Reminder: Check out our Blog Feeds in the right column (Scroll to bottom).
    Our readers say it's the best way to keep up with developing news stories!
    CLICK HERE for a faster download!!

Obama’s Catholic Church Gambit: He's Learned His Lessons from American Communists

"My look-alike mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a wonderful communist; and heck, many think he's the lead candidate to be my real daddy."

By Dr. Paul Kengor - A fascinating theory has been advanced by Dick Morris, which, in turn, is being considered by Rush Limbaugh and other leading conservatives. Morris speculates that the Obama HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients is a fight with the Catholic Church that Team Obama wants — and with the focus based narrowly on contraception, not abortifacients.
Dick Morris may be right. It seems no accident that Obama publicly noted that the vast majority of Catholic women use contraception. Yes, the vast majority does, but the vast majority does not support abortifacients — that is, “contraceptive” drugs that cause or induce an abortion.
Obama is underscoring “contraception” generally, not abortifacients specifically. Sadly, our superficial media, which reflexively ramrods everything into a 10-second sound-bite, is aiding and abetting his tactic. Again and again, I hear reporters refer to Obama’s mandate not as a mandate on “contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs” (which it is), but as simply one on “contraception.”
If Obama can successfully frame the debate that way, which should be easy with the American public, he can make great headway on this assault on the Roman Catholic Church. He will appeal to many apathetic Roman Catholics as well as many Protestants who disagree with the Catholic Church on contraception. Among non-evangelical Protestants, Obama will find lots of sympathy from the liberal mainline denominations that flew off the hinges decades ago, and some of which are members of the hideous Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Their split with Rome over matters of birth has roots in the Episcopal Church’s embrace of contraception a century ago.
Speaking of a century ago, if this is indeed a gambit by Obama to pit religious believers against the Catholic Church, it would be nothing new from the radical left. Consider some examples:
In my book, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, I shared the case of Anna Louise Strong. Strong was an editor to the flagship publication of the communist front Friends of the Soviet Union, which masterfully manipulated progressives like Upton Sinclair. We published a photo of Strong and Sinclair together on the “Friends” editorial page, where a stoic Sinclair vows to “expose the lies and slander” against poor old Joe Stalin — maligned by those mean American anti-communists.
Anna Louise Strong was a loyal American Bolshevik. In a July 1953 report, Congress described her as “one of the most active agents for the Communist International.” She did dutiful propaganda work for Moscow, shamelessly arguing that Stalin had “conquered wheat,” even publishing a widely read pamphlet by that name, when, in fact, Stalin launched a famine that killed millions.
Among Strong’s propaganda work was to enlist Protestant clergy against the Catholic Church. One egregious example was an incendiary letter to the editor Strong placed in the October-November 1941 issue of The Protestant. There, she made the claim that the Vatican was calling for religious freedom in the USSR not because the Soviets were blowing up churches, killing priests, and gulaging nuns, but because the Church was seeking control of Russia. This was ludicrous, but it was just what some anti-Catholic Protestants wanted to hear.
That letter from Strong was so deceptive and such blatant Soviet propaganda that it was highlighted by Congress in a major report on subversive activities by American communists.
Among the communist organs that Anna Louise Strong wrote for was the Chicago Star, known to locals as the “Red Star.” The editor-in-chief and co-founder of the Star was Obama’s childhood mentor, FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS, who was a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA.
Davis, too, targeted the Catholic Church. He wrote articles with titles like “The church’s weakness,” reprimanding Rome, the American bishops, and the Catholic laity for their anti-communism. In an October 1947 piece, Davis growled that “the Catholic hierarchy” had launched a “holy war against communism.”
Indeed it had. As communists knew well, the Roman Catholic Church had been issuing scathing indictments of communism since the publication of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848 — yes, that far back — not to mention in encyclicals by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, and others. Communists were furious when the Catholic Church issued a brilliant, blistering 1937 encyclical on atheistic communism, titled Divini Redemptoris, which called communism a “satanic scourge.”
Committed communists like Frank Marshall Davis thus took on the Catholic Church.
Davis left the Chicago Star in 1948 to head for Hawaii, where he wrote for another communist-controlled newspaper, the Honolulu Record, and where he continued to confront the Catholic Church. In one column, titled “Challenge to the Church” (September 29, 1949), Davis framed communism as friendly to Christianity and anti-communism as un-Christian. An atheist, Davis painted an image of Judgment Day, where anti-communist Christians would be called to account for opposing communism. “The Christian churches, and the Catholic church in particular,” asserted Davis, “are making a grievous error in their shortsighted belief that the major enemy of Christianity is Communism.” Not only was Soviet Russia not anti-religious, insisted Davis, but Stalin had spared the planet of Hitler’s “anti-Christian paganism.” Christians ought to thank Stalin, not criticize him.
In another typical column from this period, Frank Marshall Davis referred to anti-communist Christians as “the Pontius Pilates of 1949.” In short, American communists and the radical left generally have long targeted the Roman Catholic Church. They know their enemy, one that is both spiritual and eternal. They have long attempted to pit Protestants and Catholics against each other. It’s an old art, really, that’s today totally forgotten.
And so, is this tactic being resurrected right now under Barack Obama? Is this more of the “fundamental transformation” we were promised — elected by oblivious Americans in November 2008?
If Obama can frame his mandate as a matter of contraceptive freedom — rather than an obvious constitutional affront on religious liberty — he may be able to successfully pit large numbers of Protestants and even many Catholics against the institutional Catholic Church. It would be the kind of religious agitation that would make the Marxists of the last century — particularly Obama’s mentor — very proud. How’s that for “hope” and “change”?

THE "MEDIA MATTERS" EXPOSÉ!
The Latest: Obama Finance Chief Funded Media Matters — Obama Deeply Tied to Anti-FOX News Group's Top Donors
  WHEN EVIL NEEDS A FACE!

David Brock: Media Matters Madman
David Brock is a member of an exclusive club of fake conservatives like Arianna Huffington who, when the winds turned blustery and the money looked better on the other side, crossed the Iron Curtain going the other way and headed to Moscow.
There is something to be said for the right, which has attracted its defectors from the best of the left. And there is something to be said for the left, which has attracted defectors from the worst of the right. While the right has gotten men like Irving Kristol and David Horowitz, the left has gotten a mentally unstable gay man and a woman who married a gay man for the money.
Since joining up with Team Soros, Brock has not engaged in journalism so much as become the head apparatchik of a propaganda corps, the officially unofficial smear corps for the left. Media Matters’ official mission is to correct misinformation. Its actual operation is to conduct character assassinations on behalf of the left. Its operating principle is a paranoid obsession with a vast right-wing conspiracy which justifies the creation of a vast left-wing conspiracy to counter it.
As David Horowitz has pointed out in his pamphlet, “Sex Lies and Vast Conspiracies,” on his entry to the ranks of the left, Brock’s new mentor was none other than Sidney Blumenthal, the originator of the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” meme.
Media Matters operates by targeting prominent conservatives. The more prominent the public figure, the more attention Media Matters dedicates to the task of destroying him or her. To visit Media Matters is to enter a parallel universe where the world revolves around FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. Like a black hole, Media Matters forms a completely negative space that contributes nothing to the national dialogue except a mouth breathing obsession with the conservative media it hates so much, yet cannot stay away from.
An organization is a reflection of its leader, and Media Matters is a reflection of David Brock. Its paranoia, its dishonesty and its negative energy all emanate from its founder. A recent Daily Caller expose paints a picture of an organization run by a man with delusions of grandeur who is operating under the belief that he might be assassinated at any moment. A man whose organization not only distributes the most outlandish conspiracy theories about conservatives imaginable, but whose leader actually appears to believe them.
Brock began his career as an attack dog and is ending it as an attack dog, but his attacks are not motivated by principles. Principles are positive things and the only thing that Brock has ever offered is the ability to defame and attack the principles of others. There is no light side to David Brock. Only the darkness of endless paranoia, the fear and hatred of others, which makes him a willing weapon in the arsenal of political vendettas.
It was appropriate enough, then, that Media Matters came into being as part of the apparatus of the Soros Shadow Party. As the Shadow Party obscures transparency and good government, so too Media Matters obscures the truth. That is indeed its only function. It traffics in conspiracy theories about the pernicious power of conservative media in order to justify its own abuses of power. It maintains the myth that it is the only thing standing in the way of conservative media dominance to justify the progressive dominance of the press.
While Brock was never comfortable on the right, he has found a warm nest on the left where his paranoia and conspiracy theories, his politics of personal destruction and vendettas, are welcomed. The mainstream media, which have increasingly abandoned even the pretense of editorial rigor and journalistic objectivity, have outsourced much of their research and fact checking to progressive smear sites like Media Matters and Think Progress, which formulate their narrative for them.
That a man like David Brock has become the whispering voice in the media’s ear is almost as much a testament to the rot within the mainstream media complex as the power that George Soros has over the progressive left testifies to its own dark heart.
No decent journalist would allow his news stories to be influenced by the propaganda apparatus of a man who openly boasted about being a smear artist. Nor would any serious newspaper, news network or media outlet accept a narrative from a man who disavowed his own reporting as the work of a political hit man. Yet the very centrality of Media Matters in the mainstream media complex shows the utter corruption of the media. Only the left could take a man whose calling card was admitting to being an unprincipled liar and reward him for that by putting him charge of a media operation to create disinformation, while describing it as a program to counter disinformation.
Brock found common cause with the left because like attracts like. The left needs the myth of a populist conservative media threat to democracy to justify its undemocratic grip on the media and the public dialogue. It needs Brock because he helps feed that myth. Perversely Brock’s background as a compulsive liar only gives him more credibility in their eyes. Who better to tell their lies than an accredited liar?
David Brock’s peculiar gift is that his own mental pressures cause him to believe the lies that he tells. The more grandiose the lies become, the more power he gains to fight against the shadow beasts he has brought into being. His colleagues on the left tastefully ignore the burgeoning insanity and paranoia. They know the king is mad, but for now the king and his madness are useful.
As the family said of the boy who thought he was a chicken, “We would send him to the hospital, but we need the eggs.” The left needs Brock’s eggs. It needs his hateful fantasies. It needs his paranoid beliefs about the absolute evil of the other side and his ability to craft a comprehensive narrative that fits every action into a worldview that justifies leftist powermongering with Brockian scaremongering. It needs Brock to do for it, what he falsely claimed to do for the right.
Brock has spent his life writing about politics, but he has no political beliefs, he is a broken soul whose dysfunction makes him a Machiavellian tool of the left. Like Stephen Glass and so many other professional liars, Brock’s fabulism is an attempt at escaping from the reality of the self. The left too is scrambling to escape from the reality of the world. The progressive movement’s utopian roots are escapist. And escapism is another form of a lie. Who better to represent a movement of liars than a liar?

SUMMARY of Earlier Reports:
The Daily Caller, a conservative media outlet founded by former CNN contributor Tucker Carlson, launched a multi-part expose on the liberal media watchdog non-profit MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA, , their links to Democrats on Capitol Hill and their allies in the media and the organization’s mentally unstable management.
The exposes have pulled no punches; reporter’s Alex Pappas and Will Rahn open the series with a damning portrayal of Media Matter’s head David Brock as a paranoid, bipolar scofflaw. Brock is portrayed as obsessive, concerned with imaginary threats to his life from hidden snipers and verbally abusive to employees and at the same time protective of abusive practices that occurred under his watch. Furthermore, Brock may have violated Washington D.C. law by allowing his security detail to carry a concealed pistol – a violation of city law.
The article names the names of high-profile reporters in the Washington D.C. media nexus that Media Matters could feed stories to that implicated conservative Republicans or, their favorite target, Fox News, which would be published nearly verbatim. Those reporters include the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent (who writes for WaPo’s blog “Plum Line”) and former POLITICO editor and now editor at Buzzfeed Ben Smith.
It was not just reporters who were eagerly repeating the mantras that emanated from Media Matter’s shop – the White House itself was involved. “Anita Dunn [former White House Communications Director] became a regular presence at the office,” Daily Caller quotes an anonymous former employee with Brock’s organization.
Today, The Daily Caller continues the battle against Media Matters, publishing an internal memo that names an “enemies list” which includes many public and private individuals targeted by MMFA for personal scrutiny. Those individuals include Fox News hosts and punts as well as private individuals like tech investor and libertarian benefactor to Rep. Ron Paul’s PAC Peter Thiel as well as producers and production staffers on Fox News programs.
The memo defines the mission statement of the organization as “An opposition research team will serve to hold Thiel and others like him accountable.” Ostensibly, they are to be held to account for being conservative.
The war on Fox News continues, writes Carlson, with a forthcoming book an internal MMFA memo says should be “under David’s name that savages Fox News and Fox News employees.” The memo opines that “the market for this is likely huge.” Brock’s organization is also pursuing liberal documentarian Michael Moore to make a documentary on Fox and its employees that will be equally “savage.” h/t Policology

The Latest: Obama Finance Chief Funded Media Matters;
Obama Deeply Tied to Anti-FOX News Group's Top Donors

By Aaron Klein - President Obama served eight years on the board of a charity that is a top donor to the embattled Media Matters for America progressive activist organization.
Obama is also tied to numerous other top Media Matters donors and fundraisers, including a foundation run by the finance chairman of his 2008 presidential campaign, PENNY PRIZKER, WND has learned.
Last week, the Daily Caller released a list of grants to Media Matters.
A WND review of the donor list found a number of deep ties to Obama.
The information comes amid reports that White House staffers held regular meetings with Media Matters, which is under fire for unusual tactics, including compiling a de facto enemies list; announcing an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel; and reportedly seeking to investigate the personal lives of targeted reporters and news personalities.
The Media Matters donor list included the Pritzker Family Foundation, which donated a total of $400,000 to the progressive attack group in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
The Pritzker family is best known for owning the Hyatt hotel chain and is considered to be one of America’s wealthiest families.
The family foundation is directed by Penny Pritzker, who served as the national finance chairman of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Penny Pritzker is currently a member of the Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which formulates and evaluates economic policy for the Obama administration.
Another top donor to Media Matters, according to the released donor list, is the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the Joyce Foundation board from 1994 to 2002. Joyce gave a $400,000 grant to Media Matters in 2010, purportedly to “support a gun and public safety issue initiative.”
While Obama was on the Joyce Foundation board, the organization granted tens of millions of dollars to gun control organizations. Also, numerous large grants were provided to a group called Leadership for Quality Education, which was run by John Ayers, the brother of Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
Also while Obama was at Joyce, the foundation gave numerous grants to the Small Schools workshop at the University of Chicago, which was founded by Bill Ayers and is run by avowed communist activist Mike Klonsky, who served with Ayers in the radical Students for a Democratic Society group.
Another key funding tie for Media Matters is the Center for American Progress, led by John Podesta, who directed Obama’s White House transition team.
Media Matters reportedly entered into a fundraising-sharing agreement with the Center for American Progress, or CAP.
CAP’s extensive reports and research reportedly help to inform Obama administration policy.
A Time magazine article profiles the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”
CAP has received large grants from the Tides Foundation, which, according to the published donor list, is the single largest donor to Media Matters, with over $4 million in donations to the progressive media attack group.
Last week, WND was first to report on the Tides’ donations to Media Matters. Media Matters tied to MoveOn.org, ACORN

The Tides Foundation is a controversial far-left clearinghouse that funds groups such as MoveOn.org, ACORN and a litany of anti-war organizations.
Tides is funded in part by multi-billionaire Schwartz György - aka George Soros, himself a prominent Media Matters donor via his Open Society Institute. Tides functions as a money tunnel in which major leftist donors provide large sums that are channeled to hundreds of radical groups. Tides documentation reviewed by WND shows the group provided a total of $4.1 million to Media Matters during the fiscal years of 2004-2009. During that same time period, Tides provided an additional $110,000 to the Media Matters Action Network, the group’s affiliated progressive lobby. The Tides Foundation funding to Media Matters was most significant during the progressive news organization’s startup year in 2004, when Tides granted it $2.2 million.
In 2005, Tides sent another $1.1 million to Media Matters. The years 2006 and 2007 saw smaller Tides donations of $56,223 and $38,225 respectively. In 2008, a significant Tides donation of $659,500 came in to Media Matters, with another $106,038 in 2009. In 2010, the Tides Center expressed public support for Media Matters when the media group stepped up its activism against Fox News by posting a Web page dedicated to anti-Fox material along with an online petition that pressed Fox’s advertisers to “Drop Fox.” At the time, Tides chief executive and founder, Drummond Pike, endorsed Media Matters’ campaign.
Media Matters already admitted to taking $1 million directly from Soros. The billionaire has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years. Now the revelation of Tides donations to Media Matters may raise more questions about the partiality of media group. Tides is one of the biggest financial backers of progressive and radical left groups in the U.S. For example, Tides is a primary funder to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and is closely tied to the group implicated in voter fraud. The Tides Center’s board chairman is Wade Rathke, ACORN’s founder and chief organizer.
Tides also is a primary funder to MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, Campaign for America’s Future; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Community Change; the socialist-leaning Democracy Now!; the Marxist-founded Free Press; and Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies.
Tides has been closely linked to Occupy since the anti-Wall Street movement’s inception. The Tides-funded Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for Occupy’s planning.
The Tides-funded Ruckus Society has been providing direct-action training to Occupy protesters as well as official training resources, including manuals, to Occupy training groups. Ruckus, which helped spark the 1999 World Trade Organization riots in Seattle, was also listed as a “friend and partner” of the Occupy Days of Action in October. Another grantee of Tides, MoveOn.org, has joined Occupy.

ALL PREVIOUS STORIES:
Is this Media Matters’ ‘favorite’ Washington Post columnist?
Media Matters tied to MoveOn.org, ACORN
Did Media Matters fund marketing of Obamacare?
Is Obama Programing Media Matters Or Is It The Other Way Around?
Media Matters Received $50,000 Grant to 'Monitor' Religious Media?
Media Matters tied to MoveOn, ACORN. See who one of the biggest donors to anti-Fox News group
New exposé reveals Media Matters' inner workings
Brock and the Glock: Armed men guarded Media Matters boss as he took $400,000 gun control donation
Media Matters tax-exempt status may face new scrutiny from Congress
Dershowitz: I Won’t Vote For Obama If Associated With ‘Stalinist Bigots’ Media Matters
SARAH PALIN: Professor Dershowitz Is Right About Media Matters
Media Matters called for private investigators 'to look into the personal lives' of Fox employees
Media Matters Allegations: “Virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff”…Politico Upset
Dershowitz warns Democrats to drop Media Matters
Inside Media Matters: David Brock’s enemies list [501(c)(3) targets GOP donors, PayPal founder...]
Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?
Inside Media Matters: Erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations

Chicago: The Cesspool that Gave Us Obama

By Suzanne Eovaldi - Chicago, the city that launched the career of President Barack Obama, now has the dubious title of being the nation’s most corrupt city, according to a lengthy study done by University of Illinois. Political Science Professor, Dick Simpson. He is pointing to the fact that “the Chicago area has logged more public corruption convictions by federal prosecutors than any other city.” Comprising the two worst crime zones, Simpson says are “the governor’s mansion in Springfield and the city council chambers down the hall.” His research revealed a staggering 1,531 convictions since 1976!
Additionally, Illinois is the only state which will have two former governors in federal prison at the same time when former Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich reports to Littleton, Colorado’s federal pen this March. He was convicted for attempting to sell Obama’s U. S. Senate seat. In federal lockup in Oxford, WI, is former Republican Governor George Ryan, convicted for a complex scheme involving sale of Illinois drivers’ licenses to unqualified drivers when Ryan served as Secretary of State.
In November 1994, when a horrific accident took the lives of six of the nine children of the deeply religious Reverend Scott Willis family , the cover up hit the headlines. Veteran cops, Ed Hammer and Russ Sonneveld “uncovered a pattern of bribes for licenses that filtered cash to the campaign war chest of their boss, George Ryan.”
“Frankly, (this is) the most despicable case I’ve ever investigated,” said family attorney Joe Power. “Mr. (Ricardo) Guzman was not charged with anything.” Driver of the tractor trailer whose faulty tail pipe assembly fell off, causing sparks to ignite the Willis van, Guzman said he could not speak English and needed his brother to translate for him. “. . .how was he given a CDL when he couldn’t speak English,” the Willis family attorney asked? Guzman was neither charged nor fined.
“The career of Barack Obama was launched in the salon of Bill Ayers,” journalist Andrew Breitbart told the recent CPAC convention. The Chicago Police Department’s mug shot of Ayers records hisarrest at the l968 Democrat National Convention.
Mayor Richard Daley, the father, put out the flames of Chicago Burning when he issued his internationally famous “SHOOT TO KILL” order. “They’re not going to kill my police,” the elder Daley said. My neighbor who was a street cop at the riots told me he evacuated his wife and son just before tanks began rolling through the streets.
So now, FOP Chief President Michael Shields is expressing worry that his force is not prepared for the massive combined NATO-G8 summits in Chicago this coming May 15-20. Only pressure by local media forced the city to shell out less than $200,000 to buy the CPD “3,000 plexi-glass shields for the helmets.” While the new helmet shields could protect their faces if demonstrators throw acid, urine, or feces at them, Shields worries police are not being prepared by city officials.
Obama’s former WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who is now Chicago’s mayor is facing a real time situation as the call already has gone out by United National Antiwar Committee to converge on the city “to make the NATO conference the occasion for internationally coordinated protests.” Endorsing UNAC’s resolution are the Muslim Peace Coalition, Black is Back, International Socialist Organization, Code Pink and the Green Party, along with 42 other international social justice and anti war groups.

Budget Insanity: Our National Debt as Household Budget


Our exploding national debt would be hard to comprehend if it wasn't for this image from a chain e-mail that went viral.
It is almost all accurate, except it gives Congress too much credit. Yes, politicians said they cut $38 billion last year.
But the latest budget tables from the White House's Office of Management and Budget reveal that the federal government actually spent $362 billion more in 2011 than in 2010. (And it's not just because of the growth of Medicare and Social Security. Even what bureaucrats call "non-defense discretionary spending" increased by $5 billion.)
Also, the e-mail is outdated — the debt is now up to $15,190,000,000,0000. It's like a family that has $151,900 in outstanding debt.
We need to slash government spending everywhere, but allowing only 2% growth in spending for next 10 years would suffice.

 Reminder: Check out our Blog Feeds in the right column (Scroll to bottom).
      Our readers say it's the best way to keep up with developing news stories!
                        CLICK HERE for a faster download!!

Gallup "Liar" Poll Shows U.S. Unemployment at 9%; Obama "Bigger Liar" Regime Shows 8.3% — Don't Believe Either!

Gallup released new information on Monday showing that the unemployment rate has managed to creep back up to 9.0 percent. Gallup gathers daily unemployment information of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer.
However, unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that the administration cites, Gallup's data are raw numbers numbers and not packaged with seasonal adjustments. With seasonal adjustments, BLS shows the unemployment rate at 8.3 percent.
Gallup also shows the underemployment rate is at 19.2%. Those who are underemployed, according to Gallup, are individuals who "are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed."
REAL U.S. Unemployment Rate is 15.2%!
By Aparna Mathur & Matthew H. Jensen (American Enterprise Institute) - The official U.S. unemployment rate hovers around 8.6 percent (8.3 % as of today), but a better measure of the real jobless rate is called the “U-6” which stands at 15.6 percent (15.2 percent as of today). The U-6 rate includes those that would still like a job and have looked for work in the last twelve months, not just the last four weeks. That means the number of Americans hurt by the bad economy is almost twice what the official number would suggest. In fact, the official rate excludes workers who have decided to drop out of the labor market altogether -- either because they are discouraged or for other reasons -- and also ignores workers who settle for part-time work because they are unable to find a full-time job. Currently more than 5.6 million Americans, or an astounding 43 percent of all unemployed have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. The tremendous increase in long-term unemployment is one factor driving the unprecedented disparity between the official measure of unemployment and the alternative measure (U-6). Long-term unemployment has a damaging psychological impact on workers' willingness to keep searching for work and motivates them to accept part-time work. As bad policy from Washington forces businesses to seek flexibility, the chasm between the U-6 and official unemployment rates may become a permanent fixture of the economic landscape.

Bombshell Video? Breitbart Unearths
'Unscrubbed' Glimpse of Obama's Surreptitious Past
 Breitbart: I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him . . . We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008

Andrew Breitbart took the podium at CPAC Friday afternoon, introduced to the stage with Rage Against The Machine’s Guerrilla Radio, and revealed to the audience he had “videos” of Barack Obama from his college days. “I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart disclosed to raucous applause.
“The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”
Watch Breitbart’s Full CPAC Speech Here:

Related Story: Andrew Breitbart On Dinner With American Terrorist Bill Ayers: He’s ‘A Sociopath’ But A Great Chef
 The Ayers & the Obamas - 4 Peas in a Pod

TheDC’s editor-in-chief, Tucker Carlson, won a charity auction to dine, along with five guests, with the two unrepentant radicals. Besides Carlson and Weinstein, the dinner included online media mogul Andrew Breitbart, Daily Caller columnist and Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash, Carlson’s brother, Buckley, and a Daily Caller contest winner.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, both Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the communist, terrorist organization Weather Underground — a splinter group from the radical Students for a Democratic Society.
The Weather Underground conducted a terrorist bombing campaign with the goal of ending the U.S. war against communist Vietnam. Attack targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and at least one police station. The two married while on the run from the FBI in the early ’70s.
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn auctioned off an evening for dinner in their home in Chicago and Tucker Carlson of "The Daily Caller" took advantage of the opportunity. For $2,500 Tucker and a few of his friends secured an evening with the radical couple. Tucker invited along Andrew Breitbart who called into Stephen K. Bannon's "The Victory Sessions" and gave a play-by-play of the meal. Breitbart said that they had "no game plan" going in to the evening, and that strategy produced an unforgettable event that the Ayers won't soon forget.
Listen to Breitbart’s Comments on the Dinner Here:

SHOCK STUDY! Obama's Dependent Regime: Government Dependency Index Shoots Up 23% Under Obama; 67 Million Now Getting Aid
 "When the gubmint gives a man a fish, he eats for a day — if it shows a man how to fish, it loses another dependent voter"  (Quote courtesy of our blog founder, Bill Nalty)

The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."
The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.
The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.
"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.
Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.
The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.
At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
Other findings:
The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.
In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.
The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.
Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.
But Beach says his team's research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.
In addition, the index shot up 8% in 2010, a year when the economy grew by 3%.
Also, in the wake of the 1981-82 recession — which lasted nearly as long as the so-called Great Recession (16 months vs 18 months), and saw unemployment rise higher (peaking at 10.8% vs. 10%) — the dependence index climbed only 6%, then fell the very next year.
The lingering high unemployment rate during the slow economic recovery under Obama could also explain the dependency rise. It's also possible that the growth in federal dependency programs is partly to blame for the ongoing jobs recession, not just the result of it.
As the nearby chart shows, the time it's taken for employment to reach its prerecession peak has climbed the past four decades, right along with the growth in federal dependency. The current jobs recession hit a post-World War II record of 48 months in January, with payrolls still 5.6 million below their January 2008 high.
Research seems to validate this connection. Various studies have shown that extending unemployment benefits can keep unemployment rates higher than they would otherwise have been.
Obama's own former economic adviser, Larry Summers, noted in the 1999 Concise Encyclopedia of Economics that "government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment ... by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work."

What Happens When We Live Off the Other Guy? It All Ends in Riots!
Nearly half of U.S. households receive government benefits. We’ve reached record highs of those relying on government-paid benefits, which is to say, benefits paid for by taxpayers, which is another way of saying redistributed wealth.

 OBAMA LEADS HIS ZOMBIES DOWN A HELLISH BLACK HOLE!

Which is another way of saying socialism.
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious,” someone once said.
No, it wasn’t Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.
It was Thomas Jefferson.
If you’re surprised by that, take a gander at this:
“…the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.”
Another ranting right-winger? Nope.
That’s a direct quote from the Bible of leftward thought, the New York Times. A news story, no less.
But the Times reporters, never a bunch to be labeled conservative, went on to say:
“And as more middle-class families … land in the safety net …, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it.
They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.”
So, back to our original question, “What happens when we live off the other guy?” Let’s revisit the Times’ explanation:
“…they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.”
Erick Erickson opines on the subject here, pointing up the fact that, “The resentment will continue until it boils over or changes are made to put the social order back as it was intended — using the social safety net to help the poor, not subsidize the Middle Class.” That won’t be easy.
Once they’ve enjoyed the other guy’s money, it will take people of strong character and moral courage to turn off the “free” flow of benefits.
As we wrote some months ago, “Churches, private charities, private hospitals, privately run soup kitchens and families helped the less fortunate. But with each inroad by government, the roles of those institutions have diminished. Why donate to a private soup kitchen if the government is doling out food stamps?” Why indeed?
“Before it became passé, people understood that to grab one person’s money to give to another person constituted theft, no matter how good the motive – or who was doing the taking. As James Madison famously said, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents’,” yours truly reminded readers in December.
GREEK RIOTS:
Greece, it seems, didn’t hear or at least heed Madison. What happens as a result? Here we have a relevant and timely news account:
“Anger over proposed austerity measures reached a boiling point on Sunday as protests in the center of Greece’s capital turned violent.
As tens of thousands gathered in front of the Greek parliament in Athens to protest, angry gangs looted stores and torched buildings,” according to the New York Times.
The other guy eventually runs out of money. And once accustomed to living off the other guy’s money, resentment turns to rage. h/t

18 Staggering Charts On The Rise Of Government Dependence in America
Americans are more dependent on the government than ever, according to the Heritage Foundation. Heritage's index, which looks at government disbursements from health and welfare to farm subsidies, jumped 8.1 percent in 2011. The share of Americans who pay no taxes rose to a record 49.5 percent. A record 70.5 percent of government spending went to dependence programs.
Source: Heritage — SEE 18 CHARTS

OMG!/OMA! Obama Says Jesus Is a Marxist Too — Uses Him as Support For His Failed Economic Policies
"Your vote for your salvation — I deserve a second term!"
 Lord Obama with worshippers Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann

Church And State: President Obama has taken a very powerful name in vain in defense of his class warfare economic policies. In fact, Obama encourages a sin Jesus Christ repeatedly admonished: ENVY.
Attending the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama declared that raising tax rates on higher incomes "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"
It is disgraceful enough for a president to use a religious event to push an economic agenda that has already insured his place in history as the food stamp president.
But Obama began his remarks by claiming there was nothing political in what he would be saying.
He was there, he said, so that he and the attendees could "come together as brothers and sisters and seek God's face together."
After getting "caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down. They humble us," the president said, adding that "we can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him, avoiding phony religiosity, listening to Him." This from a president who has conspicuously neglected attending religious services during his time in office — until recently, that is, with his re-election campaign revving up.
It looks to be a cynical manipulation of those who hold deep religious beliefs, little more.
Sanctimonious talk about "turning to our Creator, listening to Him, avoiding phony religiosity" from a president leftist comic Bill Maher is convinced is really a secular humanist just like his mother, whom Obama described as having "a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution."
Considering that the rest of Obama's prayer breakfast speech was all politics, how can he not be judged guilty of "phony religiosity" himself?
The president said televangelists "come by the Oval Office .. . and we'll pray together."
Imagine the media clamor if a Republican president said this. But don't expect a peep in the news raising church and state issues about this. According to President Obama, Jesus's "command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself '" is behind his expansion of government and regulation, and his tax increases.
Everything his administration has been doing, from foreign aid to Uganda to Dodd-Frank making "too big to fail" a permanent fixture of financial institutions, is apparently based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Then, a moment later, he shamelessly pivots and quotes C.S. Lewis — a conservative who would be appalled by Barack Obama's ideas — saying that Christianity has no "detailed political program."
In fact, Christ repeatedly warned against exactly the kind of class envy Obama has made the foundation of his economic policies and campaign rhetoric.
When asked if the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, Jesus famously asked to be shown the tribute coin bearing the image of Tiberius and replied, "Render therefore the things that are Caesar's to Caesar and the things that are God's to God."
The left would like to interpret that as, "pay your taxes and shut up."
But it has throughout most of the history of Christianity been used by the church as a restriction on state power — especially as relates to interfering with religious practice.
In the Parable of the Generous Employer, Christ condemns the worker who complains to his boss that "thou hast made them equal to us that have borne the burden of the day" by paying other workers more.
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" the employer asks in response, in a Gospel passage that eloquently champions private property.
Jesus Christ was no socialist.
In fact, unlike the utopians who lead the Democratic Party today, Christ realized that "the poor you will always have with you."

Red State Bliss! — What a Beautiful Sight!

Gallup's 'Obama Disapproval Map' Predicts Monstrous Loss for Obama — 323 Electoral Votes to 215 (270 Wins)
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
Gallup adds:
Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Gallup: More States Move to GOP in 2011!
Seventeen States Solidly or Leaning Republican, Up From 10 in 2010
PRINCETON, NJ -- Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents' party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. The remaining 15 states were relatively balanced politically, with neither party having a clear advantage.
Gallup classifies each state as solid Democratic, leaning Democratic, competitive, leaning Republican, or solid Republican, based on the percentage of residents identifying with or leaning toward the Democratic versus Republican parties. The 2011 results are based on Gallup Daily tracking interviews with more than 350,000 U.S. adults, including interviews with 1,000 or more residents in each of the 50 states and 730 in the District of Columbia. Each state's sample is weighted to be representative of the state's adult population.
The findings make it clear that U.S. states have undergone a dramatic political transformation since 2008, the year President Obama was elected, moving from a Democratically dominant political environment to one of parity.
The greatest movement away from the Democratic Party came between 2009 and 2010, when the number of states with a Democratic advantage fell from 34 to 23.
The greatest movement toward the Republican Party came a year later, between 2010 and 2011, with a net gain of seven GOP states, including Indiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. New Hampshire moved from a leaning Republican to a competitive status in 2011.

Obama Was a Marxist-Lenninist, Anticipated Revolution in the U.S.
Marxist friend of Obama commented on his presidential victory: "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the 'mole,' who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary 'mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through." — Frank Chapman (Democrat Student Socialist Alliance Founder)

Another Obama friend, Dr. John Drew — who knew President Obama when he was a student at Occidental College, says Obama at that time 'was looking forward to an imminent social revolution, where the working class would overthrow the ruling class.'
 ↔ "Mind if I Bogart this joint, comrades. It's good for a mole's soul! You can't touch me! I'm a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a mystery and topped with intriguing conundrums. So, F*** off — You F***ing Fools!"

Drew, who was the founder of the Democratic Student Socialist Alliance – states that as a Sophomore, Barack Obama was a self-described Marxist Leninist. Obama’s attraction to this radical ideology as a young college student could explain his absolute determination as President to pass the current “progressive” agenda of the liberal left. Unlike John, who transformed into a church going, Ronald Reagan conservative, President Obama never described a similar political evolution away from socialist thinking for himself. Below is the transcript of a fascinating interview with Dr. Drew who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College, and was a fellow Marxist at the time. It can be heard here

Dr. John Drew is interviewed by Dr. Paul Kengor (Author of Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”) as he guest hosts the Glen Meakam Show. John Drew was the founder of the Marxist club, as he describes it in the interview. He got to know young Obama fairly well, and notes that Obama described himself at the time as a Marxist-Lenninist, and anticipated a revolution in the United States. To listen, click on "play now" following the words "Standard Podcast" at the top of the page, and scroll to 41 minutes on the podcast scroll bar that will appear as the podcast loads. Drew notes that he has not been interviewed by the major biographers of Obama. I have little doubt as to why.

TRANSCRIPT:
Q: I interviewed you for my book Dupes a year ago and you had contact me a couple of years ago because you read a piece that I wrote for American Thinker and it was called "Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis" and it was on Obama's background and youth. Frank Marshall Davis was an actual Party member and that's something, John, I spent two or three years on investigating, but there's no question about it... the documentation is there, a 1957 Senate report called him "and identified member of the Communist Party", there's an FBI file that's 600 pages, and I took ten or twelve pages from that report and put it in the appendix of my book. It even lists Davis' Communist Party card number, which was 47544, so very clear. Why is all of this relevant? Well, I think it explains, at least to some degree, that -- if he's not a Communist, he's at least very far to the left -- and has some very left-oriented views. But you met Obama when he left Frank Marshall Davis in 1980 coming from Hawaii and went to Occidental College. So tell us about when Obama got there and when you met.
A: I see myself as Barack Obama's missing link from his exposure to Communism through Frank Marshall Davis and his later exposure to Bill Ayers and Alice Palmer in Chicago. So, as far as I can tell, I'm the only one of Obama's extended circle of friends who's spoken out and verified that he was a Marxist-Leninist in his sophomore year of college, from 1980 to 1981.I met him because I graduated from Occidental College in 1979 and I was back at Occidental visiting a girlfriend. I met him because of the relationship which I'd started my senior year at Occidental --
Q: By the way, tell us where Occidental is. We're way out here in Western Pennsylvania.
A: Sure, Occidental College is in the Eastern Los Angeles area. It's a very prestigious, very beautiful, sort of very garden, rose-garden sort of college, with three- or four-thousand students
Q: And pretty competitive, I mean Obama would have had to have good grades and been a good student to get accepted there
A: Yeah, my sense is because of affirmative action, guys like me were going to Occidental instead of even better schools and guys like Obama were going to Occidental instead of, uh, less challenging schools. A lot of very successful people were there, were part of Obama's social circle at the time.
Q: Now, was Occidental known for radical left politics? Would that have been an attraction for Obama?
A: Yeah, I'm certain that it was. It was considered sort of the "Moscow" of southern California. There were a lot of Marxist professors, many of whom I got to know pretty well, not just there but also at Williams College in Massachusetts. Two of the same Marxist-Socialist professors were on the staff with me at Williams.
Q: So, that might have been an attraction for him? I'm trying to think, what would have made him go to Hawaii to Occidental?Do you think Frank Marshall Davis could somehow have been an influence in having him choose Occidental? A: I don't have any evidence of that...
Q: Because they won't release his records, I called them --
A: Yeah, I think that's odd. I don't know, I got straight A's my first year, it sounds weird, but I don't talk about it, Paul, you'd think that if Obama did well he'd release those transcripts.
Q: Now, this is speculation, but do you think those files might hold a letter of recommendation from Frank Marshall Davis? Right? Why not?
A: Wow.
Q: Davis was a mentor. Davis writes about him in Dreams From My Father very warmly, in fact Obama writes that Davis gave him advice on women, on race, on life, on college. So, he must have recommended Occidental, but it's sad we have to speculate. If they'd just release these records...
A: Well, this is what I know for sure, and this is why I'd sought you out, to be helpful to the historic record, is to verify that Barack Obama was definitely a Marxist and that, it was very unusual for a sophomore to be as radical, or as ideologically attuned as young Barack Obama was. I think people like David Remnick [a biographer], they make it sound like Frank Marshall Davis had no impact on Obama and that his friend Mohammed Hasan Chandoo somehow converted him to Marxism at Occidental.
 Barack and Chandoo in an intimate moment

And my impression is that Obama was the leader of that group and Obama was already very ardent and committed to Marxism. And Chandoo struck me as somewhat more passive. So it doesn't fit the story that I read in Remnick's story The Bridge.
Q: And Remnick did not contact you, did he?
A: No! No! ...Well, Remnick interviewed my girfriend, Carolyn Bosch -- she's on three or four pages -- and they interviewed a guy named Gary Chapman, a guy who was very active in the Democrat Student [Socialists'] Alliance.
Q: I like David Remnick. I use his book in my Compartive Studies class at Grove City College.
A: He's a sharp guy. And he's got some good facts in there, but he didn't want to hear from little Dr. Drew...
Q: ...You said that Obama was introduced to you at Occidental as a Marxist because you were one at that point.
A: Yeah, that's embarrassing, but I had studied Marxist Economics at Sussex College in England. I had a junior year scholarship over there, and did my senior honor's thesis on Marxist Economics when I was at Occidental College. And I actually founded the Democrat Student Socialist Alliance, under a different name, in 1976... it was as Marxist as you could get, but they come up with a more general name while I was away in England.
Q: ...John, you had told me before, and I'm reading from my book, that "Obama was already an ardent Marxist in the fall of 1980 when I met him. I know it's incendiary to say this, but although he said in Dreams From My Father that he'd 'hung out with Marxist professors', he did not explain in that book or clarify is that he was 100% in total agreement with those professors.
A: Yeah, you've got that exactly right. Obama believed, at the time I met him, this was probably around Christmas time in 1980. I'd flown out on Christmas break from Corness, where I was in grad school. And Obama was looking forward to an imminent social revolution, literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a kind of socialist Utopia in the United States. I mean, that's how extreme his views were his sophomore year of college....I was a comrade, but I was more... the Frankfort School of Marxism at the time. I was, I felt like I was doing him a favor by pointing out that the Marxist revolution that he and Caroline and Shandoo were hoping for was really kind of a pipe-dream. And that there was nothing in European history, or the history of developed nations, that would make that sort of fantasy, that Frank Marshall Davis fantasy of revolution, come true.
Q: So you had a realistic sense that, even though you liked these ideas, that you knew they wouldn't really work?
A: Right... [There were some] who were puzzled why they didn't see Marx's predictions come true, and weren't interested in the role of psychology or false consciousness in preventing a revolution from happening. I was a card-carrying Marxist, but I was more of an east coast, Cornell University Marxist at that time.
Q: But Obama thought it was practical. He thought it could happen in America?
A: Oh, yeah! He thought I was a little reactionary... or insensitive to the coming needs of the revolution! He was full-bore, 100% into that very, kind of simple-minded Marxist revolutionary framework.
Q: And, also at this time, this is 1981, Jimmy Carter was President [?] and Ronald Reagan was yet to call the Soviet Union 'the Evil Empire' when he becomes President. Did you have talk about the election, about Reagan. I mean, that must have really upset Obama?
A: You know, it's so long ago. My clearest recollection was that we were more concerned with more U.S. intervention in Latin America and the repression of Communist and Socialist forces like the Sandanistas and things like that... this sound weird, but there was part of me at the time that was ready to go off and fight with the Sandanistas against the Contras. I was pretty crazy, Paul...
Q: Now this gets to a critical point and I know Obama supporters want me to ask this... to be fair, look where you were then and where you are today...
A: Oh, yeah. Now I'm a Ronald Reagan, church-going, Baptist conservative, so...
Q: So, what about Obama. That's the... trillion dollar question? ...We have to know this stuff about our Presidents, you can't leave this about biographies...
A: Well, I think that he, I've challenged President Obama to explain how he evolved this Marxist-Leninist viewpoint he had in his sophomore year of college. And he's just never articulated how he changed. In fact, he's buried and, I think, lied about his ideological convictions of his youth. And we can trace it all the way to Alice Palmer, I think, in 1995 [the Illinois state senator who he replaced]... who attended the Communist Party "Politburo" event. Or she was part of a big international Communist convention in Moscow!
Q: ...And Palmer was with Obama in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn when -- and The New York Times even wrote about this -- there was sort of a political blessing, where Palmer identified Obama as his chosen successor...
A: ...Well, I think I can knock down some doors here but stating that he had a very consistent ideology, I think, probably from the time he was in [Hawaii] to the time he was with Palmer and Ayers in Chicago. I think his current behavior demonstrates that he still has some ideological convictions. When ever he talks about taxing the richest two-percent? I think he knows that will harm the economy. To him, the redistribution of wealth is extremely important. And he never took economics or science like I did. He went straight to law school, never had any business experience, never had a payroll to meet. And I think he's locked in a very dangerous mindset, where if he didn't fight to redistribute the wealth that he'd be violating [his] ideology. ...You see people like Van Jones, who's an admitted Communist, you see Anita Dunn, who's praising Mao Tse-Tung, to me, it's like Obama's Marxist-Socialist ideology is hiding in plain sight! It's frustrating to me. It seems to me like people should be up in arms about this! ...I think whenever he talks about people clinging to their guns and religions due to economic stress, that's just the standard Marxist argument... he's still using the standard Marxist architecture, the way he talks about things. I think he's surrounded by people who share that mental architecture! ...I feel like our nation's life is at stake. Yes. It is. The time for action grows near. h/t: directorblue

Obama Channeled Karl Marx During State of the Union — ‘Economic fairness’ Is Defining Goal for U.S. Socialist Groups
 "When the gubmint gives a man a fish, he eats for a day — if it shows a man how to fish, it loses another dependent voter"  (Quote courtesy of our Blog Founder, Bill Nalty)

By Aaron Klein - In his third State of the Union address last night, President Obama channeled the mantra of U.S. progressive groups by repeatedly calling for so-called economic fairness in America.
Some progressives point to revolutionary socialist Karl Marx as divining economic theory that stresses “economic fairness.”
Also, late Harvard professor John Rawls, one of the most important philosophers of liberalism in the twentieth century, named his own theory “justice as fairness.” Some have previously pointed to Rawls possible influence over Obama. Rawls calls for ensuring distributive justice of resources.
The headlines in scores of U.S. newspapers and news websites today stress the centrality of economic fairness in Obama’s speech last night.
“Obama makes pitch for economic fairness in State of the Union address,” reported CBSNews.com
“In Address, Obama Makes Pitch for Economic Fairness,” reads a NY Times headline.
“Obama’s Address Centers on Economic Fairness,” reported the Associated Press.
Indeed, the fairness theme permeated the president’s speech.
Stated Obama: “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
Obama argued that “no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.”
He called for a “return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy.”
Using the phrase yet again, Obama stated, “We need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.”
And another point in his speech, Obama stated, “When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford.”
Obama has previously used other speeches to address “economic fairness,” including a major policy speech in December 2011 that also centered on the idea.
Marxism
Lester C. Thurow, a founder of the progressive Economic Policy Institute, explained in his 2003 book, “Fortune Favors the Bold: What We Must Do to Build a New and Lasting Global Prosperity,” that Marx related the ideals of economic fairness while explaining how capitalism must end. Wrote Thurow: “In addition to outlining the process whereby the system of capitalism would end, Marx went on to recommend a new system, communism, which would, he believed, eliminate the evils of capitalism.
“He never said much about the transformation of capitalism into communism, but in his vision of communism (outlined in an article entitled “Utopia”) it would create a new society where economic fairness and personal freedom reigned.”
Using the theme of economic fairness, Thurow went on to quote Marx’s own mantra, “To everyone in accordance with their needs. From everyone in accordance with their abilities.”
Radical groups and ‘economic fairness’
Thurow’s Economic Policy Institute, or EPI, which is funded by billionaire George Soros, has reportedly been influential in helping to craft White House policy. This author’s most recent book, Red Army, documented how Health Care for America, the centerpiece of the EPI’s Agenda for Shared Prosperity, served as a foundation for Obamacare.
Like scores of other major progressive groups, the phrase “economic fairness” permeates the EPI’s literature and policy papers. In fact, the EPI describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, research to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.”
Last June, the EPI website argued, “Tax policy should be designed to promote economic fairness by pushing against the trend of ever-widening income inequality.”
The EPI, together with other progressive groups, including ACORN pushed for a loosely described Economic Fairness project. One of it’s partners in that project, United for a Fair Economy, says it seeks to raise awareness “that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart.”
The group’s official visions seeks a “global society where prosperity is better shared, where there is genuine equality of opportunity, where the power of concentrated money and corporations neither dominates the economy nor dictates the content of mass culture.”
Another organization in the Economic Fairness project is Citizens for Tax Justice, whose catch phrase reads, “Working for a fair and sustainable tax system.”   Continued >


* * * * * * * * * * * OBAMA & SAUL ALINSKY * * * * * * * * * * *

Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles. Of course, this is not a surprise. After watching the bribes, kickbacks, lies and threats the past three years as Democrats took over the health care industry; and the crony socialism of the bankrupt green energy corporations, it’s obvious that the only subject Obama excels at is "Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals." Isn’t it a bit odd that the only photo we’ve seen of Obama teaching, he’s explaining the Alinsky principles?
Three of Obama's mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. (The Developing Communities Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.)
One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:
"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards.
As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."
For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley's National Welfare Rights Organization.

Gingrich Attacks on Obama — Resurrects the Evil Saul Alinsky

By James Rosen - He [thankfully] died in 1972, at the age of sixty-three, a marginalized figure in his own obscure field and seldom mentioned outside of it. But to close followers of the topsy-turvy GOP presidential primary, the late Saul Alinsky is suddenly becoming a household word. This is due, in large measure, to the mantra-like repetition of the name by Newt Gingrich, who invokes it every day on the campaign trail as part of his stump-speech indictment of President Obama.
“We need somebody who is a conservative and who can stand up to him and debate and who can clearly draw the contrast between the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Saul Alinsky,” Gingrich told a large crowd outside the Wings Plus restaurant in Coral Springs, Florida Wednesday.
“The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky,” the former House Speaker crowed to his raucous supporters on the night he won the South Carolina primary. “President Obama believes in Saul Alinsky's radicalism,” he said in West Columbia, four days earlier, “[and] a lot of strange ideas he learned at Columbia and Harvard.".
It all begs the question: Who was Saul Alinsky? And another: Why does Gingrich think it effective messaging for him to conjure a man who’s been dead forty years, and whose name is recognized, in all probability, by one in every 100,000 registered voters?
Born in Chicago in 1909, Alinsky was a trained archeologist and criminologist. In the early 1930s, he observed with fascination the rigid hierarchies and extraordinary social cohesion discernible in the Windy City’s large population of gangland mobsters. Intrigued by the way these poor and uneducated ethnics galvanized themselves into a formidable force, and managed to achieve their stated ends – however reprehensible – Alinsky wondered if somehow the techniques of organization used by La Cosa Nostra could be applied to the city’s ordinary disenfranchised dwellers.
His first triumph was the successful rallying of a mix of ethnic Catholics in the rundown neighborhood known as “Back of the Yards.” With the help of the Chicago archdiocese, Alinsky mobilized these Irish and Polish workers and tenants to demand – and win – concessions from local slumlords and city hall.
From that moment onward, Alinsky has been regarded as the godfather of that modern form of rabble-rousing known as “community organizing.” He would go on to work with steelworkers, native Indians in Canada, American blacks, and Chicanos. His work with that last group included his tutelage of a young Cesar Chavez, who in turn led the first organization of California migrant workers, and became one of the most celebrated activists of the twentieth century.
While the antiwar protesters and radicals of the late 1960s breathed new life into Alinsky’s name and career, he occasionally expressed dismay with their attitudes and tactics. One occasion was the aftermath of the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Alinsky’s hometown of Chicago. Television sets across America beamed violent and unnerving images of Chicago police officers swinging nightsticks against antiwar protesters, hippies, and students in Grant Park.
When the tear gas evaporated, students and radicals approached Alinsky and asked whether they shouldn’t now organize in more militant forms, “the system” having failed them.
“Do one of three things,” Alinsky advised them. “One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing – but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.”
As a young post-graduate in the 1980s and ‘90s, Barack Obama was schooled in – and taught others – the Alinsky techniques. To hear Alinsky’s disciples tell it, his model of grassroots mobilization involved three key elements: an unsentimental assessment of the bottom-line interests that could serve to unite ordinary, and often apathetic, citizens in meaningful forms of protest; a highly confrontational, take-no-prisoners approach to those holding the reins of power; and an unwavering faith that positive change can be effected by people previously uninvolved in politics.
These principles Alinsky set forth in three books, most notably Reveille for Radicals (1949) and Rules for Radicals (1971), which found a wide audience amid the countercultural protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s..
“In this book,” Alinsky declared near the outset of Rules, “we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”.
“Alinsky's whole style was very in-your-face,” said Marshall Ganz, a professor of public policy at Harvard University who began working with Chavez and the United Farm Workers in 1965. “He thought that making change required creating tension, so that people could learn and look at things from a new perspective….What Alinsky meant by ‘radical’ was somebody who does something about it, doesn't just talk about it.” “He liked to provoke a reaction,” agreed Michael Gecan, an executive with the Industrial Areas Foundation, an activist group founded by Alinsky.“

Newt Gingrich: Nobody in the Elite Media Wants to Cover Obama’s 'Saul Alinsky Roots'
"But the objective fact is Obama believes in a very radical vision of America's future that is fundamentally different from probably 80 percent of this country. And nobody in the elite media has ever wanted to dig into it, ever wanted--why would he veto the Keystone pipeline? Why would he kill jobs in America? Why would he have a National Labor Relations Board attack Boeing? Because it fits the model of Alinsky radicalism." SEE VIDEO

Carney Asked if ‘Saul Alinsky Portrait’ Is Hanging in the White House
During a White House press briefing on Monday, Ed Henry asked Press Secretary Jay Carney if the White House displays a portrait of Saul Alinsky for its staff to look up to. Carney’s answer was less than direct, and would seem to hint that there just might be something to the Alinsky portrait rumors.
FOX News’ Ed Henry:
“I wonder if you could clear something up — Newt Gingrich keeps saying on the campaign trail that the President’s vision comes from Saul Alinsky, the community organizer. I haven’t heard you asked about him but… Is there some kind of portrait of him hanging up in the White House that people look up to or is this BS?
Jay Carney, Press Secretary:
Have I said how much fun I had as a reporter covering Congress from 1996 to 1998? There was a certain bombast to it at the time. Lots of colorful things to cover ... Look, the President's background as a community organizer is well documented in his own books. His experience in that field contributed to who he is today. But his experiences abroad also included alot of other areas in his life. So I'll just leave it at that. SEE VIDEO

Death-Defying Rogue Reporter Asks Putz Presser Carney Why Obama Refuses to Release His 'College Transcripts'
   (More Scar Pics Below)
Why Not a Question About Obama's 'Cracks in His Head' — the World Awaits an Explanation

Presser Jay Carney Dodges Question About Obama's College Transcripts: "I Would Refer You To The Campaign"
White House press secretary Carney is asked why President Obama hasn't released his college transcripts. Carney dodges the question and tells the reporter, Ed Henry of FOX News, to ask the campaign.
Carney then talks about candidates and releasing their tax returns.
Ed Henry, FOX News: "I don't know how many years, maybe you do, George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain that the President has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?"
Jay Carney, White House: "I would refer you to the campaign. "I think we've answered this a bunch. The tradition of releasing income tax records for serious potential nominees, and nominees of the two parties is well established. It's not a law. But it's well established. It's one this President abided by when he was a Senator. It's one numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by and we think its a good idea."  SEE VIDEO

How Does Obama Hide Those Keloidal Scars on His Scalp?
Obama's Cover-Up Team: He appointed Pete Souza as the official White House photojournalist who sees that no revealing photos are released. Also, he appointed Arun S. Chaudhary; a trusted Pakistani Muslim slugged the "YouTube Guru," who produces all White House in-house propaganda videos. And finally he brought his longtime Chicago barber to Washington, Zariff (uses one name), a Muslim who believes 9/11 was an inside job. Despite Obama's declared deep Christian devotion, he's shown his dedication to diversity by giving Zariff and other Muslims very sensitive assignments in the White House.

World Net Daily Reports on White House Usual Stonewalling: Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, previously has raised the issue of documentation for Obama several times, getting shut down each time, starting with Robert Gibbs when he was Obama’s press secretary.
The earlier questions dealt with Obama’s birth documentation because of the numerous questions that remain unanswered over his eligibility under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
That’s thought to mean the offspring of two citizen parents, and possibly even the offspring born in the country of two citizen parents. That’s why some of the documentation routinely released by presidents before Obama seems pertinent to reporters.
Among the other documents not released by Obama are his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
He released a “Certification of Live Birth” during his 2008 campaign, stating it was the only document available to confirm his story of his birth in Hawaii. Then in 2011 he released an image of a Hawaii “Certificate of Live Birth” saying that confirmed his Hawaii birth.
But experts in computers, imaging, documents and text all have stated that the image released by the White House is no more or less than a fraud.
The first time Kinsolving posed a question about Obama’s eligibility, Gibbs’ response was to guffaw in unison with members of the Washington press corps about the concerns of hundreds of thousands of petitioners who demanded it.
“Are you looking for the president’s birth certificate?” he asked incredulously. “Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”
Gibbs was referring to the “Certification of Live Birth,” touted at the time as the only document available. It was later supplanted by the “Certificate of Live Birth.”
Bill Press later raised the question for Gibbs about whether the “birthers” ever would fade.
“I almost hate to indulge in such an august setting as the White House – and I mean this in seriousness – the White House briefing room discussing the made-up, fictional nonsense of whether or not the president was born in this country,” Gibbs said at the time. “A year-and-a-half ago I asked that the birth certificate be put on the Internet because lord knows, you got a birth certificate and you put it on the Internet, what else could be the story?”
But again, he was referring to the “Certification of Live Birth” that later was replaced.
Even later, Gibbs stumbled over his explanation of where Obama was born.
“I can’t tell you why somebody believes, despite all preponderance of the evidence, that the president was born … uhm … in … uhh, uhh … was born here and not somewhere else. I’ve stopped trying to explain that,” he said.

Meet Obama's Green Robber Barons
Brainy Obama Blows Billions and Billions on Bad Bets


By Michelle Malkin - Had enough of fat cat Barack Obama, his jet-setting wife and his multi-millionaire Chicago consigliere/real-estate mogul Valerie Jarrett attacking the "rich"? Well, brace yourselves. You'll be hearing much more from the White House about the "wealthy few" who aren't paying their "fair share" as Obama's re-election campaign doubles down on class-war demagoguery.
As usual, there's always a set of immunity charms for the privileged friends and family of the ruling class. When it comes to all the Green Robber Barons who've reaped an obscenely unfair share of billions of tax dollars from the Obama administration, the envy trumpeteers will be quieter than a nest of mute church mice.
Obama's State of the Union address defiantly pitched a new round of clean energy spending orgies to help the "middle class." But how have the serial bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies of several federally subsidized solar companies -- all under Obama's watch -- helped anyone but an upper-crust elite of eco-crats and their lobbyists and consultants?
Bankrupt Solyndra, billionaire George Kaiser. In the wake of the half-billion-dollar Solyndra stimulus bust, company officials revealed plans to hand out hefty bonuses totaling $500,000. Months before the politically connected solar energy manufacturer went belly up, it was doling out bonus payments of between $40,000 and $60,000 to several executives. Last week, a local CBS News crew caught employees at the Silicon Valley headquarters trashing solar panel glass tubes worth an estimated $10 million.
The now-abandoned Taj Mahal complex cost ordinary Americans more than $733 million. But billionaire Democratic donor and frequent White House guest George Kaiser, whose nonprofit foundation was Solyndra's biggest investor, is still sitting pretty. He and the other private investors of Solyndra will recoup their losses ahead of taxpayers. And while they blast their GOP opponents, double-standard Democrats will remain AWOL on the glaring tax-avoidance strategies of the wealthy Kaiser Family Foundation.
Bankrupt Beacon Power, fat Democratic coffers. This green energy storage plant filed for bankruptcy last fall after a $43 million injection of Obama Department of Energy loan guarantees. Federal election record filings show that CEO William Capp contributed to the 2008 Obama campaign, as well as several left-wing New England Democratic candidates. Beacon Power lobbyist Steve Wolfe was a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Beacon sought bankruptcy shelter two days after the White House responded to fiscal watchdogs' demands for a review of the DOE's shoddy loan monitoring programs.
Bankrupt SpectraWatt, red-faced Goldman Sachs. A solar cell company based in New York, SpectraWatt went belly up last August despite a half-million-dollar federal stimulus boost and lucrative backing from politically connected Goldman Sachs -- whose ties reach deep into the Obama Treasury Department, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, White House National Economic Council and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. itself. The eco-failure was dumped in a fire sale for less than $5 million.
Teetering Nevada Geothermal, cheerleading Harry Reid. Despite $150 million in federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies -- not to mention personal lobbying by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- this alternative energy project is on the brink of failure. A Deloitte and Touche audit grimly concludes that the company "has incurred net losses over the past several years, has an accumulated deficit of $44.0 million and an anticipated inability to retire its long-term liabilities." According to CBS News, the company's latest SEC filings warn of multiple defaults.
My scouring of White House visitor logs shows nine visits from another Green Robber Baron, Illinois-based Exelon's CEO John Rowe, who met with the president and former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel multiple times. As Forbes magazine reported: The clean energy company "has very deep ties to the Obama Administration. Frank M. Clark, who runs ComEd, helped advise Obama before he ran for president and is one of Obama's largest fundraisers. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped create Exelon" -- where he raked in more than $16 million over two years.
Remember: "Fairness" is in the eye of the wealth redistributors.

Another Reason Why Obama Must Go!
 By Michelle Malkin - The Land of Obama Make-Believe
Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.
_And where'd he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain't child's play, you know.
Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella's castle as his backdrop. "America is open for business," he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe.
Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed -- after years of planning and review -- in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism:
"President Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said.
"The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented.
"This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security," Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando's fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there's no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.)
On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 -- hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It's Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact.
And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with -- wait for it -- solar panels.

Obama’s Postmodern Vision — The Growing Tyranny of a Rogue Regime
Will We Have Another Four Years of His Selective Reading of the Law?
 By Victor Davis Hanson - There has been for months a popular parlor game of tallying instances in which President Obama seems to have either ignored or simply bypassed federal law. But what started out as a way of exposing occasional hypocrisy is now getting a little scary.
Most recently, President Obama made several recess appointments — a tactic that as a senator he once criticized — even though Congress was not in recess. In December, the president signed a $1 billion omnibus spending bill, but notified Congress that he might not abide by some of the very provisions he had just signed into law. During the Libya war, Obama felt that bombing Qaddafi’s forces did not really constitute military operations, and therefore he had no need to notify Congress under the War Powers Act.
It is clear that Arizona is not trying to circumvent federal immigration law, but rather is desperately trying to find some way to enforce it, given that the Obama administration has selectively chosen not to do so. In response, the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, even as it assures illegal aliens that they will not be arrested if they have not committed a crime — as if Obama can by himself decide that illegally entering and residing in the United States is not a federal crime in the first place.
President Obama argued that it was constitutional to force citizens to purchase federalized health care, and that all Americans would be subject to his new health-care law — except some 2,000 businesses and organizations that were given politically driven waivers. Obama decided to reverse the legal order of creditors in the bailout of a bankrupt Chrysler Corporation in favor of more politically suitable constituencies. The administration does not like the Defense of Marriage Act, and therefore announced that it won’t enforce it. When a federal judge struck down an Obama- administration ban on new leases for gas and oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama for a time ignored the injunction. When a BP oil leak in the Gulf outraged America, the president met with company executives and announced that they had agreed to set up a $20 billion “fund” to pay for imminent damage claims — as if our chief executive now meets with culpable private businesses to assess what he thinks they should pony up to avoid federal retaliation.
Every administration, of course, has constitutional disputes with Congress, the courts, and the public over the exact limits of its power. But in the case of the Obama administration there is a new sort of lawlessness unseen in recent governments. Is that predictable or surprising, given Obama’s own constant references to himself as a former constitutional scholar and community organizer?
Both as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator, Obama blasted as unconstitutional or abuses of presidential power almost all of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — Guantanamo, renditions, military tribunals, preventive detention, the Patriot Act — which as president he later embraced or expanded. Apparently, Obama’s own status as an out-of-power senator or an in-power president, and the degree to which such issues were or were not politically useful to his larger agenda, alone determined whether something like renditions or military tribunals was lawful.
Other than the normal explanations of abject hypocrisy and political expediency, why has the Obama administration shown such a disdain for the integrity of the law? In a word, Obama is a postmodernist. That is a trendy word for someone who leaves academia believing that there are not really absolute facts, but merely competing ideas and discourses. In this view, particular ideologies unfortunately gain credibility as establishment icons only from the relative advantage that arises from race, class, and gender biases.
In postmodern jurisprudence, “critical legal theory” postulates that law and politics are inseparable. Those with power call their self-serving rules “the law.” But “laws” are not sacrosanct. Instead, they are mere embedded reflections of wealthy, white, and male privilege — dressed up in some bogus timeless concept of “justice.”
A few critical and progressive minds among the legal technocracy have the ability to spot these fictions. And thus a Barack Obama or an Eric Holder has a duty on our behalf to use his training to make the necessary corrections, even if the rest of us don’t quite fathom what is going on. Federal voting-rights laws, for example, do not mean ensuring that no one intimidates voters. Hardly. They are instead fluid and relative, properly focusing only on those who are not now intimidating voters but whose ancestors might have, while exempting those who now are but whose ancestors might have been intimidated.
Whether Congress is, or is not, in recess, or whether wealthy bondholders should be paid back before working-class union pensioners, or whether some company should or should not be allowed to drill in the Gulf — these and others are moral and political, but not necessarily legal, issues. To the degree that he can, on any given challenge Obama assesses the politics of favoring his constituency of the “poor” and “middle class,” and then uses the necessary legal gymnastics post facto to offer the veneer of lawfulness.
If someone is breaking a federal “law” by entering Arizona illegally from Mexico, there must be a way to make the enforcer of that “law” the real suspect — given that a Sheriff Joe Arpaio is by allegiance of the privileged 1 percent and those whom he arrests most surely are not. Consumers are deemed to need federal help more than do lenders; accordingly, Congress “really” is now in recess. In other words, we are witnessing with this administration the ancient idea of the supposedly exalted ends justifying the somewhat ambiguous means — albeit dressed up in trendy Ivy League legalese and progressive moralizing.
Our postmodern president is not content with just picking and choosing which laws he will follow in advancing his social agenda. The war against the myth of disinterested Western jurisprudence extends also to free-market economics, as we see with the monotonous demonization of the so-called 1 percent and those who make over $200,000 per year. Sometime after January 2009, we learned that the “wealthy” did not gain their riches by a wide variety of what we once thought were legitimate means — luck, inheritance, work, health, intelligence, expertise, experience, education, or an overriding desire for money and status, coupled with an avoidance of classical sins like sloth, crime, and drunkenness.
Rather, we were taught that there was something else going on, something innately unfair in the manner in which we are arbitrarily compensated. In some sense, we are back to the old notion of a labor theory of value (e.g., an hour of working at Starbucks is inherently no less valuable to our society in terms of how much the worker should be paid than an hour crafting a deal at Goldman Sachs). The role, then, of government is not to ensure an equality of opportunity — which is impossible, given inherent and unending race, class, and gender exploitations — but to strive for an equality of result.
That utopian task demands that the best and the brightest in government redistribute capital, or rather use the state to make right what the private sector has distorted. (Of course, no one dares to suggest that Obama himself is cynically interested mostly in power and the delights thereof — and so as a postmodernist he simply constructs these egalitarian stage-sets as a means to enjoy the privileges of the technocratic class that he surrounds himself with.)
Tally up Obama’s early and recent unrehearsed and unguarded quips about wealth — “Spread the wealth”; his regrets that the Supreme Court has not addressed “redistributive change”; his concern that some have not realized that they already have made “enough” money; his warnings that now is not the time for “profit.” That serial message bookends the president’s slurs about millionaires and billionaires, corporate-jet owners, fat-cats, profit-driven doctors, and Vegas and Super Bowl junketeers.
All this unscripted editorializing reflects a recurring theme: Those with superior intelligence and higher moral authority must correct for warped private-sector compensation and human greed. And they can do that by deciding roughly how much each of us deserves to end up with.
In concrete terms, this pop socialism leads Obama to wish to enact more regulations, higher taxes on fewer taxpayers, and more on entitlements. Larger government can absorb health care and also many private-sector companies, as more federal and state workers likewise can even out the playing field. Near-zero interest rates, and renegotiating mortgage or student loans, along with higher deficits, more national debt, and expansionary monetary policy are likewise means to correct the inherent imbalances of the system and counter the greed of a few among us.
It does not matter that much whether, in the attempt to do all that, the better-off must be demonized with crude sloganeering. It does not matter that the poor must be caricatured as Steinbeck’s Joads, starving and poorly clothed, lacking iPhones, $200 sneakers, and big-screen TVs. It does not matter that 20th-century phenomena like National Socialism, Communism, and the European Union — and any other crackpot effort of a self-anointed elite to redistribute wealth and expand the state under the banner either of nationalism, or the global proletariat, or enlightened world citizens — have led only to poverty and chaos, at least for those outside the small exempt managerial class that implements, profits from, and often survives the ensuing disaster.
What makes Barack Obama a different president is not his racial heritage, his liberal outlook, or his mellifluous cadences, but rather the banal idea that the United States is fundamentally in need of this sort of radical change, and that only a select few like himself have the insight and skills necessary to both implement and preside over it. We simply have not seen that redistributive ideology in a president since Jimmy Carter, and then only in part. So far the biggest edge for Obama is his inability to push more of his agenda through first a friendly and now a not-so-friendly Congress — as if to say, “How could I be a redistributionist when they did not let me redistribute as planned?” The fulfillment of that old vision of mandated equality of result is what the 2012 election is about — nothing more, nothing less.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

Why My Cousin Failed — After Three Years of Shiftless Barack, We Are Hopeless and Changeless
 By Dr. Milton Wolf (President Obama's 2nd cousin on the McCurry side of family) - Here’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.
Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.
As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.
Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.
Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.
Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.
The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.
President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.
Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.
Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.
For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.
Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.
If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

As Americans Get Poorer, Our Congresscritters Get Even Richer

Darrell Issa (R-Calif) - $700M, Michael McCaul (R-Texas) - $502M, Jane Harman (D-Calif) - $493M, John Kerry (D-Mass), - $231M, Mark Warner (D-Va) - $310M, See Entire List

While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to becontinually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.

POLL: New High - 48% Say Most Members of Congress Are Corrupt

The belief that politicians use their office for personal gain is growing. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Just 28% disagree, and another 24% are not sure. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 27-28, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Top Scandals of 2011

By Andrew Zarowny - Recalling the top scandals of 2011 is fairly easy this year, as they were so scandalous. In recent months we had the Penn State scandal of alleged sexual abuse by former coach Jerry Sandusky, Herman Cain suspending his campaign over harassment allegations, the Justin Bieber paternity suit and Hank Williams Jr. being fired by Monday Night Football for remarks he made about Barack Obama. Earlier this year we had the News Corp phone hacking scandal, the Arnold Schwarzenegger love child ending his marriage, the Charlie Sheen meltdown, the Anthony Weiner Twitter photos and the International Monetary Fund head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape charges. Add to that the Solyndra bankruptcy and Operation Fast and Furious and we have a pretty full year of scandals for everybody.
Naturally, the biggest scandal of all is the Obama White House pretending to be presidential. Time and time again this past year, Barack Obama has bailed out of the leadership chair and decided to ′lead from behind.′ We still have no federal budget, we haven′t had one officially for the last three years. The National Debt is growing at a rate four times faster under Obama than George W. Bush. The Debt Ceiling is about to be maxed out again, with another round of calls by Democrats to just simply do away with any restrictions on deficit spending. Major entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare are going bust earlier with no remedy in sight. In short, Obama, with help from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have excelled at the art of kicking the can down the road.
That being said, who doesn′t like a good scandal? With the economy is such a dire strait and average people struggling to just get by, news of the rich and famous misbehaving does distract us from our own muck and mud. Call it a transference of ill-will or just plain old rubber-necking at the scene of an accident, watching a celebrity meltdown in progress does offer some relief. Such also proves the fact that money cannot buy love or happiness. That fame, as with glory, is always fleeting.
So which is the top scandals for 2011? Are you leaning towards voting for the Penn State scandal? Herman Cain suspending his campaign over harassment allegations? The Justin Bieber paternity suit? The Hank Williams Jr. firing? Arnold Schwarzenegger love child and divorce? The News Corp phone hacking scandal? Allegations against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape charges? The Solyndra bankruptcy or Operation Fast and Furious? My favorites were the Charlie Sheen meltdown and the Anthony Weiner Twitter photos scandals. As scandals go, those two had it all. Sex, stupidity and unbelievable arrogance.   h/t Right Pundits

Will Obama Steal the 2012 Election?

By Jeffrey Kuhner - Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.
Mr. Holder argues that voter ID laws disproportionately discriminate against poor blacks and Hispanics - citizens who cannot afford to acquire a driver’s license, passport or other form of photo identification. The latest victim is South Carolina; its voter ID law has been blocked by the Justice Department. Liberal Democrats - taking their cue from the White House - are portraying the national movement for election reform as an authoritarian assault upon civil liberties. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has even petitioned the United Nations, asking it to declare states’ voter ID laws human rights abuses. For the radical left, America has become Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
This would be comical if the consequences were not so serious. South Carolina’s legislation provides for free ID cards to be given to anyone who needs it. Not one person - white, black or brown - is discriminated against or discouraged from casting a vote at the ballot box. Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue - upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.
It isn’t. And the reason is simple: The administration is trying to whip up minority frenzy, propagating the myth of widespread ballot suppression. The goal is to foster a sense of racial persecution of blacks, intending to maximize voter turnout in November. The results, however, will be to poison race relations further. Mr. Holder is cynically playing the race card in order to achieve President Obama’s overriding ambition: re-election.
Racism has nothing to do with states implementing voter ID laws. Rather, it is about protecting the integrity of our electoral system. Voter fraud is rampant; abuses regularly take place. In Chicago, local elections are often marred by ballot stuffing and multiple voting - including by false voters who use the names of deceased individuals. Indiana election officials have found that, during the 2008 Democratic primary, countless pro-Barack Obama and pro-Hillary Rodham Clinton signatures were falsified. In Minnesota, voter fraud enabled Democrat Al Franken to steal the election from incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. It is precisely to preserve the fundamental basis of our democracy - one person, one vote - that voter ID laws are necessary.
Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud - registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Mr. Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.
It is perverse to have a society that requires a photo ID to go through airport security, drive a car, purchase expensive consumer goods using Mastercard or Visa (as happened to me recently when I bought a stack of DVDs and the cashier asked for my driver’s license to check against credit card theft) or get a simple library card, but not to cast a ballot - the most sacred act of citizenship in a deliberative democracy.
Mr. Holder is a shameless demagogue. He has become the Democratic Party’s new Al Sharpton: Everything is seen through the lens of race. He has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party, who in the 2008 election stood at a polling booth wielding clubs in a blatant attempt at voter intimidation. Career Justice Department lawyers admitted that Mr. Holder’s policy is not to go after black perpetrators whose victims are white. He insists that Republican criticism leveled at him over Operation Fast and Furious is because of his race - not the obvious fact that, under his watch, thousands of guns were illegally smuggled into Mexico, resulting in hundreds of deaths including a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
Mr. Holder says his department’s aim is to “expand the franchise.” This begs the question: Expand it for whom? Jim Crow is long dead; not one single eligible voter has been turned away because of an ID requirement. In other words, minorities are not being disenfranchised. What Mr. Holder really means is to expand the vote to groups that will help ensure a Democratic victory in 2012 - ACORN and its nefarious allies.
Stealing an election is not beyond this administration. After all, it’s the Chicago Way.

Obama Aides Say He Will Bypass Congress and Focus on Executive Orders During Reelection Campaign, “At Least Two Or Three Per Week”…

HONOLULU — Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.
Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.
Aides say the president will not turn his back on Congress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.
If those efforts fail, the White House says, Obama’s re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.
Earnest said Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the “We Can’t Wait” campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.
Campaign officials say Obama will fully engage in the re-election campaign once the Republicans pick their nominee. He will focus almost exclusively on campaigning after the late summer Democratic National Convention, barring unexpected developments at home or abroad.

Gallup Survey: Much Maligned Conservatives Comprise a Mere 40% of Americans — Liberals Make Up a Domineering 21%

According to a new Gallup Survey, 2011 marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives. The specific findings were these: 40 percent of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal.

Some additional findings:

• The percentage of Americans calling themselves “moderate” has gradually diminished in the U.S. since it was 43 percent in 1992.
• The majority of Republicans say they are either very conservative or conservative, but the total proportion of conservatives grew 10 percentage points between 2002 and 2010, from 62 percent to 72 percent.
• The percentage of Republicans who say they are moderates fell from 31 percent to 23 percent.
• Relatively few Republicans say they are liberal — just 4 percent in 2011. Republicans’ ideology largely held at the 2010 levels in 2011.

As for Democrats, as recently as 2002, the solid plurality of Democrats were “moderate,” while smaller, but nearly equal, percentages called themselves “liberal” and “conservative.” From 2003 through 2007, however, the liberal share of the party grew to 38 percent, while the “moderate” and “conservative” percentages each diminished somewhat. As a result, from 2007 th20the president. Before golfing and hiking, he went to the gym on the base for a workout.

We Know More About Jesus's Birth Than Obama's — How Could This Be!




By Jack Cashill - A few years back, the Harvard-educated Paul Mirecki, then head of the Religious Studies Department at Kansas University, proposed a new class. His goal, as he told his cohorts in an atheist and agnostic chat room, was to give "fundies" -- i.e., orthodox Christians -- "a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching [intelligent design] as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki did not expect any pushback from KU. "The majority of my colleagues here in the dept [sic] are agnostics or atheists, or they just don't care," wrote Mirecki. "If any of them are theists, it hasn't been obvious to me in the 15 years I've been here."
Unwittingly, Mirecki opened a window on the world of religious scholarship. At least since Darwin, cynics like Mirecki have been working to subvert Christianity under the guise of religious studies. The notorious, 150-scholar strong "Jesus Seminar" would seem to have no higher calling.
As the record will show, however, the subversives have not succeeded. The story of Jesus's birth, as well as his death, remains as rooted in the historical record as it was before these researchers began their unholy labors.
We know where Jesus was born, to whom, and more or less when. Were Jesus politically minded, it would not have been hard to establish his status as a citizen of Roman Judaea or to confirm it 2,000 years after his birth. (To be sure, the "natural born" part might prove a little tricky.)
No such luck with our president, Barack Obama. The most visible man in the world's most transparent society remains as much an enigma as he was four years ago. If the faithless in the media and academia investigate Jesus, only the faithful in those same quarters have been allowed to investigate Obama. Were there an "Obama Seminar," its members would be booted from every faculty lounge and newsroom in America, FOX News included.
In April 2011, Obama famously told us what we were allowed to know about his origins. Said he, "Every news outlet that has investigated this, confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital."
This, however, was inaccurate on two counts. For one, up until January 2009, the Obama-friendly websites, including Snopes and Obama's own campaign website, had been listing Honolulu's Queens Hospital as the site of his birth. For another, the reporters who had been doing real research -- including at least one from the Boston Globe and another from the New York Times -- had failed to confirm any of the story.
As the world knows, Mary and Joseph were compelled to leave Nazareth shortly before Jesus was born to register for the census in Joseph's hometown of Bethlehem. There, Jesus was born in a stable, a birth witnessed by Joseph and Mary, local shepherds, and eventually the magi. No birth was better documented for the next eighteen or so hundred years.
Despite Obama's birth just 50 years ago, in the most information rich place and time in world history, no one seems to know anything about his parents' presumed marriage or the whereabouts of his mother in the six months prior to her son's birth. The two recent mainstream biographies of Obama's parents -- Janny Scott's A Singular Woman and Sally Jacobs' The Other Barack -- tell us close to nothing.
Although Scott, a New York Times reporter, spent more than two years researching her book, she can say only than that Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. "reportedly" wed on the island of Maui. "Reportedly" is not a comforting word from a definitive biographer. Equally troubling, Scott fails to comment on Ann's doings from the apocryphal wedding in February 1961 to Obama's birth in August 1961. Not a single word.
As to the birth, Scott provides no details other than those available on the disputed short form certification of live birth. There are no baby pictures, no tales of worried grandparents, no accounts of frantic drives to Kapiolani Hospital or Queens or wherever. Jacobs of the Boston Globe likewise tells us nothing about Ann's comings and goings for the six months prior to the birth or about the birth itself, the most historically critical period in Ann or Obama Sr.'s life.
To avoid the wrath of a paranoid King Herod, Mary and Joseph fled with the baby Jesus to Egypt and returned to Nazareth only after Herod's death. This flight is documented in Matthew 2:16-2:18 and generally tracks with the historical record.
Likely to avoid the profound indifference of Barack Obama Sr., Ann and baby Obama made their own trek to Washington State. How or when they got there, or where they came from, remains unknown.
It was in Seattle, however, in late August 1961, that we have the first confirmed sightings of young Barry Obama. We also have ample evidence that Ann and the baby lived there for about a year while Obama Sr. remained in Hawaii during that same time. He would leave for Harvard before Ann and the baby returned to Hawaii.
Unlike Matthew, however, Obama chroniclers have chosen to conceal or obfuscate the flight of their messiah. Worse, those who have tried to shed light on the early movements of young Obama are ignored or scorned as "birthers."
Conservative bloggers were chronicling Ann's Seattle hegira by the summer of 2008, but not one of the four book-length biographies I consulted for my book, Deconstructing Obama, placed Dunham anywhere other than Hawaii during Obama's first two years. The same holds true for the magazine bios I researched including a lengthy one pre-election by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning David Maraniss.
This is not an incidental detail. The mother's exile to Washington state means no less than that the famed multicultural marriage, the rock on which Obama built his political career, was pure sand.
New Yorker editor David Remnick was the first of the orthodox scribes to break the silence, sort of, with the 2010 publication of his Obama bio, The Bridge. Remnick buffers the news, however, by claiming that Ann may have taken "extension courses" at the University of Washington in the fall, but he implies that she did not arrive in Seattle until the spring semester.
Scott, too, concedes Dunham did go to Seattle but, like Remnick, she plays games with the timeline. "In the spring quarter of 1962, as Obama was embarking on his final semester in Hawaii, Ann was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle," Scott writes.
As in Remnick's case, this is borderline fraud. Scott conceals the well-documented truth that Ann had already been at the university for months. Jacobs does much the same. "Dunham would, in fact, enroll at U-Dub [the University of Washington] the following spring," writes Jacobs, ignoring Dunham's attendance in the fall.
The biographers finesse the timeline to preserve the illusion of an actual Obama family. As late as Father's Day 2011, Obama was saying of Obama Sr., "He left when I was 2 years old." No, as Obama Sr.'s INS documents now confirm, he never lived with Ann Dunham or her son.
All three of these biographers concede that Ann visited Seattle with the baby in August 1961 -- there are multiple witnesses -- but, to preserve the fabled Obama marriage narrative, they spin wobbly rationales for the visit.
Jacobs, for instance, posits that Ann "was coming through Seattle on her way to Boston to look into job possibilities for herself." Remember, this was 1961, the pioneer days of jet travel. The baby was weeks old, and Ann had no money. The chronically broke Obama Sr. would not enroll in Harvard for another year. In 1961, he had no idea that he would or could. So why Boston?
Even if there were no constitutional issues involved in Obama's origin story, the collective failure of the media to tell it truthfully now augurs poorly for later histories. Unlike the writers of the gospels, the allegiance to the truth of progressive evangelists has become more and more suspect.
As a case in point, in the way of postscript, days after the story of Paul Mirecki's anti-ID course broke, Mirecki told the local police that two white men stalked him, drove his car off the road in the pre-dawn dark, hectored him about ID, and struck him about the upper body with their fists and perhaps "a metal object."
Other than the Daily Kos -- "Thugs beat up evolution supporter" -- almost no one believed Mirecki's convoluted story, especially not the police. Two days later, Mirecki stepped down as chair of the Religious Department. He still teaches there. Something tells me he supports Obama uncritically.

Martha Trowbridge's Latest UPDATE (2) on Her Hypothesis that Barack Obama Is the 'Biological Son of Malcom X'

[EDITOR'S NOTE] The always interesting (some say fanciful) researcher Martha Trowbridge contends that Barack is really Bâri’ M. Shabazz, the biological son of Malcolm X with one of his sycophantic followers named Jo Ann Newman (not the purported Stanley Ann Dunham), and who Trowbridge says is very much alive.
In her latest Update (2), Trowbridge now posits that Jo Ann Newman's uncle, the self-avowed Marxist Frederick "Delano" Newman, PhD – a.k.a. Fred Newman ushered Obama up the political ladder (“Barack Obama didn’t come from ‘nowhere’ - and he didn’t do it on his own"). You'll want to know more about this Newman character who died July 3, 2011 at the age of 76 after you read the following Update so we've provided the links below. Oh, by the way, Trowbridge also says "Hope and Change" is the brainchild of this radical socialist activist Fred Newman who was a founder of the New Alliance Party. Although Trowbridge as yet provides no substantiation for her claims, it would be 'damn chaotic' is she's on to something.
Fred Newman - Wikipedia — Frederick D. Newman Obituary — Frederick Delano Newman Video

Obama, RUI: Running Under The Influence Of “Uncle Fred”

By Martha Trowbridge - If you’ve been wondering why New Yorker Jo Ann Newman – the mother of “Barack Obama” – was cloaked in the synthetic identity of a girl from Kansas, then transplanted to America’s farthest western reaches, wonder no more.
Soon, you’ll know exactly why The Obama Campaign created “Stanley Ann Dunham”, and set her far, far away from the Bronx.
It wasn’t just to hide her sexual relationship with Malcolm X.
The Obama Campaign plunked Jo Ann Newman – disguised as “Stanley Ann Dunham” – in America’s Heartland to conceal her close biological relationship with Frederick “Delano” Newman, PhD – a.k.a. Fred Newman.
“Uncle Fred”, that is.
Oh-oh. I’d better ssssh – Fred’s a closely guarded family secret.
Once you meet him, you’ll see why.
“Uncle Fred” is politically toxic to “Barack Obama”.
  Frederick Delano "Fred" Newman

So toxic, that when he was steppin’ out, if America met his “Uncle Fred”, “Barack Obama” would never have become a story.
There wouldn’t even have been a Chapter One.
It’s not just Fred Newman’s DESTROY AMERICA’S FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES that make him political poison for “Barack Obama”.
Nor is it just Fred’s scheme to DESTROY CAPITALISM.
As you will see, it’s the very nature of “Uncle Fred’s” psyche that “Barack Obama” had to hide.
A psyche that, among other things, sought to DESTROY THE AMERICAN FAMILY.
And to snuff out the spirit of America’s treasured Judaeo-Christian principles.
America, permit me to introduce you to “Uncle Fred”. Once you meet him, you’ll finally understand “Barack Obama”.
You’ll totally ‘get’ why no one could ever know his mother was a Newman.
And you’ll come to comprehend, as did I, that the Malcolm X angle motivation for creation of the synthetic identity “Stanley Ann Dunham” pales in significance, compared to the Fred Newman angle.
Because this post is so important, I will not tire you, detailing Dr. Fred Newman’s accomplishments for the radical left - like his New Alliance Party, The Independence Party Of New York, and his management of [African American] Dr. Lenora Fulani’s two Presidential Campaigns.
I will not exhaust you with elaborate discussion of Fred’s formation of the International Workers Party [IWP] - the purpose of which was to effect an international socialist revolution.
And I will not require too much of your time, examining Fred Newman’s CFCs - Centers For Change.
Or his signature psychotherapy, that blended his “friendosexuality” model with mandatory socialist political activism.
Or his creation of All Stars Project - a program for youth that’s raised more than a few eyebrows. [http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/devloan.htm]
There’s so much about “Uncle Fred” of which most Americans have no clue!
Which is exactly how The Obama Campaign needed it to be.
After reading this post, if you want to spend time really getting to know “Uncle Fred” by his works, stop by here: [http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html]
In particular, review “Fred Newman And The Historical Roots Of The Newmanites” [http://www.publiceye.org/newman/nap4.html]
Another perspective: “PsychoPolitics: Inside The Independence Party Of Fred Newman” [http://www.rickross.com/reference/new_alliance/new_alliance52.html]
Thoughts and feelings from former ‘Newmanites’: [http://ex-iwp.org/]
So much to learn about “Uncle Fred”! So little time!
For now, America, let’s just meet Fred Newman.
Let’s meet this “Barack Obama” “family secret” man in his own words.
And in the words of some of those who knew him.
Reportedly, on 17 June 1935, Fred was born to Jewish parents and raised in working-class Bronx County, New York City, not far from Yankee Stadium. Viewing his Stuyvesant High School Yearbook from 1952, you’d never know what radical thoughts were a-brew in his head.

Continue Reading Update at Martha Trowbridge's Website

Martha Trowbridge's Recent Posts:
“Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here”! (12-18-11)
Obama’s Real Beef With Churchill’s Bust (10-15-11)
When The Bough Breaks (10-10-11)
Years May Pass, But Some Things Stay The Same – Like Stanley Ann’s Long Fake Hair (10-4-11)
Same Day, Same Girl, Same Fake Hair – Though Now, It’s Green! (10-1-11)
Saps, Stool Pigeons And Stanley Ann’s Hair (9-29-11)
These works are protected by United States Copyright Law.

Martha Trowbridge's Latest UPDATE (1) on Her Hypothesis that Barack Obama Is the 'Biological Son of Malcom X'
“Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here

By Martha Trowbridge - Way back when, in spring 1990, when Harvard Law School student “Barack Obama” was interviewed by Associated Press, he uttered three little words.
Three little Truth-ful words.
Today, at Terrible Truth, they return, full force, to haunt him.
Which is astonishing – for they were tiny little words. No doubt uttered in a moment of carelessness. A minor slip-up in the otherwise ‘perfect’ presentation of the personal history he was presenting to America.
How big a deal could they turn out to be?
Besides, “The Obama Narrative” was in test mode. Let’s give the guy a break – in spring 1990, he couldn’t help but feel exuberant. How well his political plans were progressing! He’d just been named Harvard Law Review Editor. His name, his face, his ‘history-making’ were garnering national attention.
All this, within less than two years! How cool was that?!
Though he’d had considerable coaching by mentors, in May 1990, “Obama” hadn’t had much public practice. And so, that exciting spring day, when his actual personal history was beginning to morph into “The Obama Narrative”, quite unwittingly, “Obama” talked Truth.
In an AP interview entitled Harvard Student Tackles Racism At Core, published 3 May 1990, he stated three words he surely has regretted:
“At age 2.”

 Researcher Martha Trowbridge
  


Oh, how the tiniest details offer a gaping view into Truth. For, the context of these three Truth-ful words is:
“Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2″.
America, the reason these three little words bear so much power may surprise you. It’s not so much about when he went to Indonesia. Their power lies in revealing where in Indonesia young Bâri′ went to live. And who did not live with him.
“Barack Obama’s” Indonesian Odyssey did not originate with “Stanley Ann Dunham” taking him, hand-in-hand, at age six, to live with her and her new husband in a modest home in Jakarta – as “The Obama Narrative” wants you to believe.
All things considered, from what I can determine, at approximately age two, circa 1961, Bâri′ M. Shabazz apparently was sent to live at The Presidential Palace of Indonesian President Sukarno.
[You see why The Obama Campaign went to such great lengths to "establish" that he and "Stanley Ann" were in Seattle?] President Sukarno – a Malcolm X hero, and long-time good friend. President Sukarno: Revolutionary Extraordinaire. Sukarno, Man Against Oppression. Sukarno, who bravely, brilliantly led the Indonesian overthrow of the ‘oppressive colonial’ Dutch Government. President Sukarno: Indonesia’s first President.
Sukarno was amongst the earliest of revolutionary world leaders to whom Malcolm latched on. A man whom Malcolm held in great esteem from the time they met, until Malcolm’s death – and who, in return, held Malcolm in great esteem.
“Sukarno, Indonesia’s first president, and Malcolm X shared the platform at Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1956, introduced there by mutual friend Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. The relationship launched there endured until Malcolm X’s untimely death in 1965, two weeks before he was slated to speak at the Asian-African Islamic Conference in Jakarta [my emphasis]. He had also planned to attend the tenth anniversary celebration of the 1955 Bandung Conference, the first large-scale Asian-African conference. Iandola explores this little-known relationship to illuminate their ideological affinities as well as the Cold War politics of the Third World.”
You may be wondering: how on earth would it come to pass that Sukarno would become involved with raising Jo Ann’s and Malcolm’s son? A fair, reasonable question. Pause a moment, and step inside the head of Malcolm X. You’ll straightaway find the answer. Malcolm X: Always, Always, A Man With A Plan.
His conscious reasoning:
- Bâri′, his pride-and-joy son, is blessed with a sacred name, signifying his destiny http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari′-barry-barack/
- America is a racist, hateful country, an unfit place to raise a black boy
- His ‘sole male heir’ should have the best in life
- Sukarno will mentor the boy in the ways of political leadership
To Malcolm, what would be better, than to have his heir raised, schooled and groomed by a widely acknowledged, well-to-do, revolutionary, socialist President? In a non-racist, Muslim country, to boot?!
Sadly, Malcolm likely possessed unacknowledged motivation as well: as he gained his toddler mobility, young Bâri′ would become more and more visible. He’d be playing outdoors. Enrolling in school.
etting his voice. Becoming his own person. He’d even be asking his mother questions about his father.
Shipping him off to Sukarno would place the boy safely out of sight – protecting Malcolm’s reputation as a married Muslim Minister. A Black Muslim Minister who waged public war against whites.
Besides. It was all for the boy’s “own good”. What kind of life would Bâri′ have, growing up in East Elmhurst without a live-in father? With a teenage mother with meager resources? Imagine who he could grow to be, raised by a man like Sukarno! As Indonesia’s first President, Sukarno [1901 - 1970] held powerful international political connections – many of whom Malcolm idolized, publicly praised, visited, and with whom he fraternized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiJDMzzWaU&feature=related
What great opportunity Sukarno offered little boy Bâri′!
And now, America, I ask you to imagine this boy, set in a foreign country where most did not speak his language. Imagine him, barely verbal, left there amongst strangers. No more mother. No more dazzling Malcolm. No more East Elmhurst, no more bedroom, no more tricycle. No more America.
Bâri′, left there, oodles of thousands of miles away – “for his own good”. From what I have gathered, I sense it was Malcolm’s idea. As we all know, he could be very persuasive.
I also sense that, though she was young and single motherhood could not have been easy, Jo Ann was not in total concord with the plan. But loving Malcolm, trusting his judgment, and stirred by his vision for young Bâri′, she agreed to the surrender of her toddler. Perhaps in retrospect, Jo Ann Newman regretted the decision. She may regret it still.
“My Lovely President Sukarno” offers glimpses into his life at home, in Indonesia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN-zPe3-KN8&feature=related
NOW FOR A SURPRISE.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating, if, in the video still below, that’s young Bâri′ with mama Jo Ann Newman? With President Sukarno, from his limo, his eyes full of love and pride, blowing kisses at Malcolm’s and Jo Ann’s boy?
The boy who clearly had been taught two things: to wave, and to turn his face toward the camera.


Bâri′’s stay at Sukarno’s Presidential Palace didn’t last forever. In fact, his Indonesian stay may have lasted only four years – just as “The Obama Narrative” wants us to believe.
On 30 September 1965, Sukarno’s Presidential Guard soldiers executed six ‘trouble-making’ senior army generals, inciting a series of events which eventually led to his overthrow. Life became uncertain for Sukarno. And so, life for young Bâri′ became uncertain too. [Keep in mind that his father, Malcolm X, had been assassinated just seven months prior.]
Within hours, Army Major General Suharto took command of a substantial part of Sukarno’s power base. Sukarno’s power continued to wane. A year and a half later, on 12 March 1967, Sukarno was stripped of whatever remained of his power by Indonesia’s provisional Parliament, and placed under house arrest. Suharto became President. But back to Bâri′.
To October 1965. Sukarno begins his slip from power. Bâri′ M. Shabazz turns six. Hmmm.
Could this be why “The Obama Narrative” has “Obama’s” mother arriving in Indonesia, when “Barry” is that age? Coincidence? I don’t think so.
For those of you who’ve spent endless hours searching for “Obama’s” early history, including his school records, now you know why your searches have come up empty. It wasn’t your lack of skill. They simply don’t exist. President Sukarno would undoubtedly educate his children by carefully selected tutors.
Tutors who would school Bâri′ in diction. Elocution. In international literature and culture. In how to speak ‘The King’s English”.
“Obama” Trivia Question: When his grade school teacher asked “Of which country” did he want to be President – in response to his essay declaration – how did “Barry” respond? Answer: “Barry” wasn’t yet sure.
Still unconvinced of Sukarno’s influence upon young Bâri′? Then, for the moment, set aside the fact that Sukarno’s political philosophy merged marxism, nationalism and Islam. I’ll show you his influence – in just two foreign words. Two foreign words you may not be able to pronounce, but whose meaning you surely will recognize.
The inarguable imprint of Sukarno upon his precious young charge lies in “gotong royong”. “Gotong royong is cooperation among many people to attain a shared goal.“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotong_royong
As President, Sukarno had great faith in the philosophy of gotong royong. Gotong royong – many people, shared goal. Now where in America have we heard that idea? Oh. That’s right. In “Barack Obama’s” resounding, celebrated 2008 Presidential Campaign Slogan – “Yes We Can” – a 21st century, simplified, pop version of gotong royong!
Here’s more:
Sukarno’s governing style was “Guided Democracy”.
“Claiming Western-style Democracy was unsuitable for Indonesia, he called for a system of guided democracy. The Indonesian way of deciding important questions, he argued, was by way of prolonged deliberation designed to achieve a consensus. This was the way problems were solved at the village level, and Sukarno argued it should be the model for the entire nation. He proposed a government based not only on political parties but on “functional groups” composed of the nation’s basic elements, which would together form a National Council, through which a national consensus could express itself under presidential guidance.” Hmmmm. Guided democracy…Prolonged deliberation…Functional groups.
“A National Council, through which a national consensus could express itself under presidential guidance.”
Now, why does this governing style sound so familiar? You got it. It perfectly captures The “Obama” Administration.
The “Obama” Rule-By-Czar-ship.
In short, The “Obama” Way Of Governing.
And how about this?
Sukarno worked tirelessly to nationalize companies in Indonesia.
“By December 1957, Sukarno began to take concrete steps to enforce his authority over the country. On that month, he nationalised 246 Dutch companies which have been dominating Indonesian economy (most notably the NHM, Royal Dutch Shell subsidiary Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij, Escomptobank, Internatio, Geo Wehry & Co, Jacobson & Berg, etc)”
Oh, dear. This, too, Sukarno’s imprint on Bâri′?
If you still think I’m talking coincidence, take a good long look at this:
Su0.jpg" />

Bâri′’s stay at Sukarno’s Presidential Palace didn’t last forever. In fact, his Indonesian stay may have lasted only four years – just as “The Obama Narrative” wants us to believe.
On 30 September 1965, Sukarno’s Presidential Guard soldiers executed six ‘trouble-making’ senior army generals, inciting a series of events which eventually led to his overthrow. Life became uncertain for Sukarno. And so, life for young Bâri′ became uncertain too. [Keep in mind that his father, Malcolm X, had been assassinated just seven months prior.]
Within hours, Army Major General Suharto took command of a substantial part of Sukarno’s power base. Sukarno’s power continued to wane. A year and a half later, on 12 March 1967, Sukarno was stripped of whatever remained of his power by Indonesia’s provisional Parliament, and placed under house arrest. Suharto became President. But back to Bâri′.
To October 1965. Sukarno begins his slip from power. Bâri′ M. Shabazz turns six. Hmmm.
Could this be why “The Obama Narrative” has “Obama’s” mother arriving in Indonesia, when “Barry” is that age? Coincidence? I don’t think so.
For those of you who’ve spent endless hours searching for “Obama’s” early history, including his school records, now you know why your searches have come up empty. It wasn’t your lack of skill. They simply don’t exist. President Sukarno would undoubtedly educate his children by carefully selected tutors.
Tutors who would school Bâri′ in diction. Elocution. In international literature and culture. In how to speak ‘The King’s English”.
“Obama” Trivia Question: When his grade school teacher asked “Of which country” did he want to be President – in response to his essay declaration – how did “Barry” respond? Answer: “Barry” wasn’t yet sure.
Still unconvinced of Sukarno’s influence upon young Bâri′? Then, for the moment, set aside the fact that Sukarno’s political philosophy merged marxism, nationalism and Islam. I’ll show you his influence – in just two foreign words. Two foreign words you may not be able to pronounce, but whose meaning you surely will recognize.
The inarguable imprint of Sukarno upon his precious young charge lies in “gotong royong”. “Gotong royong is cooperation among many people to attain a shared goal.“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotong_royong
As President, Sukarno had great faith in the philosophy of gotong royong. Gotong royong – many people, shared goal. Now where in America have we heard that idea? Oh. That’s right. In “Barack Obama’s” resounding, celebrated 2008 Presidential Campaign Slogan – “Yes We Can” – a 21st century, simplified, pop version of gotong royong!
Here’s more:
Sukarno’s governing style was “Guided Democracy”.
“Claiming Western-style Democracy was unsuitable for Indonesia, he called for a system of guided democracy. The Indonesian way of deciding important questions, he argued, was by way of prolonged deliberation designed to achieve a consensus. This was the way problems were solved at the village level, and Sukarno argued it should be the model for the entire nation. He proposed a government based not only on political parties but on “functional groups” composed of the nation’s basic elements, which would together form a National Council, through which a national consensus could express itself under presidential guidance.” Hmmmm. Guided democracy…Prolonged deliberation…Functional groups.
“A National Council, through which a national consensus could express itself under presidential guidance.”
Now, why does this governing style sound so familiar? You got it. It perfectly captures The “Obama” Administration.
The “Obama” Rule-By-Czar-ship.
In short, The “Obama” Way Of Governing.
And how about this?
Sukarno worked tirelessly to nationalize companies in Indonesia.
“By December 1957, Sukarno began to take concrete steps to enforce his authority over the country. On that month, he nationalised 246 Dutch companies which have been dominating Indonesian economy (most notably the NHM, Royal Dutch Shell subsidiary Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij, Escomptobank, Internatio, Geo Wehry & Co, Jacobson & Berg, etc)”
Oh, dear. This, too, Sukarno’s imprint on Bâri′?
If you still think I’m talking coincidence, take a good long look at this:
Sukarno cited the need for a CIVILIAN ARMY.
“He also stated his support for the establishment of “fifth force” of armed peasants and labor.”
Who amongst us has not heard “Obama’s” call for an armed Civilian Army here in America?
Before we step away from this tangle of psyches, one other striking similarity.
“While Sukarno devoted his energy for domestic and international politics, the economy of Indonesia was neglected and deteriorated rapidly. The government printed money to finance its military expenditures, resulting in hyperinflation exceeding 600% per annum in 1964-1965.”
[Quotes about Sukarno are sourced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukarno]
Reasonable objections to my thesis, anyone?
Oh dear. How far afield we’ve traveled from our topic: Growing Up In A Presidential Palace. Imagine: Power with a capital ‘p’. Fineries! Lavish attentions!
Respect. Status. [Malcolm would have been in heaven!]
To all this, who would say no?
I bet that young Bâri′ wished that he could have declined.
On that fateful day, circa 1961, was toddler Bâri′ escorted to Indonesia by his father, Malcolm? Did Jo Ann take the trip? Or, was he whisked away by some unknown head of state, or that dignitary’s staff person? I think not.
I think young Bâri′ went to Indonesia with President Sukarno himself. Perhaps late in April 1961, at age one and one-half, when Sukarno visted President John F. Kennedy in Washington D.C.: http://www.jfklfoundation.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-AR6536-A.aspx http://www.jfklfoundation.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-119-003.aspx Audio file of President Kennedy’s Welcoming Remarks To President Sukarno http://www.jfklfoundation.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHA-024-002.aspx
Or perhaps Bâri′ was taken to Indonesia in early October 1961, at nearly age two, when Sukarno was in New York City at the United Nations General Assembly. Presidential pomp and circumstance aside, in this man’s saga, does it much matter exactly when he was transplated to The Indonesian Presidential Palace?
What matters is its impact: his profound sense of abandonment. His overwhelming pain – today, still unresolved – from the decision made by his parents “for his own good”.
How it must have hurt like mad, when little Bâri′ arrived at that Palace. Eyeing the gaggles of Sukarno children, who looked and talked differently. Scanning adult stranger after adult stranger. Acclimating to an odd, wet, hot climate – and odder clothing.
To the unfamiliar walls – and bedding – of his sleeping quarters. To the foreign food and foreign rituals. Acclimating to the nurses and nannies and surrogate mother-figures – most of whom who likely spoke no English. Who could not explain for him what he was going through. Who could not console him. His loneliness, though surrounded by crowds. His fear. His pained attempts to bond with his father-substitute, the larger-than-life Sukarno, whose work kept him mostly away from The Palace.
The staggering absence of Jo Ann and Malcolm.
Toddler Bâri′, plagued with primitive anxieties, day after endless day, night after sleepless night, knowing – without comprehending why – that his parents gave him away. One last point before we conclude.
Re: the baby photo referenced in Terrible Truth’s When The Bough Breaks, here’s the most likely story-behind-the-story: By February 1962, Jo Ann’s baby was gone from New York. Quite naturally, Jo Ann would be missing him. She’d be concerned for his well-being. She’d even be second-guessing her decision to ship him off to the other side of the world, and leave him in the care of strangers.
Consider that with that photo, Malcolm used the caption “THE YOUNG LISTENED”.
It is my assessment that placement of Bâri′ as an infant in this edition was Malcolm’s way of consoling Jo Ann at the loss of her child. His means of reminding Jo Ann that her child was in a far better place, being provided for in a far loftier way than she, a poor girl from the Bronx, or he, a married Muslim Minister, ever could offer the boy.
In an unexpected way, perhaps his father was correct, from this perspective: today, you don’t see “Barack Obama” happier than when he’s with the Indonesian President.
Though I suspect that if you could see inside his soul, you’d find geysers of hot sharp pain slapping up against his smile.

Martha Trowbridge's Recent Posts:
“Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here”! (12-18-11)
Obama’s 2012 Theme Song: “I Fought The Law, And The Law Won”! (12-5-11)
Jo Ann Newman: Far From Dead, Far From Gone (11-25-11)
A Homecoming… and Old Business (11-19-11)
Malcolm X’s Most Momentous Moment (11-18-11)
Stan The Sham, And True Love (11-15-11)
Poor Bari Shabazz, A Fugitive At Large. Of Course He’s Got To Hide Out As Barack Obama! (11-8-11)
Bâri′, Barry, Barack (11-2-11)
Another Cold Case File, Closed: “Malcolm X’s Missing Eyeglasses” (10-25-11)
Nesting or Red-Rooster-ing, It’s Memory Lane For Obama (10-20-11)
Obama’s Real Beef With Churchill’s Bust (10-15-11)
When The Bough Breaks (10-10-11)
Years May Pass, But Some Things Stay The Same – Like Stanley Ann’s Long Fake Hair (10-4-11)
Same Day, Same Girl, Same Fake Hair – Though Now, It’s Green! (10-1-11)
Saps, Stool Pigeons And Stanley Ann’s Hair (9-29-11)
These works are protected by United States Copyright Law.

Vermont Researcher Claims Barack Hussein Obama's Birth Name Is 'Bari Malik Shabazz'
— the Bastard Son of Malcolm X
Hmm!! Is This an Excellent Investigation
or Great Fictional Writing??

It's a three-year-old rumor, but a Vermont researcher, Martha Trowbridge, claims she has information that Barack Hussein Obama II
is actually the illegitimate son of Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) who was killed in 1965.
That's quite a stretch but fascinating — so here goes . . .

H.G. Wells, who was a socialist, wrote The Invisible Man, which was published in 1897. In this revealing clip from the 1933 film, the invisible man says: "An invisible man can rule the world, no one will see him come and no one will see him go ..." Here is the film clip starring Claude Rains in The Invisible Man
Before 2004, most Americans had never heard of "Barack Obama II." He materialized, somehow, out of thin air to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and then, only three years later, in 2007, was a candidate for President of the United States.
"Barack Obama, II," a man who had no record and no past other than what was published in his book Dreams from My Father, portrayed himself as an African-American JFK., who would be the first post-racial, and most-transparent president America had been waiting and hoping for. The operant word is “portrayed,” for as most Americans have learned since then, Obama has shown himself to be the least transparent and most divisive "president" in American history. More chilling is that since his ascendency to the presidency on January 20th, 2009, he and his rogue administration have done everything in their power to undermine, sabotage, and destroy The United States of America. But the frightening reality that is just now becoming apparent not only to Americans but to people worldwide, is that Obama's rise to the White House is the result of a scrupulously planned and brilliantly executed coup d'état! No one is as duplicitous, as dissembling, or as dangerous as a man whose very existence depends on treachery and deceit. Who is Barack Obama, II?
The irrefutably shocking answer is that he is the invisible man! Invisible in terms of his entire background and eligibility for the office of POTUS, and invisible in terms of even one objective record of his existence – here is the short list:

• A “vault” (authentic) copy of Obama‟s birth certificate: not released in spite of many lawsuits.
• Certificate of Live Birth: released but proven Counterfeit and View Video Showing BC Faked In Adobe Illustrator.
• Soetoro adoption records
• Punahou School records (in Hawaii)
• The Obama-Dunham marriage license
• The Soetoro-Dunham marriage license
• The Indonesian Soetoro adoption records
• Certificate of Citizenship
• Selective Service Registration, which has reported to be falsified
• Passport from Pakistan
• Passport from Indonesia
• College records from Occidental College in CA, Columbia University in NY, and Harvard Law School in MA
• Harvard Law Review articles: None.
• Baptism certificate: None
• Medical records
• Illinois State Senate records
• Illinois State Senate schedule
• Law practice client list
• University of Chicago Records
• University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Baptism certificate
• University of Chicago scholarly articles

WHAT IS “BARACK OBAMA” REALLY HIDING?

Millions upon millions of words have been written to try to explain or even justify the appearance on the American scene of a POTUS lacking in credentials, experience, judgment, seriousness, focus, or even a passable “track record,” just as an equal number of words have been expended on trying to fathom how a Chicago-based community organizer with a history of close associations with Marxists, Communists, black-liberation-theology adherents, and mob-based Chicago thugs – some of them since indicted – could possibly have risen to the highest office on earth without once evoking even a hint of curiosity about his background from the now-discredited mainstream media.
Among the most investigated and controversial aspects of Obama's background has been his birth certificate, with countless numbers of Constitutional scholars, forensic document experts, experienced lawyers, and highly sophisticated everyday Americans, insisting that all the birth certificates the Obama regime has released – which they claim prove he was born in the United States – have been blatant forgeries.
Why does Obama have such a pro2 The Soetoro-Dunham marriage license
• The Indonesian Soetoro adoption records
• Certificate of Citizenship
• Selective Service Registration, which has reported to be falsified
• Passport from Pakistan
• Passport from Indonesia
• College records from Occidental College in CA, Columbia University in NY, and Harvard Law School in MA
• Harvard Law Review articles: None.
• Baptism certificate: None
• Medical records
• Illinois State Senate records
• Illinois State Senate schedule
• Law practice client list
• University of Chicago Records
• University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Baptism certificate
• University of Chicago scholarly articles

WHAT IS “BARACK OBAMA” REALLY HIDING?

Millions upon millions of words have been written to try to explain or even justify the appearance on the American scene of a POTUS lacking in credentials, experience, judgment, seriousness, focus, or even a passable “track record,” just as an equal number of words have been expended on trying to fathom how a Chicago-based community organizer with a history of close associations with Marxists, Communists, black-liberation-theology adherents, and mob-based Chicago thugs – some of them since indicted – could possibly have risen to the highest office on earth without once evoking even a hint of curiosity about his background from the now-discredited mainstream media.
Among the most investigated and controversial aspects of Obama's background has been his birth certificate, with countless numbers of Constitutional scholars, forensic document experts, experienced lawyers, and highly sophisticated everyday Americans, insisting that all the birth certificates the Obama regime has released – which they claim prove he was born in the United States – have been blatant forgeries.
Why does Obama have such a problem producing a simple, authentic birth certificate?
Why did he spend close to two million dollars in lawyer's fees to keep his original birth certificate hidden?
• Is it because, as his alleged African grandmother has long insisted, Obama was born in Kenya?
• Is it because he was born in Indonesia?
• Or is Obama simply hiding the truth about who his parents really were?
Just weeks ago, a researcher and blogger from Vermont named Martha Trowbridge released a must-read at Martha Trowbridge's Website that has set the entire birth-certificate/eligibility issue on fire. According to Ms. Trowbridge:
• Obama is the son of the American-born, black revolutionary Muslim leader Malcolm X and his American-born and white, possibly Jewish, teenage girlfriend from the Bronx, New York, Miss Jo Ann Newman
• Obama's actual name is Bari Malik Shabazz
• Obama's birthday is not August 4, 1961 but rather October 28, 1959. In other words, he is not 50, as he claims, but 52.
And in a poignant and heart-tugging follow-up piece posted on November 26, 2011, Trowbridge informs her readers that contrary to what Americans were told by Obama, Jo Ann Newman, his real mother, is alive and well and has been working all these years for the social causes that she and Malcolm X shared in order to bring about an “an America in which African Americans share generously in all the opportunities and rewards America has to offer.” See for yourself. Martha Trowbridge is a credible, well-respected, and extraordinary researcher, who wouldn't make frivolous claims and should be taken seriously. So far, Ms. Trowbridge's information provides the only scenario that makes any sense!
If she is alive, as Martha Trowbridge claims she is, Miss Newman would be now between the ages of 68 and 70 years old, and it appears that at some time in the near future Ms. Trowbridge will make Miss Newman's identity known.
OF COURSE, THE ENTIRE TROWBRIDGE "SAGA" MAY BE A FALSE FLAG,” in that it may be yet another diversionary tactic to keep Obama's opponents busy while he and his minions continue their relentless crusade to fulfill Malcolm X's mission, i.e., to destroy capitalism, free markets, the middle class, and the military – all of which they see as impediments to the cradle-to-grave government control to which all good Communists aspire.
Just as plausible, however, is the possibility that the ongoing lawsuits and civil actions to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot threaten to derail his reelection campaign. In order to counteract these potentially game-changing obstacles, the Obama camp may be planning to “out” Barack Obama by revealing:
1. That as a son of two American citizens, he is a natural born citizen and fully qualified to hold the office of POTUS
2. That his real father was Malcolm X
3. That his real mother was, and is, Jo Ann Newman, who he will conveniently resurrect from the grave. Particularly significant, though, is that the name “Newman” is generally considered to be a Jewish name, so can we infer that his mother, Jo Ann Newman, was Jewish? If so, that would make Bari Malik Shabazz a Jew according to Jewish law. Could that be why his real mother's existence was covered up with the fabricated and faux Christian, “Stanley Ann Dunham?”

THE CREATION OF THE OBAMA MYTH

The standard fable of Obama's history is that he was the product of a brief love affair between a teenage Stanley Ann Dunham, who was living with her parents in Hawaii and attending the University of Hawaii, and a Kenyan student in his early twenties, Barack Obama.
There are relatively few photos – many, if not all of which have been proven to have been manipulated – from which we are expected to believe the myth that Stanley Ann Dunham was "Obama's" mother, and Kenyan-born Barack Hussein Obama "Sr.," was his father.
There are no biographies of Obama, except the mostly fictional “autobiographical” account, Dreams from My Father, which author Jack Cashill has proven in articles Did Bill Ayers Write Obama’s “Dreams From My Father”?(Part 1 of 3) and in his book, Deconstructing Obama, was largely written by former domestic terrorist and personal friend of Obama, William Ayers who affirmed he wrote the memoir, and not Barack Obama. So, in short, this fraudulent and concocted history became the “truth.” Many of the claims in Dreams have been, over the past three years, independently proven to be false, and with no corroborating evidence.
Consequently, there is no true, verified and seamless history of this man, and no real record of his past until he walked into the White House in January, 2009 -- from which point the efforts to reveal his past have been met with uniform resistance, expensive legal tactics, blanket media blackouts, and unanimous stonewalling from all members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Clearly, the American people have witnessed a conspiracy and cover-up of monumental proportions!
Most deeply entrenched in this conspiracy are the so-called mainstream media. Whether they were influenced by intimidation, threats, blackmail, or bribery, or if they simply agreed with Obama's leftist vision, the media have both blocked any questions about Obama's identity or purposefully concealed it.
CIA director William Colby once said the CIA owns anyone of any significance in the media. The spy agency has certainly have been trying to manipulate the media for the past 70 years or so, at the least. They literally created Operation Mockingbird for that very purpose.
The media cover-up is demonstrated quite dramatically when you consider that after almost three years into Obama's "presidency" there are strangely few legitimate biographies about him, his life, and family: In fact, there is almost nothing! Look at the titles on Amazon, [in below URL], under Barack Obama, biography. Considering that Obama is "the first African American" president, why are there almost no biographies about him?
Yet despite the media's best efforts to cover for Obama – to withhold the compelling connection between him and Malcolm X – it seems that the entire U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court, and lower courts throughout the country, know of this connection. No matter which elected official from the Congress or Senate is questioned about this Invisible Man, the responses are almost identical, not only in their phrasing, but in their blanket “I don't know nothing” attitude.
This feigned ignorance can only be speculated about. Do they think race riots would ensue if Obama was outed as the son of the admittedly anti-American Malcolm X? Have they taken political correctness to its most preposterous limits? Or are they all taking part in this grand conspiracy because they know that Barack Obama really was made in the USA?

DID MALCOLM X CREATE THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY?

Malcolm X believed in the Machiavellian and Marxist "the ends justifies the means" dogma that he translated into his iconic phrase "by any means necessary." Would he have chosen his son – the only boy; he had six daughters with Betty Shabazz – to achieve the unthinkable, i.e., the overthrow of the United States government [and the West] by hiding Bari Shabazz's identity from birth, with the ultimate plan being to spring him on an unwitting United States 50 or so years later? Was this what Malcolm X had in mind when he gave his famous "Ballot or the Bullet” speech, in which he stated: "… when white people are evenly divided, and black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who's going to sit in the White House and who's going to be in the dog house."

Here is the speechIn 1955, Malcolm X was invited by President Sukarno of Indonesia to attend the Bandung Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. Why was he invited? The attendees were members of the non-aligned movement opposed to the U.S. and the Soviet Union and no white people were invited or allowed to attend. In attending, Malcolm X, who was not a U.S. government official, but simply a U.S. citizen, was violating the Logan Act

• Did President Sukarno invite Malcolm X in order to advise him on how to orchestrate the overthrow of the United States?
• Did he plant in Malcolm X the idea to have an illegitimate son who would work his way through the American political system all the way to the White House – from the inside, incognito, while betraying no connection to his father, the anti-American and anti-white Malcolm X – in order to overthrow the United States government?

By 1960, Malcolm X had become internationally recognized as the leader of the Muslim movement in the United States. In December 1960, two months after the September meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, at which time Malcolm X had met Fidel Castro at the Hotel Theresa in Harlem, and likely also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOdoDxu2wKY>Nikita Khrushchev, Malcolm X stated: "The U.S. revolution is starting in Harlem and expresses admiration for Lenin and Stalin; predicts that Africans will be free with the assistance of the Russian army." here [Note: Malcolm X's offices were in the Hotel Theresa and he was instrumental in getting the accommodations for Castro and his entourage at the hotel. In December, 1960, "Bari Malik Shabazz" would have been 14 months old, and Malcolm, by that time, may have already planned out his son's future.] here

It is possible that Martha Trowbridge, blogger and extraordinary researcher, has somehow uncovered Barry's real identity, as Malcolm X's only son, Bari Malik Shabazz, who she claims was born on October 28th, 1959, and not August 4th, 1961.
Although Betty and Malcolm could have been Bari's real parents, it is unlikely, and it is more probable, from the evidence that Ms. Trowbridge has recently produced, that the biological mother was actually Miss Jo Ann Newman, a young white woman from the Bronx, New York, and not the alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who Martha Trowbridge has emphatically claimed never really existed! Malcolm, therefore, certainly had the means, opportunity, and motive to achieve his dreams through his own "invisible" man – his son Bari Malik Shabazz.
Consider this possibility: Another Cold Case File, Closed: “Malcolm X’s Missing Eyeglasses”
Look here to see the broken eyeglasses that Obama was photographed wearing while sleeping, which are possibly the same broken glasses retrieved at the scene of Malcolm X's assassination by either Betty Shabazz or Malcolm's Bronx girlfriend, Jo Ann Newman: At the time of Malcolm X's assassination in February 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham would have been about 23 years old. Given that there seems to be no evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham ever met Malcolm X and that it was highly unlikely that she was even in New York City, Malcolm's glasses couldn't have come from Stanley Ann. However, Betty Shabazz could have given them to Obama, or, as Martha Trowbridge maintains, his real mother, Jo Ann Newman, was the one who gave them to her son. Jo Ann, who lived nearby in the Bronx, was mentioned as being present in the first row of the audience when Malcolm was assassinated. Or, was Stanley Ann Dunham really Jo Ann Newman, who was later given another identity and family history?
If this account is true, then it connects Malcolm X, a New Yorker, with Obama's real mother, Jo Ann Newman, also a New Yorker, a connection, which has up until now been a missing piece of the puzzle. Also, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one! In a relatively new book by the late Manning Marable, Manning Marable's 'Reinvention' Of Malcolm X : NPR, the author provides information that suggests that Malcolm's relationship to Betty was tenuous. Was the motivating reason for Malcolm to marry in order to have babies, and specifically a son to fulfill his political dreams?
In January 1958, Malcolm married Betty Sanders after meeting her in 1955. According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X: The couple had six daughters. Their names were Attallah, born in 1958 and named after Attila the Hun;[75][76] Qubilah, born in 1960 and named after Kublai Khan;[77] Ilyasah, born in 1962 and named after Elijah Muhammad;[78] Gamilah Lumumba, born in 1964 and named after the assassinated Prime Minister of Congo, Patrice Lumumba;[79] and twins, Malikah and Malaak, born in 1965 after their father's assassination and named for him.[80]
Barack Hussein Obama bears a striking resemblance to the first three of their six daughters, and was given a name that is consistent with those given to Malcolm's other six children. So could "Bari Malik Shabazz" have been born in 1959 to Malcolm and Betty? If the conception and birth dates are analyzed, Betty could have given birth to Bari Malik Shabazz in between the births of Attallah and Qubilah. Martha Trowbridge's article places Bari Malik Shabazz, who she claims was born on October 28th, 1959, at an address in Elmhurst, Queens, which was very close to the house that Malcolm X lived in.
Could it be that their baby, Bari, was sequestered and concealed and his parentage hidden in order to achieve Malcolm's political goals? Was Bari's birth an accident or planned? Was he Betty's and Malcolm's own son, who they then hid away? Would Malcolm really have had his illegitimate son living one block away from Betty and his home? Or was he Stanley Ann Dunham's or Jo Ann Newman's son? Where was Bari for the first few years of his life? Up until now, we had no clue! But now we see that he could have been living in Elmhurst, Queens, near his father! Was Bari, then, after Malcolm X was assassinated, sent to live in Hawaii? This would explain the fact that he was first photographed in Hawaii at about 5 years old, and would confirm a 1959 birth, and presence in Hawaii in 1965.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL: COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AND TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

From 1955 to 1964, Malcolm X associated with communist world leaders including President Sukarno of Indonesia, Cuba's Fidel Castro, [likely] Russia's Nikita Kruschev, and many others who he would have met at the Bandung Conference in 1955. The FBI files, in the public domain, confirm that the FBI was investigating Malcolm X to verify Communist influence and also Malcolm X's violation of the Logan Act: Part 24. Malcolm X's trip to Egypt, in 1964, was paid for by the Egyptian government. Is it likely that his trip to the Bandung Conference, which he made with Adam Clayton Powell in 1955, was paid for by Sukarno? What was he up to? Could he have been conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government? Is Obama now fulfilling the dreams of his father, Malcolm X? ...
CLICK FOR MUCH MORE!!

Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II
Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For
21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu
County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - On November 2, 2011, I published an article entitled and asking the question, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? ”, accessed at here. The basis of the question that I asked came from a November 2, 2011 breaking story published by Martha Trowbridge entitled, “Bâri′, Barry, Barack, accessed at here. In her article, Ms. Trowbridge’s contends that putative President Barack Hussein Obama II’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz and that his date of birth is October 28, 1959, and his social security number is 084-54-5926. She says he was born in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz. She also says that to be able to enter the political world, Bâri′ M. Shabazz had to change his birth identity and take on a new one which became Barack Hussein Obama II.
Ms. Trowbridge says: “We know this: Bâri′ M. Shabazz was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974.”
Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bâri′ died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bâri′ was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).
What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “[o]nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”
Finally, and the most shocking part of her report is that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the biological son of Malcolm X. Hence, if Barack Hussein Obama II is the same person as Bâri′ M. Shabazz, that would make putative President Obama the biological son of Malcolm X.
On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.
I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web set may be gained by going to http://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us:8080/eCourt/ECC/ECCDisclaimer.iface;jsessionid=FDFF513AA90109AC4375A7CBE7C8AF36. Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears: (Click each image to enlarge)
IMAGE 1 — IMAGE 2 — IMAGE 3 — IMAGE 4
What do these reports say and what questions does they raise? The Case ID is 1193041 MO. The name of the case is State v. Bari Shabazz which was a non-jury case. The case is characterized as a “Traffic Crime,” with a “REPORT number W50100.” The offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The charging police officer is Duane Masayuki Espinueva. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, located at Kane’Ohe Division. I checked and this court is located at 45-939 Pookela Street, Kaneohe, HI 96744. The case was continued to April 5, 1982.
The record also shows that Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division. The case was continued to May 5, 1982.
On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” It appears as though the court set bail at $25.00. The record also shows the entry of “HONDA,” maybe meaning that Bari Shabazz was driving a Honda or that the prosecutor’s name was “HONDA.” The next entry is for May 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”
The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003, filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” This is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. The motion was listed as “NP [nolle prosequi] 040903.” So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.
The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed, but said “Pls check.”

This information raises the following questions:

(1) Is the Bari Shabazz named in this traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? If it is the same person, then that puts New Yorker Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on March 12, 1982. Using a date of birth of October 28, 1959, this would have made Bâri′ M. Shabazz 22 years old at the time that he had this major automobile accident in Honolulu County.
(2) The accident is characterized as a major accident. Chances are that Bari Shabazz and/or any passenger was taken to a local hospital in Honolulu County due to his/their injuries.

Wait a Minute!! Do These Photos (below) Finally Explain How Barack, When He Called Himself Bari, Got These Horrific Scars on His Head. Obama's People (Barber & Photographers) Work Overtime to Hide Them Now.
— But They Are Vividly Shown HERE!

OBAMA'S SCAR — What caused that nasty scar covering the sides and back of Obama's head? — Brain Tumor, Injury, Deformity, CD Slot, or did he just misplace his hand in a biker bar. Could his mental deficiencies be blamed on a botched cranioplasty?? And what's with the neck scar! OMA!

DO THESE PICS SHOW OBAMA’S HAD BRAIN SURGERY?
The Blaze — There are the birthers who question Obama’s nationality. And now there are…the brainers? It seems the latest theory surrounding Barack Obama is the presence of what appears to be scars on his head. Scars that, if true, haven‘t been explained and some say show he’s had brain surgery. The website Escapetyranny.com is asking the question, "What’s that huge long scar on Obama’s head? And is that why we can’t see his birth certificate?" Author Ben Hart writes: Barack Obama has a very long scar that goes up the side of his head and over his crown. What is that? What happened? No one in the media asks.
We can’t see his medical records, his school records, his college records, or his birth certificate. He’s almost done with his first term, and we still know almost nothing about the background of the President of the United States. Very strange. Whatever happened to create that scar, it was clearly something serious. Was it a brain operation? Has it affected his thinking? Is he really an alien from another planet, which would explain no birth certificate? We have no proof as to where he was born, to whom, where he came from, or what is national origin is. Maybe he’s one of the androids (a replicant), like in Bladerunner, not really human at all. Anything’s possible.
Hart calls for answers to put the controversy to rest. According to the Mail, the White House has offered an answer of sorts, dismissing the suggestion as "ridiculous:" A spokeswoman from the White House said they were not willing to comment on such claims, saying they were ‘ridiculous’. Countless neurosurgeons said it is ‘not their place’ to comment on whether or not distinctive scars on the President’s head are as a result of brain surgery. Others offered explanations such as a bad haircut or even a birthmark though many did agree that the scars are similar to those a produced after major brain surgery. The other question now is: Will Donald Trump take up this cause?
(UK's Daily Mail) (FreeRepublic Comments) (Cranioplasty Procedure) (Surgical Repair of Scalp Avulsion Injury)




If Bari Shabazz suffered any major injuries or laceration, the physical signs of those injuries and/or lacerations could still be present somewhere on his body if he is still alive.
(3) Bari Shabazz was charged with driving without a driver’s license. The court ordered him to show proof of his New York driver’s license. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have told the charging police officer or the court that he did have a driver’s license and that it was one issued by the State of New York. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have been a resident of the State of New York. Note that Ms. Trowbridge said that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was born in New York City. Also, what was Bari Shabazz doing driving in Hawaii with what should have been a New York driver’s license? Was he now living in Hawaii? Was he there on vacation? Was he there visiting family or friends? Was he going to school there?
(4) On April 9, 2003, the prosecutor filed a motion to recall the bench warrant, to terminate prosecution, and close the case. Why would this case come to the attention of some local prosecutor 21 years following the initial violation of March 12, 1982? A local prosecutor does not just go looking for cases that are 21 years old and file motions to dismiss those cases. Someone must have asked that local prosecutor to dismiss the case so that the arrest warrant was cleared from the court’s and nation’s computer system.
(5) Ms. Trowbridge shows that Bâri′ M. Shabazz, according to the Social Security Death Index, died in August 1994. If Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the same person as is listed in this Hawaii auto accident as Bari Shabazz, why would someone care to recall his arrest warrant on April 9, 2003 or almost 9 years after his death? Surely, it could not be Bâri′ M. Shabazz who was interested since he had been dead since 1994. On the other hand, if he was not dead he would be interested.
(6) On October 30, 2005, or 23 years following the date of the accident of March 12, 1982, the court again re-visits the case of Bari Shabazz, noting that he did not owe the court any money but to “Pls. check.” Why would the court again concern itself with this case on that date, especially if Bari Shabazz was dead since 1994?
(7) So, is the Bari Shabazz named in this Hawaii traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? That question surely merits an investigation. If he is, then that puts the New-York-born Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, the alleged birth place and once place of residence of putative President, Barack Hussein Obama II. Given what Ms. Trowbridge has concluded in her report, that is a circumstantial piece of evidence that is surely worth investigating. What also supports Ms. Trowbridge’s position that Bâri′ M. Shabazz really did not die in August 1994 and that he is still alive as Barack Hussein Obama II is that the traffic court in Hawaii was still acting on the Bari Shabazz traffic case 9 and 11 years after the alleged death in August 1994 of Bâri′ M. Shabazz. What needs to be investigated is why the local prosecutor and court took those actions so many years after the traffic accident and at whose behest.
(8) Finally, when there is an auto accident, the police do a detailed accident report. That report includes the name, addresses, date of birth, and social security number of the person involved in the accident who is charged for that accident. The driver’s license number is also included if that license is produced or otherwise verified. A physical description of the defendant is also included. The make of auto, including the year made and VIN number are also included, along with statements of witnesses. There could be a photograph of the defendant in the police record. A thorough investigation of this matter would surely include searching the police record in Honolulu County for this report so that this information may be examined and evaluated.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. — November 7, 2011 — http://puzo1.blogspot.com


UPDATE: More Musings or Baloney or from Martha Trowbridge??
Obama's Momma Jo Ann Newman: Far From Dead, Far From Gone

By Martha Trowbridge - Last week, I saw an image that made me very sad.
It was the Visitors Book at Canberra, The Australian War Memorial.
The page’s dedication was inscribed:
The Honorable Barack Obama
President Of The United States Of America
As I studied his face in photos of the event, I wondered whether, as President “Barack Obama” inscribed it on 17 November 2011, he had the same thought I did: Some day soon this page will be torn from the book, and burned in disgrace.
He knows as well as we do: there is no honor in deceit.
Like presenting a synthetic mother, and synthetic photos of that mother – in slavitude – yes, slavitude – to his desperate determination to win The United States Presidency.
Like feeding fake after fake story to America’s media, counting on their good-hearted nature to print whatever he hands them.
Like despicably claiming his mother is dead – to keep her far from prying eyes.
For, America, the Truth is: the Mother of “Barack Obama’ is far from dead, far from obese, and far from ‘folksy’.
She’s been far from Indonesia, too.
All these years, The Mother of America’s “President” has been here, in America, working hard to support her treasured social causes.
She’s honored and respected.
She’s lovely, industrious, competent, and oh so committed to carrying on her lifelong shared vision with her beloved, Malcolm X: an America in which African Americans share generously in all the opportunities and rewards America has to offer.
Because I’m praying that her son will step forth and do the right thing, I am – for the moment – withholding her current identifying information.
The last thing I want to do is invade her life. She’s been through too much already.
Think about it.
She’s been shut out, silenced, ‘killed off’. She’s been represented by unflattering images. Her actual, lovely image has been distorted to grotesque.
She’s been lied about, used, and bandied to suit The Obama Campaign purposes.
She’s even been obscured from posterity, in video and stills, when on that horrific February day at the Audubon Ballroom, she kneeled, and lay over Malcolm, as he lay dying.
All this, for her treasured son.
The son she shared with her beloved, Malcolm X. The son upon whose tiny body they pinned their dreams for a fairer America.
As I contemplate this exceptional woman’s life, I wonder how many of those around her share her secret.
I wonder what they must think about all that she’s had to sacrifice, all these years, living incognito - in order that her mule headed son advance his career, his way.
Jo Ann Newman, living, clearly living, for years and years, though her son has pronounced her dead.
How hard it must have been for her – cause or no cause – to sacrifice personal recognition – for decades. For most of her adult life, really. Jo Ann Newman, in these demanding decades of women’s lib, ever-living through the lives of those she loved, placing her own life behind theirs.
For, since they met in the 1950′s, for the sake of Malcolm’s reputation, Jo Ann sacrificed public recognition of her role as his lover and mother of his child.
And since the early 1990′s, because “Barack Obama” deemed her a huge political liability, Jo Ann has been unable to publicly associate with her and Malcolm’s son.
It takes strength of character to make such great sacrifices.
Yet, isn’t that “true love”? The kind of love that puts the needs of your beloved ahead of your own?
Have you ever thought about this, Barack? That despite what you may feel, your mother truly loves you?
Barack: I entreat you, step into The Light.
Thousands of us will greet you in sincere, prayerful support of your decision to do the right thing.
We’ll applaud your step into Integrity in a way you’ve never before been applauded.
I promise you, Barack: the applause will be your sweetest ever – for it will be applause you earn honestly.
We know it won’t be easy. We also know it will be hugely relieving.
New, powerful, enduring pages could be inscribed in history:
The Honorable Barack Obama
The First World Leader To Make Things Right
As for you, dear Unsung Heroine Jo Ann Newman: please, reach out to your son. Just like you did with Malcolm, be strong for him. Guide him to the freeing power of Truth.
Now, more than ever, your son needs you.

Published: November 25, 2011 Filed Under: Bari M. Shabazz, Dreams From My Father, Jo Ann Newman, Malcolm X and Stanley Ann, Obama Birth Identity, Obama Paternity, The Grand Scheme Tags: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

8 Responses for “Jo Ann Newman: Far From Dead, Far From Gone”
Kevin J Lankford says:
There is no honor in obama. I would say he feels nothing but shame in his parentage, just as his mother must feel shame for him, if she were still alive. You are correct about one thing; there is no value in his signature.

Time says:
Perhaps Martha Trowbridge is Jo Ann Newman who is Obambie’s mama and the direct link to Mr Obama.. Possible that she is the dead mother, the author ? Maybe Martha is telling her son to come clean, tell the truth and it will set him free.. Martha writes in defense of Jo Ann and explains how she is a good woman.. How would she know this ? Only if she is her.. Seems she wants to sway the people that read her blog and the one person she is trying to get to read her words, the son of Jo Ann and Mr X… Hmm, I find many reasons behind this blog other then pushing Ole Barry to come out and tell the world that he is NOT who he says he is..There is more to this author then what she writes.. Just saying…

PaulP says:
Just talked to a long-time journalist friend who was very close to all this at the time it happened. I knew his involvement, referred him to these articles and asked for his comments. His reply: Some of the facts and conclusions are a little off, but there’s a lot more than just a grain of truth in this story and someone needs to follow up. I tried to question him, but he wouldn’t go any further. It’s time to get another investigator involved to verify this. Neil Sankey?

Donna says:
I don’t buy it either because i remember Ann Dunhams interviews from 1958-1961. She looked like the picture featured in “whose your daddy,whose your mama”.on this site.

lizMN says:
This story of Jo Ann Newman cannot be taken seriously without any proof being provided. It is written like an urban legend.

California Constitutionalist says:
Yeah, I don’t Barry/Barack/Bari stepping into the Light either, so might as well out his real mother and be done with this guy.

OPOVV says:
Gee whiz, don’t you know that Islam permits lying in any form what-so-ever to promote Islam? Matter of fact, the Quran says that it’s perfectly acceptable to deceive your enemies, as long as “you hold Alah close to your heart”. The Muslims take lying and deceiving their enemies so seriously they even have a word for it: taqiyya. So the sentence “He knows as well as we do:there is no honor in deceit.” Ah ha, not if you’re a Muslim.

BobSR says:
Seems like a total fantasy to me………even the writing style. How about saving America by revealing the identity of Barry’s alive and well Mom? Can we have some concise and tangible proof of something, instead of what seems like a made-up fairy tale? I’m sure Barry will read this and fess right up….NOT!!

UPDATE: Malcolm X Is Not Baby Obama's Daddy with Stanley Ann Dunham (because Jo Ann Newman may be Obama's biological momma)

By Jack Cashill - Lately, about once or twice a day, I receive an email from a well-meaning correspondent asking whether the late black nationalist Malcolm X was, in fact, the natural father of President Barack Obama.
The question is not as outlandish as it sounds: The falsification of Obama's official bio makes speculation on his origins almost inevitable.
The Malcolm-as-father proponent usually begins with photos of Malcolm and Obama. (Yes, they do look vaguely alike.) He then builds a case by adding any random detail that might support his thesis and ignoring those that don't. The latter category includes just about everything known about Malcolm X's character and history.
In 1960 Malcolm X was the least likely black man in America to have impregnated Ann Dunham, Obama's mom, then a mousy white adolescent in Washington state or Hawaii or wherever.
Beyond the logistical problems – Ann, are you sure America's most prominent black nationalist will feel comfortable at your lily white prom? – Malcolm was bound by several restraints, both philosophical and personal.
For one, while a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI), the married Malcolm opposed adultery. He did so with such conviction that it would ultimately cost him his life.
In 1962, the year after Obama's birth, Malcolm learned that two of the former secretaries of Elijah Muhammad, his spiritual leader in the NOI, had sued the old geezer for child support.
Malcolm was nothing if not faithful. From the time he entered prison until the time he married 12 years later he claimed he did not touch a woman "because of Mr. Muhammad's influence upon me."
He presumed the same principled restraint from other Muslims, Muhammad especially. At first, he refused to believe that Elijah Muhammad, the man who made the rules, would "betray the reverence bestowed upon him" by so many trusting black Muslims. As the rumors grew stronger, Malcolm investigated, confirmed the stories and finally confronted Elijah with the facts. In so doing, Malcolm all but signed his death warrant. "Hating me," he said prophetically, "was going to become the cause for people of shattered faith to rally around."
In the last year or two of his life, Malcolm wised up to the mess he had made of his early years. "I was a zombie then – like all Muslims," he said, "I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march." Unfortunately, before his change of heart, Malcolm had won over one significant would-be zombie, the boxer now known as Muhammad Ali. Forced to choose between Elijah and Malcolm, Ali chose Elijah, although Malcolm had been in his corner, almost literally, from the beginning,
"Worse than death was betrayal," Malcolm would lament. And no betrayal cut as deeply as Ali's. It "hurt Malcolm more than any other person turning away that I know of," said Malcolm's widow, Betty Shabazz.
Ali was the one person who might have saved Malcolm fro
Elijah's fatwa. As the death threats morphed into murder plots, Shabazz begged his intercession.
"You see what you're doing to my husband, don't you," she pleaded after a chance encounter with Ali. Ali blew her off, disingenuously raising his hands in the air and saying, "I'm not doing anything to him." Soon thereafter, an NOI hit squad assassinated Malcolm in full view of his wife and children at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. "Ali threw Malcolm away like a pork chop," says Sunni Khalid, one of the few journalists to see through the myth. "Even today those who really know can never forgive him."
A second fact that argues against paternity is that Malcolm, like Ali, like all NOI members, was proudly racist. "I'm Jack Johnson," Ali once said comparing himself to the equally promiscuous heavyweight champion. "Without the white women."
When asked in a 1975 Playboy interview if he believed that lynching was the answer to interracial sex, Ali answered, "A black man should be killed if he's messing with a white woman." This charming sentiment Ali voiced years into his unexamined reign as liberal sports icon. The left chose not to notice.
There is a third consideration. As is now well-documented, Malcolm X appears to have had little use for women. In his definitive Malcolm biography, "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention," black scholar Manning Marable, confirmed the rumors. Before joining the NOI, Malcolm did have an "early homosexual relationship with a white businessman" and may have had other such relationships afterwards.
That much said, Malcolm did marry and father six children, but the Marable bio also contended that his relationship with Betty was less than exciting.
Marable included a letter Malcolm wrote to Elijah in 1959 on this very topic, "(Betty) told me that we were incompatible sexually because I had never given her any real satisfaction."
For these reasons and more, in my book "Deconstructing Obama," I make the case against Malcolm X's paternity. I add that for those who insist on a celebrity father for Obama, rocker Jimi Hendrix is a much better candidate.
I point out that Hendrix was two days older than Ann, also went to high school in Seattle, dated white girls, and like Ann's son, was left-handed. Then, too, Obama has mentioned Hendrix on several occasions.
Lest anyone think me overly serious, I described my motives as mischievous and my analysis as pure "Paul-is-dead." To further discourage the dunderheads, I added, "I can envision the mirthless Huffington headline now. 'Whack job from Web's farthest lunatic orbit says Hendrix Obama's father.'"
I underestimated the utter indifference to the truth of the heavily subsidized left-wing media. Here is what Simon Maloy of Media Matters actually did write: "Cashill's candidates for Obama's 'real' father include Malcolm X and Jimi Hendrix."
No, Malcolm was not Obama's father. But if you want a fact to taunt your left-wing friends with, try this one: Ali attended the 1984 Republican convention as a Reagan supporter. Who knew?


The 'Occupy' Protesters Are
'The Flea Party'



You Might Be a Fleabagger . . .
♠ If you can chant 'Karl Marx Quotes' as you bang on your bongo; but don't know anything about "Dodd-Frank", You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you Tweet your disgust for capitalism and corporations from anything made by Apple, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you say you're preserving the environment and then trash and defecate in parks, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you know that Obama raised the most money from Wall Street donors — EVER; but will still vote for him, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If breaking up with your girlfriend leaves you homeless, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think that conservatives have no sense of humor; but then shudder if you hear a rare Obama joke, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If your idea of a fair tax system is one where some individuals are forced to pay in at much higher percentages than others — just because, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe Sean Penn makes sense, and Alec Baldwin makes even more sense, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think that Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are mindless "dittoheads," but never doubt anything that you hear from Michael Moore, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you don't understand the divisiveness of affirmative action and are more than willing to sacrifice someone else's employment or education opportunity to assuage your guilt, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you watch the MSNBC All-Stars (Scarborough-Todd-Bashir-Matthews-Sharpton-Schultz-Maddow-O'Donnell) every day from your institution, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think Rachel Maddow is a really hot lesbian and you are either a straight female or a straight guy, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think everybody should have a job; as long as nobody gets rich enough to hire anyone, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you once attended a Tea Party rally and found it unexciting because there were no thefts, assaults, drug overdoses, free sex; or outbreaks of head lice, ring worm and TB, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you hid your North Face jacket in the back of your Prius; and bought a ragged Hoodie at Goodwill to protest in, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you're indifferent to your fellow occupiers dying like fleas at numerous 'Obamaville encampments' as long as you're not in the body count, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If your occupying escapade resulted in you losing your protest mate to a foot fetish in a neighboring tent; and your parents changed the locks on your basement pad, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you're paying $50k a year for a college degree that will qualify you for a $20k a year job, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If your girlfriend bolted from your tent to the 'women-only safety tent' to escape from your 'occupying sex fiend buddies,' You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you can understand a suicide bomber's grievances; but can't understand why anyone would join the Marines, You Might Be a Fleabagger
♠ If you think government corruptly hands taxpayer money to preferred corporations; and the answer is more government, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If your mom urged you to move into the 'occupier encampment' so that she could clean out the basement, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you hang out in Zuccotti Park because it's a short hop to your trust fund manager's office, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe the mission of the free-loading occupiers in 'Obamaville encampments' is to create thousands of clean-up, protection jobs, etc. — costing hard-working taxpayers tens of millions, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you know in your heart of hearts that Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud (Constitutionally illegal-Not a Natural Born Citizen-Father was a British subject); but you support him anyway, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe it's legal to have more than one Social Sercurity Number (Obama has had at least 16 SSNumbers but presently uses 042-68-4425, issued to Harrison J. Bounel who was born in 1890, go figure!), You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you're saddened that the most powerful man in the world can't find a lasting, loving relationship with the departures of "body men" Nick Colvin and now Reggie Love, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba, Iran and Venezuela than you do about your own country, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think Roseanne Barr and Janeane Garofalo are smart enough to engage in political discussion, but Ronald Reagan should never have been elected President because he was just an actor, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you thought your major in Minority and Women’s Studies with a minor in Peruvian Bongo Studies was an economically viable degree, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you showed up to protest with a carload of your buddies — driving your daddy's BMW, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you like Bill Maher, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and of course, NY Times' Paul Krugman, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you don't like Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and of course, Rush Limbaugh, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe that rich people should not be allowed to contribute money to candidates for office (except for
Schwartz György - aka George Soros), You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe socialized healthcare is necessary in America even though it’s been a catastrophic failure everywhere else it’s been implemented, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you praise Obama's Department of Energy that wasted billions ($35B and climbing) of taxpayer dollars with reckless investments in his political cronies' Green Energy projects which aren’t yet viable — and may never be, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee are articulate geniuses; but Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are dolts, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If your parents paid for you to go to an expensive private college and five years later you still spend more time protesting than earning a living, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you blame the banks for your student loan debt instead of the greedy bastards at the universities, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you think the rich should pay your debts; but whine when homeless people who invade your camp 'bring nothing to the table,' You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If a bum refuses to share the warmth of your tent because of the smell, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe that the government will do a better job of spending the money that you earned, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you thought the 'Community Reinvestment Act' (Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac) that mandated banks to provide unpayable mortgages leading to the Subprime Mortgage Crisis — was a brilliant utopian idea, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe that corporations should not be allowed to make profits — just break even; and give the rest to the government to redistribute as it sees fit, You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you believe that even though the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent of income taxes; that the rich are not paying their "fair share," You Might Be a Fleabagger!
♠ If you bitterly cling to your "Che" T-shirt and "Rules for Radicals",...Then You Are a Fleabagger!
♠ If you don't see the parallel between yourself, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao,...Then You Are a Fleabagger!
♠ If your money enhanced the wealth of these celebrity airhead members of the '1% Club' who support the 'Occupiers' — Russell Simmons(Net Worth-$325Million), Roseanne Barr-$80M, Kanye West-$70M, Alec Baldwin-$65M and Michael Moore-$50M,...Then You Are a Fleabagger!
♠ If you have a Tramp Stamp in the shape of a Hammer and Sickle,...Then You Are a Fleabagger!
♠ If you borrowed money to go to college and now think it’s unfair to have to pay it back,...Then You Are a Fleabagger!
♠ If you continually say that conservatives have no sense of humor; but after reading this page, probably think
that NEWSBOY POST is cold and mean-spirited,...Then You Are Definitely a Fleabagger! 

 If you like these "You Might Be a Fleabagger . . . Jokes" — Email your friends - Copy and send with our URL to help NEWSBOY POST spread the word!   Thanks!

 Reminder: Check out our Blog Feeds in the right column (Scroll to bottom).
    Our readers say it's the best way to keep up with developing news stories!


FLEABAGGER DEFINITION: New name for Democrat losers...Fleabaggers! Just like fleas, the only way they can survive is to live off a host. That pretty much sums up the whole Democratic Party these days. Human parasite. Cries like a child, creates havoc and organizes and participates in public protests. Any member of the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement or it's derivatives in other states and cities. The Democratic Party was desperate to have some grass roots response to the Conservative 'Tea Party' but sadly all they ended up with was those filthy Occupy Wall Street 'Fleabaggers'.
Fleabaggers are comprised of: Union leaders, Union workers, Democratic Congressmen, Democratic Senators, Democratic Govenors, Democratic Activists, Liberal Activists, Democratic Presidents, anarchists, anti-capitalists, lunatics, paid rent-a-mobsters for unions, left-wing think tanks, and the radical Working Families Party, robbers, theives, gangs, community organizers, thugs, Mob Bosses, mob members, mafias, ACORN, Acorn thugs(workers), SEIU and practically anyone who is "PRO-Organized Labor.  Source: Urban Dictionary

"Occupy Wall Street" Protest Signs Photo Gallery - See Pics!

One Percent Occupiers:
The Hypocrite and the HIPPOCRITE
Jay-Z Net Worth: $350M — Michael Moore Net Worth: $50M
 
Jay-Z and Beyoncé on his yacht in St. Tropez                 Michael Moore and his 'good' twin Jabba the Hutt

Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office. Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly...
Jay-Z's 'Occupy All Streets' T-Shirt Line Yanked After Criticism About Profits Not Benefiting 99%
Jay-Z's Occupy Wall Street T-shirt line has been pulled from Rocawear’s website just days after critics slammed the millionaire rapper for cashing in on the movement without promising to share a penny of profits with the 99%. The shirts, stamped with the phrase, “Occupy All Streets,” first appeared when Russell Simmons tweeted a picture of Jay-Z wearing one backstage at a concert. Rocawear announced on Thursday that it planned to sell the T-shirts for $22, but any trace of garments has now been wiped from the brand’s site. Backlash sparked when Jay-Z’s camp announced it had no plans to share...
Luxury 99% of Americans Can Only Dream of ... Michael Moore's Stunning Waterfront Mansion Revealed
He is the booming voice of the Occupy protests, encouraging activists to continue their battle against the wealthy one per cent of Americans. But it seems left-wing documentary maker Michael Moore has been uncharacteristically quiet about one thing: his own wealth. While Moore has denied he is among the top-earners in the country, tax records show he owns an extensive property in one of the country’s most elite communities. Moore owns the large holiday home on Torch Lake, Michigan in addition to his pricey Manhattan residence. The spacious 10,000 sq ft property is a far cry from the scene of...

Sex and Drugs on Tap, Who Says It's Not a Political Partaaay? Occupy Wall Street Protesters Make Love as Well as Class War?

"Nothing's Happened! They said if we got naked we would change the world!
Hey, let's swap dudes and see what happens!"


This Is the Comprehensive List of Those Supporting Occupy Wall Street
"Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are." That line is one of the famous "Mom-ilies" often heard in homes all around the country. Perhaps mothers have drawn this wisdom from the Bible and Proverbs 13:20: "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm."
Either way, The Blaze has presented details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as those believed to be supporting it with money, material goods (sleeping bags, non-perishable foods, etc.), organizational skills, and even storage space. We have named names from the White House to the American Nazi Party, we have shown connections to several unions (like SEIU, UFT, and TWU) and pointed out the organizers like the Working Families Party and ACORN.
"As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as ‘isolated examples’ that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism," writes Zombie. "But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges."
Zombie has sourced the list with links back to evidence of participation or support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It will be regularly updated.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Once Devout Christian Ǿbämá

Now Says, "I am a Muslim"


"I am a Muslim," Obama Tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit
WTF! An Islamic Coup on the White House! - What's Next? sharia law!
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.

↔ (Shown Above) President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum in New York with Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and H.E. Laila Kamal El Din Salah


[Thanks to Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs for compiling this interesting, but to no one's surprise — bit of disturbing news.
- Newsboy Post Staff]

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.

Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the "Round Table Show" that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel. (more here)

This is according to Israel Today here. Here is the passage from the May 2010 issue of "Israel Today." It is on page 3 in an article titled "Obama, a 'Strategic Catastrophe,'" by Aviel Schneider:

The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.
That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.
“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim - News that Matters, hat tip PV

Obama told me he is still a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.
This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round Table Show». This is the statement recorded:

Adul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, where the US President told him that He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.

Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.
Source: Israeli magazine, Israel today.

This is akin to an SS officer getting elected president during WW II. Every country in the free world must be cognizant of such a catastrophic sea change in the leadership of the free world (as witnessed by events over the past year). This changes everything. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet he has gone around the world promoting Islam, the sharia (Islamic law).

The alleged exchange between Obama and Gheit would almost certainly have happened in early January 2010, when Gheit was in Washington, D.C. regarding "Mideast peace talks."
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, the Associated Press reported that "Clinton and Mitchell [were] scheduled to meet" with Gheit on Friday, January 8, 2010: ABC news here.

On Friday, January 8, 2010, Hillary Clinton and Gheit spoke with each other. The U.S. Department of State has provided video before the meeting: Department of State here.

On Saturday, January 9, 2010, NPR spoke with Gheit about his visit: NPR.org (much thanks to Grant for the links).

This is devastating news, and yet no media is covering it.
A stealth jihad on the White House. Remember, during his campaign, I and others were excoriated for using Obama's middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book: The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (buy it now).
[. . . . . .]
Pamela Geller's soon-to-be-released book
"The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America" - Buy it Now

H/T ATLAS SHRUGS - Pam Geller
♠ See 112+ Comments on FreeRepublic.com Forum
♠ See 18+ additional comments on FreeRepublic.com Forum

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Posted by at 11:30 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Rumors Surface: Classy First Lady Michelle Obama Is Way Too 'Hot' NOT to Have a Secret Lover
  
She's a stunning beauty that attracts every virile man; and apparently even a bi-guy like Barack, but it’s a good thing her last name is not Cain or this story would be making major headlines by now. The Globe Magazine just released a bombshell and is reporting that Michelle Obama is having a “steamy secret affair” with a Secret Service Agent. According to The Globe, rumors started to circulate that Obama may be having an affair after her recent admission to NBC’s Al Roker that she frequently “sneaks out” of the White House; and the ever increasing time she is spending away from the White House may be a cover to hide “a sizzling affair she’s carrying on with a Secret Service agent.”
According to The Globe’s anonymous source: “The rumors are that she’s getting it on with a Secret Service agent who is not part of her detail. … Her frequent outings away from the White House give her and him an opportunity to get together.” The source adds: “Something has been going on for a couple of months and there’s no question Barack is embarrassed about her increasingly frequent excursions away from him at the White House.”
The allegations are, of course, unsubstantiated and only time will tell if the allegations will fizzle or blow up into a major issuing in the upcoming presidential campaign. Typically, the media will not report unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources, but the recent media feeding frenzy over unsubstantiated allegation against businessman Herman Cain, which literally sank his candidacy, leave the question open: will the media pursue, or even bother to investigate this story?
When it comes to the Mainstream Media, anything goes. That much is clear. But will the media apply the same standard to Obama as to Cain? Only time will tell.

The High Price of Impatience: Barack's 'Beard' Jets Off to Hawaii Alone? for 17-Day Vacation
Luxury: Michelle and the kids will travel by Air Force One, which costs $180,000 per hour - or around $1,000,000 for a return trip from Washington to Hawaii

With thousands of families struggling to raise funds for Christmas, you would think the Obamas might manage a little thriftiness. But today, Michelle Obama and her two daughters fly to Hawaii for a 17-day holiday - days before the president joins them. The separate flights will incur costs of more than $100,000 to the taxpayer.
Obama has vowed to stay in Washington until Congress passes an extension of the payroll tax cut and will join his family before Christmas. By not waiting for Congress to reach a decision before jetting off together, the family is inflicting eye-watering costs on the taxpayer.
When Michelle flew to Hawaii alone last year, it cost a staggering $63,000 - without security or staff costs - according to White House Dossier website. Michelle, 13-year-old Malia and 10-year-old Sasha will leave Washington Friday after giving toys to the Marines Corps’ Toys for Tots programme.
Barack Obama previously said to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 'Michelle and the girls are going to have a great time in Hawaii. They don't need me there.' The president's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for the vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month. But the local and federal taxpayers help pay the bill for travel and security.
Last year the trip cost more than $1 million, according to the Hawaii Reporter. The move also puts the president at odds with one of his own executive orders that instructed agencies to avoid unnecessary flights, said the site.
Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have criticised Mr Obama's holiday plans, which were originally scheduled to begin on December 17 for 17 days.
'I just think it's time to have a president whose idea of being 'hands on' doesn't mean getting a better grip on the golf club,' Mr Romney told voters in Iowa.
Last year's holiday was similarly delayed, but the Obamas added a few extra days to the end to make up for the inconvenience. The president, who was raised in Hawaii until he was six, previously announced there were no public events scheduled for the trip. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said the president didn't want lawmakers to leave town without reaching an agreement on the extension.
'What the president made clear was that the House would leave at its peril, its political peril, and they will face the embarrassment of trying to explain why they're taking the holiday off while working families across America are going to see their taxes increase,' he said, according to Politico. President Obama told lawmakers this week they could not leave for family trips until decisions have been reached.

The 'Occupy Movement' Explained!WHAT IS THE CLOWARD-PIVEN THE VISION THAT FUELS OBAMA'S SICKO SYCOPHANTS: The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b.1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
The Cloward Piven Strategy According To Glenn Beck: Glenn Beck tells us, how the Cloward Piven Strategy is really all about collapsing the system as we know it and rebooting (or transforming) it as a socialist utopia. How does the Cloward Piven Strategy fit into the concepts of "Social Justice" and "Economic Justice?" Is the Cloward Piven Strategy nothing more than another tool of the Progressive Left? Does the implementation of the Cloward Piven Strategy tie into the Federal Reserve, the progressive income tax and the United Nations? How does the Cloward Piven Strategy tie into the leftist concept that our Constitution is "fatally flawed" and must "evolve" into something better. Glenn Beck covers these topics in this excellent video series on the Cloward Piven Strategy and explains how Progressive simply "think differently" from the rest of us and why they honestly believe that the perverse plan to implement the Cloward Piven Strategy is a means to make the world "a better place."   See Glenn Beck Video

Van Jones: "You Haven’t Seen Anything Yet"

Self-Avowed Communist and Obama's Point Man on the 'Occupy Wall Street Movement,' Is Recruiting 2,000 Candidates to Run for Office Now Under the '99 Percent Banner' as Occupy Wall Street Enters "Phase Two"

The former Obama administration “green jobs czar” — an ardent supporter of the Occupy movement since its inception — said in an interview with CNN that the movement is ready to evolve into the areas of politics and policy-making, much like the Tea Party did in 2010. (Related: What connections does Beck make between Van Jones’ revolution group & Occupy Wall Street?) “You’re going to see an evolution now as you go from protests, keep the protests, but now expand into politics,” Jones said. “And if you thought there was an earthquake in 2010 when the Tea Party moved into politics, wait until this 99 percent movement moves over into politics. You haven’t seen anything yet.”
Jones said the movement is “going to be recruiting 2,000 candidates to run for office now under this 99 percent banner“ as Occupy Wall Street enters ”phase two.” “Phase two, you move from anger to answers. You move from pointing out the problem to pointing out the solutions,” Jones said. “What you’re going to see now is you have the Occupy movement at the center, that’s the beating heart.” Jones said despite New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park, “you can‘t put toothpaste back in the tube and you can’t evict an idea.” “This movement is about much more than just one park or one tactic and one city,” he said.
Asked about the violence that has plagued parts of the movement, Jones said any violence associated with Occupy Wall Street “whether it’s street violence or police violence, needs to be called out and has been called out and denounced.” He added, however, that there has been more violence outside the demonstrations than inside, and that Occupy groups should be given “credit for having been overwhelmingly peaceful.”
“And most of the people who have been hurt — unfortunately, whether you’re talking about the veteran who was put in a coma or the reporters that were hurt yesterday — were hurt by our law enforcement,” he charged. Asked by CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux whether he might consider becoming a leader or spokesman for the outspokenly “leaderless” movement, Jones said no. “We’ve learned that leader-centered movements don’t work. This is about a leader-ful movement. It’s not leaderless. It’s leader centric. It’s leader-ful,” he said.

Who's Behind the 99% Movement? Official List of Occupy Wall Street’s Supporters, Sponsors and Sympathizers
By Zombie - The Occupy Wall Street movement has received so much media coverage in recent weeks that it’s nearly impossible to keep abreast of all the developments. So many endorsements and criticisms coming from all directions enter the news cycle in such rapid succession that even the most dedicated news junkies may have missed out on many of the pronouncements. Supporters and detractors of OWS both might find it useful to have a handy all-inclusive list of who has endorsed or embraced the protest.
To satisfy that demand, we hereby present a list of groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Note: All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.
As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.
This list is obviously incomplete; we hope to update it over the upcoming days and weeks.
If you think we’ve left out any well-known endorsers for which there is solid evidence, then please post suggestions and evidentiary links in the comments section; but please try to supply links that will stand up to any potential claims of misrepresentation.
If you disagree with the inclusion of any of the entries on this list, please post your reasoning and any contravening source links in the comments section, and we will take the evidence into account when updating the list.
Members of the media, bloggers, activists, OWS supporters and detractors as well are all free to repost this list, in whole or in part, without any restrictions. Do note, however, that it may be updated over time, so make sure to get the latest version.
And without further ado, here is…

Barack Obama,  Joe Biden,  Nancy Pelosi,  Hugo Chavez,  Ayatollah Khamenei,  Louis Farrakhan-Nation of Islam,  Communist Party USA,  American Nazi Party,  The government of North Korea,  Revolutionary Communist Party,  Revolutionary Guards of Iran,  Black Panthers (original),  Socialist Party USA,  U.S. Border Guard,  Industrial Workers of the World,  CAIR, Communist Party of China,  Hezbollah, 9/11Truth.org,  International Bolshevik Tendency,  Anonymous, White Revolution,  International Socialist Organization,  PressTV (Iranian government outlet),  Marxist Student Union,  Freedom Road Socialist Organization,  ANSWER,  Party for Socialism and Liberation


Unbelievable! Transgender Woman Arrested After Injecting Fix-A-Flat into Patient’s Rear End Who Was Seeking a Super-Sexy, Super-Sized Booty

A transgender woman in South Florida faces charges of practicing cosmetic surgery without a license, after police say she injected an unwitting patient’s buttocks with a handful of unsafe substances, including tire mender Fix-A-Flat, NBC reported. The botched butt implant sent the unidentified woman to the hospital, and landed Oneal Ron Morris, who is legally identified as a man, in cuffs.
Miami Gardens Police arrested Morris, 30, on Friday, following an investigation by the Florida Department of Health. Sgt. William Bamford said the illegal procedure took place in May 2010, after the woman and Morris met to discuss details, according to ABC.
“They agreed on the price of $700 for the procedure, which was intended for cosmetic purposes,” he said.
The injection took place in a residential setting, where Morris shot a mix of cement, glue, mineral oil and Fix-A-Flat tire sealant into the woman’s buttocks, ABC reported. “[A] short time later, she develops very serious pains, abdomen, throughout her body,” Bamford told the network affiliate. “She knows something’s wrong.”
The woman rushed to Tampa General Hospital, where she was treated for infection and pneumonia, but would not divulge Morris’ name, according to the report. Hospital officials contacted the Dept. of Health, but it took investigators months to track down Morris. Police suspect there are other victims, and urge them to come forward.
 
Above Photos: A fake doctor, Oneal Ron Morris (A transgender woman who is legally a man) was arrested after injecting a woman seeking butt implants with a mixture of cement, super glue, mineral oil, and Fix-A-Flat tire mender
FREAKY HIPS: Man Arrested for Boosting Butts With Cement, Fix-A-Flat

Florida police on Friday arrested a man suspected of administering dangerous and illegal butt-boosting shots – injecting at least one woman with a cocktail of substances including cement, glue and tire sealant. And, believe it or not, that man is the person pictured above. The man is 30-year-old Oneal Ron Morris. Police could not release an official report on the incident, noting that the case is still under investigation. However, Sgt. William Bamford of the Miami Gardens, Fla.
Police Department said that the procedure took place in May 2010, after the as-yet-unidentified victim met with Morris to discuss the procedure. “They agreed on the price of $700 for the procedure, which was intended for cosmetic purposes,” Bamford said.
What the woman got for her money was a series of injections containing a bizarre concoction of cement, super glue, mineral oil and Fix-A-Flat tire inflator and sealant, police said. Bamford said that the procedure was conducted not in a clinic, but in a residential setting in Miami Gardens, and that shortly after the substance was injected into the woman’s body she developed what Bamford termed “severe complications.”
“[A] short time later, she develops very serious pains, abdomen, throughout her body,” Bamford told ABC affiliate WPLG. “She knows something’s wrong.” Bamford said the woman went to two different local hospitals, finally heading to Tampa General Hospital, where she received treatment, he said.
Bamford said the woman had an infection at the wound site with the drug-resistant bug MRSA, and she had also developed pneumonia. Even then, Bamford said, the woman was not forthcoming with doctors regarding the source of her symptoms. But doctors at the hospital, suspecting the work of an unlicensed practitioner was to blame, contacted the Florida Department of Health. Unfortunately, before health officials could learn more about the case, the woman had left the hospital.
It was not until March 2011 that investigators in South Florida were able to piece together enough of what happened to track down Morris and arrest him in North Lauderdale, Fla., a suburb of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He was charged with practicing medicine without a license and causing bodily harm.
As odd as the idea of cut-rate, illicit, butt-boosting injections may sound, this case is far from the first that has made headlines – and in some cases, the outcome has been deadly.
In February, 20-year-old British woman Claudia Aderotimi died following a cosmetic buttocks injection administered in a Philadelphia hotel room.
In January, Whalesca Castillo, an unlicensed practitioner in New York City, was arrested for running an illegal business out of her home injecting women with liquid silicone in the buttocks and breasts.
And in 2010, a Miami woman, Ana Josefa Sevilla, was charged with a similar crime after one of her clients ended up in the emergency room with complications.
“We’ve heard of people having caulk or industrial-grade silicone, neither of which is approved for use anywhere in the body, injected into their buttocks,” Dr. Felmont Eaves, a North Carolina-based plastic surgeon and president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, told ABCNews.com at the time of Aderotimi’s death. “There are safe ways to augment the buttocks. Fat grafts usually work extremely well, but obviously you want someone who is board-certified to do that procedure.”

FREAKY LIPS: Woman Gets 100 Silicone Injections to Have the World’s Biggest Lips

Left: Kristina Rei before.                 Right: After her injections

Meet Kristina Rei, the woman who now has the world’s biggest lips. She’s only 22 and has spent £4,000 on lip injections in the hopes of resembling her favourite film heroine, Jessica Rabbit. The nail technician from St. Petersburg, Russia was convinced her thin lips were ugly, so she opted to get a lip job – 100 of them - and aims to make her enormous pout even bigger!
Speaking about her plump pout, Rei said: “I think I look fantastic and it makes me happy. Sometimes strangers shout names at me in the street “like big lips” but I don't care. I want to go more extreme. I want to look like a cartoon character.” She added: “I am addicted to it - I love it.”
Rei has wanted her lips enhanced since she was four years old, and says she was always insecure about her appearance - and childhood teasing didn’t help her confidence. Russian TV adverts that promote cosmetic surgery are common, she said, giving her the idea at a very young age. She got her first injection at 17, and hasn't looked back. Rei can eat, speak and kiss the same way she did before and says she hasn’t suffered any painful after-effects.
She said: “Other than the way I look, my lips haven't had a big impact on my life, so I'm definitely not going to stop now.” Consultant plastic surgeon Dr Yannis Alexandrides of 111 Harley St. told Yahoo! Lifestyle: “Kristina's obsession with the lip injections means she may suffer from body dysmorphia and this would not make her a good candidate for more cosmetic enhancement.” He believes she maybe concerned with society’s perception of beauty he said: “People associate very thin lips with ageing and full lips with youth and trustworthy qualities.” Dr Alexandrides added: “In the long run her injections are not good and go against good aesthetics.” The beauty addict plans to have more injections as she feels her lips are “definitely too small at the moment.”
She said: “My big lips have helped boost my confidence. Even my parents are happy for me. They really don’t care about my appearance. Some of my friends have told me I shouldn’t go any bigger but I’m not satisfied yet.” Beyond her lips Rei hopes to have even more cosmetic work done in the future, including a boob and nose job and pointed ears “like an elf.”


The Occupy Movement Is Based on
99% Lies

This 19-year-old Romanian-American protester got into a pitch battle with a baton, and lost.
He will be sidelined for several weeks as he recovers from a fractured skull. (See video of arrest)

Inequality: As cities rousted Occupiers, liberals claimed the movement has already succeeded by calling attention to income inequality. But all it's really done is give the left an excuse to recycle bogus class-warfare claims. Soon after Mayor Bloomberg cleared the Occupiers out of New York's Zuccotti Park, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein reassured his fellow liberals. "The movement has already scored some big wins," he wrote, because it has "changed the national conversation." The evidence? The press has written lots of stories about income inequality lately.
Of course, counting news stories proves nothing. The liberal media love the Occupy crowd and what it stands for, and so it generously flooded the zone with adoring coverage, while carefully covering up the movement's violence, depravity and anti-American radicalism. But then again, almost nothing that's been written or said about the Occupy movement and its main issue has been true.
Case in point is a recent New York Times op-ed by Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, in which he tries to convince readers that the Occupy movement is the leading edge of a progressive Nirvana. But his piece is rife with falsehoods. In the very first paragraph, for example, Sachs claims that "we are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1% and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest."
In fact, the average income for the top 1% has dropped about 9% in real terms over the past decade, according to IRS data. Census data show a similar decline for top-income earners. Meanwhile, the Gini Index — a common measure of income inequality — has been almost dead flat since 2000. And to the extent that inequality has climbed over the past 30 years, it's been in concert with economic growth, rising during the Reagan and Clinton boom years and sagging during economic slumps. Sachs' claim that Reagan's policies punished the country with crushing unemployment is even more ludicrous. Reagan's tax-cutting, deregulating, fiscal conservative policies propelled the economy to an unprecedented era of sustained growth.
Between 1981 and 2008, unemployment averaged just 6%. Only after Obama started to undo everything Reagan achieved did unemployment spike, averaging 9.3% since he took office. Sachs goes on to say that "taxes for the rich were slashed," though the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% is now 37% — up from 18% in 1980. Meanwhile, a new Congressional Budget Office report finds that when you account for all federal taxes, the income tax code is just as progressive today as it was in 1979. Even Sachs' argument that the Occupy crowd is changing minds is bogus. The left has peddled the income inequality story for decades. Bill Clinton ran for president claiming the 1980s were a time "of greed and selfishness," when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
If anything, the Occupy crowd's efforts have backfired. A new survey by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling finds just 33% now support the Occupy movement, down from a month ago and lower than the 42% who say they support the Tea Party. And Gallup finds more identify themselves as conservative today than did so two years ago.
But fear not. Even after the Occupy movement fizzles completely, something else will soon come along that liberals and the press will grab onto as a sign that their much-hoped-for progressive era has arrived.

"Union-Backed Occupiers on the March — Big Labor Supports National Day of Action, Foment OWS Violence!
 
Winsome young lady enjoys a beverage after arduous protesting day                   Ah-ha! We've found the cause of the 'Flea Outbreak'

The sudden eviction of Occupy Wall Street squatters from lower Manhattan hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of organized labor for their increasingly violent anarchist and neo-communist brethren. The occupiers now say they plan to shut down Wall Street on Nov. 17 and occupy the New York subway. One Occupy Wall Street supporter was captured on video saying radicals plan to “burn New York City to the ground.” The movement that has spread across America is what ACORN’s neo-communist founder Wade Rathke, a former SEIU boss, calls an “anti-banking jihad.” After New York police unexpectedly swooped down on the occupants of Zuccotti Park early in the morning of Nov. 15, organized labor leaders formally reaffirmed their support for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
“You can draw a direct line from the Wisconsin protests in the winter to Occupy Wall Street to the overwhelming rejection of an anti-union ballot question in Ohio,” said Teamsters president James P. Hoffa. “Occupy Wall Street is bringing new energy to a fight that labor has been engaged in from the beginning: The fight for an economy that works for everybody, not just the 1 percent.”
The Teamsters union “wholly supports and endorses Occupy Wall Street and opposes any effort to unreasonably restrict, contain or stop this lawful protest,” the union’s general executive board said in an official resolution. Art handlers who belong to the Teamsters joined with occupiers to protest Sotheby’s in New York a few weeks ago. “The Sotheby’s economy is destroying the lives of too many Americans,” said art handler and Teamsters Local 814 member Sim Jones. The auction house, which the Left now considers to be a playground of the decadent so-called 1 percent, had locked out some of the workers as part of a labor dispute.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has been in the vanguard of the Left’s economic terrorism campaign. SEIU board member Stephen Lerner has been leading an effort to physically intimidate corporate executives in their homes. Not surprisingly, SEIU is still a gung-ho supporter of the occupiers. After Zuccotti Park was cleared, president Mary Kay Henry regurgitated the Left’s talking points. Henry praised what she called the “brave students, unemployed Americans, families and others” participating in the various occupations that have spread to scores of large U.S. cities.
On Nov. 17 SEIU members plan to march “arm in arm with unemployed workers, community members, allied groups and Occupy protesters in support of a great American idea: our nation and our economy should work for everyone, not just the richest 1%.” New protests will help promote Big Labor’s agenda. SEIU plans to join “a National Day of Action for the 99% protesting the failure of politicians in Congress to pass a jobs bill that would have put people back to work fixing thousands of bridges, roads and schools.”
NEWSBOY POST INVESTIGATES: Bet You Haven't Met the Usurper-In-Chief, President Steve Dunham
Newsboy Post Connects the Dots: After investigating the Obama 'Birth Certificate Controversy' for 3 years,
WE have concluded:
[This information conflicts with the data contained on the Obama document — WE stand by our conclusions]
Obama's certificate reads Steve Dunham (his white grandfather Stanley Dunham is likely his biological father from a relationship with an unknown Africanoid, making Obama's mother his half-sister. Yikes! However, we are still open to the possibility that the commie pervert Frank Marshall Davis impregnated the 17-year-old female, Stanley Ann Dunham).This amazing morphing gif makes a good case that the look-alike Davis is Obama's real father. When he was 18 years-old Obama formally espoused Islam when he spent 8 months in Pakistan. In an Ashura ceremony, a dagger was used to cut his scalp from ear to ear — leaving that telltale, damning keloidal scar. Afterwards, he dropped the useage of his Indonesian surnames, his adopted one, Barry Soetoro and Soebarakh (our favorite); and for the first time began going by his latest alias — Barack Hussein Obama II. After examining numerous photographs taken by official White House photojournalist Pete Souza, it appears extensive efforts are made to prevent any scar-revealing photos from being released. Of interest to our investigators, is the appointment of Arun S. Chaudhary; a trusted Pakistani Muslim slugged the "YouTube Guru," who produces all White House in-house propaganda videos and who we feel is instrumental in the video scrubbing of the head scar. We're also looking into Obama's longtime barber, Zariff (uses one name), a Muslim who believes 9/11 was an inside job. And despite Obama's declared deep Christian devotion, he showed his dedication to diversity by bringing Zariff to the White House.
In summary, we are not sorry to report — the current American president is a fraud. If Mr. Trump's people would like to contact our editors, for the right artful deal, we will be happy to provide further details.

If you want to see this MOVIE, download it here: A Question of Eligibility
PDF Report: Obama Eligibility Primer (32 pages)
Download the PDF Report: Here
The forthcoming Book “Where's the Birth Certificate?": Debuts May 17th
WheresTheBirthCertificate.com
Sign the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Petition

Where Did Green-Energy Cash Go? Straight to Campaign Donors — Obama Campaign Backers and Bundlers Rewarded with Green Grants and Loans
NEW BOOK:
 
"Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison" by Peter Schweizer [Excerpt]

By - When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”
Really?
It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.
Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.
These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a “halo effect,” in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It’s not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.
One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.
Another Obama fundraiser positioned to lead the allocation of taxpayer money to Obama contributors was Sanjay Wagle, who served as the managing co-chairman of Cleantech & Green Business Leaders for Obama. Wagle’s day job was as a principal at VantagePoint Venture Partners. After the 2008 election, Wagle joined the Obama administration as a “renewable energy grants adviser” at the Department of Energy.
Jonathan Silver, who would serve as director of the loan programs, had worked in the Clinton administration, first as counselor to the secretary of the interior and later as assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Commerce. Silver’s wife has served as financial director of the Democratic Leadership Council. His business partner, Tom Wheeler, was an Obama bundler, and Wheeler’s wife was an outreach coordinator for the campaign. Silver’s “strategic adviser” was Steve Spinner.
The grants themselves originated in the office of Cathy Zoi, who served as the assistant secretary of energy for efficiency and renewable energy. (Wagle was her adviser.) Zoi had previously worked in the Clinton White House as the chief of staff on environmental policy, then as the CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. You may be thinking, “So what? Why would we expect anything less of political appointees?” But the numbers don’t lie: the recipients of loans and grants were, overwhelmingly, Obama cronies.
The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”
Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again.
Excerpted from the book Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. © 2011 by Peter Schweizer