Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Desperate Matters Call For Desperate Measures




We have no-doubt seen the many articles calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, this is yet another one. I have observed many violations and have listed my reasons here for you rate my assessment of this criminal in office.


President Barack Obama has ran the most criminal and corrupt administrations in modern history and  is guilty of numerous high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant his removal from office, that's why I have proposed seven specific articles of impeachment for which the evidence is very clear.


The case for impeachment is solid, although I don't believe there is enough political will in the country to move forward at this time.

I offer seven indictments, beginning with “The President’s Willful Refusal to Execute the Laws Faithfully and Usurpation of the Legislative Authority of Congress.” Within this article, I'll cite Obama’s illegal and unilateral changing of federal statutes, from several components within Obamacare to scrapping codified welfare work requirements to amending immigration laws and enacting policies Congress did not approve.


I also allege that Obama failed to execute laws ranging from layoff notifications to the Clean Air Act to nuclear waste and Medicare.There’s a simple reason why I  put these allegations first, what you always want to have in the indictment is one count that’s pretty much indefensible.


I think even the president’s most ardent admirers would have to admit that he does not execute the laws faithfully, which is one of the most important duties that he has in the Constitution. The president is the only officer in our government who is required by the Constitution to take an oath to faithfully execute the laws and preserve the Constitution.

We have a president who is very arbitrary about laws. He enforces some. He doesn’t enforce others. He’s selective. He rewrites them. He presumes to be able to decree federal benefits. A lot of people may like that on the hard left because it’s basically implementing their ideological program. But I think most people, if they’re of good faith, have to admit that he’s not following the law.


Obama’s failure to faithfully enforce immigration laws also appears in the fifth article, specifically referring to the president’s unilateral conferring of amnesty upon certain groups of immigrants and fighting states that seek to enforce federal immigration laws on their own. Immigration is also mentioned in another article on defrauding the American people, in which the administration deliberately misleads the public on its border enforcement record. There is a very good reason for the heavy focus on immigration, because I think it’s so blatant. The president has taken the position that he can write the immigration law himself. He’s tried to go the constitutional route. He’s tried to go to Congress. He hasn’t gotten what he’s wanted. What he says in those instances is that, ‘If Congress won’t act, I will.’ Constitutionally, it’s not that Congress won’t act. They’ve said no. His response to that is to become imperious and try to impose his own program and do it in a way that not only disregarding of the Constitution’s separation of powers but also is an insult to the sovereignty of the states.

Other articles of impeachment on my list, include “Usurping the Constitutional Authority and Prerogatives of Congress” for not getting congressional authorization for extended military action in Libya and making recess appointments at a time when the Senate was not in recess, and dereliction of duty as commander in chief. The latter charge focuses on crippling rules of engagement that makes U.S. troops much more vulnerable and more unlikely to complete their missions. I also sees impeachable offenses on this front in the recent prisoner swap that allowed five key Taliban figures to go free from Guantanamo in exchange for captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl. I’m not impressed by the one that seems to have everybody whipped up in Washington, this 30-day notification requirement. I think that’s of dubious constitutionality. I actually think Obama has a pretty good argument on that statute because it really does try to restrict his core constitutional authority as commander in chief.

It seems to be quite beside the point when we have a commander in chief who is replenishing the enemy in wartime when the enemy is still on the battlefield conducting offensive, jihadist operations against our guys. That’s about as shocking a dereliction of duty as anyone can imagine. Another article of impeachment against Obama is for fraud perpetrated against the American people. The allegations under that charge focus on the core promises of Obamacare that Americans could keep their health plans and doctors. I also cite Obama for going into Libya under the premise of averting genocide and always intending to depose Muammar Gadhafi, blaming the 2012 Benghazi attacks on a video long after the truth was known, facilitating Iran’s nuclear program while publicly vowing to stop it and propping up the green energy firm Solyndra with taxpayer dollars in a way that deceived investors. Another article calls for impeachment based on the Justice Department’s alleged failure to execute the laws faithfully. That indictment centers on the illegal monitoring of reporters, the Fast and Furious gun-running operation politicizing the hiring process at the Justice Department and unequally applying civil rights laws.


On matters such as Benghazi, the Justice Department’s actions and even the IRS scrutiny of conservatives, it is still unclear what Obama knew and if he had an active role in those issues, it doesn’t matter.

In the system the framers gave us, it was very important to them that the president be accountable. If you look at the Constitution carefully, you’d find that all the executive power in the government is invested in one person. It is not endowed in this vast array of executive agencies. It is singularly the president who is responsible. It’s not what Hillary Clinton does or Susan Rice does or Eric Holder or Eric Shinseki or any of the people who have become infamous over the past five- and-a-half years. All those facts are attributable to the president, the founding fathers would have little patience with the Obama administration’s frequent explanation that the president did not know or approve of any wrongdoing.


My final article accuses Obama of undermining the constitutional rights of the American people, from the IRS harassment of conservatives applying for nonprofit status to his refusal to classify the Fort Hood massacre as an act of terrorism to infringing on religious freedom through the contraception and abortifacient mandate and eroding gun rights through the United Nations. However, I've reserved  some special frustration for Obama’s efforts to stifle criticism of Islam in the public square and disassembling the first amendment.


From the first days of Obama’s presidency in 2009 with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, that’s this cabal of 57 Islamic government including the Palestinian Authority, they’ve been working on a resolution to curtail American free speech rights in deference to Shariah blasphemy standards. They have essentially struck a human-rights resolution that makes it unlawful to engage in expression that could incite hostility to their cult like religion. Of course, there’s only one religion we’re talking about in this context. Proving that there is an Obama administration mandate that attacks religious liberty, it’s not difficult to prove these things have happened, and it’s hard to prove these are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Are they serious enough? Does the public think this is egregious enough to remove the president from power? If not, then our way of life and freedom are forever gone, but if so, then we must act to save this, the greatest republic to have ever come into existence and impeach this cancer we call president.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

# Two Million Less...




What’s the single most important issue facing the country today? According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans says it’s jobs.

We need more of them, Millions more. But thanks to the policies of Barack Obama, we’re not getting them. In fact, just the opposite is true. Recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office reveal how two of the President’s pet programs will cost this country millions of jobs. They make very grim reading for anyone concerned about the employment picture in America.

The first report dealt with the impact of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that as the Affordable Care Act becomes fully implemented, some 2 million Americans will either leave the workforce or substantially reduce the number of hours they work. The reason is simple: They won’t want to lose the subsidies for their health insurance. But that’s what will happen as their earnings increase, either because they work more hours or get a higher-paying jobs.

The Obamacare insurance subsidies are gradually reduced as a person’s income rises. In other words, as the CBO report puts it, Obamacare is really “an implicit tax on additional earnings.”

The White House immediately put its own enthusiastic spin on the CBO’s projected job loss. Believe it or not, it said this was really good news, because it meant that many people would finally have the freedom to stay home with their children or maybe start their own businesses. Yep, the Obama Administration said we should all be happy about the loss of 2 million jobs because it meant that “Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods and have the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Sure thing. That “dream” no doubt helps explain why nearly 50 million Americans have signed up to collect food stamps. Welcome to the Obama's version of the American dream which is rapidly becoming the American nightmare for those of us who have to pay the taxes to keep the shell game going.

The employment picture is already pretty grim, with the lowest labor-participation rate since the 1970's. The way the Feds like to count, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is now less than 7 percent, a finding that led to all sorts of back-patting and self-congratulations from the White House. But of course, “the way the Feds like to count” is as crooked as a corkscrew. As soon as someone stops looking for work, he is no longer counted among the unemployed. So while the Bureau of Labor Statistics sees only 10 million unemployed Americans, the reality is that there are another 92 million Americans — more than nine times that number — who don’t have jobs. Some of them don’t need or want to work, of course. They may be retirees or stay-at-home moms. The number also includes full-time students, the disabled and anyone else who doesn’t need a job. But even after making every possible allowance, it’s clear that the real unemployment number in this country is considerably higher than the government’s official figure.

The second bit of bad news for the Democrats concerned their campaign to increase the minimum wage by almost 50 percent. They want it raised from $7.25 an hour, where it is now, to $10.10 I’ll leave aside for now the whole question of whether the Federal government has any business setting wages in this country or whether it has the Constitutional authority to do so. Of course it doesn’t. But the three branches of government haven’t agreed with me on this one since 1938, when the first law was passed by Congress establishing a Federal minimum wage.

Now comes a report from the CBO estimating that raising the minimum wage to more than $10 could cost anywhere from half-a-million to a million jobs According to the Labor Department, about 3.6 million Americans earned $7.25 an hour or less in 2012, the latest year for which numbers are available. Almost half of them were between the ages of 16 and 24. The vast majority were working in entry-level jobs, mostly in restaurants and other service industries. But here’s the good news: Most people who start in minimum-wage jobs in this country won’t stay there. 

After they've increased their skills and experience, they become worth more to an employer. That just makes sense. There are 146 million people employed in this country, according to the Labor Department Some 118 million hold full-time jobs, while another 28 million are working part-time. And you know what? Most of them got their first jobs working for minimum wage at McDonald’s or some other fast-food joint. Many, if not most, of the people reading this column could probably say the same thing. How many of those first-time jobs will be lost if the minimum wage goes up by almost 50? That’s why the National Restaurant Association warned that increasing the minimum wage will “significantly limit the entry-level opportunities businesses can provide, hurting employees with limited skills or experience and looking to enter the workforce.”


Friday, April 25, 2014

The Destroyer

Now Playing In Our Nations Capital


I dearly wish that our political leaders would combine their observations with insight and season them liberally with understanding.  I also wish that they would learn the lessons of history so they would be less inclined to repeat past mistakes.

Maybe we should think about our communication style with these people.  Could we pattern our approach with the insight and understanding of where they came from and how they grew up? 

How can we make the national defense issue“up close and personal” to a people who are more prone to run away from responsibility than face it squarely and deal with it effectively? 
An attitude adjustment requires disposition.  How do we help lawmakers and US voters become disposed to listen and be open to ideas that are different from their own?

72% of the house of representatives and 78% of the Senate was made up of lawmakers who served in the armed forces some 40 years ago. Today just 20% of House members and 18% of Senators have served.

Those who have served in the military have a better understanding and a deeper comprehension of issues involving national security, armed services and veteran issues – issues that if not more important now, are just as critical as they were 40 years ago.

“40 years ago” equates to the early 1970's or about 25 years or so after WW-II.  I remember that we had mandatory military service (the Draft Law) in the 1950's.  This also was about the timeframe that the news media started branding people with names like “Hippies”, “Yuppies”, “Flower Children”, and “Generation-X” just to name a few.  Their parents were labeled “baby boomers.” 

Our nation was in a turmoil of clashing value systems and ideological rebellion.  No wonder the US House and Senate was packed with Military veterans back in that day. That also might explain why many present US politicians in office now are allergic to anything military.

The Republicans basically respect their oath of office and want to pattern the present government on the mandates outlined in the US Constitution.  They want to restore the three-leg stool that supports the US Constitution:

1. Separation of power.
2. Balance of power and
3. Limitation of power.

They argue that the US Government is NOT a democracy now, and never was.  Instead, it is a Representative Republic bound by a confederation of member states. On the other hand, the Democrats consider the US Constitution an obsolete document urgently in need of revision or outright replacement. 

Meanwhile, they ignore its original concepts and substitute an informal replacement that they call their “living constitution.”  They advocate a parliamentarian republic modeled after Canada and the European nations.

Their principles and foundation are reflected in the Obama campaign flag that he wanted to fly in all government buildings in 2010 instead of the official American flag we use today to identify ourselves to the rest of the planet. This is a variation of the campaign logo, represented by the blue and white symbol in the upper left corner The three curved blue stripes represent Canada, the (about to be former) United States and Mexico.   The rising sun represents the future America with three provinces.   The outer circle represents a one-world government.

As Obama said, “There are no States but the United States.” His vision involves the dissolution of a confederation of States. Are those red stripes blood?  If so, whose blood? 

My source for its symbolism is The Post American World.  This book was in the President’s hand as he prepared to board the Presidential Helicopter in 2009.

Veterans pledged a solemn oath when we joined the US Military.  That oath had no expiration date or terms for dissolution. Our nation is in peril of destruction from within.  This is one of those times in our history when we face a determined enemy from within our nation that threatens the survival of our nation even more than our foreign enemies. 

I cannot remember a time when our mission to change the minds and spirit of our nation’s lawmakers and citizens is more important than now.

Placation and appeasement are not and never were viable options.  Ever try to appease a tiger?  We do not look like a worthy opponent; we look like lunch.



Friday, March 7, 2014

The Origins Of Barry Soetoro




Here is evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency. Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.  Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. 

Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  



 LoLo Soetoro was not Jr.'s father, he was tasked with bringing Barack to Islam

Barack Obama Sr.
Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.  To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. 

This document seems to provide absolute proof that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.


Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be a natural born citizen.


Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.


U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.


Stefan Frederick Cook 
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.


Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.


Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state, now ask yourself, Why would he apply for and receive financial aid for foreign students? He is at least guilty of fraud and at the worst the spire head of an attack on America. 


    Barack Obama        and Daddy   Mohammad (Pak) Subud
Could this be Barack's real father? Let examine some of this evidence. While conducting a search of Obama's lineage I came across some very interesting evidence that suggest he's really from Indonesia. The idea being promoted is that  Mohammad Subud, the founder of the Subud cult, is Obama’s real father.Obama’s “mother” Stanly Ann Dunham and this Subud spiritual cult are veritably linked through documentation.

Now I've found another birth certificate from Indonesia that has his name as Barry Soetoro, but there's something wrong with the fathers name, Lolo Soetoro is listed as the step father, here, look for yourselves. 






There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.


Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. 

An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.


The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.


It wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.


While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. 

Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity? I'd say, Absolutly.



If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.

U.S. Code

TITLE 18; PART I; CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or


(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or


(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or


(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or


(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)


This story doesn't just end here, someone had to okay this false document, so lets look again at that Adobe 10 document of his birth certificate, and remember that NO physical hard copy is currently in existance:





The Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate died in a small plane crash.


Loretta Fuddy
The plane, carrying a pilot and eight passengers, went down in the water a half mile off the Hawaiian island of Molokai, the Maui Fire Department said. The lone fatality was Loretta Fuddy, who has served as state health director since January 2011 and documents verify that she was also linked to the Subud cult and went by the Subud name of “Deliana” Fuddy. Tom Matsuda, the interim executive director of Hawaii's health insurance exchange, confirmed Fuddy's death.

Fuddy, 65, made national news in April 2011 when she verified the authenticity of certified copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Obama had requested the release to curb claims by so-called "birthers" and Donald Trump that he was born in Kenya and not eligible to be president.


Makani Kai Air President Richard Schuman told Honolulu-based KITV that he spoke with the pilot of the single-engine turboprop Cessna Grand Caravan after the crash.

"What he reported is after takeoff ... there was catastrophic engine failure," Schuman said. "He did the best he could do to bring the aircraft down safely and he got everybody out of the aircraft."

Schuman said the cause of the engine failure had not yet been determined. The National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the crash; NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that based on the location of the crash it was unlikely the plane will be recovered, Naturally.  

Now in a symbolic move showing support for his own law Obama signed up for Obamacare but the healthcare.gov system couldn't verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person. 

The reason is that Obama's personal information is not in any particular government data bases, not even in the social security system... Odd.

Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities, but it can find everyone else, Why not him if he's an American?

Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning, which means that he's sucking you in to completely collapse the economy.



Now lets take a look at some other factors that play in Barry's ascension to the white house,,, Like where did the money come from?
For that bit of information we'll move to Iran and Valerie Jarrett.

The Obama administration’s outreach to Iran has been unmasked, and it’s Valerie Jarrett.

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING 

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history — and this was all from the internet campaign. 


What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail. 


Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking, lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results. 

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.


While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. 

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. 


It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. 


It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway. 


This is a shocking revelation. 


We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem. 


I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so. 


If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen? 


I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.


Jarrett’s status as a White House confidante and major figure has been well-known for some time, but this bit of news marks her first foray into being an official foreign policy surrogate. 

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. 

The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. 


Please, allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. 


(Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. 



Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.


Khalid al-Mansour
It’s very important to note that Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. 

Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance in the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow YOU the reader to decide. 


Friday, February 28, 2014

The Origins of Obamacare



A book documents for the first time the radical origins of President Obama’s health-care law revealing the principal author of the foundation for the legislation while tracing the law itself to a group funded by George Soros“Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America” also finds the founders of the controversial Apollo Alliance run by a slew of radicals, helped craft the marketing campaign behind the health-care initiative. 


Aaron Klein
The new book, by authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, exposes what is characterized as “the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama’s presidential agenda and threatens the very future of the U.S.” On Obamacare, “Red Army” documents how the legislation, deliberately masked by moderate, populist rhetoric, was carefully crafted and perfected over the course of decades and is a direct product of laborious work by a coalition of radical groups and activists, many with socialist designs. 


Brenda J. Elliott
Those activists seek to “reform” the U.S. health-care industry, which accounts for a significant portion of the U.S. capitalist enterprise.“Red Army” reveals the principal author of the foundation for Obamacare is third generation progressive academic Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale professor who is an expert on the politics of U.S. health and social policy. 

Hacker is author of Health Care for America, the centerpiece of the George Soros–funded Economic Policy Institute’s Agenda for Shared Prosperity. “Red Army” finds Hacker’s proposal for so-called guaranteed, affordable health care for all Americans is the foundation for Obama’s healthcare plan. Hacker’s plan had its origins in the professor’s multiple other major policy papers on health care, including a 2001 plan for the Covering America project. 


Jacob S. Hacker
In 2003, Hacker first devised a public health insurance program called “Medicare Plus,” which would offer coverage to all legal residents not otherwise covered by Medicare or employer-sponsored insurance. Employers would be required to either provide a minimum level of coverage to their workers or pay a payroll tax. That plan was the basis for the U.S. National Healthcare Insurance Act, which was first introduced Feb. 2, 2005, in the House by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The act was sponsored by several other congressmen, all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus“Red Army” documents how the Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democrat Socialists of America. 


Buy Red Army Now
The book charges the caucus works as a Marxist-socialist block in Congress to introduce progressive legislation with socialist intent. Red Army” documents how a little-known marketing outfit called the Herndon Alliance helped to market Obamacare, even providing suggestions on which words supporters should use the promote the bill Acceptable phrases include “quality affordable health care”; “American solutions”; “giving security and peace of mind”; “fair rules”; “government as watchdog”; “smart investments, investing in the future”; and “affordable health plans.” 


Celinda Lake
Unacceptable words include “universal health care”; “Canadian-style health care”; “Medicare for All”; “regulations”; “free”; “government or public health care”; and “wellness.” Red Army” found the research component of the Herndon Alliance was provided by Celinda Lake, who teamed up with a marketing research firm American Environics. AE uses social-values surveys to gauge public opinion Lake, herself, worked for a number of leftist institutions and unions, including the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. 


Robert Borosage
She also serves on the board of directors of the Progressive Congress Action Fund alongside Robert Borosage, whose Healthcare for America Now anticipated spending $42 million in its final push for passage of Obamacare. AE was founded in 2004 by a team of American strategists and Canadian researchers. In April 2005, current AE managing partners Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger started AE’s American branch. One year before Shellenberger did imaging for Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. 


Van Jones
Nordhaus and Shellenberger co-founded the Apollo Alliance sometime around 2002 and were two of its original national board members“Red Army” exposes how Apollo helped draft not only the president’s green jobs programs, but also the $787 billion economic stimulus bill and other proposed new energy legislation Apollo is led by a slew of radicals, including Van Jones, Jeff Jones, who heads Apollo’s New York branch and is a former top leader of the Weatherman terrorist organization, and Joel Rogers, a founder of the socialist New Party. Obama’s controversial former “green” jobs czar, Van Jones, sits on Apollo’s board. 


Dr. Quentin D. Young
Meanwhile, several major groups were founded to lobby for the legislation that became Obama’s healthcare law Healthcare-NOW, not to be confused with the organization Health Care for America Now, was established in 2004 for one purpose – to lobby on behalf of single-payer healthcare. Healthcare-NOW’s broad base includes socialist, labor, church and community organizations and, most notably, Physicians for a National Health Program. National Health Program. Healthcare-NOW co-chairmen include Dr. Quentin D. Young, who is considered father of the single-payer movement.


Medea Benjamin
Young advised Obama during his days as a senator. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the radical Code Pink anti-war group, is a member of Healthcare-NOW’s board of directors. Another major group leading the charge to transform health care has been Campaign for America’s Future. CAF was founded in 1990 by Robert L. Borosage. Roger Hickey, co-founder of the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute which “Red Army” ties to the health-care bill, is credited as being a CAF co-founder as well CAF unveiled the lobby, Health Care for America Now, or HCAN, which “Red Army” documents deceptively maintains that it is a “national grassroots campaign.” HCAN’s lead member organizations include ACORN; MoveOrg; AFSCME; Americans United for Change, Planned Parenthood Federation of America; SEIU; United Food and Commercial Workers; and the Soros-funded Center for American Progress Action Fund, which is highly influential in advising the White House. 


Red Army” documents how Obama and progressive Democrats are deliberately overloading the U.S. financial system, using socialist designs to remake the economy. The book, with nearly 1,500 endnotes, documents how these radicals aim to remake the American financial system with massive government control.“Red Army” contains a number of other major scoops while exposing the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama’s presidential agenda and threatens the future of the U.S. Some other highlights from “Red Army”: 


The existence of a powerful “Marxist-socialist” bloc in Congress (explicitly formed as an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America) and how it is behind legislation in areas that affect all Americans, including the complete socialization of health care and comprehensive immigration reform, which, the book exposes, seeks to change the very nature of the American electorate In two chapters that every American must read, entirely new information s laid bare on the left’s unprecedented assault on America’s already over- liberalized education system. 

The multipronged policy offensive aimed at disarming America by emboldening its enemies within and without, spurning traditional allies subjecting the nation to the authority of foreign tribunals and systematically dismantling the U.S. military How elements of the news media not only collude with these radical groups but are in some cases members of the very extremist organizations they ought to be investigating.