investigation into the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II and the people behind him suggests otherwise.

The chaos that presently exists domestically and across the globe is destined to get worse, but it’s not due to Obama’s inexperience or failed policies. Rather, it is the direct result of the implementation of his successful policies. The chaos in which we find ourselves is exactly what has been planned for decades.Chaos is the tactic, the means to an end, and not the result of failure of policy by the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

We have seen only the tip of the full frontal assault of the chaos planned for this country. Actually, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Connect the dots

Investigative findings suggest that our present state of disorder was crafted long ago, compliments of a shadowy cabal of government leaders and their often unwitting lackeys, complicit media moguls and their eye-candy mouthpieces, and ideologues intent on changing the United States and thus the world. While this might sound like a bad fictional plot from the film noir genre, a good bit of investigation indicates otherwise.

Before dismissing such musings as delusional fodder, carefully consider the current state of our country – and the world – and start to connect the dots, stepping backwards chronologically. As you do, understand that the traditional right-left political paradigm with which we’ve been indoctrinated no longer exists, except as a distraction to the viewers and listeners of political talk shows hosted by highly paid ornaments who dutifully adhere to narrow scripts of approved show content.

The “necessity” Obama-Soetoro narrative

Our founding fathers had the vision to understand that the biggest threat to our Republic is from within. That’s the reason that the founders placed a natural born restriction clause for President at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted. They understood that there was a contemporaneous threat from a Trojan Horse president, as well as a future threat, despite the other checks and balances constructed within our government. Over time, however, communist influence in our schools and media continued to dilute the literal interpretation of the Constitution. Such revision changed or ignored history altering events, such as the infiltration of Communists into our federal government in the post World War II era. History has been revised. As the famous novelist George Orwell once stated, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” That has never been so true as today.

Since 2008, coherent discussion of the bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama II as they relate to his constitutional eligibility has been declared off limits, except to mock and marginalize those who bring up the issue. His association with communists, socialists and other “radicals” has been deliberately downplayed, revised and in some cases, rewritten. This, thanks to the incestuous corporate ownership of big media, which has collectively ensured that legitimate discussion into the legend that is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro has been effectively nullified. Unfortunately and in many cases, it’s paychecks over patriotism.

Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?

To fully understand what is taking place today, and more importantly, what is being planned for tomorrow, we must identify the actors involved in fomenting chaos. Let’s first consider the meteoric rise of the virtually unknown community organizer Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro.

People who have questioned his constitutional eligibility to hold office, known by the pejorative term “birthers,” are a troublesome lot among for the Progressives and the establishment Republicans. The issue, however, extends well beyond the Constitutional formality of where Obama was born, as the formal admission that his parental lineage, as questionable as it still is, officially denies him eligibility of the office.

This is not about the Certification of Live Birth, however, as much regarding this has already been written, except for this: any seasoned investigator experienced in conducting background investigations knows that there is no valid substitute for the actual authenticated paper document. When there is an outright refusal to allow for a legitimate inspection of an actual document, combined with an overt redirection of investigators’ attention away from the hardcopy form, there is always something being hidden. Always.

Based on extensive research and investigation, this investigator has identified at least 135 legal actions brought against Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro by plaintiffs demanding authenticated evidence of his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. These actions span various venues, from hearings in various courts and before administrative law judges, to the more recent state ballot challenges. In each instance, “team Obama” prevailed.

In many cases, legal giant Perkins Coie defended Obama against these lawsuits. Perkins Coie made headlines in 2006 when they represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden.

According to legal financial documents, Obama paid Perkins Coie over $2.5 million in fees to defend him on a variety of issues from October 2008 through the end of 2010. It is unclear exactly how much of that $2.5 million was earmarked for defending Obama against eligibility challenges.

So, from this investigator’s perspective, along with Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse tasked with conducting a law enforcement sanctioned background investigation of Barack Hussein Obama II, it can be concluded that we do not know the legal name or legal status of the individual holding the highest elected office in the United States.

If an American citizen lies to a federal official, they can be charged with a felony. What happens when a federal official lies to the American people? Nothing, it would appear.

Therefore the question still remains: Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?

Beyond the birth issue

Some will continue to deride those who adhere to the importance of the Certification of Live Birth. Supporters of “Obama the American” are a prolific and vocal bunch, yet become silent or full of excuses as questions are naturally extended to his refusal to release other records of relevance that would provide valuable and necessary insight into the man currently at the helm of our nation.

Obama-Soetoro has repeatedly refused to produce documentation that former presidents have traditionally provided. In the case of Obama-Soetoro, his passport records, school records from kindergarten forward, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules (reportedly “lost”), medical records, important family records including the Obama/Dunham marriage license and divorce documents, and any adoption records remain off limits.

From the perspective of an investigator, there are compelling reasons for Obama-Soetoro to keep these records private, and none are likely to bode well for the putative president. In total, releasing authenticated documents of all of the above would create an accurate historical profile of the man in the Oval Office, which we do not have. Instead, we have the Obama-Soetoro legend, manufactured by… whom? And why?

I pledge allegiance to…

Consider that Obama is, in part, an artifact of the intentional “Balkanization” of America. Look at the historical immigration policies, the intentional lack of enforcement of illegal immigration, and other related issues and question why. Globalists have been constantly attacking our national identity and culture well beyond what was intended and engraved on the Statue of Liberty.

The legend of Barack Hussein Obama II involves much more than a Certification of Live Birth. It’s about the very issue our cautioned by our founders. It’s allegiance to the United States of America and the survival of our nation as a free, Representative Republic.

The founders believed that a natural born citizen would be more inclined to have a “natural” allegiance to the country in which they were born and the principles on which our country was founded. they would protect our freedoms, the rights of citizens, and side with America in international disputes. Are we seeing this in the narrative of Barack Hussein Obama II?


Another question involves the unprecedented contributions made to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The amount is somewhere between $650 to $750 million, depending on the source, and a lot of that money reportedly originated from outside of this country. Is this what the founders intended? What strings came with such contributions?

On the morning of Obama’s first day in office of January 21, 2009, one of the first, if not the first phone call he made as American leader was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Less than five months later, on June 4, 2009, Obama kicked off his American apology tour in a speech at Cairo University in Egypt, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University. Obama “honored” a promise made during his presidential campaign to give a major address to Muslims from a Muslim capital during his first few months as president. To date, Obama has not yet stepped foot in Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

The list could continue ad nauseum and include the recent statement of collusion made in front of a “hot” microphone to the Russians about missile defense. There are numerous other examples that can be used to question the true allegiance of the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

Perhaps most troubling, however, is what we are seeing played out on our domestic front. Recall that history has been revised to downplay Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Jeff Jones, and many other communist, socialists, Leninists and Marxists revolutionaries. Recall their objectives, and put them in perspective to current events.

Peering into the Obama-Soetoro domestic playbook

“Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement. The American system is racist, capitalist and imperialist. We must arm ourselves. I believe we are going to have a revolutionary change in society. -Michael Klonsky 1969 SDS Center, Washington, DC (with Bernadine Dohrn and Allen Young)

Revolutionaries thrive on chaos. Protests offer opportunity to spread chaos and in nearly every protest, trained agitators of the Progressives appear on site to inflame passions, foment disorder and violence.

This putative president and the powers behind him knew the consequences of fueling the Arab Spring, from our role in Tunisia to Egypt and the chaos that would result. Equally important, he knew the ramifications that would result from his polarizing statements pertaining to the Trayvon Martin case, and the racial divide that would be exacerbated.

He knows the results of our oppressive domestic energy policy, which are exacerbating the economic divide within the U.S. and the societal upheaval that will result.

He knows the results of our unlimited monetary printing presses that will bring our economy to its knees. So emboldened is Obama, that he continues to work with Jon Corzine of MF Global, the man behind the missing $1.6 billion of American’s money. He knows that the economic collapse of America is coming. He knows that there will be riots in the streets.

Is he preparing for it? Yes, but not in the manner that a truly American president should.

Obama, the Emperor

Consider recent executive orders and other executive actions as “big dots” in our dot connecting exercise. The importance or relevance of these executive orders in our normal existence have either been downplayed or ignored by the media, and are subject to ridicule when brought up in political discussions. After all, they’ve been standard procedure since 1789.

DOT: On Friday, April 13, 2012, Obama signed an executive order titled ” Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources.” This order is a stepping stone for the takeover of the natural gas (and related) industry. Moreover, it creates an oversight group headed by Ceclia Munoz, chairman of the White House Domestic Policy Council who connected to globalist George Soros and a number of other socialist groups antagonistic to private U.S. energy production.

DOT: On Friday, March 16, 2012, Obama signed the order on National Defense Resources Preparedness, which dramatically expanded the Defense Production Act of 1950, and essentially gives Obama the power to take over our national resources and infrastructure for reasons that are no longer limited to times of war or declared states of national emergency.

DOT: On February 9, 2012, Obama signed Executive Order 13600, “Establishing the President’s Global Development Council,” which is an enhancement of the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. In short, it is internal subjugation to a global agenda, or global governance.

DOT: Consider that the Department of Homeland Security recently acquisitioned 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition (an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, one year contract with 4 option years). Hollow points, as well, which are not used for target practice. Also consider that the Department of agriculture has ordered 326,000 rounds of mixed caliber ammunition this month as well.

DOT: Consider that the executive branch has the unfettered authority to execute American Citizens deemed “a threat.”

DOT: Several unconfirmed reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security have ordered Mine Resistant Anti-personnel Carriers (MRAPs) for deployment in the United States.

DOT: During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey openly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but they take their orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

DOT: Consider other reports of FEMA quarters being readied here in the U.S., ostensibly for disaster relief and protection of its citizens. In consideration of everything else taking place, can we afford to take their word for this “preparation?”

Readers can fill in numerous other “dots” unaddressed here. The point is that it would appear that final preparations are being made not necessarily for the protection of our citizens, but against them. By a man in the Oval Office whose legal name we do not know, and whose allegiance is suspect at best.

Get ready, Americans. Understand the playbook.


Three Murderous Ideologies: Nazism, Communism, and Militant Islam

April 27, 2012

By William A. Levinson

Militant Islam has far more in common with Nazism and Communism than it does with any genuine religious faith.  All three have two common elements: (1) the openly stated intention to rule the entire world and (2) a claim to the right to deport, oppress, re-educate, or exterminate those who do not fit into their regimes.  Militant Islam can, despite the lessons of 1939-1945 as well as the Holodomor (genocide by starvation of Ukrainians), China’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s Great Purge, and the killing fields of Cambodia, promote this agenda today by masquerading as a religion, with all the legal and social protections that this implies.

Militant Islam Says It Will Dominate the World

“Your Job in Germany,” which was created by Theodor Seuss Geisel for the U.S. Army, discusses the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) explicitly starting at about 6:30.  “They were brought up on straight propaganda, products of the worst educational crime in the history of the entire world.”  That was true until the Hamasjugend, which is better-known as the Palestinian children’s show Pioneers of Tomorrow, came along.

In Pioneers of Tomorrow, a Mickey Mouse clone named Farfur talks explicitly of “world leadership under Islamic leadership.”  The girl who co-hosts the show elaborates that “[w]e, the great ones [Herrenvolk], started this program to lead the world.  The nucleus [Axis], with the will of Allah, will be here in Palestine.”  Another Pioneers of Tomorrow video says openly, “We will annihilate the Jews[,]” and “[w]e’ve said more than once that becoming masters of the world requires the following; first, to be happy with our Arabic language.”  The last ideology that talked about annihilating Jews and becoming master of the world came with a swastika.

Pioneers of Tomorrow is far from the only militant Islamic source that proclaims its intention to dominate the world, as shown here.  Militant Islamic behavior in most of Europe and even parts of the United States suggests, meanwhile, that they believe they already rule the world and are therefore exempt from laws against, for example, rape.  Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali said of militant Islamic men who rape Australian women:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it, whose fault is it; the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred.

There are also unfit U.S. jurists who are willing to go along with arguments of this nature, as shown by the judge in New Jersey who agreed that sharia (Islamic law) gave a man the right to force his wife to have sexual intercourse.

We have shown how militant Islam’s purported right to rule the world is one aspect of a murderous political ideology.  Its purported right to kill or subjugate other people is the other aspect.

Militant Islam Claims the Right to Exterminate “Undesirables”

Nazism, Communism, and militant Islam all claim or claimed the right to deport, oppress, re-educate, or exterminate undesirables, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Targets for Reeducation or Liquidation

Nazism Communism Militant Islam




Jehovah’s Witnesses



Kulaks (Ukrainian farmers who resisted collectivization)

Educated class (in some cases, anybody with eyeglasses)




Wrong kinds of Muslims



If militant Islam is simply another incarnation of Communism or Nazism — “Hitler in a Headscarf,” as Michael Savage puts it — then why can it operate in plain view?  The short answer is that its status as a purported religion gives it legal and social protections that are not available to an ideology.

An Ideology Is Not a Religion

The glorification of Nazism is illegal in many European countries, but so is criticism of militant Islamic behavior.  Geert Wilders was, for example, put on trial for inciting “religious discrimination.”  Danish Member of Parliament Jesper Langballe was found guilty of “hate speech” for his truthful statements that honor killings are endemic among Muslim families.  “Under Danish jurisprudence it is immaterial whether a statement is true or untrue.  All that is needed for a conviction is that somebody feels offended.”

It is specifically illegal in Germany to display a swastika, and it took some time for German courts to make an exception for anti-fascist material that depicts, for example, somebody throwing a swastika into a trash can.  Germany will still prosecute you, though, if you depict a militant Islamic symbol in a trash can.  It is legally and socially acceptable to behave like a Nazi in modern Germany as long as one is smart enough to use a crescent instead of a swastika, and chant “Allahu akbar!” instead of “Heil Hitler!”

Murderous Ideologies and Their Enablers

Opposition to Nazism during the late 1930s and early 1940s was in no way racist toward German-Americans.  Almost all members of the German-American Bund were of German ancestry, but very few people of German ancestry joined the Bund.  The problem Germans were easily identifiable through behavioral choices such as goose-stepping, heiling Hitler, and waving swastika flags. Most Muslim-Americans are similarly loyal citizens, while the problems are again easily identifiable from their behavioral choices.

The Nazis did, however, have their enablers, including America First, and so do the militant Muslims.  The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his outspoken views on the way the shadow of militant Islam is falling over Europe as that of the swastika did 70 or so years ago.  Tufts University’s Committee on Student Life as chaired by Professor Barbara Grossman, meanwhile, decreed that “labeling Islam violent is unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.”  When last we heard, the 9/11 hijackers did not chant “Shma Yisrael,” “Hare Krishna,” or “Jesus Saves,” although “Allah akbar!” figured prominently in what was last heard from the doomed aircraft.

Bucknell administrator Kathy Owens (with the apparent knowledge and approval of President Brian Mitchell), meanwhile, called on the carpet three members of the university’s conservative student newspaper for using the phrase “hunting terrorists.”  The terrorists in question were incidentally al-Qaeda or Taliban.  It is doubtful that anybody would have had a problem with language like “hunting Nazis” in 1942.  This underscores our key point: militant Islam, unlike Nazism or Communism, shields itself from criticism under color of religion.  The defense of civilization therefore requires us to recognize militant Islam for what it is: a murderous ideology with aspirations of world domination and genocide of those who do not fit into its depraved worldview.
Read more:


Auschwitz and Planned Parenthood (The American Death Camps)

Written on Saturday, April 28, 2012 by Ralph Barker

An estimated 10 million people, Jews, homosexuals, Polish intellectuals, Gypsies, and others died in Nazi death camps such as Auschwitz. The cruelties these victims suffered are almost beyond belief. We recoil at the thought and many people today cannot even watch a movie or documentary about this horrific time in history. But, we cannot forget. Or, have we?

There are currently about 750 death camps spread across America. They are called abortion clinics. According to AFA Journal (Jan. 2011), Planned Parenthood alone accounted for 324,000 abortions in 2008 fiscal year. They also gladly accepted $349.6 million of your tax dollars to carry out their deadly mission.

At this point in time, over 50 million babies have been slaughtered. Where is the outrage? I don’t hear it except in certain quarters. God’s sixth commandment is “You shall not murder.” How do we as a nation, with still some Christian presence, justify this? We cannot. And God, will hold us accountable.

We pray for God to send us cures for cancer and heart disease. Maybe He did and we aborted them. We want someone to buy our home that has been on the market for two years. Maybe we aborted them. We want younger workers to pay Social Security taxes so we can get our Social Security benefits. But, we aborted them too. The price we pay goes far beyond the abortionist fees. There are real-life penalties and God’s judgment that is already descending upon us.

I pray that Christians will recapture a godly sense of righteous indignation concerning abortion and the many other moral issues facing our nation. I also pray that we will each get involved in whatever way God may direct. We each have a ministry. We each have a passion. Let’s obediently live out our calling in Christ and turn the tide.

The familiar passage below, II Chronicles 7:14, has a powerful promise included: God will heal our land.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land (KJV).

Silver Spoon Obama: Is he Calling the Kettle Black?

A poor black man on his way to Harvard Law School takes a little time (a month) to fly to Kenya to meet his relatives; he goes to a private school in Hawaii. I think Obama may be confused by the notion of a silver spoon.


Dr. Phil Taverna  Thursday, April 26, 2012

I think Obama may have stepped in another mess when he pulled the silver spoon line. It is obvious he personally was attacking Romney, instead of doing it with his Super PACs. But what does it mean when Skippy says he was not born with a silver spoon and Michelle was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

 Obama has to be delusional.

Just think about it, a poor black man writes a book about the dreams of his father and he makes millions of dollars. A poor black man is born in Hawaii and he goes to a private school in Hawaii. A poor black man on his way to Harvard Law School takes a little time (a month) to fly to Kenya to meet his relatives. I think Obama may be confused by the notion of a silver spoon.

For Lady Obama as a poor black woman she ends up at Harvard Law School by way of Princeton. Tell me about all the poor black children that end up at Harvard Law School!

I think we need to look at Silver Spoons a little different in our new free communistic world. So we have 2 types of silver spoons. There are spoons for capitalists and another style for communists. The problem is how do we measure the quality of the spoons and do they really help the average (forgotten) man and by how much?

Capitalist’s Silver spoons are easy to discern. Take Bill Gates, he knew how to use people and use his resources properly and he is the richest man in America. Now Gates was probably not a poor person to begin with. But his parents were not billionaires.

People like Gates are able to see a vision and they go out and get it. And no matter what, short of an untimely death, Gates would be rich today. He understood money and he knew how to leverage its power to make billions. Most people don’t understand these simple concepts. And most people don’t care. They don’t want to be rich, and they wouldn’t know what to do if they were earning that kind of money.

It is like the folks that win the lottery. Most of those folks are ill prepared to handle all that money. It used to be they had 20 years to go through the money, but the States were so hard up for the tax money, they hand over all the winnings in one year so the state can spend the tax money in that year. Double taxation is a different kind of silver spoon. But the average person blows through the winnings in no time because they are ill prepared to deal with the bonanza of cash!

Trump was well prepared to become a billionaire because his dad was in the business. His son was able to take millions and turn it into billions. And it really doesn’t matter if you don’t like his hair; he knows how to deal with money.

So are all these rich folks evil? And do they have a silver spoon in their orifices. Who really cares? If they have billions today, they are paying taxes, creating millions of jobs, and in most cases they know how to handle the money.

Idiots like Obama want to demoralize these folks because he is jealous of their money.  But most Americans have no desire to be millionaires and they are happy just to live the American Dream with their families. And the more money that people like Gates and Trump have or make, the more jobs and prosperity is shared by many Americans in a pure capitalistic society.

Obama the Commie sees the world a lot different. Since his buddy FDR and LBJ came along people can become rich in other ways that are not capitalistic. In a nutshell they steal the money from the capitalists and the working forgotten man and give it to other people who use that money to become rich. For some reason, Obama and his liberal friends do not see this as a silver spoon.  They see this as a right!

There is one fundamental flaw in the commie’s thinking. When the capitalists like Gates make billions, they actually produce a product and sell widgets and create millions of jobs. And all these jobs pay taxes to the government system. So look at it this way, let’s say we sell a million dollars worth of widgets. And we make $500,000 in profits. This profit trickles down to wages that in turn are converted to tax revenue. It becomes Gates’ widgets that create this fountain of capital. Nobody had to pay Gates to make the capital, he created it. So if Gates has a silver spoon in is oral portal, then he deserves it and it is beneficial to society and its prosperity.

The Obamas’ silver spoons are a bit costly. They went to school on government financial aid. Did they create one capitalistic job in any of their career choices with their own money? It becomes obvious that Obama knew at an early age how to play the system. When he lived with the Ayers while he was in law school he said he was going to be president. It appears that Obama had already made the proper connections before he ever made it to Law School. Were these connections Obama’s silver spoon?

Now tell me, is this the Silver Spoon that Obama was born with. He makes $425,000 a year for life, plus goodies that will amount to millions if not billions a year. Last year Obama paid about $300,000 in taxes with government money. Governor Romney paid about $3 million in taxes.  I think that Obama was born with certain opportunities that were available to him that would never be available to you and me. And like anyone else that is successful, he knew what to do with it.

Governor Romney, as well, was born with some advantages, and he, too, knew how to capitalize on the advantages. To say either one was born with a silver spoon is a bit arrogant. But today they are both rich and successful. But who has done more for society?

Who do you want as a citizen? Do you want a government worker who pays $300,000 in taxes or the capitalist that pays over $3 million dollars in taxes? And think about it, Governor Romney has the experience to create jobs; Obama has only been successful in sending American Jobs to China through his good friends at GE and Solyndra.

And in the end who do you want to lead the country? Do you want people like Obama who are natural born system suckers, who spend government money to the benefit of their friends and their families, or a capitalist who has created widgets not paid for by the government that results in adding prosperity and capital to our community and financial society?

They both have silver spoons, but which silversmith do you want making policy for prosperity in 2013?  My vote is stay away from the communists disguised as progressives. They seem to get rich, but nobody else does. Businessmen like Gates have made many people rich by producing widgets and capital. We should applaud them and encourage them to make more.  Obama wants to ostracize them from your community and send their revenue to China!

Which Silver Spoon do you think is best for America and your future!


Michelle Obama’s Spain Vacation Cost Taxpayers $467,585


Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it obtained documents from the United States Air Force and the United States Secret Service detailing costs associated with Michelle Obama’s controversial August 2010 vacation to Spain.  According to a Judicial Watch analysis, the records indicate a total combined cost of at least $467,585.

Judicial Watch obtained the Secret Service records pursuant to an August 2010 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  (The agency notified Judicial Watch that it withheld 78 pages of responsive records in their entirety.) Judicial Watch obtained the U.S. Air Force records pursuant to a March 5, 2012, FOIA lawsuit.

The following are highlights from the U.S. Air Force records, which indicate a total cost of $213,124.15:

According to U.S. Department of Defense’s 2010 published hourly rates, the total cost of flying Michelle Obama and her guests from Camp Andrews to Malaga and then to Mallorca and back to the United States was $199,323.75. This is based on approximately 17 hours and 15 minutes of total flying time.The 15-member flight crew stayed at Tryp Guadalmar, a nearby motel. Lodging cost was $10,290.60 and car rental cost was $2,633.50. Food cost was $876.30, including $57.68 for four bottles of maple syrup and a package of pancake mix.

The U.S. Air Force concealed the number of civilian passengers who accompanied Mrs. Obama on the five-day trip, citing an exemption to FOIA law. (The New York Times previously reported that Mrs. Obama brought along one of her daughters and “two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members.”)

Secret Service records, meanwhile, show that the costs to the agency for the vacation were $254,461.20. This total includes $26,670.61 for a chauffeur tour of Costa del Sol and $50,078.78 for a travel planning company SET P&V, S.L. (George Soros is 50% owner of the travel company.) Taxpayers also paid the bill for separate lodging for a dog and its handler.

As I noted earlier this week, from Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, pages 90–91:

Even the president made uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many thingsBehind the scenes, aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely expensive.

Lest someone claim the book is an anti-Obama smear job, Kantor began covering the Obamas for the New York Times in 2007 and based the book on multiple interviews with 33 different White House staffers.

And, of course, last week, when asked about the GSA scandal, Romney told me this.

“I think the example starts at the top,” Romney said. “People have to see that the president is not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of the overall economy and the state of the American family.”

Border Agent Indicted For Violating Illegal Alien’s Rights

Jim Kouri CPP  —   April 24, 2012

In almost total secrecy, the Obama Justice Department has charged a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Luis Fonseca, for depriving the rights of a yet to be identified illegal alien at the Border Patrol station located on Imperial Beach, California, last July. Fonseca, however, was not indicted until a week ago.

Agent Fonseca, 32, allegedly kneed and choked an unidentified alien during his tour near the Mexican border last summer. During his arraignment on Monday April 16, he entered a not guilty plea.

SO the illegal didn’t give the officer any reason to do this he didn’t run, struggle or fight back hmmmm.   I would bet that some sort of altercation happened and the officer used force to stop it! Yet Obama has to protect his voter base!

A grand jury had handed down the indictment on April 12, but details were withheld and the DOJ neglected to promulgate why the legal action was taken against the Border Patrol agent, according to an ”Inside-the-Beltway” public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and misconduct.

“Border Patrol Agent Fonseca kneed and choked an unidentified alien, depriving him of the right under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to be free from use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a statement. “The indictment also alleges as a result of the use of unreasonable force the individual sustained bodily injury.”

According to Department of Justice’s records, a federal grand jury indicted Fonseca on a single charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge, a civil rights violation, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The case is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the government’s secrecy surrounding details. In the one-page indictment the illegal immigrant is identified only as “UA#1.” The document also claims that, as a result of the use of “unreasonable force” the undocumented alien sustained some kind of “bodily injury” yet no further details are provided, according to Judicial Watch’sCorruption Chronicles.

“The grand jury indictment is dated April 12, 2012 which means the feds dragged their feet, probably because they knew it was a weak case,” stated the Judicial Watch’s entry.

Fonseca was arrested on Friday during a shift at the Border Patrol’s Imperial Beach station and is currently on paid leave. He pleaded not guilty in federal court this week, according to DOJ records.

Here is why the DOJ is going after the particular agent, according to the federal prosecutor handling the case: “People detained at the border should be treated with human dignity and respect by federal agents. It is important for the public to know that the Department of Justice takes alleged civil rights violations seriously. We have processes in place to investigate and will take action where appropriate to protect those rights.”

Many law enforcement professionals are highly suspicious of this latest case of a Border Patrol agent being “dragged into court by the Obama Justice Department.

“It’s clear that Obama’s sympathies are with the illegal aliens entering the U.S. He’s all but told U.S. immigration and border officials to stop enforcing the law. This is just another message from the Obama Administration to Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to not be too zealous in doing their jobs,” claims former New York City Detective Jeff Knudson.

On top of the DOJ’s actions against Fonseca, – himself a Latino — the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General is also investigating the matter.

“Perhaps when that report is finished, more information will be revealed to the public. For instance, the victim’s identity and the exact bodily injury that he or she supposedly suffered at the hands of the Border Patrol agent accused of committing the choking and kneeing,” states the Judicial Watch posting.

The U.S. government has worked hard to protect illegal immigrants and their “constitutional” rights in the last few years. This has empowered them to file a number of lawsuits against local and federal law enforcement agencies for violating their rights. In Connecticut a group of illegal aliens sued the government for violating their constitutional rights during the operation that led to their apprehension.

In New York an illegal immigrant with a lengthy criminal record got a $145,000 settlement from the state for having his civil rights violated during one of his many arrests. In Maryland an illegal immigrant from El Salvador for unlawfully and unconstitutionally detaining her based on race and in California illegal aliens sued a city for banning them from seeking work on public streets.

The Law Enforcement Examiner has regularly exposed President Barack Obama’s illegal-alien relatives, one of whom was arrested for drunk driving in Massachusetts.

In my opinion Obama has to do this so he can have more votes for his election otherwise he would be out of office!

EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

Inhofe Announces Investigation into EPA’s “Crucify Them” Strategy on American Energy Producers

Washington, D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, delivered a speech today on the Senate floor announcing that he has launched an investigation into the Obama-EPA’s apparent “crucify them” strategy targeted at American energy producers. This investigation will look into EPA’s actions towards domestic energy production specifically in light of the agency’s recent efforts relating to hydraulic fracturing

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today follows several questionable statements from top EPA officials, including comments released in a little-watched video from 2010, which reveals EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.


Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments, EPA targeted US natural gas producers inPennsylvania,TexasandWyoming.  In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were contrived – and despite their best efforts, they have been unable to find any definitive evidence to make this link.  When EPA’s investigations did not turn out the way they had hoped, the agency quietly released several late-night statements reversing their earlier assertions during holidays and while Congress was out of town.

As part of his efforts to launch an oversight investigation into the Obama-EPA’s actions, Senator Inhofe sent a letter today to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for answers regarding the events surrounding EPA Region 6 and their recently withdrawn administrative order inParker County,Texas- apparently the first of EPA’s “crucifixion” victims.

These three cases in Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania are particularly important given that the Obama administration has proposed numerous new studies looking into hydraulic fracturing: EPA is currently in the midst of a long term study on hydraulic fracturing and any potential harms to drinking and ground water, which will ultimately be the foundation for EPA’s decision on whether the administration will move forward with a barrage of federal regulations.

Highlights from Inhofe’s Floor Speech

Transcript of Administrator Armendariz’s comments in 2010 Video

Administrator Armendariz:

  “But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority […] I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said.  It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them.  And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years […] So, that’s our general philosophy.”

Not long after Armendariz made this stunning admission, EPA apparently began to zero in on its first crucifixion victims.  The agency targeted US natural gas producers inTexas,Wyoming, andPennsylvania.

Parker County,Texas

Despite the fact that Texas state regulators were actively investigating the issue, EPA Region 6 led by Regional Administrator Armendariz issued a December 7, 2010 Emergency Administrative Order which “determined” that state and local authorities had not taken sufficient action and ordered Range Resources to provide clean drinking water to affected residents and begin taking steps to resolve the problem.  Along with this order, EPA went on a publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions.  The day of the order EPA issued a press release in which mentioned “hydraulic fracturing” four times with no context or science to implicate the process in any contamination.  The agency claimed that they had also “determined that natural gas drilling near the homes by Range Resources inParker County,Texas, has caused to the contamination of at least two residential drinking water wells.”

Regional Administrator Armendariz was quoted in a press story posted online prior to him even notifying the state of Texas that EPA was their order and emails have been obtained from the day the order was released showing him gleefully sharing information with rabid anti-fracking advocates saying “we’re about to make a lot of news…time to Tivo channel 8.”  In subsequent interviews Armendariz made comments specifically intended to incite fear and sway public option against hydraulic fracturing citing multiple times a “danger of fire or explosion.”  When state regulators were made aware of EPA’s actions, they made it clear they felt the agency was proceeding prematurely to which Armendariz forwarded their reply to headquarters with a single-word message, “Stunning.”

Now, fast forward to a late Friday afternoon of March 30th of this year, just a few hours after Congress left town for the Easter recess, the Wall Street Journal reported that, “EPA told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed inU.S.court inDallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative order.”  A few weeks prior to EPA’s withdrawal, a judge also concluded that one of the residents involved in the investigation worked with environmental activists to create a “deceptive video” that was “calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning” when it appears the resident attached a hose to the water well’s gas vent – not to a water line – and then lit the gas from the hose’s nozzle.


Last December, EPA publicized the release of non-peer reviewed draft findings which pointed to hydraulic fracturing as the cause of groundwater contamination. Here again, EPA stepped in over the actions of the state and made a press announcement designed to capture headlines where definitive evidence linking the act of hydraulic fracturing to water contaminations simply didn’t exist. The announcement came in December despite as late as November 9, 2011 EPA Regional Administrator James Martin saying that the results of the latest round of testing in Pavillion were not significantly different from the first two rounds of testing, which showed no link between hydraulic fracturing and contamination.  That’s 3 rounds of testing which showed no contamination from hydraulic fracturing yet only a few weeks later, EPA was announcing the opposite.

I said after speaking to Administrator Jackson that day that it was irresponsible for EPA to release such an explosive announcement without objective peer review. Given the serious flaws in EPA’s process, I asked EPA Administrator Jackson to release all the data, methodologies and protocols that have been used, and she has made a commitment to do so.  Also, because this study is a new scientific inquiry and these methods will be used nationwide, I strongly believe that it should be considered a Highly Influential Scientific Study (HISA) and undergo the required objective peer review process.  Unfortunately, the EPA has refused to officially classify this study as a HISA and has only loosely committed that it will be “treated” as one, allowing EPA to pick and chose which requirements it follows.

In another reversal by EPA in the past few weeks, EPA stepped back and agreed to take more water samples and postpone a peer review of the findings, something the State of Wyoming had been requesting from the beginning and something that should have been done prior to the political decisions to publicize unsubstantiated findings in an draft report.


Dimock,Pennsylvaniais the third site of EPA’s recent backtracking of its publicized attempts to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater contamination.  In this instance the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had taken substantial actions and including working out an agreement with an oil and gas company ensuring residents clean drinking water.

In line with the State’s DEP, on Dec. 2, 2011, EPA declared that the water in Dimock was safe to drink.  Just over a month later, EPA reversed its position, announcing it would be providing drinking water to some homes while conducting further testing of local private water wells – private water wells which the Agency has no regulatory authority over.  Following the flip-flop, EPA’s testing “did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern.”

What is perhaps most egregious was- to quote Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Michael Krancer – EPA’s “rudimentary” understanding of the facts and history of the region’s water.  Independent geologists and water consultants like Brian Oram have been puzzled by the Agency’s rational for their involvement in Dimock because the substances of greatest concern by EPA are naturally occurring and commonly found in this area ofPennsylvaniayet EPA has chosen this area to attack due to the presence of hydraulic fracturing.

Inhofe Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for answers on Range Resources Debacle in Texas

I have written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson which I sent today asking her for a thorough explanation into the Agency’s actions surrounding the Parker County Texas investigation as well as detailed questions about the science the agency used to justify their emergency order.  I am particularly concerned with this situation given the fact that it is under the watch of EPA Region 6 and Administrator Armendariz.  Keep in mind they waited until Congress was in recess hoping their admission would go unnoticed.

Inhofe Calls for Investigation into EPA Actions inTexas,Wyoming andPennsylvania

Today, I’ve come to the Senate Floor to announce that I am launching an oversight investigation into EPA’s handling of these three cases. Against the backdrop of recent events, and Administrator Armendariz’s admission that EPA is out to crucify natural gas companies, it’s clear that EPA did not base these three studies on sound science or engage in the proper scientific process; the agency has been using questionable authorities while usurping the rightful regulatory authority of states.  EPA clearly went through with these investigations based on preconceived conclusions with the explicit goal of tying potential environmental harms to hydraulic fracturing.

In EPA’s handling of these three cases inTexas,Wyoming and Pennsylvania, I haven’t seen much evidence to counter Armendariz’s statement that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies, so this investigation is clearly needed.  It will hold this administration accountable for what really happened behind the scenes in these matters and I will continue vigilant oversight of any future studies whose findings can be used to inhibitAmericafrom using its vast natural resources.

Two things are clearly incontrovertible.  1) The Obama Administration has done everything it possibly can to destroy domestic production of oil, gas and coal. And 2) the Obama Administration now is successfully carrying out its admitted plan to “boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” and make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”  Fortunately for the American people, they have yet to fully achieve their goal and we have got to stop them. 

 In my opinion,  this administration has not done anything but go against the oil, gas and coal companies to stop use of these products, all in the favor of the so called “Green” companies which have been a Total Failure so far!

Obama’s Fallon Appearance Violated Campaign Law


by Ben Shapiro 10 hours ago 402 post a comment

Last night, President Obama appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s unwatchable show to “slow-jam the news.” By this, Fallon meant that Obama would read a campaign speech about student loans, Fallon would utter a few lines to back him up every so often, and his lead band singer would warble in support of Obama’s propaganda.

Only one problem, aside from the fact that this was possibly the worst “comedy” segment in the history of mankind: it violated campaign finance law.

The equal time rule states that if a licensee permits a person “who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station.”

There are exceptions to the rule: appearances on (1) a bona fide newscast, (2) a bona fide news interview, (3) a bona fide news documentary, or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.

Only the second provision could be construed as saving NBC from giving Mitt Romney equal time. But this was not a bona fide news interview. In fact, it wasn’t an interview at all – no questions were asked, no answers were given. It was literally Obama reading a campaign speech over a guitar, a horn, a keyboard, and some drums.

Not only was this appearance in violation of equal time law, it was clearly an in-kind contribution by NBC to the Obama campaign. As the Federal Elections Commission states, “A donation of services is … considered an in-kind contribution.” Under applicable law, contribution of broadcast time is considered such a service. This was a campaign commercial for Obama, and the Obama campaign was not charged for it. A minute of network time can cost up to a couple million dollars; this segment ran a full five minutes. There is no doubt that Obama was given millions of dollars of free advertising time, and the Romney campaign should invoke all available law to make that clear.

NBC should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Mitt Romney should be given equal time, and an equally sycophantic propaganda piece by Fallon. Obama should be ashamed of himself (though, of course, he has no capacity for shame). 


‘The War on Terror Is Over’

9:29 PM, Apr 23, 2012 • ByDANIEL HALPER

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is grappling with how to handle Islamists, radical adherents to Islam. Particularly, the issue has come to the fore in regards to Egypt, which, as Reuel Marc Gerecht notes, “is now certain” to elect “an Islamist” as its leaders the next time the Egyptian people go to the polls.

But some in the Obama administration are now seeing things differently.

The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” 

If the War is over why are we leaving troops in Afghan for 10 years after a major pullout?

If the War on Terror is over then Dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security! Dismantle the TSA. Revoke the NDAA ACT, revoke the Patroit Act. The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group!


This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that “It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists.”

The National Journal explains:

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama’s savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

For the president himself, this new thinking comes from a “realiz[ation that] he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively ‘moderate’ Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere.”

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” Bush said on November 6, 2001. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us–or not with us, but not quite against us. 



If this is the case then lets shut down the Department of Home Land Security, The TSA, Revoke the NDAA illegal rule by Obama. 


Wednesday, April 25, 2012


Can Obama Safely Embrace Islamists?

By Michael Hirsh

April 23, 2012 | 11:44 AM

In an article in the current National Journal called “The Post Al Qaida Era,” I write that the Obama administration is taking a new view of Islamist radicalism. The president realizes he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively “moderate” Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. (The Muslim Brotherhood officially renounced violence decades ago, leading then-dissident radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri to join al Qaida.)

It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists. “The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”  (In a Tuesday night update to this post, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor clarified that while the “war on terror” concept has been dropped, “we absolutely have never said our war against al Qaida is over. We are prosecuting that war at an unprecedented pace.”

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama’s savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

Some of the smarter hardliners on the Right, like Reuel Marc Gerecht, are coming to realize that the Arab world may find another route to democracy–through Islamism.

The question is, how will this play politically at a time when Obama’s GOP rival, Mitt Romney, is painting the president as a weak accommodationist?

According to a senior advisor to Romney, the campaign is still formulating how to approach the new cuddle-up approach to Islamists. But the spectacle of an administration that is desperately trying to catch up to the fast-evolving new world of the Mideast fits into the Romney narrative of a president who  “has been outmatched by events,” the adviser said. “Obama came to power with a view of the region that would make progress in the Arab world and get the Iranians back to the table. He would deal with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and the key to that was dealing with settlements. Instead it’s been chaos.”

The president may have no choice but to preside over chaos at this point–a chaos that may not be the disaster that critics say and may in fact be the Arab world’s only path to modernity — but it won’t play well in the seven months between now and election day.



If Even Some Of This Is True, Obama Is So Much More Dangerous Than We Thought

Special Thanks to :

April 24, 2012 By George Spelvin

Years of living dangerously off of the U.S.taxpayers’ dime have certainly served the Obama-Dunham family well, according to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen.  Nevertheless, the downside forAmericais the Islamazation of Africa andAsiain a remarkable example of unintended consequences of foreign entanglements gone bad- very bad, indeed.

Wayne Madsen 32 page pdf file is opening up a Pandora’s Box of American foreign aid money dispensed wildly and broadly overseas.  The reporter cites American dollars intended to buy starving villagers rice actually going to finance foreign military weapons purchases for various wars, conflicts, and insurgencies.   Our tax dollars earned through the hard work and sweat equity have not been used to our benefit but rather to further the  Islamazation of these continents which is now almost complete.

The very aims and actions of politicians, faceless bureaucrats, and foreign service operatives (both covertly and not covertly) have come back to biteAmericaat a time when our own citizens are suffering through economic trouble.  The investigative reporter’s dogged pursuit of the Obama-Dunham family odyssey in places from Jakarta to Jalalabad, and from the Ford Foundation to the Oval Office, makes for fascinating reading:  But how to verify it?

Rumors abound that Madsen has grown so fearful for his life that he has broken up with a long time companion and left the country.   A noted author and syndicated columnist, Madsen’s reports have been widely circulated.  He is the author of “Genocide and Covert Operations inAfrica” and “Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates.”

A picture of Stanley Ann Dunham “visiting a Balinese duck farm officially as part of her work to secure bank loans for small businesses” is included in the five-part report of international intrigue and American dollars. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s father Peter Geithner acted as the Ford Foundation’s grant selector for projects inIndonesia, and President Obama’s mother worked for or with him as Madsen reports.

The report’s dizzying array of abbreviations, acronyms, NGO’s, and many other groups obfuscate duties, dollars, and destinies.

What a labyrinth to wade through!  Lost in all of this overseas stewpot are the unsuspecting U.S.citizens who pay for everything. But where is Madsen now?  Is all of what he says true?  He filed communiqués from the Obama Korean summit recently, that much we know, but is he safe?

What really is apropriate here is the admonishment of George Washington who warned Americain his Farewell Address delivered to our new nation on 17 September 1796. Washington said, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a republican government.”

Could any of our politicians look into the eyes ofAmerica’s founder and say they have followed his advice when it comes to foreign aid? Mightily served by our founding fathers,Americahas been miserably served by her politicians!

Now men are victims of military sex assaults

Male-on-male attacks up since repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’


Published: 56 mins ago

by Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.


While the full picture remains far from clear, signs of the ill effects of the Democrat-initiated law allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual preference are beginning to appear.

The newest reports, for Fiscal Year 2011, have just come out, and Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, immediately noted that sexual misbehavior is on the rise.

She cited the 515 rapes, 414 aggravated sexual assaults and 349 forcible sodomies documented by just the Criminal Investigation Command in 2011.

“Pentagon officials regularly praise their own work and proclaim undeserved ‘success,’ even though evidence of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, continues to accelerate, year after year,” she said.

“It is time to reconsider and change flawed policies that are weakening the culture of the only military we have.”

In December 2010, Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy established by President Clinton that allowed homosexuals to remain in the military on the condition they not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle.

The new law, for first time in U.S. history, allows homosexual members to openly acknowledge their sexual choices.

Among the details in the reports: While, since 2006, 5 percent of the violent sexual assaults have been against men, recent reports now put that figure at 12 to 14 percent.

The Army said it is “currently monitoring same-gender sex crime for a potential increase in forcible sodomy and other sex offenses related to the disassociation of homosexuality from the crime itself.”

Non-consensual sodomy attacks for fiscal 2011 totaled 7 percent of the nearly 2,500 attacks cited on one military report.

In several cases “the victim ceased cooperating with the military justice proceeding and the subjects were given no judicial punishment for consensual sodomy.”

Other case descriptions included:

  • “Male victim alleged that male subjects groped him through clothing and attempted sodomy with a broom handle.”
  • “Male victim alleged that male subject performed oral sodomy on him in bar bathroom while he was passing in and out of consciousness from drinking.
  • “Male victim alleged that the male subject, National Guard soldier, took out his penis, and straddled his thigh in the motor poll while in Iraq.”

One of the reports said 9 percent of the victims claimed to be victims of “non-consensual sodomy.”

The more than 700 pages of the compiled reports, however, did not mention homosexuality.

Donnelly told WND that the statistics show a more than 20 percent increase in reported sexual assaults on males.

And she said researchers specifically announced plans to track numbers to monitor the increase, since “this category of homosexual conduct no longer is illegal.”

“It’s way too soon,” she said, to come to definitive conclusions. But she said the “numbers have gone way up.”

She said the military’s efforts to deal with the complications of women in the ranks, which have been around for years, as well as the new issues of open homosexuality, are failing.

“What they need to do is get rid of gender-integrated basic training,” she said. “That conclusions was drawn that it did [increase] and still is increasing disciplinary issues.”

“If you don’t learn the basics of discipline [in basic training], it won’t happen later,” she said.

Donnelly’s organization just released its policy analysis drawing information from the Army “Gold Book” report on wartime personnel stress, the most recent annual report of the Defense Department Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office, and a 2010 report on ship captain firings from the Navy.

“Both the Army ‘Gold Book’ released in January and the Defense Department SAPRO report released last Friday hid the bad news in plain sight. Instead of reconsidering social policies known to increase disturbing disciplinary problems, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with costly, time-wasting programs that are not working,” she warned.

She said teams of professional sexual assault response counselors, untold hours of mandatory training, preemptive punishments, bureaucracy, conferences, meetings and feel-good gimmicks have produced:

  • A hike of 22 percent since 2007 in the sexual assaults in all branches
  • A doubling since 2006 of the number of violent attacks and rapes in the Army, from 663 in 2006 to 1,313 last year
  • A “chilling trend” of violent sex crimes rising at the rate of 14.6 percent annually, “and the rate is accelerating”
  • A 28 percent increase in the offense rate and a 20 percent increase in offenders from 2006-2011 in sex crimes in the active-duty Army
  • A jump in male sexual assault victims from 10 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in confidential reports for 2011
  • The need to fire senior enlisted Navy officers at the rate of nearly two per month because of sexual misconduct.

Donnelly explained the problem has been developing for some time. She cited the 1997 recommendation from the Kassebaum-Baker Commission for the Army to end the gender-integrated basic training, because it was “resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training.”

But the advice was ignored, she said.

And Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, even while noting that the military branch experiences three sexual assaults every day, called for observance of a “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” that included “adult interactive plays.”

“Despite tangible evidence of failure, the same officials expect free-rein to implement policies that would worsen the situation. On Feb. 9, 2012, Pentagon briefers announced their intent to promote ‘diversity’ by incrementally implementing controversial recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” she said.

The report said, “More than 20 years ago, male and female naval aviators partied wildly at the 1991 post-Persian Gulf War Tailhook convention in Las Vegas. The highly publicized scandal ruined the careers of hundreds of officers.”

Now, “we are starting to see a military resembling Jenga Blocks – a table-top tower constructed of smooth wooden planks,” the report continued. “Players remove planks from the bottom of the tower and load them on the top, destabilizing the structure until it buckles and falls. In the same way, severe budget cuts combined with social burdens loaded on top could irreparably weaken the culture and strength of our military.”

The report said the next White House administration, to minimize damage and reverse course, should “put the needs of the military above ‘diversity metrics.’” And the military should reinforce core values and policies that are known to reinforce personal discipline, it said.

Basic training also needs to be separate for genders, women should be exempt from direct ground combat units, and military policies should be “based on reality, not ‘social fiction.’”

CMR has reported previously on the manipulation of government data that contributed to the Obama campaign to remove the ban on open homosexuality. It cited an inspector general’s report marked “For Official Use Only” that said numbers were combined to present the image that members of the military approved of Obama’s plan for open homosexuality.

It was the military’s original and now-suspect report that famously was quoted as affirming “70 percent” of the nation’s military members believe the repeal of the long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” practice of allowing homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual lifestyle choices to themselves would have either “a neutral or positive impact on unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness and morale.”

However, the IG in documents uncovered by Donnelly revealed the actual figures for military members were: those who believed the change would impact units “very positively” (6.6 percent), “positively” (11.8 percent), “mixed” (32.1 percent), “negatively” (18.7 percent), “very negatively” (10.9 percent) and “no effect” (19.9 percent).

The only way the 70 percent figure can be reached is to combine “very positively,” “positively,” “mixed” and “no effect.” But this combination counts people with “neutral positions” as favoring the change, Donnelly argued.

Donnelly explained that taking the same figures and lumping them on the other side with “negatively” and “very negatively” would produce a total of almost 82 percent of the soldiers who believe the results of the change would be “negative or neutral.”

The IG report uncovered by Donnelly said exactly that:

We considered that the primary source’s likely pro-repeal sentiment was further demonstrated by his/her inclusion of the key 70 percent figure in the information provided to the Washington Post. … Had [the source] desired to further an anti-repeal bias for the article, he/she could likewise have combined four results categories from that same survey question to conclude that “82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect.”

The Thomas More Law Center announced a federal FOIA lawsuit against the Navy, seeking to obtain records that are expected to show intentional deception by the Pentagon “to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

The lawsuit is based on the IG report obtained by Donnelly, “which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality.”

Erin Mersino, the attorney handling the blockbuster case, said the organization already has tried to obtain information.

“The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” she said.

In one side effect that rebounded on the White House, a Senate committee, in an attempt to ensure the law conforms to the new policy, voted to repeal the ban in the military on bestiality, an issue that White House press secretary Jay Carney didn’t consider a serious question.

The Senate quickly backtracked when its vote was revealed.

WND previously reported on CMR’s uncovering of the Inspector General’s report.

That documents how the co-chairman of the commission working on the assessment of the impact on the military, Jeh Johnson, “read portions of ‘an early draft’ of the executive summary … to a former news anchor, a close personal friend visiting Mr. Johnson’s home” three days before service members even were given the survey.

“Contrary to most news accounts, the ‘Comprehensive Review Working Group’ process was not a ‘study,’” Donnelly told WND. “Its purpose was to circumvent and neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law.”

She described the study “was a publicly funded pre-scripted production put on just for show.”

“The … report, completed on April 8, 2011, reveals improper activities and deception that misled members of Congress in order ‘to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the November 2, 2010, elections,’” she wrote.

Donnelly explained that days before the survey was distributed, Johnson “was seeking advice from a ‘former news anchor’ on how to write the report’s executive summary more ‘persuasively.’”

Further, “The DoD IG report concluded that someone who ‘had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue’ and ‘likely a pro-repeal agenda’ violated security rules and leaked selected, half-true information to the Washington Post,” she explained.

Within days of the military’s repeal of its ban on open homosexuality, two members of Congress pointed out that the Department of Defense had failed to fulfill its obligations to prepare for the change.

The letter was from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., the chairman of the personnel subcommittee.

It was addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose media office declined to respond to a WND request for comment.



An $8 billion trick?

Toying with Medicare to fix elex


Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.

The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.

That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years.

Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests.

Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs.

A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project.

Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them.

If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Now that is some serious audacity.

Your Tax-Free Nest Egg May Not Be Tax-Free After All

 Posted 07:15 PM ET

Duplicity: More than 30 years ago, lawmakers made a deal with Americans: Set up a retirement nest egg and we’ll let you fill it with tax-free money. A financially troubled Washington now plans to break its word.

Nothing brought ordinary Americans into the world of investing like 401(k)s. Named after a subsection of the Internal Revenue Code, these retirement savings accounts have become a wildly popular alternative to traditional employer pensions, and are today owned by a sizeable majority of Americans at or near retirement.

Through 401(k)s, an employee — not the company he or she works for — decides just how aggressive or cautious he wants to be with money set aside for the autumnal years. Employers usually offer a series of stock, bond and money market investment funds, allowing a worker to choose and mix as he or she likes.

Not only would Americans see their own retirement accounts grow as the years passed, but they could rest easy knowing that the interest earned in their 401(k) won’t be taxed before withdrawal at retirement time — or, in the case of the after-tax dollars in a Roth 401(k), that their money can be withdrawn tax-free.

But it’s not the ’80s anymore. It’s 2012 and there are trillion-dollar-plus deficits to deal with, more than $15.6 trillion in outstanding government debt, and total U.S. unfunded liabilities of more than $65 trillion. Time for politicians to start looking for new sources of revenue.

No one should be surprised that Uncle Sam’s wandering eye has noticed the $18 trillion in 401(k) accounts and other middle-class tax breaks, as the New York Post alerted its readers to over the weekend.

Rather than the current $50,000, Congress is considering limiting employer-employee 401(k) contributions to 20% of an employee’s salary up to a ceiling of $20,000, an idea dubbed the “20/20” plan. Even voters without 20/20 vision will quickly see it as another promise broken by a political culture whose spending has reached the level of insanity.

The Post also interviewed Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center co-director William Gale, whose idea of replacing all tax deductions on 401(k)s and IRAs with an 18% credit sent straight into everyone’s retirement account is also being considered within Congress.

Under the Gale system, “contributions to IRAs would no longer be tax-deductible and any contributions to a 401(k) plan would be treated as taxable income,” Gale told the Post. Gale promised that the credit would “increase revenues by about $458 billion” for the federal government.

Obama decision to send troops to Uganda comes under new scrutiny

By John T. Bennett and Daniel Strauss – 10/26/11 05:15 AM ET

WHY is he sending our troops to Africa?

President Obama’s decision to send 100 troops to Uganda is coming under new scrutiny now that soldiers are on their way to Africa.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle at a Tuesday hearing questioned the decision, with some suggesting it could draw the United Statesss into a long conflict.

“The United States cannot afford to pay the price to win everyone’s freedom across the world,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who pointed to the nearly $1 billion cost to Washington of the recent Libya military intervention.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) was skeptical that U.S. troops would actually just be training and equipping Ugandan and other allied forces, saying that proved not to be the case in Vietnam.

A senior Pentagon official told a House panel Tuesday that the U.S. military deployment would not be open-ended.

“We will not go on indefinitely,” Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow told House Foreign Affairs Committee members. “We will pull back, and we hope [regional allied forces] will be able to continue with this training and finish the job.”

Obama has cited the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act as providing support for his decision to send troops to Uganda.

The House had approved the measure by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent last year. Both procedures are generally used for legislation that is considered non-controversial.

Obama’s announcement of a new intervention in Africa surprised many political observers, triggering criticism from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and former Rep. Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” who on an almost daily basis since the announcement has slammed Obama for starting a new war announced in a Friday letter to Congress.

But the legislation underpinning the president’s decision has received considerably less attention.

While the measure did not explicitly call for troops to be sent to Africa, it said it would be U.S. policy to provide political, economic, military and intelligence support for “viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, and to remove” army leader Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield.

Some conservative Republicans who support the measure said no one in Congress should be surprised by Obama’s decision.

“I would say that unlike Libya, which was basically sprung on Congress in a pretty short manner, this is something Congress has been aware of for a number of years,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the Armed Services Committee who supports the action in Uganda.

“I think members can’t say they were totally surprised,” Sessions added.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a lead sponsor of the Senate measure, said it had broad, bipartisan support.

“We had 64 co-sponsors,” Inhofe told The Hill on Thursday. “That’s the most in the history of the Senate on an Africa-related bill.”

Inhofe said Obama didn’t have to send troops to Uganda because of the legislation, but that Congress has full responsibility for the decision.

“I would have been disappointed” had Obama opted against sending U.S. troops there, Inhofe said. “It’s not that we mandated the president to act; we requested him to do it. I take full responsibility for that. I don’t hang that on the president at all.”

During a recent interview on ABC, Obama cited broad “bipartisan support” for his efforts in Uganda, but that has not silenced critics on Capitol Hill.

“I worry that with the best of intentions, that somehow we get engaged in a commitment that we can’t get out of,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued in comments earlier this month on CNN.

“That’s happened before in our history and we need an explanation, and I’m very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action,” he said.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) told The Hill: “I have grave reservations about opening up a new front based upon all the things that we’re doing right now.”

Worries that military advisers will be drawn into conflict came out during Tuesday’s hearing.

Under questioning from Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Vershbow acknowledged that the mission could lead to Kony being “captured or killed.”

Committee members from both parties expressed skepticism about whether U.S. forces would be able to stay out of the fighting between Uganda-allied forces and the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Vershbow and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto were frank in saying the administration could not give Congress such guarantees.

That’s because the deployment is different from other so-called “train-and-equip” missions that American forces conduct routinely, as it will send U.S. troops “into the field,” sometimes “at the platoon level,” to assist allied forces, Vershbow said.

That will put American troops close to the front lines. State and Pentagon officials explained that this is why they will be sent to central Africa “combat equipped,” in case they must defend themselves.



Operation Fast and Furious was arrested and released three times. THREE TIMES.

by MARY CHASTAIN 1 day ago

Yesterday FOX News revealed that the main suspect of Operation Fast and Furious was arrested and released three times. THREE TIMES. Two of those arrests happened in Phoenix, the origin of Fast and Furious.

FOX News showed a video of Manuel Celis-Acosta firing 10 rounds from a 45 caliber handgun purchased illegally by his accomplice Sean Stewart. But unfortunately it took the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry to end the operation.

“We could have taken him in and prosecuted him anytime. It’s either total incompetence. Or maybe it’s something a bit more coordinated that the Department of Justice is not willing to talk about yet,” Representative Jason Chaffetz told Fox News.

Congressional investigators think Justice doesn’t want to talk about Mr. Acosta’s possible role as an informant. Here’s the timeline FOX provides to prove why:

Fast & Furious started in October 2009. Mr. Acosta was first arrested in April 2010 in Phoenix with cocaine and handguns hidden in his truck. He was released and not charged. Then, in May 2010, immigration stopped him from crossing the border because he had 74 rounds of ammunition hidden his car. According to The LA Times  the top Fast and Furious investigator, Special Agent Hope MacAllister, put her phone number on a $10 bill and gave it to Mr. Acosta after he pledged to cooperate and keep in touch. But, of course, he didn’t.

Released and no charges.

In October 2010 they caught him on tape in the shootout by a surveillance camera attached to a telephone pole. The police found 15 shell casings. Mr. Acosta is arrested again. He is also released….again.

The Phoenix police say they did forward both cases to the county attorney’s office. There were no charges the first time, but the second time he was held on charges of illegally discharging a firearm within city limits.

Sources told FOX News they think after the October incident they didn’t want to take him out of the equation because it would have harmed their case. This is when he probably officially became an informant and protected by the government.


Counterfeit military parts from China a ‘clear and present danger,’ senators say

By John T. Bennett – 11/08/11 03:46 PM ET


WHY are our parts being made by our enemies? Why did our presidents or Congress allow this?

Senate Armed Services Committee leaders are fashioning a plan that would force the Defense Department to step up efforts to prevent counterfeit parts from being used on U.S. military platforms.

The panel said a probe it launched in March has uncovered what senators of both parties labeled alarming evidence that most of the counterfeit components come from China, America’s top economic and military competitor.

“During the course of the committee’s investigation, virtually every one of the dozens of people our investigators have spoken with — from defense contractors to semiconductor manufacturers to electronic component brokers — has pointed to China,” committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Tuesday.

The Senate panel’s probe determined the “city of Shenzhen in Guangdong Province, as the primary source of counterfeit electronic parts,” Levin said.

Government auditors and industry officials said “criminal enterprises” inside China often strip electronic components off decades-old computer systems, then doctor them to resemble new parts. Those counterfeit items are then purchased by firms that supply such niche components to major defense contractors that work on U.S. military systems.

The counterfeit parts — usually designed for commercial purposes — often are unfit for intense military use, meaning they can fail and render the platform in which they have been placed inoperable.

Such a situation quickly can become “a life-and-death” matter for American troops, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said during a hearing. Levin called unreliable fake parts inside military systems “a clear and present danger” and a “threat to our troops.”

The counterfeit part issue also comes with a financial angle because when an unreliable fake component fails or is detected before use, DoD must buy yet another replacement component — doubling the price to replace pricey items like electronics parts.

Many of the components for which counterfeit parts are passed off are no longer produced, but are part of U.S. military platforms. Fake parts have been found on workhorse military platforms like a variant of the C-130 aircraft, an F/A-18E/F fighter, a V-22 tilt rotor aircraft and a nuclear attack submarine.

While out of mass production, these components sometimes fail, and the Pentagon goes shopping for replacements. Enter what Brian Toohey, Semiconductor Industry Association president, called Chinese “criminal enterprises” that pass off fake parts as those components.

To combat what the Senate panel and several industry officials call a growing trend, Levin said he and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to offer an amendment to the upper chamber’s Defense authorization bill with a plan to clamp down on the flow of fake parts into the defense supply chain.

The envisioned Levin-McCain plan likely would, if included in a final version of the bill, mandate that the Pentagon put in place a new certification process that would scrutinize the suppliers of components for military systems, Levin said.

It also would replicate aspects of existing inspection programs for agricultural items — with a specific order to closely examine items coming from China, Levin said.

“This has been going on for too long,” Levin said.

Both chambers of Congress should approve the coming amendment because “we can’t rely on the Chinese to do anything about this.”

Levin and McCain hinted the Pentagon authorization bill could be on the Senate floor before Thanksgiving.

The SASC leaders also want military hardware contracts written in a way that would force weapon manufacturers to foot the bill for all costs of replacing fake parts that they failed to detect before they were placed on combat platforms.

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) chief Lt. Patrick O’Reilly told the panel his organization found 800 fake parts on one missile interceptor system, and paid over $2 million to replace them.

Levin gave MDA high marks for moves it has made on counterfeit parts, asking O’Reilly to provide the panel data on its supplier certification system and a contracting tactic it uses to place the burden for replacing bad parts on contractors.


Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes


Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes

Nice of these Folks so you don’t agree with them then they should BURN your homes nice coming from the left wingnuts!

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 19, 2012

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

As we have profusely documented, as polls show that fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.

Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.’s Mark Morano is encouraging AGW skeptics to politely inform Steve Zwick ( that calling for people who express a difference of opinion to be tracked and have their houses burned down is not a rational argument for the legitimacy of man-made global warming science.

Indeed, it’s the argument of a demented idiot who’s obviously in the throws of a childish tantrum over the fact that Americans are rejecting the global government/carbon tax agenda for which man-made global warming is a front in greater numbers than ever before.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

U.N. now invading your home


Look out! U.N. now invading your home

Warning says this is coming even over owner’s objections


By Kevin DeAnna

Brian Sussman, author of “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” is warning that the federal government and the United Nations are teaming up to control energy usage in American homes.


Sussman, who also wrote the blockbuster “Climategate,” says the move could lead to citizens losing the freedom even to run their appliances as they wish.

The first step in the plan is the installation of “smart meters,” which are being introduced by power utilities nationwide. Unlike traditional spinning wheel electric meters, smart meters allow the power utilities to measure energy usage minute by minute.

The Federal Energy Act of 2005, signed by George W. Bush, mandated that power utilities offer “each of its customer classes … a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods.”

However, power utilities have begun pushing the installation of smart meters even without a customer’s request. As Sussman documents in “Climategate,” the energy company PG&E pushed the new meters on customers by saying that it would allow the company to collect data “without setting foot on your property and interrupting your schedule.”

The utility did not mention that the innovation would potentially lead to increased prices during peak hours and detailed tracking of each home’s energy usage, “Climategate” reveals.

More importantly, some utilities have begun installing the smart meters over the objections of customers, leading to several legal battles.

While some state courts have ruled that customers should be allowed to opt-out, others have allowed utilities to force consumers to accept the more invasive smart meters.

Nor does the new technology end with increased prices. Sussman reports that the Energy Act of 2005 also permitted the construction of the SmartGrid, “a national interest transmission corridor designated by the [Energy] Secretary.”

As documented in “Climategate” with a memo from the Congressional Research Service, the purpose of the SmartGrid is to track “information from a customer’s meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats and appliances and other devices, and back to the utility.”

As mentioned in the congressional brief, the SmartGrid will also include the Programmable Communication Thermostat and the Home Area Network. The two technologies will allow utility companies to shut off appliances remotely.

The “improvements” were generally not implemented because of cost considerations, but the federal government stepped in to “solve” the problem, Sussman argues.

In the 2009 stimulus bill, the federal government authorized $16.8 billion in direct spending by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency, an additional $4.5 billion to upgrade to the nation’s grid and at least $2.8 billion for installing broadband.

The 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act also contained federally mandated energy-efficient building regulations that supersede all local and state codes. The law will be enforced by federal regulators funded by energy taxes and $25 million from the Department of Energy “to provide necessary enforcement of a national efficiency building code.”

All of this is being done at the behest of the United Nations and its Agenda 21.

As Sussman documents in “Eco-Tyranny,” Agenda 21 is a global effort by international elites to deliberately raise energy prices and change consumption patterns.

It states, “Achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require… changes in consumption patterns. Governments themselves [can] also play a role in [determining] consumption… and can have a considerable influence on both corporate decisions and public perceptions.”

As part of the effort to “determine consumption,” Agenda 21 mandated “Demand Response Technology,” or the SmartGrid.

Sussman explained in an exclusive interview with WND , “This is critically important because one of the main objectives of Agenda 21 is to lessen the ‘carbon footprint’ of individual consumers. By tying in a federally mandated SmartGrid that can track every person’s energy usage to a global agenda of reduced consumption, Americans will have even lost the right even watch the television or do the laundry when they want.”

In an appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight Thursday, Sussman restated that “Eco-Tyranny” “is about control, not about the environment.”



Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution…” Pen Johannson —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-.

Friday, March 23, 2012


IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

By Dan Crosby

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr. The table below shows there were a total of 13 children of U.S. citizens who entered the U.S. from Africa’s Kenyan region. It also shows there were 11 from the United Kingdom in the same time in comparison, to demonstrate the consistency of this class of arrivals, regardless of the country of embarkation.
These children were classified by the INS upon arrival based on a passport which already named them when they departed from the U.S. prior, or they received requisite documentation, pre-approved by the U.S. before embarkation, which identified them specifically as children of U.S. citizens who were up to 18 years old.

However, a child who enters the U.S. who was not named on a passport prior to the use of that passport to depart the U.S. must undergo another form of identification process upon returning. A child who did not exist when the parent departed the U.S., in the absence of a passport, must be classified as one of three definitions, a non-resident alien, a derived citizen by parentage or marriage, or a child with acquired citizenship by birth or legal adoption by a U.S. citizen. The following table shows the quantity of children who were granted acquired citizenship from Africa.

Also supporting this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s, but which was said by State Department officials to have been conveniently discarded as a part of an administrative order to make more file storage space in the 1980s.

We know Dunham used a passport at that time on at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.

Successive yearly reports add COC recipients to their roster for births in previous years as applicants receive those certificates for the year they were born. Table 48 shows the total COCs issued in that year (larger number on the left for each region under “Total”) for those born under past years’ columns. The quantity of recipients with births in each year tend to peak in the fourth year after the birth, according to the report.

COCs are more rarely issued in the same year unless the U.S. citizen parent returns to the U.S. more immediately after the birth. Obviously, the sooner U.S. citizen parent(s) return with their children born abroad, the sooner they would receive the COC after the birth. However, very few COCs (about one in 80) are issued to children the same year the report is published because most children born abroad to U.S. parent(s) don’t return to the U.S. for three to five years, according to the report data.

COC delivery is also often delayed while the circumstances of the birth abroad are confirmed for older births who might apply for retroactive COC. However, when a newborn or very young child enters the U.S. bearing a foreign birth registration from an official medical facility or institution identifying the citizen parent, a COC is able to be expedited based on the registration form, the parent(s) testimony and inspection of the child by the INS. In those cases, a COC may be delivered in days, not months or years.

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.

A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:

– born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
– born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
– born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
– adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
– The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
– Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
– The child was still under 18 years of age; and
– The child was not married; and
– The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
– If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
– The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody).

There is yet other historical documented evidence supporting the plausibility that Ann Dunham possessed a birth registration for Obama Jr. from Kenya. In 2009, divorce decree documents for Dunham and Obama Sr. revealed that a conspicuously missing page from the section of the court proceedings declaring the custody of Obama Jr. is the same page which corresponds to other divorce records where a birth certificate would be required by a judge in order to determine original parentage at birth for a custody ruling based on HRS 571.

As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. It was documented that Obama Sr’s father, living in Kenya at the time, denounced the marriage leaving the couple with a reconciliatory reason to travel there.

Following the completion of her classes at the University of Hawaii in winter 1961, the only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence was months after the alleged marriage, in late August 1961. A transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961 was discovered in 2009.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of African students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and Kenyan politician, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.

However, the INS report appears to fail to account for 13 other passengers which were reported as members of the AASF transport from Kenya. The AASF Report states there were 295 passengers aboard the flights, not 282.

Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

It should noted that the AASF sent more than 800 students to the United States via the Airlift Project from East Africa in the early 1960s. Some of the student are not accounted by the 1961-1962 Immigration report as having departed from Kenya in the third airlift transport in fall of 1961. However, several of these students attended the University of Chicago where it has been widely speculated they had expenses paid for by six separate U.S. families including the family of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of domestic terrorist and long-time Obama affiliate, Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on the Annenberg Education Project Fund board for almost 10 years.

Recent testimony from a retired postal worker who delivered mail to the Ayers’ Glen Ellyn, Chicago residence collaborates with AASF report accounts and indicates the Ayers may have a longer history of supporting foreign exchange students than initially suspected. Barack Obama II, was likely one of these foreign students supported by the Ayers in the late 1980s which would explain his engagement to serve with Ayers on the Annenberg Fund board, perhaps as appreciation for the Ayers’ help.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.

Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: