Sooner Or Later They Will Expose Him! Obama’s FRAUDULENT SS NUMBER: MARYLAND JUDGE TAKES NOTICE & OPENS A (LEGAL) DOOR

Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:04

(Before It's News)

By Adina Kutnicki
EVERY now and again a little piece of good news waft’s in the direction of those who consider themselves patriots, regardless of whether they are ex pats or not. This is one of those times. Nevertheless, hold off on the party hats and the bubbly. It is premature. But just in case the news turns out to be a positive result – and for those who are not interested in booze – well, there are always other ways to enjoy the party! Best to think good thoughts.
And we also know – at least on this end – that patience and perseverance are key virtues, even when butting up against all the naysayers and tsk, tskers becomes tiresome. Besides, who cares what they babble. Sticks and stones. In any case, one develops a thick skin when verbal arrows are slung, at times even being called “Zionist scum”!
Such is the case with Attorney Orly Taitz (who happens to also be a dentist, and certainly not a stupid sort) who is reviled all over the “leftistsphere” (just coined a new phrase) for supposedly maligning the integrity of “The One”. Barf.
Now, it is not as if the attorney/doc is making things up and that there is no there there. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Thus, a few trails to back her up:
Trail One:
The continued quest for answers: EXACTLY, who is the man-child leading the free world? Earth shaking questions few DARE ask.
Trail Two:
“Birthers” are reaching critical mass: Congress will hopefully receive an earful & eyeful.
Trail Three
The “birther” kerfuffle FINALLY in reach of Congress (backhandedly)via the Supreme Court. Will they do a damn thing? Their sworn duty.
Trail Four
UPDATE: will “birther” probe (soon?) come to a climactic head?
ONTO the main event…
Judge Makes Order To Investigate Obama’s Social Security Number

It took years for Watergate to unravel fully. The controversy over Barack Hussein Obama and his past, along with fraudulent documents continues to make headlines. Yet, the items needed to actually verify who Obama is continue to be kept from the public eye. Well, that all may be about to change. Attorney Orly Taitz may have just found a chink in the federal government’s armor in protecting Barack Obama from scrutiny, following a judge’s ruling over her Freedom of Information Act request from the Social Security Administration.
Taitz has claimed that Obama uses the Social Security number of Harry Bounel and has submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests for the information from the Social Security Administration. Each time, she has been met with stonewalling by the Social Security Administration.
However, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander has ruled to give Taitz “an opportunity to file a second amended complaint and add allegations of SSA not doing a proper search and withholding records.”
From Taitz’s Press Release:
Judge Hollander in Maryland gives Attorney Orly Taitz 21 days to file a second amended complaint and add allegations in regards to an improper withholding by the Social Security Administration of records of Harry Bounel, whose Social security number is being illegally used by Barack Obama. When Taitz filed the complaint, SSA did not respond at all. After the law suit was filed, SSA responded by fraudulently claiming that the records were not found. Taitz responded that this is a fraudulent assertion, since the records were found before and denied to another petitioner due to privacy concerns, however Social Security has no right to claim privacy as according to their own 120 year rule they have a duty to release the records. The judge stated that the plaintiff Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to refile a second amended complaint and add new allegations, stating the SSA responded but improperly hidden the records . This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the SS-5, Social Security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose CT SSN 042-68-4425 was stolen by Obama and used in Obama’s 2009 tax returns, which initially were posted on WhiteHouse.gov without proper redaction, without flattening of the file. Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.
Additionally, there is an increased tampering with the web site of Orly Taitz and with her ability to send mass -emails. It seems her private server is somehow affected and Taitz is unable to send mass e-mails on two different programs.
It’s interesting that Taitz points out that she will be “careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied,” indicating that she believes that both Andrew Breitbart and Andrew Breitbart and Loretta Fuddy were targeted by Obama for assassination.” Breitbart died on the very day that he said he would begin vetting Obama for the 2012 elections, which raised suspicions. Fuddy, best remembered as being instrumental in issuing the Hawaii long-form birth certificate, was the only person to die aboard a small plane that crashed off the coast of Hawaii last week. Already, there are questions surrounding the narrative of her death.
Taitz alleged that Mr. Bounel was born in 1890, and therefore, under the “’120 Year Rule’ implemented by the SSA in 2010,” pertaining to “‘extremely aged individuals,’” Bounel’s “Social Security applications have to be released under FOIA without proof of [his] death . . . .”
The reason for the judge’s amendment seems to be a procedural one. Taitz filed suit with the court prior to receiving word back from her Freedom of Information Act request, which she did receive on July 29, 2013 from Dawn S. Wiggins, a Fredom of Information Officer. Wiggins replied to Taitz:
I have enclosed a copy of the SS-5s for Mr. Tsarnaev and Ms. Dunham. . . .
We were unable to find any information for Mr. Bounel based on the information you provided to us. Mr. Bounel may not have applied for a Social Security number (SSN) or may have given different information on the application for a number.
It appears that once the amendment is submitted, this may force the Social Security Administration to explain exactly what is going on with Barack Obama’s Social Security number.
We should know something about the case by the second week in January 2014.
It is within the above backdrop/prism that the mysterious death of Loretta Fuddy (Hawaii’s ex DOH Director) occurred, VERY SOON after Arpaio’s team announced criminally explosive findings re-eligibility. COINCIDENCE – OR NOT?
One also has to wonder: why precisely wasn’t the above preliminary decision (whatever the court finally decides, to hear the fraud case or not…truth be told, the judge will have her arms twisted…only the form it takes is anyone’s guess) SPLASHED all over the media’s airwaves? Don’t waste time thinking over this conundrum…what a head scratcher!
With these trails firmly in mind, the CRIME/HEIST OF THE CENTURY becomes Obama’s FORGED documents via his red/green accomplices, leading to an IMPERIAL Presidency!

Obama Busted Again Professor Henry Graff : I taught at Columbia for 46 years Obama Could Not Have Gone There

Monday, June 10, 2013 11:21

0

(Before It's News)

Professor Henry Graff : “I taught at Columbia for 46 years” Obama Could Not Have Gone There UPDATED ANOTHER OBAMA PROFESSOR COMES OUT

UPDATED
ANOTHER PROFESSOR COMES OUT ABOUT OBAMA NOT GOING TO COLUMIA

June 9, 2013 |

By : Matt Winkeljohn – http://www.resistthetyranny.com

There is no shortage of evidence that Barrack H. Obama is quite possibly the most inept, deceptive and disgraceful president that America has ever seen.

With all that we do know about Barrack Obama, what don’t we know?

We know that congress refuses to investigate Obama’s birth certificate.  Why would they.  It would prove that either there are higher forces that choose presidents for us or that congress is just as inept and crooked as Obama himself.

We know that Obama’s records of school and much of his past have been either permanently sealed or investigators have been repeatedly denied access to them.

We also know that many people in Barrack Obama’s past have died.  Some of which has been in some very unusual and unexplainable ways.  These people, coincidentally, are also people that could have exposed truths about Obama.

Speaking of Barrack Hussein Obama… We also know that he lived a double life under the name “Barry Soetoro.”

As If all of that wasn’t enough, incredibly, there is more!

 

Let me introduce you to Wayne Allyn Root.

Mr. Root is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative Republican.  He is also A graduate of Columbia University.  He also graduated the same year as Obama and from the same classes as Obama, but Mr. Root doesn’t remember Barrack Obama.  In fact, neither does anyone else in those classes.
Root is not alone in coming out about Obama’s mysterious absence from Columbia.
There are a number of professors that taught at the prestigious university that say they have no recollection of having Obama in any of their classes either. 

Of those professors, there is one that agreed to a full interview.
Meet Professor Henry Graff

Mr. Graff is perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was THE American History and Diplomatic History professor at Columbia for 46 years.
Of everything that Mr. Graff said in his interview, he ended by saying this -

“I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.”

You would think that at a largely liberal collage, such as Columbia, former students and professors would be clamoring to say they have studied with Obama, produce pictures of them together or even claim to have shared a beer or two with the now president, but no, nothing.

Does all of this not concern you?  Shouldn’t the main stream media be telling you about this?
More importantly…
Shouldn’t YOU be “up in arms” over this?

One Cheap Crook: What’s Not To Comprehend?

by Martha Trowbridge

An Amicus Curiae filed by The Alabama Democratic Party has got to be THE DUMBEST DEFENSE EVER by those who seek to shield a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II from long overdue Justice.
Amongst other overblown statements in their filing re: McInnish v. Chapman, in Judge Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court, is this one:
“In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
Really?
A guy sporting an alias, using his considerable con to get away with it, “taxes the imagination of reasonable minds”?
A guy who only got away with his fraud because no one bothered to check him out.
Tell me, Alabama Democratic Party, what’s not to comprehend?
Are you really unaware that some people go around town pretending to be someone they are not?
Is it incomprehensible to think that someone slick and charming lied to you? About who he is, who his parents are, and where he comes from?
Have you never heard of Identity Fraud?
Which, in the case of one a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, translates into massive, repetitive Election Fraud, occurring over a period of nearly two decades. In multiple IL State Senate Elections, one IL Congressional Election, one IL United States Senator Election, and two United States Presidential Elections.
Alabama Democrats: what truly “taxes the imagination of reasonable minds” is the penalty for having committed so much crime. His victims are in the hundreds of millions. All of us have been materially harmed.
So has our highest Office.
Besides. If you were so convinced of his authenticity, why do you vigorously resist Court Examination of his Identity Documents?
By your statements, we “tiny cabal of zealots” know you know that a.k.a. Obama is a fraud. He’s as phony as his forged, fraudulent birth certificate. It’s in a.k.a. Obama’s Identity Fraud – the lies, the excuses, the defenses, the deceit – that elaborate thinking resides.
The Truth is simple.
What’s been coerced upon America – in fact, upon you too, Alabama Democrats – was a con. By a very small cabal of conspirators, many of them members of his family, who vowed by hook or by crook to get their boy to The White House.
A.k.a. Obama’s actual family, The Newmans of New York City – who concocted what they judged to be The Perfect Political Con.
One cheap crook in expensive clothing, flashing his father Malcolm X’s ’winning’ grin, toting an Ivy League Law Degree [which he acquired under a false identity]. Impossible that he’s not who he claimed he is? Please. Alabama Democrats: have none of you heard that convicted criminal ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczinski was a Harvard guy? Does the name Ted Bundy, bright, handsome, charming Law School student, darling to Republican officials, ring any bells?

Proof That Obama Is Stark Raving Mad

March 21, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root

Our government-run public education system is very bad — so bad that generations of Americans educated in public schools don’t recognize idiots, economic illiterates, Ponzi schemes, frauds or Marxists when they see them. So I’m going to educate the masses with very simple examples that even a sixth-grader can understand.

Let’s compare America to your household. That makes it very simple and easy to understand.
Let’s say you make $50,000 per year, and you owe $250,000 in debt. You’re in deep trouble, right? One way or another, you are headed for bankruptcy court in the future.

Then you receive a credit line in the mail for $250,000. Are you rich? Of course not. That new credit line or credit card is not “income.” It’s a loan — to be paid back at high interest rates. You didn’t just gain $250,000. You just added $250,000 to your debt. You still make $50,000, but instead of owing $250,000 in debt, you now owe $500,000. You think you’re “saved.” Actually, you’re twice as broke as before. Insanity.

That’s exactly what Barack Obama is doing to the U.S. economy. He added $6 trillion in debt in only four years to “save” us from a terrible economy. Well, he didn’t save anyone. He just put all of us into much deeper debt. This debt will destroy the lives of our children and grandchildren. And the economy isn’t even better. It’s in shambles. If interest rates go up in the future, the entire U.S. economy will be destroyed by the debt
.
But there is one part of the economy thriving: the stock market. That keeps going up because Obama has guaranteed the richest fat cats on Wall Street profits by the billions — from you! Yes, you’re paying for the richest people on Wall Street to get rich. Obama is stealing $85 billion per month from the taxpayers — mostly the middle class — to buy bonds that no one else wants and to buy mortgages that no one else wants, which automatically makes the stock market go up. That $85 billion per month that the Fed is printing goes straight to the bottom line of the biggest companies publicly traded on Wall Street. They get rich. Their CEOs get rich. Their shareholders get rich. The banks and hedge funds get rich. And you’re stuck with the bill.
Once again, those trillions of dollars printed by the Fed to make the stock market go up so Obama can act like the economy is getting better are not riches; they are debt. They are loans that need to be paid back by you, your children and grandchildren. Insanity.

Even worse, can you imagine if the $250,000 credit line that came in the mail to “save” you, was issued by you? That’s exactly what’s happening under Obama. We are so broke, so indebted, so insolvent that no one wants to buy our bonds anymore. That’s why the United States, Europe and Japan buy 60 percent to 90 percent of their own bonds. Do you understand what this means? That’s like your being so broke, so in debt, that you lend yourself the money to pay the bills you can’t afford.
Can you imagine if you owned a bank and gave yourself a $250,000 loan that no one else would give you because you are unqualified to handle more debt? You’d be destroying your own future, plus your own bank. You didn’t “save” yourself or your bank. You killed two birds with one loan. Insanity.

How about Obama’s claim that he “saved” the auto industry. Once again, it’s a combination of pure fraud and pure delusion. He didn’t actually “save” anyone. He just grabbed about $100 billion from the taxpayers — that’s you — to redistribute to auto unions so their members could continue to get their obscene unsustainable pensions and then kick back $100 million or so to Obama’s Presidential campaign. It’s called “pay for play.” It’s fraud, and someone should go to prison.
And, of course, we now know that the loss to taxpayers is at least $25 billion and maybe much more. So whom did Obama “save?” I could save any industry in the country by stealing $25 billion from taxpayers and handing it to that industry. But the reality is: You’re out $25 billion, folks. That’s more debt for your kids. They’ll be paying the interest on that debt decades from now, and they didn’t even get a lousy car out of the deal. Insanity.

What if your creditors agreed to a deal to restructure your debt, and they offered you the following deal: You owe us $250,000 and you can’t pay it back, so we’ll raise it to $500,000 and we’ll all agree things look better. Well that’s the “fiscal cliff” deal folks. To solve a debt crisis, we added $4 trillion to the spending and debt, and the President and Congress declared it a victory. Insanity.

What if things got so bad that you finally agreed to cut spending to save your personal economy? So you cut $10 per week to try to repay your $250,000 debt. Well, that’s the sequester, folks. We cut a measly $80 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget, with more than $16 trillion in debt. We accomplished nothing. Insanity.

What if you were out of work for two years, and you got so discouraged that you decided to stop looking for a job and spend the rest of your life living off food stamps and disability; but because you’re not looking for a job anymore, you no longer consider yourself unemployed? That’s exactly how Obama can claim the unemployment rate is “improving.” Insanity.

Finally, here’s the most bizarre example of all. You are broke. Out of money. You can’t pay your bills. You still owe $250,000. Collection agencies are calling day and night. But you love the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt so much that you still write them a check for $25,000. That’s what Obama just did with your taxpayer money. Insanity.

I hope it’s all clear now. The U.S. economy is now best described as a combination of debt, fraud and delusion. And the CEO who runs it, President Barack Obama, is absolutely stark raving mad.

THE EVIDENCE IS MOUNTING...

EVERYTHING POINTS TO
STOLEN VOTES

Written by:
Dave in Fla
Thursday, 08 November 2012
"Dave in Fla" runs the DiF Poll Analysis website
Posted for TPATH November 10, 2012


We are being asked to believe that Romney got close to three million fewer votes in 2012 than John McCain got in 2008.

That's not possible.

This election is a fraud.

I don't know exactly how - rigging voting machines, hacking tabulation software, whatever. What I do know is that it is totally beyond inevitability and into the realm of ridiculously absurd that Romney actually got any fewer votes than McCain in 2008, much less millions fewer.

I hate going down a conspiracy road, but yes I believe the election was stolen, and the implications of that are very bad. First of all, Obama received 10 million less votes than he did in 2008. The part that is unbelievable is that Romney received 3 million less votes than McCain. At the end of the day, Obama won in the 4 critical swing states by 500,000 votes. But it is worse than that. We can look at who voted.

By examining the number of Independents and their preference shift among actual voters, we know that 5 million Independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008.

This means that 5.5 million Republican
voters are not accounted for.

They didn't show up at the polls, or their votes were not counted. We know now that no subgroup of the coalition decided to sit out. So the current attempts to blame the Social Conservatives are stupid. All of our groups showed up to vote at the rates they did in 2008. For this to be true, over 10% of Republicans needed to decide not to vote this year, who did vote in 2008.

Does that make any sense?

In fact, it is even worse, we know for a fact that heavy GOP counties were swamped all day. We watched all day as, e.g., Pasco County Florida was showing huge increases in GOP voters over the 2008 numbers. In Virginia, with 69% of the precincts in, Romney held a 6% lead. Yet once a small number of counties reported, that lead disappeared. If the vote drop off occurred, it occurred in a very small number of counties. It was not visible nationwide. I contend that you can not get a 10% drop off in GOP turnout without it being noticeable during the GOTV effort, measures of enthusiasm in polling, or visibly lower turnout in GOP leaning precincts.

For anyone who doesn't want to think that the Obama campaign would engage in such blatant election fraud, contemplate this.

These are the same people who ran Fast and Furious without regard for the cost in human lives, turned off their credit card verification system to allow fraudulent donations, and allowed four Americans in Libya to die because it was politically inconvenient.
Do you really think that massive election fraud is something they wouldn't do? If this is true, then we have some hard things to consider.

First of all, we are now needlessly fracturing our coalition pointing fingers at people for not voting.

Second, we are making an assumption about the make up of the American public that is not true.

We are going to modify our party and message to appeal to a group of individuals who do not represent the majority of the population.

Most difficult to believe is that we are living in Venezuela where our elections are merely for show, and the people in charge of the Governments decide who will win elections. We become wards of the State, which is the aim of those who stole this election.

So how can this be proved? I am going to start by looking at a few key counties in Florida. What I want to see is the voter registration numbers by party, and then compare them to the actual votes received. Theoretically, if this were to be done for all counties in Florida, we could see where the fraud occurred. Comparing the votes Romney received to the strike lists would show that in specific counties Romney received something like 50% of the Republican vote (picking a number out of the air) while we know that nationwide he received 95% of the Republican vote. To really get to the answer, we would need to get the registration books, which might be possible through Freedom of Information act.
Those show who actually voted, by name, and their party. The media will not pursue this. This will take citizen journalists working in every state.

This letter was sent to TPATH yesterday. It has all the points most of us have been thinking. Let's hope Dave in Florida is successful with his several county analysis.

STATE DEPT. EMAILS SHOW OBAMA LIED ABOUT BENGHAZI TERROR ATTACK

 by Penbrook One

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY:  Two months after the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were slaughtered, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, the American people still have not been told the truth about what happened by the Obama administration.  Now, overwhelming evidence shows the Obama administration knew that terrorists were actively engaged in the attack as it was happening on September 11^th.

By Dan Crosby

Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - A series of internal State Department emails reveals that within hours of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya national security advisors report to Obama staff that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility, according to reports by Fox News.

In spite of the recently publicized emails, the fraudulently ensconced Obama administration perpetuated a misleading narrative that the attacks were not the result of terrorists, but rather caused by an obscure internet video claimed by government officials to be offensive to Islam.

The lie by the Obama administration that the video incited “spontaneous riots” has been exposed after sources in Libya and at the State Department said that there was no riot at the time of the attack.

Despite the fact that the video has since been exposed as a fraud posted months before the attacks, the video’s creator was arrested and detained after charges of a parole violation were filed against him by federal law enforcement officers.

To date, no evidence has since been produced proving the video creator is actually the individual responsible for the video or that he was in violation of any parole conditions.  His identity has been kept secret leading many to believe that he may be a straw-man concocted by the Obama administration as a scape-goat.

As reported by Fox:  “The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU, which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.

Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack.

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

"The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line: “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The emails on the day of the attack further challenge not only the initial statements made by administration officials like Rice about the strike, but also recent claims that they were only basing those statements on the intelligence they had at the time.

State Department official Patrick Kennedy recently testified to Congress that anyone in Rice's position would have made the same statements about the attack being spontaneous.

However, the newly uncovered emails clearly state the involvement of a militant group whose agenda is to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya.

Despite this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Rice on Sept. 18. He said: "Based on information that we -- our initial information ... we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video." Carney went on to say "that is what we know" based on "concrete evidence, not supposition."

HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY MUNICIPALITY LYING FOR OBAMA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

AN INSIDE JOB...REPORT: Suspecting the unemployment rate in last weeks' U.S. Labor Department jobless report had been "cooked" to favor the Obama Administration's economic performance, analysts discover that California was indeed omitted from the numbers and, in the course of their inquiry also find that California's Labor Secretary, Marty Morgenstern, is a big Obama campaign donor.

by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

 

NEW YORK, NY – The state governments in Hawaii and California rely heavily on federal tax revenue to support their municipal operations, infrastructure and public services. One relies on the federal government because it is so remote, the other because it is so big…and both because they are so liberal.    

For more than four years, many have suspected the State of Hawaii has lied to hide information about Obama’s natal history. The reason for the suspicion is rooted in Hawaii’s refusal to provide information from their Health Department files which would help prove that Obama is a Natural-Born citizen and, therefore, eligible to hold the office of President.

 
Now, California is lying for Obama too.

 
On October 11, the U.S. Labor Department reported that jobless claims had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, suggesting the first dramatic increase in economic growth and a decline in layoffs since February 2008.

 
However, speculation among business analysts and economists immediately questioned the accuracy of the report after a review of the volume of jobless claims in comparison with volumes in previous reports. As a result, they found strong evidence that the unemployment rate had been falsely reported as 7.8%, down 0.5%.

The drop in percentage of jobless claims caused analysts to then look at the comparative volumes from each state and what they found was a volume of jobless claims which indicated that one state may have failed to report its data. This was determined after it was realized the denominator of a key labor rate indicator measuring the available labor force had sharply increased.

 
Changing the denominator of the jobless rate without changing the numerator will change the percentage, without changing the volume. For example, if 3 out 12 people are unemployed, that is a 25% unemployment rate. But if you show those 3 unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same 3 people are still not working!

"...if you show those same three unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same three people are still not working!" 
 
Based on the increase of the denominator in the ratio, the analysts focused on California as the possible state which they believed had been left out because California has the largest population and largest labor force in the U.S. which, if omitted, would indeed cause about a 0.5% fluctuation based on previous report numbers.

 
In reaction to accusations of impropriety, the California Employment Development Department strongly denied that it had failed to properly document the data.

 
“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week.

“The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.”

However, it now appears the analysts were right. Early Thursday, the federal government finally revealed that California was indeed the state that had, in fact, underreported jobless claims, as suspected by many, after the weekly Labor Department job report, skewing the national jobless claims results. This week’s updated jobs report corrected the error and showed unemployment claims spiking back up by 46,000.

 
The intentional omission of California’s data promoted an artificially favorable economic report for the Obama administration because the inclusion of California’s unemployed would have cause the jobless rate to increase by 0.02%, not decrease by 0.48% to 7.8%.

 
Regardless, the pro-Obama, biased media spread the “good news” quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

 
Within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Department analysts announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims. They declined to name the state.

 
Now, it has been learned that Marty Morgenstern, the secretary of the California municipal agency that under-reported unemployment claims, contributed to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign.

 
According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama campaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.

 
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Morgenstern to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011. The state agency oversees the Employment Development Department.

 
California recent in-state report claims its unemployment rate has dropped from 10.6% to 10.2%.

 
Analysts are rightly skeptical of the report.

PBS DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS FIND NO EVIDENCE OBAMA ATTENDED COLUMBIA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

“I DIDN’T CONSIDER HIM AMERICAN” – Interviewing several people from Obama’s past, producers of “The Choice” documentary about the coming 2012 election find it inexplicable that there are no Columbia classmates who can attest to Obama’s attendance there. 

By Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen
updated 9:37 a.m. 10/15/12

NEW YORK, NY - A recent documentary about the life of Barack Obama broadcast on PBS’ “Frontline” called “The Choice 2012” presents a variety of testimony from alleged classmates of Obama during their mutual attendance of Occidental College and Harvard University.

However, when the producers attempted to film a segment about Obama’s attendance at Columbia University, they were unable to locate even one of Obama’s classmates from the New York-based University and, instead, recorded an interview with an alleged “roommate” who shared a rundown New York apartment with Obama.

Because of this lack of first hand testimony about Obama’s presence at Columbia, the documentary disproportionately abbreviates its coverage of these years of Obama's life, from 1981 to 1983, when compared with its coverage of Obama’s other school attendance. The documentary focuses instead on Obama’s residence in New York and presents a soliloquy about how traveling from the west coast to the east coast changed Obama’s perspective on race but mentions nothing about his relationship with Columbia students or faculty.

By Obama’s own admission, he traveled to Pakistan, India and Indonesia in 1981, but no record or passport from his trip has ever been made public. Conspicuously, the PBS documentary makes no mention of Obama's travel outside the United States at this time.

"That's a pretty significant event for a 20 year old kid," says Karen Welch, spokesperson for the Community Television Initiative, "One would think it worthy of inclusion in a world-wide broadcast about the biography of the President."

At the 33 minute mark of the 1 hour 55 minute documentary, PBS begins a segment about Obama’s arrival in mainland America after his graduation from Hawaii’s highest ranked prep school, Punahou Academy, in 1979. The segment begins with interview cuts with Obama’s former Occidental College roommates, Eric Moore, Louis Hook, Caroline Grauman, Sohale Siddiqi and author David Maraniss describing Obama’s time at the Los Angeles college.

“I didn’t consider him American,” admits Sohale Siddiqi, “He seemed like an international individual.”

“I didn’t consider him American. He seemed like an international individual.”

"I was visiting his roommate in Los Angeles, Hasan Chandoo, who was also going to Occidental College with him. And after New Year's Eve we drove back from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and I spent a couple of weeks there," says Siddiqi.

Many questions still remain about the relationship between Chandoo and Obama. However, more suspicious is the fact that the documentary gives no biographical information about Chandoo or his relationship with Obama after the two had allegedly attended Occidental together.

"Apparently, the producers made no effort to contact Chandoo for this piece or make his account of the story a part of this documentary," says Welch, "which is strange considering the rumors and testimony about how close they were. They, apparently, traveled the world together and knew each other intimately for years, but PBS omitted him. Strange."

“'My father was Kenyan',” describes Moore, of a conversation in which Obama tells him about his origins, “he said, ’I go by the name ‘Barry’ so I don’t have to explain my name all the time.'”

“One day, he (Obama) told me he was going to transfer to Columbia,” Moore continued, “he said he needed a more expansive environment, a more urban environment where he could grow intellectually."

Full of other benign biographical allegations about Obama, the documentary also conspicuously omits how he was able to afford his move from the southwestern U.S to the northeastern U.S and the exorbitant tuition needed to attend Columbia.

The documentary provides no insight on what might have prompted to Obama to choose Columbia, whether he was provided with some unknown financial opportunity, how he qualified for admission or when he first registered and attended classes. By all accounts he had no publicly known connection to anyone in New York and no record of Obama's academic performance at Columbia has ever been made public, either.

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia," says Welch, "you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not."

Boston Globe columnist, Scott Helman wrote Obama “flew across the United States”, but does not explain how Obama paid airfare or if he took any belongings. The documentary goes on to report that Obama took residence on the “edge of Harlem”.

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia,you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not."

By all accounts, Obama was not a good student at Occidental. His easy going lifestyle, according to PBS, left him restless and wanting, so it’s difficult to imagine that Obama attended Columbia on a merit scholarship. If Obama actually registered for classes at Columbia, there remains no documented evidence that he actually attended them, or how he paid the tuition.

At the 37:20 mark, the documentary segues into an interview with an alleged New York roommate of Obama’s named Phil Boerner. According to the documentary, they lived at 339 E. 6^th, Apt. 6A.

The fact that Boerner is white having lived in Harlem with a black roommate raises questions about the nature of the living arrangement and if Boerner was a classmate of Obama’s at Columbia. However, the documentary does not publish testimony from Boerner that he attended Columbia. Boerner gives copious descriptions of the apartment, but provides no information about Obama’s attendance at Columbia.

For more than five minutes of material during the “Obama in New York” segment of the documentary, appearing immediately after the quote from Moore, there is absolutely no mention of Obama’s attendance at Columbia. Instead the story devolves into Obama’s experiences with poverty, race, social isolation and ideology. No mention of his attendance at Columbia is made.

Former Libertarian VP candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has publicly stated that he never saw Obama at Columbia from 1980 to 1983. Obama alleges that he was a classmate of Root’s enrolled in the same courses and the same major but Root says if that was true, he would remember him.

“I was a poli-sci major, apparently just like Obama, in a class of about 400 or so people,” says Root, “and I, nor anyone I know ever remember seeing, talking to or being with Barack Obama while we attended Columbia. Not one single person. We don’t remember him in any of our classes. We don’t remember him on campus. We can’t find one professor that remembers grading him on any assignment. It’s bizarre, like he was a ghost among us.”

The documentary then claims that several of Obama’s Occidental classmates joined him in New York, including Siddiqi.

“I think the first thing we experienced was complete intimidation by New York City,” says Siddiqi, “which seemed rougher and tougher and uncivilized more than any other place either of us had lived. Both of us were questioning ‘why the heck did we come to this place?’ It was scary and we had no resources.”

If Siddiqi's account is true regarding his and Obama's economic situation, then the question becomes more amplified: How did he afford Columbia's tuition and expenses?

Siddiqi also provide no supporting testimony that Obama actually attended Columbia. He never mentions Obama’s experiences as a college student while in New York.

Author, David Maraniss, expounds on the the impact living in New York had on Obama saying, “I think New York was the key to his life. He made no lasting African-American friends during those four years, in New York."

“The NY years are marked by this kind of ‘turning inward’ for Obama,” says Obama biographer, Jodi Kantor.

“He spends time reading, fasting, wandering the city. There’s this almost monk-like existence.”

If Kantor's account is correct about Obama reading, fasting and wandering, what was Obama reading if not text books from his Columbia classes. Also, if Obama spent time wandering the city, was it at night when he had no classes? Was Obama "fasting" as a voluntary religious practice, or does Kantor use the term as a way to hedge the truth that Obama was actually starving?

Strangely, Maraniss and Kantor make no allusion to Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia which is a shocking impasse to the theme of this segment considering the research Maraniss and Kantor are alleged to have done for their respective biographies about Obama.

“It’s the period of his life where he does the least,” says Maraniss, “But figures out the most.”

At the 41:21 mark, the documentary segues to Obama’s life in Chicago without so much as providing a single interview or piece of evidence from eyewitnesses or Columbia University demonstrating that Obama ever attended Columbia.

PBS’ presentation of this part of Obama’s biography further raises suspicions about Obama’s activities during the early 1980’s. Many have reason to believe that Obama was able to attend Harvard as a foreign student on a foreign student scholarship, after he returned from Pakistan sometime in 1982.

If Obama attended college as a foreign student, his natural born eligibility to be president would fall into suspicion. Renouncing or losing one's American citizenship constitutionally disqualifies them from being a presidential candidate.

Like so much of Obama's covert past, PBS' documentary, "The Choice 2012" only confirms that the American people have never been allowed to review actual documented evidence of Obama’s so-called Columbia years.

ILLEGITIMATE JOBLESS REPORT OMITTED LARGEST STATE’S LABOR STATS

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY- The state of California has the largest population of any state in America. It has an economy which, if it were an independent nation, would rank in the top 10 in the world.

It also has one of the highest rates of unemployment in America, above 10%. In some counties in the state’s central agricultural region, unemployment is around 25%.

Considering these metrics, one would think it might be necessary for a federal government report on the national labor rate to include the Golden State.

One would think this, unless you are a democrat seeking re-election by padding job numbers to make it appear like your liberal economic policies are working when they are not.

After this week’s surprisingly positive jobless claims number was released, three things happened according to Business Insider.

1. Lots of people felt better about the economy

2. Democrats cheered because they thought the number would help Obama

3. Republicans seized on confusing reports that the numbers had "excluded claims from one large state" (probably California) and blasted the number as wrong and misleading.

Since then, the argument has raged on, and there have been a variety of different reports and interpretations. Well, we're glad to say that we've finally gotten to the bottom of what happened.

We spoke to a source at the Labor Department. According to this source, who is an analyst at the Department, here's what happened:

• ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week's jobless claims. Assertions that "a large state" was excluded from the report are patently false.

However, dissenters are not saying California was excluded. They are saying that California did not provide its state labor statistics before the deadline required by the publisher of this particular report. Of course, California was not excluded. It was included and the number published was 0. Zero because California did not provide statistics. Here’s how economists explain:

• It is likely that some of the jobless claims in one large state--California--were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL. The source believes that this is what happened this week.

• The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week's jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week's or the following week's. In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.

• The source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totalled about 15,000-25,000. Thus, if one were to "normalize" the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.

• This week's "normalized" jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported. This compares to the 370,000 consensus expectation.

In other words, had all of California's jobless claims been processed in time to make the jobless-claims release, this jobless number would still have been better than economists were expecting--but not as much better as it appeared.

Again, the as-yet-unprocessed claims will appear in future reports. So next week's number may well be higher than expected.

So, who's right about today's jobless claims number?

Everyone's right!

• Jobless claims were better than expected, even after adjusting for an unusual anomaly
• There was an unusual anomaly that made this week's jobless claims look better than they would otherwise have been.

Of course, there was a motive to create good news after Barack Obama's abysmal performance at the first 2012 presidential debate, just before the jobs reports came out. One way to do that is fake key economic indicators in favor of Obama.

Still Don’t Know Who To Vote For? Then Read This

by Dr. Alan Bates, MD
October 15, 2012

There are actually some voters who are still ‘undecided’. Imagine that! There are two reasons for this: either they have been brainwashed by the Leftwing media networks such as CNN and MSNBC which distort reality and thrive on dishonest reporting, or they have no understanding of world history as it relates to the likes of Hitler (and other murderous dictators) or the freedom-crushing ideologies of Communism and Marxism, both of which are alive and well today.

To sum it up, you can vote for a ticket which will defend our Constitutional principles and American free enterprise whereby We the People control our government, OR you can vote for a Marxist ticket rife with corruption which despises American exceptionalism (in the areas of liberty and free enterprise) and believes We the People should be subservient to Fedzilla. It is that simple, folks! Reread this til you get it!

Here are some significant events since my last commentary:

*As if the Administration’s Fast and Furious scandal was not enough, they have now unsuccessfully engaged in a coverup of lax security at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in at least four American deaths, despite numerous requests by the diplomatic staff to provide greater protection due to recent Al-Qaeda attacks and known threats to the consulate, even as late as the day before that fateful anniversary of September 11. The Obama administration’s goal was to bury the facts of this debacle in order to preserve the myth confabulated by his election campaign that Al-Qaeda went away after Obama killed Bin Laden. But Al-Qaeda is still a huge force to be reckoned with, and that was clearly demonstrated at a most inconvenient time for the Obama campaign.

Upon further dissection, we note that Obama had but two ‘accomplishments’ during his four years as Criminal-in-chief---the salvage of General Motors (by use of taxpayer stimulus funding for his union cronies and illegally cancelling claims of bondholders) and his killing of Osama bin Laden, the plan for which was already in the works by the Bush Administration when Obama took office, and which narcissist Obama jealously took credit for as a symbol that Al-Qaeda would no longer be a threat without Bin Laden. The campaign’s intent was to milk the death of Bin Laden as cover for lack of any other achievements. To carry this a bit further, Muslim Barry Soetoro Obama has a cozy relationship with The Muslim Brotherhood whose objective is to infiltrate the Free World with Islamic doctrine and Sharia Law. They are well on their way to that goal in parts of Europe but have been rebuffed by Australia. The Obama Administration financially supported them with taxpayer dollars in their quest to become the new ruling party in Egypt as part of the ‘Arab Spring’. Don’t forget that as an Indonesian child, Barry Soetoro was schooled in Muslim doctrine, before his ideology ventured into Lenin’s doctrine of Marxism and Alinsky’s rules for radicals to achieve the Marxist goals to which he clings today (while labeling American patriots as potential terrorists and accusing us of clinging to our Bibles and our guns!). So in an attempt to preserve Obama’s claim to fame, the Admininstration at all levels falsely and wilfully blamed the attack and murder of our consultate officials on an irrelevant 13 minute video for more than one week, until that myth was debunked at Congressional hearings last week by chief military and intelligence officials to whom the Obama Administration is now trying to shift the blame. Even during his VP debate, Joe ‘Bully’ Biden stated that neither he nor Obama had any idea that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack, when in fact they either did and lied about it, OR did not because they were missing about 40 percent of the daily national security briefings (a known fact).


* What other coverups by this Administration are lurking out there, hidden from the eyes of Americans?
Can you spell FRAUD? According to The Daily Caller, RNC Chairman Priebus has demanded an immediate investigation into Obama campaign donations in regards to Obama's massive foreign campaign donations, the Secret Service concerning apparent overseas money laundering, and credit card fraud in connection with a third party campaign site, Obama.com, a website owned by Obama bundler Robert Roche, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China who also happens to be Chairman of ACORN International (we all know about ACORN’s massive election fraud tactics). Did I not warn you about the necessity for fraud if Obama is to be reelected? Obama's overseas fund-raising scheme appears to violate Patriot Act laws concerning international money laundering. The Government Accountability Institute issued a 108 page report concerning massive Obama campaign fund-raising irregularities. And don’t forget the number of requests by our military for absentee ballots is only ten percent of that in the last election. It appears the Obama Administration not only opposes voter ID but is trying to block our military men and women from their right to vote.

*The VP debate has received a lot of press when in fact it was no debate at all, but simply a perfect display of VP Joe ‘Bully’ Biden’s liberal mental disorder pathology--and bad teeth. Paul Ryan and the audience of normal Americans saw his pathology immediately and Ryan conducted himself quite well under those circumstances. Biden engaged in repetitive lies in an attempt to run cover for the Obama Administration’s failures such as the Libyan consultate disaster amongst others. As expected, he displayed the classic tactics of Saul Alinsky through nonstop interruptions, incessant talking over his opponent, denial of facts, changing the subject when put on the spot, outright lying, and emotional displays to bury the reality of the moment. And the Dems actually think he set a good example for Obama’s style in his next debate! No one (especially women) likes bullies or dishonest politicians like Biden (except the leftwing media and socialists).

Undecided voters must look past the Leftwing’s misrepresentations of the Romney-Ryan ticket designed to divert attention away from the abysmal failure and willful destruction of this Marxist president. It is categorically false that Romney does not care about women or the middle class (a label which was invented by Marxists as they created various classes of society). In contrast, the DNC is adverse to Christian and Jewish women by removing any reference to God from their platform, by preventing Christians but NOT Muslims from handing out literature outside the Charlotte Convention center, and by trying to make contraception a tax-payer funded mandate as a ploy to secure the vote of naive younger women. With regards to the ‘middle class’, Biden stated it best through his gaffe a few weeks ago that the middle class has been buried during the past four years---TRUE! They have suffered during the longest recession since the Great Depression with high unemployment due to Obama’s policies of rewarding cronies with stimulus money instead of reducing burdensome regulations and taxes on small businesses which are responsible for the majority of jobs in America. We must make a change before the Left drives all of us off the cliff. Vote accordingly if not for your children’s sake to save the American dream!
Copyright 10/15/2012 by Gulf1