What America Needs
by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired
08/23/2012

The campaigns have been in full swing, Mr. Romney has selected his running mate, and the incumbent is in full battle dress, coming out swinging. We have a curious situation, with our Nation having been altered dramatically in many ways in the past three plus years, with two completely different perspectives on this aspect.

Those who support obama despite his past, his affiliations, his communist alterations of our Nation’s form, are angry at him for failing to accomplish more. He suggested he had the ability to bring about a level of change he has simply failed to fulfill. Their anger is with him, but it will not work against him, he is still the only one with an open communist agenda.

On the other hand, Mr. Romney “the one who can beat obama” appears to be at a loss for words every time a statement about his past, as governor, as a husband, as a business man is made that charges him with crimes. He is being beat up on his taxes, because he hires a tax accountant to do them, but won’t simply say, “Hey, you hire an accountant and pay, that’s what I did.

He has had his history demanded of him, yet he won’t demand his opponent open his sealed history, with millions spent with lawyers to seal it up. Instead, he merely denies the demand, never representing the demand of Americans from day one.

Mr. Romney sought this election, he actively worked and spent his own money to pursue candidacy, yet while obama demonstrates his every intent to remain in his illegal seat, fighting with all vigor, Mr. Romney seems to be taking this election as if it were for a Scout Master position, something important to The Boys, but not all that important to himself.

Charged with being an elitist, having a horse, a barn for it, and the cost, he won’t take the lead, face his accusers, and challenge them with multiple sclerosis, and what they would do were it their wife or husband had it. He has a horse at least in part because his wife has a life long, ever increasingly imposing disease which is substantially held at bay by the physical therapy horse back riding is. If he won’t fight for his wife’s honor, what kind of Man is he?

Mr. Romney has been a capitalist, he has worked many jobs which were productive during his time, he has been the governor of a State, and has that for a record, in short, he has much with which to challenge the incumbent, and demonstrate his qualification to serve, and can easily demonstrate the failures of the present administration, yet he has failed to even appear on the field of battle.

I did not choose this man, he was never the vision I saw for the future, yet when it all comes down, we have a choice of flawed people from among which to choose, to hold office for the next four years.

I stand absolutely convicted, we cannot restore this nation piece-meal, but must literally halt it, take a careful inventory, and re-assert our full Sovereign Citizen’s Authority. We must rescind our consent to be governed by an illegal government. We must reconstitute the federal government, and return to having a “government which fits in a hat-box”. This is the only way to restore The Established Republic, and the freedoms and liberty that are ours by Endowment by our Creator.

It would be far easier a task if we had a strong willed chief executive who believes in the first principles of the Nation, and can articulate them, and will lead the actions of “cleaning house”, establishing independent investigators, and truly taking out the enemies of our National Principles..

If Mr. Romney is not up to an “animated contest”, he should resign, and open the door for someone who is willing to fight for our Nation. If he is not going to step aside, then it is high time he shows he understands the man he faces is a treasonous criminal; one who has done his best to destroy the founding principles which underlie every aspect of “a Sovereign People, ruling Our Nation, through elected representatives of Our Will”.

Those who support obama have been working at their goal for almost two centuries. Socialists moved in and started working to see their principles the foundation of a “national education system”, initiated in the 1830s. Karl Marx sent one of his most powerful followers in 1850 to lead the movement, because “a free and independent people” are the one people who have no possible need for the lie of Marxism.

America is the only nation which must be destroyed for communism to take control. We are the sole nation with a fixed foundation, principles which are either followed, or destroyed, and our form is the sole form which has ever allowed the common man to rule his own nation “by the quality and vigor of his own work.” We are the antithesis of socialism, and for that reason alone, our principles must be killed, buried, denied, as they are indeed “self evident in their truths”.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE WHO KNEW TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA SHOWED UP DEAD!!!
Who Killed Tony Scott?

August 23, 2012 by Bryan Nash
Who Killed Tony Scott?
UPI FILE
Director Tony Scott was found dead under the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles on Sunday.

On Sunday afternoon, filmmaker Tony Scott parked his car, climbed a fence and jumped to his death because he had brain cancer. At least that’s the version of the story reported by ABC News — the same media outlet that allegedly covered up George Zimmerman’s head wounds and claimed Aurora, Colo., shooting suspect James Holmes was a member of the Tea Party.

ABC News claimed that the report of Scott’s brain cancer came from “a source close to him.” But the story took the family by surprise. It turns out those closest to Scott knew nothing about his having brain cancer. ABC News then put out another story with the headline “Tony Scott Brain Cancer Report Appears in Doubt.”

Apart from the fabricated detail of brain cancer, it’s questionable that a 68-year-old would be able to calmly climb an 18-foot fence, which is what reports claim Scott did before his 185-foot free fall.

The death of the movie man seems too much like something out of a movie: A successful and healthy filmmaker gets news of a fatal illness, leaves a suicide note and leaps to his death before his latest project is released. It sounds like an orchestrated tale. Perhaps it is.

Did Scott know something that led to his untimely peril? Maybe a self-inflicted exit was better than whatever the alternative may have been. That is, if he jumped at all. A corpse dumped in a body of water isn’t that uncommon.

Scott and his brother Ridley Scott have a miniseries on A&E, “Coma,” that will air on Labor Day. The show is about a conspiracy at a medical facility. It exposes a hospital that intentionally performs botched surgeries on patients. “Coma” is supposedly based on the novel of the same title by Robin Cook. But we all know that many “fictional” books and movies are based on real events. Interestingly, the miniseries contains allusions to Atlanta, the home of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Could it be that “Coma” is based on a true story that someone wants to keep hidden?

Besides “Coma,” a Tony Scott documentary is set to air next year on the National Geographic Channel, “Killing Lincoln.” Supposedly, the film lends credence to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the former President.

Maybe the pressure on Scott wasn’t because of a project already set to air, but something in the files. At the time of Scott’s alleged suicide, he was working on a few other projects — the most notable of which being the sequel to “Top Gun,” the 1986 blockbuster. The sequel was going to be based on the use of drones in modern combat. Scott spent the last few days of his life at a naval air station in Fallon, Nev., doing research for the film. In 2009, there were reports of UFOs at the station. Did Scott discover something while at Fallon?

If “Coma,” “Killing Lincoln” or “Top Gun 2” isn’t to blame for Scott’s death, perhaps the answer can be found somewhere behind the making of “Obama’s America 2016,” a recently released film that seeks to explain Obama’s past and his plans for the future. Scott has a connection to the movie through Gerald R. Molen, the producer of the film. Molen, Scott and Tom Cruise have a cinematic triangle of sorts. Molen, Scott and Cruise worked together on the 1990 film “Days of Thunder.” Molen worked with Cruise on the set of “Rain Man” and “Minority Report.” Scott and Cruise worked alongside each other in “Top Gun” and were spending time together shortly before Scott’s death.

Even though I can’t say for sure what took place on Sunday, I’m fairly certain of what will happen in coming weeks. First, an autopsy will be released and the alleged suicide will be blamed on drug use or an unknown medical problem (the family already refuted the claim that he had “inoperable brain cancer,” so his behavior will be described in other terms). Second, all of the videos that were supposedly taken of Scott’s leap will never be viewed (because they don’t exist). Third, more witnesses will come forward to say they saw Scott jump off the bridge (in an attempt to make the story more credible).

Perhaps we will never know the truth, but ABC News’ mishandling of the story serves to teach a valuable lesson. Jumping to the conclusion that the media are telling you the truth is a deadly mistake.

The Obama Timeline... and thoughts on restoring American liberties
Don Fredrick on August 22, 2012
Behind Obama's controversial words...

Thousands of words have been written about Obama’s July 13 “You didn’t build that” remark. After an immediate salvo of criticism, the Obama team responded that his words were taken out of context and he was referring to roads and bridges, not businesses. (Of course, “roads and bridges” would have been referred to as “those,” not “that.”) Mitt Romney correctly noted that the context was actually worse than Obama’s statement itself. But the words reveal even more than many might believe.

Obama said, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me [about raising taxes] because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hard-working people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

The American system that Obama claims allows businesses to thrive is certainly not roads and bridges and teachers. It is freedom and capitalism. We should not need the government’s permission to thrive. We need only for the government to get out of the way. That Obama cannot understand such a concept is more significant than anything else in his controversial statement, and supports the claim that he does not see things from the unique American perspective we expect from an elected official. Government did not make America great. Government protected the freedoms and free enterprise that made America great.

Obama’s “No man is an island” argument does nothing to explain why some men are more productive than others. They all have access to the same coconut trees on the island. Why do some climb the trees to get to the coconuts, while others sit in the shade and wait for them to fall to the ground? (Perhaps some are simply stationed on the barren side of the island, heeding the advice of Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson that it might “tip over and capsize” if all the inhabitants were to gather in the same place.)

Romney is right to emphasize that if a student makes the honor roll we congratulate the student, rather than the bus driver who takes him to and from school every day. Obama is correct that society needs bus drivers and road builders, but he is wrong to believe they should march across the stage with the student and share his award.

Yet there is more behind Obama's words. Conservatives have no objection to paying taxes to maintain roads and bridges, the Armed Forces, the courts, the police, and fire fighters. But beyond those functions, there is almost nothing the government does that the private sector cannot do more efficiently and at a much lower cost. Others prefer as large and powerful a government as possible—one that can provide for them from cradle to grave and reduce or remove the burden of personal responsibility. But what the “progressives” fail to appreciate—or even understand—is that personal responsibility yields individual accomplishments. Those individual accomplishments are the purpose of life. From those accomplishments come pride, satisfaction, fulfillment, and happiness. Those are feelings that most conservatives enjoy on a regular basis, and that, tragically, many liberals experience only occasionally. Instead, liberals experience envy, resentment, anger, and frustration. Those are the emotional buttons Obama is pushing with his class warfare tactics.

It is not an accident that Tea Party events consist of generally happy people calling for a less-intrusive government, while Occupy Wall Street events consist of generally angry people demanding a more-intrusive government. The leftist wants to be given something by the government. The conservative wants the government to step aside and allow human genius and productivity to flourish. The leftist wants to be free from the cost of a doctor visit and a strep throat test. The conservative seeks to market an inexpensive at-home test kit that will eliminate the doctor visit altogether. The leftist wants to place his burdens on the shoulders of others. The conservative wants to eliminate the burdens.

Those who are conditioned to believe that government support is a necessary condition of life find it almost impossible to comprehend that others do not feel the same way. Thus, they see “racism” in any criticism of Obama. “How can anyone possibly oppose big government?” necessarily becomes, “Of course they are racists!” (“He can’t really oppose ObamaCare; so he must be a racist.”)

Far too many Americans are so used to relying on government that they no longer know how to rely on themselves—and they resent others who can. For some, that resentment is replaced by a refusal to even accept the existence of the self-reliant. Liberals see retirees at Tea Party gatherings and cite their Social Security benefits as “proof” that “everyone” depends on the government—conveniently forgetting that those retirees paid for those benefits (and would have far greater wealth had they put their money in gold rather than into a non-existent Social Security “Trust Fund”). Those on the far left believe everyone is a dependent in one way or another. To a leftist, a person on welfare and the owner of a business are therefore morally equivalent. The former receives direct government assistance, while the latter is successful only because everyone else provided them with the tools of success.

Some seem willing—even eager—to argue that Beethoven would have amounted to nothing had someone else not first invented the piano, Shakespeare would have been a disease-ridden beggar were it not for Gutenberg’s printing press, Thomas Edison owes his success to the inventor of glass, and Andrew Carnegie would never have made a fortune producing steel had a cave man not discovered the fire needed for his blast furnaces. That is the nonsense being peddled by Obama (and Elizabeth Warren).

Of course, there are some people who do owe almost all of their success to others. Throughout his life the current temporary occupant of our Oval Office was aided every step of the way. Others bailed him out on a recurring basis, paying for his enrollment at expensive private schools, writing letters of recommendation to get him into Harvard Law School, providing him with affirmative action benefits, not calling him to account when he voted “present” in the Illinois State Senate, putting his name on legislation written by others, ghost-writing his biography, giving him sweetheart mortgage deals, getting the sealed divorce records of his opponents unsealed, changing the Democrat primary rules to deny Hillary Clinton votes from Florida and Michigan, shielding his school records, forging birth certificates and a Selective Service registration form, pretending he slept through 20 years of inflammatory sermons, ignoring his thuggish campaign tactics, and showering him with sycophantic media coverage worth even more than the massive campaign funds he raised.

Being aided and abetted along the way is the only life Obama ever knew. He therefore assumes that everyone else who has achieved a modicum of success was generously aided by others or obtained success by cheating. Obama is desperate to “prove” that Romney cheated on his taxes and lied on SEC statements because he cannot comprehend the existence of a successful person who is not a crook. Obama has been surrounded by shady characters throughout his life. They include his drug-dealing, pornographer, communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis; former fugitives from the FBI, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; money-man Tony Rezko (now in jail); former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (now in jail); close advisor Valerie “slumlord” Jarrett; political hatchet man David Axelrod; campaign bundler Jon Corzine, who stole more than $1 billion in customer funds from MF Global investors; and, of course, Attorney General Eric Holder—who has been called “the biggest enabler of financial crime in U.S. history.”

Mitt Romney does not fit the image that Obama needs to attack. He neither drinks nor smokes. He attends church. He donates millions of dollars to charity. He married his high-school sweetheart and has five clean-cut sons. He succeeded in business. He created jobs. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from failure. He is the ultimate American.

That is why Obama hates Mitt Romney. Romney is a self-made man. His father, George Romney, started from nothing but eventually became the head of American Motors and the governor of Michigan. When he died, Mitt donated his entire inheritance to charity. (Obama, on the other hand, refuses to help his half-brother George Obama, who lives in poverty in a Nairobi slum. Barack Obama is only generous with other people’s money.)

Romney is more than a political opponent. He is a symbol of capitalism, the system Obama was raised to abhor. Even worse for Obama, Romney has selected as his running mate a man who can articulate what capitalism means. Romney represents capitalism, but Paul Ryan can explain it.

The words, “You didn’t build that” are far less dangerous for America than the attitude that prompted them. Romney and Ryan are making that known. Obama is not running against Romney-Ryan. He has been forced to run against America. That is why Obama is angry, and that is why he will lose.

10 Political and Economic Imponderables that Should Drive You Crazy

From Alan Bates, MD
August 20, 2012

1. Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $40,000-a-plate campaign fund raising event.

2. Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and a federal workforce that is roughly 18% black when the black population is only 12%.

3. Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code — Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee — turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4. Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5. Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.

6. Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7. Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8. Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of what a company that manufactures sports shoes and apparel (Nike) makes.

9. Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending ($7 million PER MINUTE), and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
10. Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

Obama Still Decimating the Military

“OUR SOLDIERS’ LIVES ARE PRECIOUS” by JB Williams, ©2012 (Aug. 21, 2012) — Despite strong opposition from commanders and chaplains, Obama’s Department of Defense chief Leon Panetta focuses his attention on the military’s participation in a new Obama-era Gay Pride initiative, further decimating the military through a number of perverted Administration policies. But that’s just the [...]

Rest of the blog here:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/08/21/obama-still-decimating-the-military/

OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY AS PRESIDENT PUTTING U.S. MILITARY AND INTEL PERSONNEL AT RISK
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY THREAT - A recently released video produced by a group of former and current intelligence and special forces military personnel explicitly confronts Barack Obama’s professional abilities as a president while demanding that he “shut the **** up” when it comes to military operational security and intelligence information.

by Dan Crosby,
of The Daily Pen (Sunday, August 19, 2012)

NEW YORK, NY – Barack Obama did say transparency would be the “touchstone” of his administration, after all.

Little did anyone think that Obama's "transparency" would mean his administration's repeated disclosure of sensitive military intelligence to the enemies of the United States.

Moreover, it is unfortunate that only a few true patriots in our military, beginning with Dr. Col. Terry Lakin, were courageous enough to risk their professional and personal welfare in order to sound the alarm for the American people that Obama isn't legally qualified to even have an administration, let alone have the opportunity to undermine America’s national security with it.

A recently released video produced by OPSEC (Operational Security) Foundation, a recently formed group of current and former military and intelligence operations personnel, demands that Obama and his administration keep quiet when it comes to divulging operational security and intelligence information merely for his own political benefit.

In the 22 minute video, Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security, highly experienced and decorated intelligence and military personnel explain the risks of disclosing information about military operations. They also show evidence that the Obama administration has leaked confidential information about drone missions, agents’ identities, special forces tactics and network security operations.

“As a citizen, it is my civil duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy. It will get Americans killed,” says Navy Seal, Ben Smith in the video “

Beginning in 2009, when evidence began to surface that Obama was not eligible to be president, his administration began to come under scrutiny from military commanders and clandestine services personnel for what they called egregious breaches in national security following a handful of high profile intelligence leaks originating from the White House, including information made public about the alleged raid on Osama Bin Laden’s Pakistani compound in May of 2011.

In an ironic twist, Obama’s birth certificate and college transcripts are more secure than information about CIA drone missions and special forces tactics. Unfortunately for millions of innocent people, Obama is better at hiding the identity of his real father than the identity of Navy Seals in the Middle East.

The video, which concludes with former USMC Lt. Colonel, Bill Cowan, explicitly telling Obama to "shut the up" when it comes to military intelligence information, has more than 2 million views on both the OPSEC website and YouTube since August 15th

The organization’s website, www.dishonorabledisclosure.com states the following:

“President Barack Obama is perceived to a significant degree as responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and has taken significant steps to use that action to prop up his Presidency politically. A notable amount of political hyperbole has already been provided, witness his leaping to the media platform at 11:45 pm on a Sunday night, and the subsequent comments by VP Biden and others to the effect that it was a “bold and courageous” decision, and that “only one other advisor” favored the action.

While neither is true, this action is perhaps the single most powerful symbol Obama will use during the campaign to provide some credibility to his national defense and foreign affairs stature during the forthcoming fall campaign, thereby avoiding what has been referred to as his various “Tours of Apology” overseas. One may assume, as a practical matter, the BHO political media firm has already laid out the spot featuring him gassing up the stealth helicopters.

The decision to execute the raid on the compound in Pakistan was unavoidable, and neither bold or courageous. In fact, there was no practical way out. The political cost of failure was far less than the cost not trying in the face of evidence of Bin Laden's presence. To be confronted with the information that there was between a 45% and 60% chance OBL was in the compound and to have not executed the operation to kill OBL, who was responsible for the deaths of approximately 3,000 American citizens in New York City alone and untold others on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, would have ultimately been discovered, and would have resulted in Obama's removal from office by either electoral defeat or impeachment and removal.

There was simply no choice. Being well aware that President Clinton's administration had passed by more than one opportunity to remove OBL before 9/11, and also aware that those instances had become public knowledge, it could have been construed as a bold, courageous (albeit stupid) decision to NOT execute the raid.

What has occurred, alongside this and other related actions by special operations forces and the intelligence community, is the public unveiling of classified military and intelligence capabilities for political purposes, thereby posing a serious future threat to the lives of the intelligence and special operations personnel involved in such actions, as well as the exposure of intelligence gathering methods and future special operations missions.

In addition, in perhaps the most egregious display of ambition over country by a sitting President in modern times, the President of the United States mounted a media platform on a Sunday night at 2345 hours to announce to the voters that OBL had been killed.

This naked grandstanding came despite the fact that DEVGRU (SEAL Team Six) and other operatives had recovered huge amounts of intelligence material, quite probably with information that could have been converted to actionable intelligence, to include dozens of flash drives, computer hard drives and documents that without doubt contained massive amounts of information on the names, locations and operations of Al Qaeda worldwide.

This may have been our sole opportunity to utterly and completely destroy Al Qaeda. But before any of this treasure trove of intelligence could be analyzed, without any thought as to consequences, and before any other terrorists could be seized, BHO ran to the stage and announced it to the entire world. In a few brief moments of selfish grandstanding and political opportunism, our Commander In Chief lost the single opportunity to exploit intelligence that, had secrecy been preserved, might well have crushed Al Qaeda once and for all.

Within a few minutes of that announcement, every AQ terrorist moved into another rabbit hole where they could not be found, so they could continue their murdering of American soldiers and innocent civilians across the globe. How many have died since that date?

Beyond this, the disclosure by the Administration of a host of classified details pertaining to intelligence gathering by the various Agencies prior to the raid, as well as voluminous details about the raid itself, puts American military and intelligence personnel at severe risk of not just a failure of a future mission, but death or injury incurred because the opponents now better know and understand the practices that our Special Operations forces and intelligence gatherers employ.”

Somewhere in the midwest, a redeemed Terry Lakin is trying very hard not say, "I told you so."

One of the very dangerous side effects of Obama’s lack of Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President is that his confused identity makes him dangerously irresponsible when it comes to matters of operational security and military intelligence, according to a group of former and current CIA and Special Forces military personnel.

“This is not surprising. These guys are taking action on what General McChrystal knew way back in June of 2010,” says TDP Editor, Pen Johannson, “He resigned from his command in Afghanistan because he knew Obama was undermining the effort there, too.”

Strangely, however, as national intelligence information becomes less secure under Obama, he is spending untold resources to prevent any leaks about his biographical information and birth records.

Essentially, Obama has lost all authoritative credibility and, thus, has become desperate to remain in power. When a politician enters this depth of corruption he or she becomes dangerous politically. They are no longer conscious of the harm they are doing to others because their desperation has blinded them.

Moreover, if that politician harbors partiality toward foreign nations over their regard for the people of the United States, inclinations to reveal confidential information about military operations may become intentional.

In order to combat the potential threat of a foreign usurper assuming the office of President, the founders of this nation explicitly commanded that anyone seeking the office be exceptionally qualified under three Constitutional requirements. He or she must be 35 year of age, be a resident of the U.S. for 14 years and be a Natural Born citizen.

In order to be a Natural Born citizen, an individual must be born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents without renouncement or lapse of citizenship status from birth to election. This set of standards applies only for those seeking the executive office.

As we see now, for good reason.

APPARENTLY, “BROTHER’S KEEPER” APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE...NOT OBAMA by Penbrook One (Friday, August 17, 2012)
DOUBLING DOWN ON HYPOCRISY - Obama's sanctimonious horde of liberal reprobates accuse Romney of not paying taxes, yet they desperately fail to acknowledge the far more righteous and God-honoring millions Mitt has given in charitable contributions to less fortunate strangers. Meanwhile, aside from failing to dislose biographical records like his college transcripts and other information relevant to his legitimacy as president, the rich and powerful Obama won't even offer measely crumbs out of his own millions to help a sick, poverty stricken nephew in his 'home country' of Kenya.

How I Became George Obama’s 'Brother'
By Dinesh D’Souza via Foxnews.com
NEW YORK, NY - A few days ago I received a call from a man I recently met named George. He was a bit flustered, and soon informed me that his young son was sick with a chest condition. He pleaded with me to send him $1,000 to cover the medical bills. Since George was at the hospital I asked him to let me speak to a nurse, and she confirmed that George’s son was indeed ill. So I agreed to send George the money through Western Union. He was profusely grateful.
But before I hung up I asked George, “Why are you coming to me?” He said, “I have no one else to ask.” Then he said something that astounded me, “Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.”
Actually, George has a real life brother who just happens to be the president of the United States. (George Obama is the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr.) George’s brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world. Moreover, George’s brother has framed his re-election campaign around the “fair share” theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate.
One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are our brother’s keeper.” Yet he has not contributed a penny to help his own brother. And evidently George does not believe, even in times of emergency, that he can turn to his brother in the White House for help.
So much for spreading the wealth around.
Obama’s refusal to help George is especially surprising because George doesn’t just live in American-style poverty but rather in Third World poverty. He lives in a shanty in the Huruma slum in Nairobi. He gets by on a few dollars a month. Obama also has an aunt named Hawa Auma, his father’s sister, who ekes out a living selling coal on the streets of a small village in Kenya. She says she would like to have her teeth fixed, but she cannot afford it. Obama hasn’t offered to help her either.
What’s going on here? Why is President Obama so hesitant to help family members in need?
A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.
In 2010, George also applied for a visa to come to the United States and was refused. While George confesses that in his younger years he was a delinquent, he has never been convicted of any crime. Moreover, he has a very good reason to visit the United States: his mother Jael Otieno lives in Atlanta. So why would the U. S. embassy in Nairobi refuse a tourist visa to the brother of the president who just wants to spend time with his mother?
In the past few days, an article has been circulating on the web that depicts George as a social undesirable. First published in the London Daily Mail, the article portrays George as a habitual drunk and philanderer. I spent a day with George this past February while interviewing him for my documentary film 2016: Obama’s America. I can attest that George is not an innocent. If he had been, he would not have survived life in the Huruma slum. Yes, George is street smart and cunning and I did smell alcohol on his breath.
But so what? George may be a drinker and a skirt-chaser but, as becomes clear from his book, he is also a survivor. He has overcome his past as a gang-member and petty thief and now works as the organizer of a slum soccer league. He is trying to uplift himself, and he is trying to help slum kids aspire to a better life. On balance, Lewis assures me, “George is not a bad guy. He is on the side of the angels.”
But even if Lewis is wrong, and George exhibits some harmful cultural pathologies, the liberal argument—one that Obama himself makes in his book "The Audacity of Hope" — is that the cultural pathologies of the poor are themselves the product of social disadvantage.
Barack Obama Jr. first met George in 1987, when George was five years old. He met George again in 2006 when he visited Kenya as a U.S. Senator from Illinois; George was then in his early twenties. Had Obama helped George along the way, perhaps this young man would not have ended up dirt-poor and living such a degraded life.
So what’s the real story here? Where’s George Obama’s “fair share”? George’s tragic situation exposes President Obama as a hypocrite. Here is a man who demands that others pay higher taxes to help the poor—even poor people who are not related to them—while Obama himself refuses to help a close relative like George.
Yet I believe there is a deeper explanation that goes beyond hypocrisy for why Obama wants nothing to do with George. After all, it would cost Obama so little to raise George out of poverty, and yet he won’t do it. This isn’t mere negligence; it suggests an active animus. The reason for that animus emerges in George’s book and also in my interview with George in the film 2016. In that interview, George rejects the anti-colonial philosophy that was espoused by Barack Obama Sr. This is the “dream from my father” that President Obama celebrates in his own autobiography.
From the record of their lives and writings, it’s clear that Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr. both share the anti-colonial view that blames Western colonial exploitation for the poverty and suffering of the Third World. Yet George doesn’t buy it. He observes that at the time of its independence in the early 1960s “Kenya was on an economic par with Malaysia or Singapore. Look where we are now, and where they are. They’re practically developed and industrialized, while Kenya is still a basket case.” George believes that poor countries should take responsibility for their own situation. “What’s our excuse for failure? We don’t have one. We’ve only got ourselves to blame.”
Incredible though it seems, George Obama is, within the context of his own society, a conservative. He doesn’t worship at the shrine of Barack Obama Sr. and he espouses an ideology diametrically opposed to that of his father and his famous brother. George has experienced first-hand the empty rhetoric of the two Baracks, and he rejects it based on his actual experience of Third World poverty.
No wonder President Obama despises George, doesn’t want him around, doesn’t care to hear George’s views circulated in America, and won’t lift a finger to help him even when George’s son is in the hospital.
So that’s why George Obama felt he had to call me. He had no one else to call. He reached out to me in his time of need because he felt he couldn’t call on his real life sibling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That’s how I got to be, if only metaphorically and for a short time, George Obama’s “brother.”