"Could This Be Evidence of Obama Treason?"

 - The Pakistan Connection - from - The Parallax Prophecies - By Ron Ewart,
President National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.
We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.
© Copyright Sunday, September 30, 2012 - All Rights Reserved
 
Editor's Note: Re-printed with permission from Ron EWART.

This is really strange! A curious thing happened several weeks ago. We debated for some time on whether we should even tell it. We received a call from a man with a noticeable mid-eastern accent. Our caller ID said the number was "unavailable". The man called himself Amil, but we suspected that Amil was not his real name. He said he wanted a meeting and when we asked why, he was evasive but said that what he had to say was very important and could have international implications between Russia and the U. S. and might even affect the upcoming election.

We almost hung up on him, but decided to see what else he had to say. We asked why he wanted to talk to us? He responded by saying that he had read many of our articles and that the subjects we chose to write about and how we wrote them, fit right in with what he wanted to tell us. It became obvious that he had checked us out, as he mentioned that he was particularly fascinated by one of our websites, namely, "Attack Watch Spies" and our "Citizen Intelligence Network." He didn't say why, but we suspected that it was probably the word "Spies" that caught his attention. He also seemed quite interested in our ORDCA Citizen Investigator program for some reason and asked a few questions about it. As near as we could tell, what he seemed to be inferring was that he thought, if we wrote his story as a nationally known author, we would do justice to what he was about to reveal to us.

  No matter what his motives were for contacting us, it still didn't make any sense and red flags went up and alarm bells in our head started to go off. The question that came to mind next was, were we being duped? But alas, our curiosity got the best of us and we agreed to meet him, even though we had an uneasy sense of foreboding about the whole affair. It is extremely rare for us to get this kind of international attention, even though we hear from individuals from almost every country. As skeptical as we were, nevertheless our "journalistic" ears pricked up on the potential for a "scoop", as remote as it might be. We agreed that the meeting place had to be public and we chose a small, obscure restaurant in downtown Seattle. He seemed to know Seattle quite well. We asked how we would recognize him and he said it would be easy. He would be the only one dressed in an Arab headdress and white robe, sporting a heavy, greying beard. We were further intrigued by this revelation. We even thought at the time that maybe we should report this event to the authorities, but decided to wait until after the meeting. When the day came to meet him, we were very tempted to cancel the whole thing and just not show up, but again we were so curious at the prospects that any thoughts of canceling were quickly quelled.

We arrived at the restaurant around 1:30 in the afternoon and found he was already there. And he was absolutely right. We had no trouble recognizing him at all. There he was in his Arab splendor, sitting alone at a table next to the window, as if he had just rode in off the desert on a camel. For all we knew, he could have been the King of Saudi Arabia. We could see that as people walked by the window, they would suddenly stop and look in, with puzzled looks on their faces. Obviously, this was an unusual sight for the streets of Seattle. In any event, he ignored their interest in him. To us, he looked so out of place, but he seemed oblivious to the contrast he presented with the other customers and the passerby's. He sat upright and proud, drinking a cup of what we assumed was coffee. He seemed to be quite comfortable and at home in this Seattle restaurant. We walked over, pulled out a chair and took a seat at his table. As we sat down, he looked up and offered his hand. We shook hands in what could only appear to others as a very unusual meeting of two vastly different cultures.

We wondered if we were being watched? As we opened our mouth to speak and before we could get a word out, he placed his index finger over his tight-lipped mouth as a signal to say nothing. Then he started to unravel his story. His broken English was a little hard to interpret but the gist of what he said literally shook us to the core. As he spoke in hushed tones, his deep-set eyes were slowly probing the restaurant and outside the window as if he was looking to see if anyone else was watching. We couldn't help having an uneasy feeling that this meeting was not going unnoticed and we imagined inquisitive eyes looking at us from all directions. An occasional curious glance in our direction from some of the other patrons in the restaurant, confirmed that it was not our imagination.

Amil began by telling us that his brother was not only on the Partridge hunt with Barack Obama when Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, but he also attended high-level meetings with Obama and Obama's host, Muhammed Hasan Chandio, as well as other dignitaries of the Pakistani government. Representatives from other governments, most notably Russians, were also present at some of those meetings. The Chandio family, evidently, were large landowners in the region that Obama visited and appeared to have great political influence in the country. From what we learned from a few sources, one of the Chandio's is a financial consultant in New York and purportedly a donor to Obama's campaign. Some of Obama's other hosts in Pakistan included a son of a Pakistani politician, one Muhammadian Mian Soomro, who became interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigned in 2008. Then there was the association with Khalid Al-Mansour, senior advisor to Prince Al-Waleed Bihn Talal of Saudi Arabia. In addition to Chandio and Soomro, but outside of Pakistan, Obama was seen with a Wahid Hamid and a Vinai Thummalapally. Again, certain sources say that all of these Arabs have donated to Obama's campaign and/or acted as bundlers in collecting contributions for him. Obama seems to have a lot more Arab friends than American friends. One might question the inordinate amount of interest that Muslims seem to have in Obama, which might explain why Obama seems to be so overly sensitive and apologetic to the Middle East.

According to Amil's brother, at one such meeting in Pakistan that Amil's brother attended with Obama and the Chandio family, there were four high-level Russian military officers. Amil's brother thought he heard that one of the Russian officers was a direct envoy of then USSR General Secretary, Leonid Brezhnev. Another of the Russian officers appeared to be a high-level KGB operative. The subject at the meeting was not Partridge hunting but of a much more serious and clandestine nature. The language of this particular meeting was in Arabic and it seemed to Amil's brother that Obama had no difficulty in speaking, or understanding what was spoken. What was even more surprising, occasionally, when speaking to one of the Russian officers, Obama would break out in fluent Russian. The subject of the meeting, according to Amil's brother, was Russian operatives (spies) in America. Why Amil's brother or Obama were there at this particular meeting, was not advanced by Amil and was left to our imagination. Sidebar: This Pakistan trip by Obama may give new meaning to Obama's "hot-mike" comments to Russian President Medvedev on missile defense when Obama was in South Korea earlier this year. "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said of incoming Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, who will replace Medvedev in May. Obama finished his comment with: “This is my last election. After my election, I will have more flexibility." (Oh to be a fly on the wall when Obama was talking to Medvedev or Putin on the telephone, or at high-level international meetings in private. Could he have been revealing American secrets?)

  Amil went on with his story about his brother and Obama and said his brother told him that one of the Russian officers attending this particular meeting brought out a map of the United States and Canada and laid it on table for all of the attendees to review. On the map were red and blue dots around the major cities, including Washington DC. As near as Amil's brother could tell, the red dots were active Russian spies already engaged in specific missions and the blue dots were deep cover agents with yet to be designated missions. Obama seemed particularly focused on the red and blue dots clustered around Chicago and physically put his finger on the area, according to Amil's brother. There were some names next to some of the dots but Amil told us that his brother could not get close enough to the map to read them clearly. That was all that Amil could tell us, as he hadn't seen or spoken to his brother since he vanished into thin air not long after Obama left Pakistan and Amil could never find out what happened to him even after contacting members of his family in Pakistan.

We asked him why he took so long to tell his story and he looked straight at us with his piercing eyes and didn't answer the question. We decided not to press it. Suddenly and without warning, Amil stood up and reached over to shake our hand. He then turned and walked out of the restaurant without another word, flaring his white robe on the way. As he left the restaurant, not stopping to look back, he turned left when he reached the sidewalk and disappeared into the crowd. His abrupt departure took us by surprise and was too quick for us to ask him for his telephone number or his address. We haven't seen or heard from Amil since the meeting that day at the restaurant and he hasn't tried to contact us. We decided not to alert the authorities as we couldn't prove a single thing that Amil told us, nor could we prove that Amil even existed.

Apparently, Amil and his brother are not the only ones that have suspicions of a Russian - Islamic connection. A top-level Soviet Block official that defected to the U. S., Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, describes this connection in detail, in a recent article in the World Net Daily at this link: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/a-brand-new-cold-war/. Ladies and gentlemen, we sit here pondering the red and blue dots on the map, purportedly produced by the Russian officer at this meeting in Pakistan in 1981, at which Obama and Amil's brother allegedly attended, especially coupled with the rumor that 20,000 Russian troops are now stationed in the U. S. What is Amil's real name? Did he even have a brother that lived in Pakistan and met with Obama? Why did Amil pick us to tell his story to and why did he wait so long to tell it? What did Obama really do when he was in Pakistan in 1981? Who funded his trip? Is Obama really a Muslim ..... or a Russian agent? Why does he have so many Arab friends and associates? Where did he learn both Arabic and Russian? Are there deep cover Russian agents in America? If so, what have they been doing since 1981? Are they working inside our government? Did Obama ever meet with any of the Russian operatives in Chicago, or any other parts of America that appeared on the Russian map? Is Obama working with the Russians or the Arabs right now? Is there a clandestine reason that Obama abruptly cancelled the missile defense shield in Poland after years of planning? Why has Obama not gone into Syria with a no-fly zone as he did in Libya? Is that because the Russians have a vested interest in Syria? And what was the hidden meaning, if any, in the "hot-mike" message Obama gave to Russian President Medvedev in South Korea earlier this year? And why did the Obama Administration not come out immediately and say the attack on our Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack when they knew it was? What were they hiding, or was it just political correctness taken to the point of incompetence ..... or was it treason? We have no way to verify any of Amil's story, as it is virtually all hearsay.

We have no way to answer the questions we now ponder. The whole thing is comparable to what Senator Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney not paying any taxes for 10 years, with his shadowy source being "someone" who worked at Bain Capital. (Maybe Reid's shadowy figure's name was Boris.) Nevertheless, Amil appeared genuine and his story had faucets to it that seemed to jive with known facts about Obama. It is highly unlikely that we, or anyone else for that matter, will ever see or hear from Amil again, just as it is highly unlikely that the devious Senator Harry Reid will ever name his source at Bain Capital, which Harry claims knew Romney and knew that he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. What it comes down to is that Amil's story and Reid's story are nothing but hearsay, innuendo and speculation, without a shred of evidence. However, whether Amil's story is true or not, Barack Hussein Obama is one of the least vetted Presidents of all time and a man with a tortured, shadowy past that reveals much about how he governs. He may have been born in Hawaii but the rest of his Islam-dominated life in Indonesia; his college experiences and records as a foreign student that remain covered up; the fact that no one seems to remember him from college; his highly questionable trip to Pakistan when other Americans weren't allowed to go there; his two books he allegedly wrote early in his life before he even had an adult life; his multiple social security numbers; his long-time contact with family friend Frank Marshall Davis, a known and active communist; his association with slum landlord Tony Rezko and now a felon who is in jail on fraud and bribery convictions; his association with Bill Ayers, a known and unrepentant domestic terrorist who actually killed people with bombs but got off scot-free; a 20-year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a known, bitter and vicious Black Liberation Theologist who hates America; his association with known Muslims during his college years and other questionable characters, leave so many unanswered questions that Obama couldn't get a secret clearance if he went to work for a defense contractor.

With this record of what we do know about Obama, he should be on the government's no-fly list. With all these known things hanging around his neck, how then did he ever become president of the United States with his finger poised on the nuclear, the-end-of-life-as-we-know-it, button? That the mainstream news media purposely ignores these associations and questionable past can only be construed as being complicit in collusion with Obama, or his handlers, in a plot to "fundamentally transform" America to Soviet-style communism, or take over America from the inside for the purpose of implementing Sharia Law. Obama has increased his executive power exponentially in his first term. He circumvents the Congress with reckless abandon and plays dice with American lives. He shoves unconstitutional legislation down our throats. His unilateral, without Congressional approval, immigration policies only encourage more illegal aliens to cross our borders and start feeding off of American generosity. He lies more than he tells the truth. Barack Hussein Obama is, by far, the most dangerous and devious man ever to become President of the United States of America.

If he is re-elected, the damage he can do to America in the next four years could turn sinister and deadly ..... for all Americans, as well as American freedom, security and sovereignty. Obama is so evil and so without conscience that he would sell America down the river, if it suited his purposes. To re-elect him is virtual national suicide and probably will spell the end of the greatest experiment with freedom since the dawn of civilization. If you really want to know how dangerous this man is, we encourage you to watch the video put out by a Navy Seal at this link. http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0 And there is more interesting information at the following link about the Obama-Islamic connection and the source appears to be Valerie Jarrett's Father-in Law, the same Valerie Jarrett that is the closest advisor to President Obama. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/09/bombshell-obama-vetting-1979-newspaper-article-by-valerie-jarrett-father-in-law-reveals-start-of-arab-purchase-of-u-s-presidency-2491770.html

We can't independently verify any of this, but this damning information raises very serious questions about Obama, that should be answered. So, in closing we must ask, is any of Amil's alleged story we just revealed, evidence of Obama treason? We will probably never know. Only Obama knows what he did for those three weeks in Pakistan in 1981, but Obama isn't talking and for some inexplicable and suspicious reason, no one is investigating his Pakistan trip, or anything else about Obama and very few seem to care, in this all-important election year with just a little over 30 days to go, an election year that could mean life or death itself for America and freedom.

But the real question is, when is Mitt Romney going to come down hard on Obama with these very disturbing questions about Obama's Russian, Islamic and domestic terrorist associations and the revelations of his shadowy past? If he does not, "The Parallax Prophecies" predicts that Obama will be re-elected.

UnSkewed Polling Data Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:37:18 PM

          
Fox News               9/24 - 9/26   1092 LV    3.0       46.0      44.0    Obama +2
Reason/Rupe        9/13 - 9/17      787 LV    4.3       45.0      52.0    Romney +7
Reuters/Ipsos         9/12 - 9/20   1437 LV    2.9      44.0      54.0     Romney +10
NBC News/WSJ     9/12 - 9/16    736 LV    3.6       44.0      51.0    Romney +7
Monmouth Univ.      9/13 - 9/16  1344 LV    2.5       45.0      50.0    Romney +5
QStarNews            9/10 - 9/15   2075 LV    3.0       44.0      55.0    Romney +11
 NY Times/CBS N  9/8 - 9/12    1162 LV     3.0       44.0      51.0    Romney +7
Democracy Corps 9/8 - 9/12    1000 LV     3.1      43.0      52.0     Romney +8
Wash. Post/ABC    9/7 - 9/9        826 LV     4.0      45.0      52.0     Romney +7
CNN/ORC               9/7 - 9/9       875 RV     3.5      45.0      53.0     Romney +8
IBD/CSM/TIPP       9/4 - 9/9       808 RV     3.5      41.0      50.0     Romney +9
ARG                        9/4 - 9/6     1200 LV      3.0      43.0      53.0     Romney +10

SCOTUS “TAX” RULING ALLOWS AMERICANS TO IGNORE OBAMACARE ON TECHNICALITY
by Penbrook One
Sunday, September 16, 2012

OBAMACARE EXPOSED AS INELIGIBLE TAXATION: Obama’s presidency was just the first of many illegitimate events to occur after the 2008 election. Now, it appears Obamacare, ironically, may indeed be an unenforceable piece of legislation, as well as illegal, because of a preeminent constitutional mandate which explicitly requires that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives.
by Pen Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – The framers clearly wrote the Constitution with enduring "Alpha-like" qualities knowing that future generations would try to circumvent its authority in order to illegally usurp power and control the lives of humanity’s advanced most affluent citizenry.
The framers of the Constitution, in their astonishing wisdom, included the presidential eligibility mandate of Article II knowing that, someday, a foreign usurper like Barack Obama might try to run for president. They even anticipated the nation of such a foreigner’s origin correctly when they wrote the Natural born eligibility mandate out of concern to prevent a British usurper from assuming power in America! Obama was born to a British citizen father making him legally ineligible to run for the U.S. presidency regardless whether he was nominated, elected and inaugurated.
It also appears they even understood that selection of such an illegitimate candidate could not be prevented, yet, more importantly, by inducing such a righteous exaction, they established a legal incrimination against tyranny which can never be removed, essentially creating an irreversible locking mechanism which eternally banishes men like Obama as an illegal, illegitimate, criminal office occupier…regardless of how many people vote for him.
They also wrote procedural doctrine for the passage of tax laws, having suffered the atrocities under the British monarchy in its attempt to illegally tax Americans without affording them representation under the law. Ultimately, as history has taught mankind for thousands of years…such vile notions result in violent revolution against such governments and, moreover, the destruction of that government is eventually meted by the will of ultimate authority.
The current members serving in all three branches of the American government must be forcibly brought to submission under the law. If they refuse to bow willingly, let the law break their legs. They must be subjugated by the inescapable judgment that the U.S. Constitution was written by superiorly inspired subjects of acute intellect and deeply rooted morality bearing a far more developed sense of statutory authority under a higher righteousness.
When making his ruling in favor of Obamacare, Judge Roberts was correct in his assessment that Congress has the legal authority to tax as his legal justification for upholding the law. In his vigor to rule officiously, he stipulated passage of Obamacare under the condition that the transaction of money from working Americans to the government in the form of an individual mandate and subsequent punitive charges were thereby and forever to be legally enjoined upon Obamacare as “taxation”. Otherwise, Obamacare is not legally binding.
Therefore, by requiring every American to have health insurance by paying this SCOTUS-defined “tax”, the highest judiciary authority in America thereby made Obamacare into a Constitutionally controlled tax legislation.
Unfortunately, seeded in this shallow legal morphology, head judge Roberts failed, abysmally, to acknowledge the first fundamental rule of taxation which explicitly requires that any and all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives and, from there, be conveyed through both houses of congress by a specific process, in order to be a legally enforceable tax.
Obamacare did not originate in the fertile ground of our dedicative representation just as Obama’s eligibility did not originate in the Natural born citizenship defined by natural law. Therefore, by allowing such an ill-conceived statute outside the boundaries of the constitution's preeminent order, Roberts rendered Obamacare unenforceable, even though it was determined to be morphologically legal.
Obamacare, like Obama’s presidency, was spawned from the damnable corruption of the Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (as chair of the DNC she signed the fraudulent Official Certification of Nomination in August of 2008), and thereby failed to be validated through proper procedural constitutional jurisdiction.
The framers win, again…by TKO!
Therefore, Americans may simply ignore the Obamacare mandate and its punitive charges under the authority of the Constitution because the U.S. government has no legal authority to enforce payment of them. The demand for payment is not legitimate because it was declared a tax which was not carried properly through legal channels.

In the court’s explicit declaration that the individual mandate charges were a “tax”, the very ruling induced the preemptive constitutional requirement that the healthcare bill, according to centuries of U.S. tax law, must have originated in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, in order for “revenue increases”, a.k.a. taxation, to be legally enforced.

Obamacare, therefore, fails to even qualify as a tax.
WND’s Bob Unruh writes the following:
“The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.
The Constitution requires any tax bills to begin in the House.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.
But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.
The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.
“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.
His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.
The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”
The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.
In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion”on two conditions.
If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Obama’s ‘Arab Spring’---Delusional Ideology Results In Massive Foreign Policy Failure
By Alan Bates, MD
September 16, 2012

Does the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Helleon Clinton buy into the false mantra that American diplomats in unstable Muslim countries are safe and don’t need military protection by U.S. Marines? We just witnessed the murder of at least four Americans including two Navy Seals and our ambassador to Libya on September 11, the anniversary of the violent massacre of thousands of innocent people on 9-11-2001 by suicidal and murderous Islamic radicals. This Administration so pro-Muslim that it is no longer willing to face the reality (or even use the word ‘terrorist’) that the primary source of international terrorism is radical Islam, even after decades of similar events carried out by the same factions of Islamic radicals whose goal is to conquer the world and destroy Israel in the process? Outrageous are Obama’s and Clinton’s pacifist apologies to the Muslim world for ‘insults’ which they (Obama and Clinton) falsely state resulted in the murder of Americans and the torching of our embassies in nations which have received massive American taxpayer support for decades. Who wins? Ironically and not unexpectedly Osama bin Laden---not Barack Hussein Obama and his ideologically-driven partiality and pacifist approach towards those in the Islamic world who practice violence to achieve their goals!

Initial AP reports falsely tried to pin blame for the Libyan and Egyptian violence on an Israeli-American who had released a 15 minute trailer condemning the Muslim prophet Mohammed as a womanizer, pedophile and murderer---all true since he took a 6 year-old girl as his first wife and had sex with her at age 9, had many other wives as well, and ordered the beheadings of hundreds of people (is that what a religious prophet would do?). Despite further investigation which revealed NO connection between the film trailer in California and these pre-planned 9-11 anniversary attacks by well-armed factions, Helleon Clinton and Obama’s press secretary Jaded Carney still sounded like broken records as they tried to provide a cover up for their misplaced trust of The Muslim Brotherhood and its radical friends which led to lack of appropriate safeguards for our diplomats and soldiers (who incidentally were not allowed to have real bullets for protection!). The collusion of the mainstream press with the Obama administration was sealed in stone by open mike comments by American ‘journalists’ before Mitt Romney offered his view about the implosion of the Arab Spring. These ‘journalists’ violate their primary responsibility to seek truth and report accordingly. They are sociopaths who deserve to have their press credentials revoked for entrapping Mr. Romney and others who wish to speak the truth.

The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the highest levels of the Obama Administration. Their leaders have regular meetings with Obama who might as well be ‘one of them’ based upon what we know about his upbringing, actions and spoken viewpoints. According to a government official, the Obama Administration is currently negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood to grant them 1 billion American taxpayer dollars to purchase Russian naval vessels! For what purpose? Is it to further empower them so that they may continue their objective to bring Shariah Law to the whole world? How ironic that diehard socialist women Democrats like Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz seem more concerned about Sandra Fluke not getting taxpayer-funded contraception than the abuse and murder of women in the Muslim world! Such misplaced priorities are prime examples that the Democrat Party is controlled by those with untreatable liberal mental disorder (LMD). Lefties with this disorder view the world upside down and backwards---what is wrong is right—and what is right is wrong. They prioritize issues which are little importance at the expense of challenges critical to our national sovereignty whether related to domestic energy production or to American strength abroad. These mental incompetents never engage patriots in logical debate as they reject fact-based conclusions and loyalty to American freedom and sovereignty. Amongst their numerous defense mechanisms are demagoguery, diversion of discussions away from facts, constant interruption of those with whom they disagree, raising their voices to talk over others, and lying. They buy into and disseminate through their media allies false beliefs and hopes such as those of Barack Obama and his wealthy elite anti-American handlers whose ultimate goal it is to create subservience of the people to Fedzilla. Get it??

Americans—and most freedom-loving people in the civilized world---show tolerance and have respect for freedom of speech, assembly, religion and other cultures. The longstanding obvious exception are Islamic radicals who for decades have shown complete disdain for and a commitment to destruction of those who dare believe/act differently---even amongst their own. Silence! Where are the voices of peaceful Muslims? Do they to live in fear of death at the hands of their own radical factions if they dare speak up, or do they silently wait for their radical brethren to establish a worldwide medieval culture of intolerance and torture? Our leaders across the civilized world should harshly condemn and immediately punish the violent actions we witness today, beginning with an immediate cessation of foreign aid, protection and recall of our citizens of such countries, and deployment of military units to secure our interests. As for America’s response, Obama just continues on the campaign trail with David Alexfraud, AWOL during times of crisis which he helped create, except for his apologies and empty rhetoric which is exactly what radical Islam always wished for. Obama is their enabler, unlike any other president; consequently a weakened America has become the laughing stock of the world and now faces dire risks which cannot be dealt with until a new American president and a patriotic Congress are elected in November.

WAKE UP PEOPLE----OUR NATIONAL SURVIVAL AND THE ELECTION ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY AT HAND, SO THINK, VOTE WISELY AND HAND THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS A RESOUNDING DEFEAT. IT IS AMERICA’S LAST CHANCE TO RERIGHT THE SHIP BEFORE IT SINKS.

ELIGIBILITY EXPERTS: FORGED PAPER VERSION OF OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMING
by Penbrook One
Saturday, September 15, 2012

OCTOBER SURPRISE 3.0: With the 2012 election looming, legal analysts formerly with the Social Security Administration predict Obama will “triple down” on the birth certificate fraud by displaying a forged paper version of the document. Under the weight of mounting ballot challenges and an onslaught of citizen journalists who have effectively exposed Obama’s prolific lies, Obama’s only option, they say, is for the criminals propagating the epic deception about Obama’s illegitimacy as president is to “frankenstein” one more doozy of a lie…bigger than all the one’s before it!
By Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – It’s always quietest before the storm…and darkest before the dawn. Get ready, America…here it comes.
Former claims analysts for the social security administration and researchers working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the forged image of Obama’s alleged 1961 birth certificate have resolved, preemptively, that the roster of counterfeit evidence supporting Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is about to get one more addition…a counterfeit paper version of Obama’s birth certificate.
For almost a year and a half, the counterfeited image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth has been repeatedly and effectively discredited as a forgery by law enforcement investigators, computer experts, software analysts and neo-journalists. During that time, questions have been raised about the image’s content as well as its origins and chain of custody. Most damaging to the image’s credibility as an authentic representation of Obama’s natal history, however, is the fact that it is not a paper document but, rather, has been proven to be a .pdf file produced sometime after two paper copies of the record were allegedly released to Obama attorneys by the State of Hawaii in April, 2011.
Now, a recent ballot challenge in Kansas has brought another course of the same valid but unanswered questions regarding Obama’s failure to provide credible, authentic, corroborated documented evidence that he is Constitutionally eligible to serve as president. For more than four years, liberal operatives and media abettors have toiled to protect Obama while ridiculing anyone seeking the truth about this matter. Kansas officials have determined there is reason to question Obama’s eligibility on their ballot.
A recent request by investigators to the state of Hawaii specifically, for an officially certified .pdf digital copy of a birth certificate of a Hawaiian-born member of the research team was met with Hawaiian Health Department officials stating that they “do not provide, nor have they ever provided” any digital computer versions of official birth certificates.

Therefore, the problem for counterfeiters of the Obama birth certificate image is that the state of Hawaii did not authorize the creation of the .pdf file, nor did the state of Hawaii create the .pdf. image for display on the internet, by anyone. It is upon this fact that forgers will attempt to pass off a forged paper document which they will claim is the actual certified paper copy of the original held by the state of Hawaii and which was originally allegedly created for Obama in 1961, say legal analysts.
“Of course they are going to do this,” says TDP editor, Pen Johannson, “it is their only option. They must descend deeper into this lie because the truth is beginning to destroy their psychotic delusions of Obama’s grandeur. The truth is killing them. After all, they are dissonant liars condemned to defend a perishing dilemma. We are winning this silent war on darkness and principalities.”
The very fact that the image of an alleged government document was digitally fabricated and posted to a government website means the image, at some time between issuance and posting, was forged by unidentified individuals working for Obama, not an official agency with authority to certify such a file format. Therefore, the content of the image cannot be relied upon as a accurate representation of the content in the official copies allegedly issued by the State of Hawaii in April, 2011.
Moreover, the reprobates working that which is unseemly within the mainstream media have continuously defended the false image as “Obama’s long-form birth certificate”, even after a 10 month criminal investigation by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio presented evidence the document not only contained falsified information but also that it was never authenticated by the State of Hawaii.

The teeth-gnashing truth for Obots is, simply, the image posted on the website is a counterfeit because the very fact that it is a digital image and not a paper document.

In their abetment of Obama’s lies, the media has willfully and intentionally refused to acknowledge that the state of Hawaii did not produce the .pdf file posted to the official government media source, whitehouse.gov. The State of Hawaii only provided certified copies of the birth certificate in paper form.
“Jesus told us that if a man testifies about himself, the testimony is not valid,” continued Johannson.
“This laughable image is the holy grail of testimony about Obama’s eligibility…provided by Obama! The simple fact that media and government allowed this man to into American government speaks volumes of how far this nation’s leadership structure has fallen, and how corrupt government has become. Pathetic. Truly and ungodly pathetic.”
SO-CALLED CLERICAL ERRORS IN OBAMA’S DOCUMENT TRAIL
For the past half decade, supporters of Obama have vigorously issued a pile of worthless explanations to excuse Obama’s illegitimacy as president. However, no excuse has come close to explaining the unprecedented number of so-called “clerical errors” claimed by these Obots as reasons for Obama’s absurd, completely farcical, biographical documentation. Here are a just few of those vigorously defended “clerical miscues”.
1. Obama’s Connecticut-based social security number was issued as a result of a misinterpretation of his Hawaiian zip code by the social security administration…when he was 16 years old. Hawaii’s zip code, in which Obama did not live, was 96814 while one zip code somewhere in Connecticut is 06814. Yes, and there is a zip code in another state, 26814 and one in another, 66814 and another in another, 86814. But, Obama’s social security number came from the only state where social security numbers are issued without requiring documented proof of citizenship at birth, in which he never resided or visited.
2. Obama’s birth certificate is registered with a file number which was mistakenly assigned by a Department of Health clerk who stamped the number in the wrong batch of certificates. Amazingly, Obama’s birth certificate is the only one in Hawaiian history to be mis-stamped and allowed to proceed through coding and natal statistics documentation. Not only were birth certificates process for the National Center for Health Statistics based on their even-number, Hawaiian birth certificates were numbered in the order they are received from five regional offices in 1961, not chronological order of the birth date.
3. Obama’s Selective Service registration was mistakenly stamped by a postal worker as being received from Obama a day before the actual day he signed it. Wait, what? Either that, or Obama mistakenly signed the form with the wrong date. The problem with this lame excuse is that the selective service administration refuses to accept a selective service registration with any errors. Any mistakes are caught by the postal worker and the form is discarded forcing the registrant to fill out another form before it is personally received by the postal worker verifying the official identity of the individual by requesting a driver’s license or, you guessed it, a U.S. birth certificate.
4. Obama’s Official Certificate of Nomination (OCON) from the Democratic National Committee and the State of Hawaii Democrat Party contains a misspelled word which was not caught by editors of the form even when the form was altered later to hide the fact that legally required language was left out of the form signed by Nancy Pelosi.
5. The year of Obama’s father’s birth is not clear. He was apparently born sometime between 1934 and 1936 based on information provided in several document sources from the INS, the State of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii. In one source document, his birthday is listed as 1934. In another its listed as 1936.
The problem with these clerical errors is that they all exist with regard to the documented history of a single man. One might expect one or two errors in official documentation about an individual, but the utter volume and repetition of such errors and cover-ups in Obama’s case has made him a laughing stock, a joke to be mocked and derided with unassailable justification. This is what our presidency has been allowed to become.
“They want to put an end to doubts about Obama's identity once and for all before the election. The only way to do this is 'triple-down' on this most heinous and disdainful document deception against innocent people,” concludes Johannson.
“Tragically, this ‘final solution’ in defense of Obama's fraudulent presidency will be the final and definitive dividing line between vintage American heritage and this enemy horde. At the very moment this document is implemented onto the American public, the revolution begins in earnest. The debating is over. The discussion goes dark and silent. Arms are left as the only viable option for defending the sovereignty of America. What a sad place we have come to.“
John 5
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.

33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses (the law), on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

OBAMA’S SECRET HOMOSEXUAL PAST WELL KNOWN AMONG GAY COMMUNITY
by Penbrook One
Tuesday, September 11, 2012

FROM THE CLOSET TO THE WHITE HOUSE: Dr. Jerry Corsi exposes more evidence that Barack Obama’s homosexuality was so mainstream and publicly known in Chicago that many in the gay community were shocked when Obama was able to keep this part of his identity a secret.
(Editors note: Barack Obama’s homosexual past is well documented among those honest enough to simply report the facts about it. On May 9, 2012, The Daily Pen’s Dan Crosby published a story presenting evidence that Obama’s sudden abrupt change in support of gay marriage last spring was due to his secret homosexual past. Dr. Corsi’s account of testimony by witnesses to Obama’s homosexuality cast further derision on his social competency and radical liberal ideology. Four years ago, Larry Sinclair, a gay socialite, told the world that he had engaged in a homosexual relationship with Obama on two occasions. The story went widely unreported among America’s pro-Obama media complex. The fact that Obama is gay is not news to many of us who know the details and relationships about this man’s dark past. However, the fact that he would use covert tactics to hide this from the American people speaks volumes of what he truly thinks about, not only the gay community, but the American people, overall. Once again, yet another lie by Barack Obama about his biography is exposed.)
by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
of WND.com

NEW YORK, NY - A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.
“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.
“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.
DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”
“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”
Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.
“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.
WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club says it has some 10,000 members, but it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym.”

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.
WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.
DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.
“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.
“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.
‘Obama’s secrets’
DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”
He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.
DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”
“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.
He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.
“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.
DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.
Man’s Country
Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.
“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.
He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”
Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.
DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

Writing in HillBuzz.com Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”
DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”
“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

SHAMED OVER HIS FRAUDULENT PRESIDENCY, OBAMA EXPLOITS A SIX YEAR OLD
by Penbrook One
September 9, 2012

CHILD EXPLOITATION? - The difference between the "birth certificate jokes" by Mitt Romney and, recently, by Barack Obama is that Mitt joked about his own birth certificate and is actually eligible to run for president while Obama exploited the controversy surrounding his illegitimacy using a six-year-old child.

Commentary by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

ORLANDO, FL - The Obots went teeth-gnashing, bat-guano crazy when Mitt Romney made a birth certificate joke two weeks ago. They called it “offensive” and “racist”.

CBS "news" correspondent, Scott Pelley, called it “a swipe at the" so-called "president”.

I have bad news for the Obotic horde. Obama is swiping at himself, now.

More importantly, Mitt was joking about his own birth certificate. He didn't exploit a six-year-old child.

Still laughing?

Evident that Barack Obama continues to regard the Constitution as if it were a joke, despite millions of Americans who have died and shed blood to secure its sovereignty, he’s now projecting his failure to meet the minimum legal qualifications to be a legitimate president by mocking the laws governing presidential eligibility while taking advantage of the birth circumstances of innocent children.

On Saturday, during a campaign stop at Gator Dockside restaurant, Obama was told by a female patron that one of the kids there, six year old Andre Wupperman, was born in Hawaii.

Then, continuing to denigrate the honor and sacrifice of heroes who, over the past 300 years, made possible his liberally entitled existence, Obama mocked the child asking for his birth certificate as proof he was actually born in Hawaii.

A real knee slapper.

Pouncing like some shameful predator, feigning humor, Obama cornered the boy, “You were born in Hawaii? You have a birth certificate?”

Now, if the boy had replied, "Yes, but you don't, liar!" I would have no reason to write this commentary. Little Andre would have done just fine. But, since Wupperman is only six and has no understanding of why Obama even asked that question, I am writing a response on the child's behalf.

If Obama were truly joking in sincerity, after being informed that little Wupperman was a native Hawaiian, he would have known that the child is currently not eligible to run for president for other reasons, despite being born in the U.S.

Obama would have included that Wupperman hasn’t even been alive for 14 years, let alone lived that long as a resident in the U.S., which is one of three Article II requirements to be president.

Obama would have also commented that little Wupperman is also ineligible for another 29 years, until his 35th birthday, the minimum age required to be president.

The child was still in diapers when Obama began pursuing his fraudulent usurpation of power in 2007.

Then, there is the question of Wupperman’s parents’ citizenship status at the time of his birth. Were they citizens of the U.S. at the time? The comedian Obama had no idea that Wupperman’s birth certificate would not even show whether the child was born to citizen parents, a requirement to be a natural-born citizen, the third requirement to be a president.

Most Obots actually believe a birth certificate confirms natural-born citizenship. It does not. It only provides evidence of one metric of natural born citizenship…the birthplace.

Wupperman may have been born in Hawaii, and his parents may even be citizens, but Obama failed to inquire if Wupperman ever resided in a foreign country and registered as a foreign citizen, thereby, legally removing his natural-born citizenship status? Obama didn’t even think about the remote possibility that this little hamburger eating traitor may actually have been a foreign citizen at one time…like Obama.

Obama didn’t ask about those things because he doesn’t qualify under them either. He was just interested in the child’s dumb birth certificate. That’s as shallow as it goes in the mind of Obama.

Such a joke at the expense of an innocent victim reveals the damage Obama’s lies about his entire identity, not just the birth certificate, have caused to his character and reputation. He is the most prolific fraud and slanderer in the history of American politics. Mocking a six year old isn’t going change that. But, he did it anyway.

The place suddenly filled with uneasy chortles and darting eyes of those searching for comfort with the subject matter. If you have a hard time understanding the feelings in the room at that moment, imagine a member of the Third Reich showing up at a synagogue joking to see everyone’s Nazi ID card.

A joke is not funny when innocent people died and suffered for the punch line.

As the punch line discerning enemyship between America’s vintage heritage and the obotic liberal horde grows ever more definitive, and the spirit of violent revolution grows ever more restless in America, many on the left portray Obama's remark as a dig at the so-called “birthers” and, perhaps, at his opponent, Romney, even after accusing the same joke from Romney as being a dig on Obama.

Why the dissonant hypocrisy on the part of the left? Because, under the conviction of being puppeted fools controlled by such vast and immeasurable deception, they all fail to recognize that it just looks like a pathetic attempt to project his guilt onto a helpless subject who can’t defend himself.

Moreover, worst of all, they fail to realize the remark is just one more of a thousand justifications to cast judgment upon this utter wasteland of liberal inhumanity.

Perhaps we should actually help Obama get re-elected. It might be more beneficial to keep this charlatan locked at the helm as the ship sinks with the greatest collapse in human history.

At that point, when real people begin dying and losing the fight against the truth, everyone will understand…the tired joke is no longer funny.

Later, Obama worked a room of fifty or so people, leading a round of “Happy Birthday” for a little girl.

“How old are you?” He asked her.

She held up three fingers.

Apparently, her gender was enough evidence to conclude she would never be president. Obama didn’t even bother to ask for her birth certificate.

What Bill Clinton Really Said
Don Fredrick (The Obama Timeline... and thoughts on restoring American liberties)
September 6, 2012

Yes, Bill Clinton’s rousing convention speech motivated many of the people in Obama’s political base. But that is preaching to the choir. The base would vote for Obama even if intimate photos of him with Reggie Love and Kal Penn were released.

What Clinton also did was say things that work against Obama. Clinton, who most certainly detests Obama for the thuggish actions in the 2008 primaries and caucuses that cost Hillary—and him—eight more years in the White House, was brilliant. He made sure he repeated every major criticism of Obama the Republicans have made. “The Republicans left Obama a mess and now they say he didn’t clean it up fast enough!” Yes, that is a slam of his friend George W. Bush. But Bush is not on the ballot, and the statement is also an indictment of Obama. It reminds viewers—like Reagan Democrats—that Obama has failed.

Did viewers hear, “Bush failed” or did they hear, “Obama failed” when Clinton spoke? On CNN, Wolf Blitzer and his assemblage of Obama toadies clearly heard, “Bush failed.” But “Obama didn’t clean it up fast enough!” is what many Americans may remember.

Clinton spent a substantial amount of time noting how well he worked with Republicans in Congress and with both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He made it clear that they are all decent people with whom he had honest policy differences. But he said he didn’t let those differences get in the way of accomplishing things for the American people. This was not a brief passage in his speech; it was a point that was emphasized. Clinton then noted Obama’s inability to deal with a Republican Congress. Yes, Clinton “officially” put the blame on the GOP. But is there any doubt that he intentionally made a clear contrast between his own people skills and Obama’s? The subtle messages in Clinton’s words were, “Obama failed where I succeeded” and “Those Republicans aren’t so bad after all.” Again, CNN’s talking heads may not have heard those messages—but many Americans did.

Yes, Clinton briefly ridiculed Paul Ryan’s budget for relying on the same $716 billion in Medicare budget cuts that Obama used to help offset the cost of ObamaCare. But Clinton first confirmed—in much greater detail and using far more time—that Obama did, in fact, cut $716 billion from Medicare. Clinton therefore made it impossible for Obama or any other Democrats to now claim that Medicare funds are not being used to fund ObamaCare. (Imagine DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the Sunday talk shows saying, “No, that’s not true”—and being immediately confronted with, “But even Bill Clinton said…” Will the viewers believe Bill Clinton or Debbie Wasserman Schultz?)

Toward the end of his address Clinton noted several issues and said, “If you believe X, then vote for Obama.” Even that section was craftily worded by Clinton. To illustrate the point with an extreme example, had Clinton said, “If you believe welfare spending should be doubled in order to help the poor people of this nation, then vote for Obama!” the convention crowd would most certainly have shouted its approval. But millions of people watching on television do not believe that welfare spending should be doubled. To them, the message is, “Don’t vote for Obama!” Thus, when Clinton told the assembled delegates they should vote for Obama if they believe in welcoming immigrants to the United States so they can make better lives for themselves, he was essentially also saying, “If you think loose immigration policies are not good for the nation then you should not vote for Obama.”

Clinton’s speech was generously peppered with messages that sound pro-Obama on the surface but actually say something much different. If the Romney team and Karl Rove have any sense, they will spend a week creating a series of Obama attack ads that feature the mountain of statements cleverly handed to them by Bill Clinton. If “He didn’t clean it up fast enough” does not appear in a political ad, I’ll eat my elephant-adorned convention hat.

By the end of the speech, the “progressives” at CNN and MSNBC were slapping each other on the back and joking about how much Clinton had helped Obama’s reelection efforts. They made the grave mistake of taking Clinton’s words at face value, forgetting that he is as crafty as a fox.

ARPAIO WILL CONTINUE INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA’S IDENTITY
by Penbrook One

STAYING ON POINT: Despite Barack Obama’s antagonism of a racially divisive political environment, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his Cold Case investigation of evidence that shows the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” and Selective Service registration card are fraudulent records.

By Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – Unless the recent announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue charges against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office is also accompanied with a confession by the unknown criminals who counterfeited and posted to the official White House website a faked computer image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, Arizona lawman, Joe Arpaio, says he will continue his cold case investigation of the fraudulent identity records.
Arpaio spoke with WND’s Aaron Klein during a WABC broadcast of Klein’s “Investigative Radio” about Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to close what appears to have been a politically motivated probe into so-called misconduct by personnel of the MCSO.
Although the unfounded allegations against Arpaio’s office began after the introduction of Arizona’s SB1070 immigration enforcement law, Obama's DOJ vigorously pursued the probe of Arpaio in the past year in what appeared to be a politically motivated retaliation for Arpaio’s highly publicized investigation of Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration card.
“My office has been vindicated,” Arpaio told Klein.
Arpaio continued by saying the investigation of his office has been ridiculous.
“We’re glad it’s over,” he said, “…It’s been in the media constantly for four years. I guess it’s because it’s me. If it was somebody else, you probably wouldn’t hear about it.”
Klein then asked the sheriff, “Leading up to the November election, do you plan to continue your investigation and make the eligibility issue and Obama’s birth certificate into a campaign issue?”
“We’re continuing it,” Arpaio responded.
“It’s not whether he was born here. We’re looking at the fraudulent government documents. That’s been my mission from day one…to see if those birth certificates were false.
Since before the 2008 election, many have suspected that information about Obama’s past and his true identity have been intentionally obscured and counterfeited to prevent the American public from discovering what many believe is politically, if not legally, destructive evidence against Obama's legitimacy to serve as president.
For many, the lack of verifiable information about Obama’s true identity disqualifies him, by default, from being a legitimate president. However, if authentic documents were discovered containing information about Obama's alleged birthplace and parentage of his birth; His citizenship status as a resident in Indonesia; His unverified identity records, including a suspicious social security number issued from Connecticut, a state he never resided in, and a foreign passport used to travel to Pakistan, they would have a cataclysmic impact on Obama’s legitimacy as president if any of them either a.) revealed he was not born in the U.S. to two citizen parents or, b.) proves that he did not maintain his citizenship from birth to election or, c.) shows he has been lying about his real identity.
“We haven’t given up on it,” Arpaio continued. “We have a lot of information. We’ll see what happens.”
When Klein asked the sheriff if he thought the birth certificate would be a significant issue in the election, Arpaio said he believes the issue will, unfortunately, continue to be ignored by the political parties and the mainstream media.
“I don’t think so,” Arpaio responded, “…because everybody’s ignoring it on both sides of the fence. Even the media ignores the evidence we have. But we did our job, I was asked to do it, we used my volunteer posse at no cost to the government. We did a great investigation; we’re still coming up with information, so we’ll see what happens on that issue.”
The DOJ opened the investigation of Arpaio in 2010 after it received allegations from left-wing groups of financial improprieties by the sheriff and his deputies.
The DOJ found no such evidence of impropriety.
A separate federal investigation into Arpaio’s office regarding alleged civil rights abuses is still ongoing, but also appears to be based on personal politics rather than any legal precedent. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of part of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration enforcement law, allowing police to request immigration status from those suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, radical leftists retaliated by prompting the Obama administration to initiate a civil rights investigation against Arpaio.
It has long been known that radicals, like those infesting the Obama administration, rail against laws prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting because illegal immigrants tend to vote, by a wide margin, for the democrat party. Obama’s recent Executive Order granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is just one example of padding the liberal voting bloc by circumventing immigration laws.
Therefore, Obama and his party of radicals only seek to ingratiate themselves with political power by disregarding the U.S. Constitution and harassing long-serving immigration law enforcement officials, like Arpaio.

Obama’s impressive list of (crooked) accomplishments
by Alan Bates, MD
August 26, 2012

First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in. (Connecticut)

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States .

First President to violate the War Powers Act.

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs when there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of automobile companies to his union supporters, leaving bondholders empty-handed.

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

First President to terminate America 's ability to put a man in space, defunding NASA.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. (DOMA ACT to protect traditional marriage)

First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases. Reasons: Implementation of OBAMACARE.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company (Boeing) in which State they are allowed to locate a factory.

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

First President to play golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date and counting.

First President to spend $1M in legal fees to block access to his medical, educational and travel records.

First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

First President to not know how to properly pronounce Navy 'corpsman', or our Marine Corps.

First President to go on multiple global apology tours, including bowing to foreign rulers.

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends---all paid for by the taxpayers

First President to send his 13 year-old daughter to a foreign country on spring break before classes were over, and with 25 bodyguards, paid for by the taxpayers.

First President to say that America was not a Christian nation.

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) just for his wife.

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

Copyright August 26, 2012 by Gulf1

Worst President In History Criticizes Gop Speeches As ‘Last Century Politics’---So How Are His Politics Working Out For The Middle Class?
by Alan Bates, MD
September 02, 2012

Anyone who watched the unedited version of the Republican National Convention on Cspan instead of the ‘avoidance’ soundbytes of MSNBC and the lamestreet liberal media networks knows it was a winning combination of Americans from all walks of life with no color, ethnic or gender barriers. From Governor Christie to Paul Ryan to Mitt Romney; from Governor Susana Martinez to Condoleezza Rice to Ann Romney; and all in-between, the theme was that WE CAN DO BETTER and must in order to avert loss of the greatest nation on Earth. That can only occur if Americans UNelect Barack Obama and abolish his failed anti-American policies. The GOP took the high road in contrast to the DIVIDE AND CONQUER strategy of lies and distortions the Democrats will present in Charlotte since their record is the most abysmal in American history. The Dems’ problem is they either don’t get it or, if they do, they must hide their failures through diversionary and divisionary tactics! The Republicans this time around made it crystal clear that the choice in the upcoming election is stark as ever. Americans can vote for a truly progressive pro-American and pro-family administration which is proud of American exceptionalism instead of one which makes apology tours; for an administration which wants to grow middle class jobs through the private sector intead of one which believes that government creates jobs; for an administration which strives to develop ALL energy resources for our longterm security instead of one which has created a virtual ideologic blockade against secure energy policy; for an administration which will establish many needed trade agreements instead of one which has crafted only 3 in four years (while China has forged some 30-40 international trade agreements); an administration which will take us back to our core values of family and our Constitutional freedoms and which recognizes that all people are created equal by God instead of one which tramples our Constitution and believes the People are endowed with rights from and thus beholden to government. The Republican candidates believe that ‘You built it’, while Obama says ‘You did not build that’ (government did).

The Obama administration has no sense of economics and business with the lowest percentage of his unconstitutional Czar-filled cabinet having ever held real private sector jobs compared to ANY other administration in our history. Is it no wonder we have seen no economic recovery from the Democrat-engineered housing collapse, the prolific spending of the Pelosi-Reid Congress between 2006 and 2008, followed by the nation’s fiscal calamity of exponentially increasing debt---now near 16 trillion dollars? The Obama administration diverted bailout funds to reward his supporters while the middle class withered and small businesses suffocated under his approximately 300 additional burdensome government regulations, not to mention budget-busting Obamacare and the threat of higher taxes for those who already pay way more than their ‘fair share’! What about the national budget? None for more than three years! Fiscal responsibility and good economics---where? America now sports the highest poverty rate in its history and a jobless rate of about 15% if one uses real numbers---and worse for black Americans most of whom will still vote for Obama on the basis of their skin color. Why has unemployment not improved? Because Obama is obsessed with devaluing America and creating as many people dependent upon government as possible so HE can secure their votes. For Barack Obama it is all about himself---not about America! America is increasingly divided because his selfish and destructive strategy is to divide in order to achieve ideologically perverse goals which punish American exceptionalism.

Wisconsin Reprentative Paul Ryan is a proven fiscal genius and family man, who has shown himself to be perhaps the most adept in Congress at digesting the reality of the Democrats’ failed fiscal policies, leading to similar conclusions as the Debt Commission appointed by (but whose recommendations were ignored by) Obama. Ryan is uniquely presidential and a perfect partner for businessman philanthropist Romney. Together these two leaders represent the only option available to turn our nation around and unite all Americans for its longterm success. Now it is up to Americans to determine whether they flush our nation down the toilet as has occurred the past 4 years under Obama OR change course so that our children and grandchildren might inherit the American dream. Under Obama that dream has been shattered.

Now for the ‘Demagogue’ Party in Charlotte where featured speakers include taxcheats such as Timothy Geithner and John Kerry, Eric Holdout of the DOIJ and his comrade in constitutional violations, Janet Napolitano, and Joe Biden (the intellect of the Democrat Party) as they all hold hands while slogging ‘FORWARD’ through the mud of the failed Obama presidency armed with well-planned diversions cloaked in demagoguery and falsehoods. As they say on FOX---‘You decide’.

Copyright 9/02/2012 by Gulf1

ANTI-ARPAIO PROBE DROPPED BY OBAMA’S DOJ AS ELIGIBILITY “TRADE OFF” FEARED
by Penbrook One

OBAMA’S “MONTY HALL” PROBLEM – In the wake of Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigation of Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration, the federal government has mysteriously closed its criminal probe of alleged misconduct by the Arizona lawman saying no charges would be filed, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. However, the sudden reversal by the Department of Justice after such vigorous pursuit of Arpaio leaves many wondering if a deal was struck to prevent Arpaio’s evidence of forgery and identity fraud against Obama from damaging the democrat's 2012 re-election bid.

by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Despite a vigorous two year investigation, federal authorities speaking Friday on behalf of Obama-appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that the Department of Justice will not be filing charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office after closing what amounted to be a politically motivated investigation into false allegations of racial bias and abuse of power.

Confirming Arpaio’s innocence, the initial inquiry by the DOJ found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of MCSO officials, Arpaio or his deputies. However, Arpaio’s concurrent year-long investigation of Obama’s eligibility has discovered evidence to support criminal charges of document forgery and identity fraud against unknown individuals working on behalf of Obama.
With the 2012 election looming, the timing of the decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to discontinue the investigation is raising suspicion. The DOJ dropped the investigation just as Arpaio’s own investigation into the forgery of Barack Obama’s alleged birth certificate and Selective Service registration card gained powerful public interest after a July 17, 2012 press conference during which Arpaio’s investigators revealed vast and condemning evidence of an attempt to cover-up his illegitimacy as president.
In the second of two press conferences, Arpaio’s Cold Case investigators presented findings after a 10-month law enforcement investigation indicating that the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to an official government media source by the Obama White House, was a computer manipulated forgery. It was also determined through testimony provided by the Hawaiian Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, that the digital image presented to the American people was not the form originally provided to attorney's on behalf of the Obama administration in April, 2011 by the Hawaiian Department of Health.

Millions of Americans, including Arpaio's investigators, have strongly refuted claims from the administration that the .pdf file peddled by liberal pro-Obama media as authentic ever existed in paper form. The municipal government of the State of Hawaii simply did not possess the technology to produce a "certifiable" computer (.pdf) image of a birth certificate in 1961 therefore indicating that operatives secretly working for the Obama administration forged the image sometime between April 25th and April 27th, 2011.

Many Obama supporters lack the intellectual ability to understand that the very existence of a computer image of any original birth document alleged to have been issued by an official government office, regardless of the accuracy of the information within it, is, by definition, a counterfeited record. The State of Hawaii does not, nor has it ever, issued "certified" birth certificates in the form of a computer image because it is commonly understood that such records are vulnerable to digital manipulation.

"Obots are developing clear signs of mental illness over this specific issue," says TDP editor, Pen Johannson, "because they simply do not have the moral or intellectual capability to accept the fact that someone other than the State of Hawaii created this computer image!"

"When confronted with this mind crushing reality, there is no other possibility other than a criminal forger working on behalf of Obama! There is simply too much psychological pain to admit this because such an admission opens the flood gates of indictment against Obama's lies. They have no way to provide an explanation for how this computer image was created by any valid objective source which can legally and verifiably support Obama's documentable legitimacy as president. The truth is simply not on their side...and they are becoming collectively psychotic in there toil to defend these epic and unprecedented lies."

Investigators also discovered historical evidence that the State of Hawaii has for decades issued native birth records to foreign born children essentially granting artificial U.S. citizenship to foreigners in a blatant violation of U.S. Immigration laws. The evidence for these conclusions was discovered in thousands of historical Census enumeration cards listing the foreign birthplace of children of heads of households in Hawaii cross referenced with their subsequent "native hawaiian" birth registration announcements in local news papers and archived birth records.
Prior to this, in March, the CCP presented forensic evidence which demonstrated that Obama’s Selective Service Registration card was also forged given the fact that it was allegedly signed by Obama a day after it was stamped and that it was stamped with a PIKA stamp containing only two digits in the year. The post office has never used a two-digit year in its PIKA stamps to stamp any of the millions of Selective Service registration cards received by its branches accept, apparently, one...Barack Obama's.
Absurdly, based on yet another digital image posted on the internet, abettors for Obama are foolishly claiming that only Obama’s Selective Service card has ever been stamped with a two-digit year stamp in the entire history of the Selective Service registration program.
Obama also claims he filed the Selective Service registration card with a post office in Honolulu on July 29, 1980 but Obama’s signature appears to have been collected a day later, on July 30th, 1980. This renders the registration invalid because a postal worker must witness the signature in person after checking the individual’s identification, before applying the PIKA stamp. In order to be legally eligible to serve as president, a male candidate must register for the Selective Service at the legally mandated time after his 18th birthday, before his 26th birthday.
The Selective Service Administration refused to provide the original record to Maricopa County investigators simply saying they “have no evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration is fraudulent”.
The response simply indicates the Selective Service Administration has no evidence of fraud because they refuse to accept the evidence from Arpaio’s investigation. Testimony from Obama himself also suggests that he may not have even been in the U.S. in 1981.
The DOJ’s decision to drop the probe concerns many involved in the Obama eligibility investigation. In what appears to be rank political gamesmanship, questions are being raised about whether or not Arpaio will leave open his investigation of Obama, which he said he would do, now that Obama is no longer pursuing an investigation of Arpaio.
The allegations against Arpaio held no legal merit. However, as salaciously dishonest as the rumors against Arpaio’s office were, the public’s ignorant perception could put many citizens in danger as community support for his deputies and corrections officers is politically compromised without warrant. Officials say such libel against community law enforcement puts deputies and the public at risk.
Prompted by radical anti-Arpaio activists, DOJ authorities were investigating the sheriff’s office for its part in several failed public corruption cases against officials who were politically opposed to Arpaio as well as allegations of racial bias against Hispanics and minorities.
MCSO deputies are regularly forced to respond to higher incidences of crimes involving Hispanic and minorities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, where the Sheriff’s office has jurisdiction. Arpaio had also brought criminal cases against a Democratic judge and two liberal county officials in 2009.
Activists also accuse Arpaio of neglecting dozens of alleged sex crimes despite the fact that hundreds of other Sheriff’s offices in more liberal cities, like San Francisco, across the nation apply more stringent evidentiary guidelines to sex crime allegations and, thus, are even more ‘backlogged’ with their investigations than Arpaio’s office.
According to Fox News:
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel released a statement saying her office ‘is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct’ by current and former members of the sheriff's and county attorney's offices. Scheel, who is based in Arizona, didn't elaborate but said she was acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.”
The report by Fox continued:
“The federal probe focused specifically on the sheriff's anti-public-corruption squad. In a separate probe, the U.S. Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office of a wide range of civil rights violations, and in another case, a federal judge has yet to rule in a civil case brought by a group of Latino plaintiffs that claimed Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.
Arpaio was scheduled to give a news conference Friday night after returning from the Republican National Convention in Florida.
His deputy chief Jack MacIntyre, said, "the U.S. attorney's office and its investigators recognized what sheriff's office has said all along: We did not make any prosecutorial decisions, even though things were referred to the then-county attorney."
The timing of the federal authorities' announcement -- at 5 p.m. on a Friday before a holiday weekend -- was questioned by some Arpaio critics.
"It is a miscarriage of justice that the federal government is dropping its case against Sheriff Arpaio and to make such an announcement on the Friday night before the Democratic National Convention can only be politically motivated to shield the administration from criticism," Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said in a statement.
The 79-year-old sheriff and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, were embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges and defended their investigations as necessary to root out corruption.
The officials who were targets of the investigations contend the probes were trumped up as retaliation for political and legal disagreements with the sheriff and prosecutor.
Criminal cases against former Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and county supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley were dismissed after a judge ruled that Thomas prosecuted one of the three officials for political gain and had a conflict of interest in pressing the case.
Authorities say the charges against Donahoe were filed in a bid to prevent the judge from holding a hearing regarding Arpaio and Thomas' claim that judges and county officials conspired to hinder a probe into the construction of a court building.
Donahoe had disqualified Thomas from handling the court building investigation and was poised to hold another hearing over a request to appoint special prosecutors to handle the probe. The hearing was called off after the charges were filed against the judge.
The judge also had been critical of the ability of Arpaio's office to bring inmates to court on time for hearings.
Thomas was disbarred in early April by an ethics panel of the Arizona courts that found he brought unsuccessful criminal cases against the judge and two county officials for the purpose of embarrassing them.
In the separate probe, which is still ongoing, the Justice Department says Arpaio's office racially profiles Latinos, retaliates against critics of its immigration patrols and bases its immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. The sheriff denies the allegations.
And in the civil case, the Latino plaintiffs aren't seeking monetary damages. Instead, they want a declaration that Arpaio's office uses racial profiling and an order requiring policy changes. If Arpaio loses the case, he won't face jail time or fines”