Obama - If Chrysler Dealers Gave to Republicans They Were More Likely to Be Closed. - Iran - Nuclear Threat

The BOPAC Report:

World Net Daily is reporting that the Chrysler dealerships that were shut down were targeted based on political donations. If they gave to Republicans, they were more likely to be shut down.

OBAMANOMICS
Chrysler's 'hit list' targets GOP donors
Dealers who give to Republicans much more likely to be shuttered
Posted: May 27, 2009
7:54 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

As part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Chrysler is terminating one-fourth of its franchises – but some say its catalog of doomed dealerships looks more like a hit list that specifically seeks to put Republican donors out of business.

Chrysler will now be eligible for up to $8 billion in taxpayer-funded federal aid. The federal government has already provided $8.58 billion to Chrysler and Chrysler Holding between the months of January and May of this year. The Treasury also loaned $1.5 billion to the automaker's lending arm in January.

President Obama has said the bankruptcy will give the company "a new lease on life," after his administration spearheaded a plan requiring the company sell to Italian automaker Fiat. Chrysler's stronger operations will be owned by Fiat, labor and the U.S. and Canadian governments. The sale could close as early as this Friday.

Obama said the bankruptcy would be a "quick" and "efficient" step toward Chrysler's "survival."

"The necessary steps have been taken to give one of America's most storied automakers, Chrysler, a new lease on life," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness."

But WND reviewed the list of 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership majority owners making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates....Continue Reading

The Jerusalem Post has a story that shows how afraid Ahmadinejad is of Obama.

'Iran ups uranium enrichment capacity'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHERAN, Iran
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country has boosted its capacity to enrich uranium, another sign of anti-Western defiance by the leader seeking re-election in a vote next month.
Iranian President Mahmoud...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during a gathering in his electoral campaign for the June 12 presidential elections, in Teheran, Thursday.

Ahmadinejad said last month that Iran had 7,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran. The figure marked a significant boost from the 6,000 centrifuges announced in February. In his latest comments, reported by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Thursday, he did not give a specific new figure.

"Now we have more than 7,000 centrifuges and the West dare not threaten us," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on a small radio station late Wednesday....Continue Reading

In the interest of peace in the Middle East, I would urge the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review all documentation provided on Dr. Orly Taitz's site and take the appropriate actions under the UCMJ. It is very likely that Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

California - Michelle Malkin - Bailout - Compare Your Salary to California Public Employee

The BOPAC Report:
Michelle Malkin has a short but effective post that nails why the rest of tax paying America must not bail out California!

Compare your salary to a California public employee’s
By Michelle Malkin • May 27, 2009 05:49 PM

“Special Nurse:” $350,000+

Municipal railway manager: $325,000+

“Administrative services” department head: $280,000+

And no, the figures do not include pensions and benefits.

And they want you to bail them out?


Please.

Obama - Birth Certificate Issue - Steady Drip - Robert Gibbs - Larry Sinclair - CitizenWells - Philip Berg - Berg v Obama - The Globe - Gay Cover-up!

The BOPAC Report:

From Dr. Orly Taitz comes the following:

Obama eligibility on FOX

Finally a little glimmer of hope. Brett Bair reported on the growing buzz on the internet about Obama’s Eligibility! He even posted the forged birth certificate!! Pres secretary Gibbs was asked about it and he said “Obama already posted a copy on the internet.” Reporter said this is not going away!! Thanks every one ( Orly taitz, Rick Biesada, and other talk show folks for their efforts!! Now is the time to elevate e-mails and protests as the door is opening slightly to the media. Most importanly we must not stop we must RAMP IT UP!!!! thanks from Kirk at nobamaforpresident.com

I agree with Dr. Orly. We must RAMP IT UP!


The Steady Drip explains why Mr. Gibbs is blowing smoke.... It is clear that Obama and Gibbs have not provided anything that conclusively establishes that he was born in Hawaii.

Thursday, May 28, 2009
What kinds of birth records does Hawaii provide?
Exactly what kinds of birth records does Hawaii provide?
Posted by Mijgreb on Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Generally, folks don't know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961.
4. A press release concerning numerous questions raised across the country as to whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen was issued on October 31, 2008 by the Hawaii Department of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
5. In that very carefully worded press release, Dr. Fukino said that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
6. The intentional ambiguity of that statement raises more questions that it answered.
7. That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation across the country over the issue of Obama’s birth and qualifications for the office of the President of the United States, including:
a. The specific type of certificate was not identified. Could it be the certificate for someone born outside of the State of Hawaii?
b. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or an actual “vault” original. If the latter, those are the words used to describe what is there. The data base record could have been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.
c. Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.
8. It should also be noted that in the face of all this litigation, the simple presentation of Obama’s vault birth records would put the questions to rest.
9. Obama has not taken this approach to a single one of the cases, but instead has hired legal counsel across the country at no small expense to defend the claims with motions to dismiss on standing and similar procedural grounds.
10. Such response to the request for proof that he is qualified to serve as President of the United States of America only serves to raise more questions about this election.

SEE: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/please-get-this-straight-aka-obama.html

When the media starts reporting on Obama's probable lack of eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency, maybe they will investigate Larry Sinclair's claims that he and Obama engaged in consensual sex while under the influence of cocaine. Mr. Sinclair also found Robert Gibbs' remarks to be like dancing on the head of a pin while trying to avoid telling the truth.

Thursday, May 28, 2009
WHITE HOUSE PRESS WIND BAG ROBERT GIBBS PLAYS ON WORDS

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary who has repeatedly made out right false claims about so many things, today in response to a question about Obama birth certificate puts the Obama spin on it yet again.

You will note that Robert Gibbs states, "the State of Hawaii provided, with a seal a certificate of birth...."

What Gibby failed to say along with failing to say the State of Hawaii provide a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" is that according to the State of Hawaii a "certificate of birth" IS NOT the same as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE nor does it establish place of birth where required for Hawaii State Identification and/or Hawaii state services.

Obama half-sister Maya Ng has a Hawaii Certificate of Birth yet it is a FACT that she was born in her fathers native homeland of Indonesia. Things that make you go hummmmmmm.

I believe The Globe's next edition will be talking about Larry Sinclair's allegations.

CitizenWells gives an update on Philip Berg's efforts to achieve justice before Obama bankrupts America while trampling the Constitution.

Philip J Berg, Update, May 27, 2009, Press release, Third Circuit Court of Appeals Delays Oral Argument, Berg Appeal regarding No Standing Issue
May 27, 2009 · 32 Comments

From Philip J Berg, May 27, 2009:

For Immediate Release: – 05/27/2009

For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Third Circuit Court of Appeals Delays Oral Argument on
Berg’s Appeal regarding “No Standing” Issue
But Berg is determined to continue his fight to show that
Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President because Obama is “not” natural born as required by our U.S. Constitution
obamacrimes.com is the web site for the truth about Obama

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 05/27/2009) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that he is totally disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has delayed “Oral Argument” in the case of Berg vs. Obama, No. 08 – 4340, the case where Judge Surrick denied Berg’s case on the basis that Berg did not have “standing.”...Continue Reading

Obama - Gay Cover-Up - Globe - Larry Sinclair? - CitizenWells - One for the Good Guys

The BOPAC Report:

The Globe continues to do the heavy lifting for the media. The story the media is trying disparately to hide in order to keep the Obama "Fairy Tale" alive.

Michelle Obama's Fury

FIRST Lady Michelle Obama is spearheading a shocking White House cover-up, insiders say in a blockbuster GLOBE world exclusive. Sources detail the cunning tactics furious Michelle is using to muzzle the man who claims to have had gay sex and cocaine encounters with the President as she battles to protect her husband's image. It's must reading for every American!

Five to one the story is about Larry Sinclair!

CitizenWells is reporting some good news today.

Phil at the Right Side of Life reports:
“Murray v. Geithner: Judge Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss RE: AIG, Sharia Law”

“The Thomas More Law Center had originally filed suit in December of 2008 challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that the Center considers are “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.”

They now report that Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff has denied the Defendant’s (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board) Motion to Dismiss:”

“In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit. The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case. In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.”...Continue Reading

California Marriage - Obama - Establishment Clause - Birth Certificate - Larry Sinclair - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

In light of the court decision in California upholding marriage between one man and one woman, I am posting again Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God because it points to the Establishment Clause as the better way for gay marriage proponents to go. It is also found at Australia.TO with links.

Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God -

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business -

Neither is the Domain of the Federal Government.

This morning I heard Glenn Beck talking briefly about gay marriage, civil unions and the possibility that triad couples (between more than 2 people) could soon start demanding the same rights. After I finished rolling my eyes, I began thinking about the issue and quickly came to the same opinion that I hold concerning gay marriages and marriage in general. Marriage is an issue for the church, consenting adults, and God. If there are some churches that recognize gay marriages, fine (as long they are between freely consenting adults). If there are some churches that recognize marriage between more than two people or communal families, fine (as long as they are between freely consenting adults). I’m not in the religion or morality business as long as actions don’t hurt others or infringe upon their rights.

Why in the world is the government, any government, state or federal, in the business of sanctifying or recognizing any marriage? It has always been clear to me that when government makes it possible for people who are “married” to have benefits and rights (social security or medical decision making) different from “non-married” people, it is a violation of both the equal protection clause (14th Amendment to the Constitution) and the prohibition respecting the establishment of religion (1st Amendment to the Constitution).

Social Security benefits accruing to surviving spouses are probably the main reason people are upset about the federal government not recognizing gay marriage in general. I agree completely that gay and single couples both have a legitimate right to be upset. Where does the idea and definition of marriage come from? It comes from the church. (Particularly churches of the Judea/Christian tradition.)

In this country, the Christian church’s biblical interpretation that marriage is only between one man and one woman is engrained in literature and history as the rule. However today, there are churches that recognize and perform marriages between couples of the same sex, transgender persons, and even between a man and a woman. So, when official government process bestows benefits to those individuals who are in “traditional marriages”, the definition of which was establish by the Judea/Christian beliefs, there is clearly a preference being made for one religion’s or church’s definition of marriage over those found in other religions or churches.

When government goes down the “we benefit you, but not you” path; it sure seems like government is either involved in establishing a particular religion or government is not providing equal protection and opportunity for “single” individuals who wish to consolidate and share their resources as “partners” or “significant others” the same as “traditionally married” people. Government should either benefit people equally or don’t benefit anyone.

If Joe and Mary, or Joe and Sam, or Joe, Mary, & Jane said to the government that we want to pool our social security contributions from this date forward, then every participant’s individual social security contributions would be pooled and the sum would be divided by the number of people involved and that amount would be credited to each person’s individual social security earnings account.

This would allow the stay-at-home mom or dad to make contributions to their individual social security account as if they were “working” (half of the family’s income would be credited to each person in the relationship). It would work the same way for gay couples or communal families. Each person in such an arrangement would have some measure of protection vis-à-vis social security. There would be no surviving spouse benefit because they would have their own social security. Primary income earners or those with a bigger income could direct part of their social security contributions to another’s account because they are committed to the other person (or people) and/or recognize the value of another person(s) non-monetary contributions such as raising children, gardening or taking care of the house.

I would think that most people would not have a problem with such a restructuring of Social Security because the government would be recognizing the limits of its power by saying we are not going to involve ourselves with the definition of the term marriage. Marriage is within the domain of the church, the consenting individual(s), and their God.

It amazes me that the government doesn’t try harder to stay out of the business of limiting the rights of individuals more. It seems like politicians want division so they can play each side off the other and maintain their grip on power. Every time the government and politicians get involved in anything they create fear and uncertainty; and then use that uncertainty to their own advantage. One only needs to look at the current financial mess that the economy is in.

Obama likes to say that he inherited the mess and he is only doing what has to be done. However, the truth is that he and many Democrats in Congress share a great deal of the blame for the economic mess and Obama is using this crisis to get his political objectives accomplished. The entire mess can be traced back to when government (mostly Democrats, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) decided it wanted to get into the business of setting up regulations that created opportunities for groups like ACORN to pressure banks into lending to people who were not able to afford mortgages. This led to many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems; which coupled with packaging these sub-prime assets into financial bundles and selling them round the world; it caused the global house of cards to collapse.

The government was trying to manipulate business RISK principles and it backfired. Banks wound up being in the position of making risky loans that could be sold to the government (or guaranteed) and the bank’s RISK of losing its own money was greatly diminished. It’s a lot easier to play fast and loose with other people’s money.

Market Risk is the Domain of Individuals and Business.

Now, people are getting excited that the stock market appears to be signaling the end of the crisis. Think again. The news of the past few days paints a much bleaker picture. Consider the following:

With passage of Obama’s budget, the government will have to borrow almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The Federal deficit will be greater than 1.8 trillion dollars this year.

Social Security and Medicare financial projections have been revised to reflect that they are going broke sooner than expected. Medicare is already losing money by the truckloads and Social Security will be sending out payments faster than money coming in by 2016. That’s only 7 years away! Congress is not only spending money like drunken sailors but they are also so afraid of risking the votes of senior citizens that they are unwilling to effectively address the Social Security/Medicare problem. (That’s the problem with creating dependency for voter loyalty, the bill always comes due. Then it comes down to who can be blamed. With the American media’s proclivity for supporting Democrats, blame usually finds it way to Republicans regardless of facts to the contrary.)

Last week, the Treasury auction went poorly and Treasury yields soared. This means that the government has to pay much more interest on the amounts they are borrowing.

This week, the government was buying their own securities to bring the yields back down some. Where are the funds coming from to for the Fed to do all this buying? They have the printing presses running overtime. This will, in the not too distant future, damage severely the value of the dollar and cause a substantial rise in inflation. The price of everything will go up and foreign countries will be reluctant to purchase our debt to keep the charade going.

China, who holds a great deal of our debt, will be looking for treasuries paying higher interest in order to entice them to purchase more debt.

The more the government prints money out of thin air, the more the dollar’s value will be affected. There will more money available to buy the same number of goods – causing inflationary pressure. Demand will likely take a downturn once consumers figure out they need to be protecting bank balances. However, with a decline in dollar’s value, it means that many goods will cost more to produce because the materials required for production will cost more. Therefore producers will either need to raise prices, lower profit margins, lower labor costs (lower wages and/or cut jobs), and/or relocate to areas where the costs of production (taxes etc.) are lower. However, even with these actions, consumers may not buy at higher prices (or even current prices) and businesses will go under.

So why are stock going up? I believe that many people are being led to think the crisis is ending by Obama and the media and they want to be in on the bull market. I also believe that many people are moving out of U.S. Securities because the yields are relatively low right now, some stocks price/earnings ratios look attractive comparatively and some investors are starting to believe that Treasuries are too risky and could collapse in the future. I think people are buying stocks because they feel like they are buying something tangible like buildings, machinery, etc. I bet buyers are looking at companies that don’t have high debt to equity ratios. Stocks just look better than most of the other choices right now. Now is the operative word because once interest rates on government securities are forced to rise to 6 or 7%, a lot of investors will shift back trying to stay ahead of the calamity that’s nearly certain to come. This amount of debt and planned taxation is not sustainable.

This crisis can only be overcome by returning to sound economic principles now. Congress and Obama must stop trying to spend and tax our way out of this. The media needs to be telling the story of how to work toward healthy long term economic fundamentals and not just promoting Obama’s plan. Obama’s massive stimulus is a short-term feel good illusion; but like social security, the bill will come due.

The media should encouraging Tea Parties instead of attacking them. The media needs to tell the truth about Obama and his real objectives. The media needs to investigate & report factually about Obama’s eligibility issue, Rezko, Ayers, Larry Sinclair’s allegations, Obama’s associations with ACORN, and the numerous other issues and scandals from Obama’s past. Before America can come together, these questions must be addressed fully. The media generated Obama “fairy tale” must stop because America’s future is at stake. The media needs to tell the truth and report the news.

We need to support companies like Ford who are not feeding off tax payers and taking direction from self-serving politicians. Boycott companies like GM, Chrysler, Citigroup and others who undermine ingenuity and lead America to mediocrity.

Neither marriage nor market risk should be within the domain of the Federal Government.

John Hemeway, Esq. has written an important letter to Rupert Murdoch requesting his support.

May 26, 2009
Exclusive: A Letter to Rupert Murdoch on the Obama Birth Certificate Question

John D. Hemenway, Esq.

Editor’s note: The following is a letter written by John D. Hemenway, Esq. that was sent to NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch via certified mail.

May 14, 2009

Dear Rupert,

You will likely not have retained a clear memory of me from Worcester College in the early fifties. Much time has elapsed from when we both read “P.P.E.” under Asa Briggs and the others. I had looked forward to cementing our friendship when the death of your father caused you simply to “disappear” from those at Worcester.

Much later, during several visits to my Washington, D.C. home, my moral tutor, David Mitchell, filled me in on the magnificent assistance you provided the College. Perhaps you also had something to do with the “Mitchell Building” erected just off Walton Street.

Everyone who shares your views is pleased at the nearly unprecedented success story you have made of your life. I was very pleased when you became an American, even if some persons attributed your motivation as calculated to expand your economic interests. Pure jealousy! You and your accomplishments have been good for us all.

From time to time, I try to keep up with interesting details concerning your news empire. From that reading, I am certain you and I have many opinions in common. I subscribe to the N.Y. Post, which one can acknowledge is “tabloidish,” but describes real N.Y. City life and the Post’s editorial staff certainly offers solid opinions pertaining to U.S. governmental problems. “Fox News” also makes an outstanding contribution to public awareness of the issues confronting the country.

You may recall the vital contribution Worcester’s Provost John Masterman made to the winning of WWII; he was a key figure, as I remember, in organizing the counter-espionage effort against the Nazis. I write you now concerning a problem nearly of that magnitude.

Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, N.Y. Post
1211 Avenue of the America
New York, N.Y. 10036

That problem is this: the man now occupying the White House is likely Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office. As an adopted American, you will have studied the U.S. Constitution better than many Americans, and from P.P.E. studies know that the Constitution has flexible clauses and hard, literal clauses. One of the latter is the requirement of Article II, Section 1, which states: “No person except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President.”

There are indications that Obama cannot meet that requirement. As an attorney, I facilitated a lawsuit (Hollister vs. Soetoro et al.) in the United States District Court (D.C. Circuit) demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate or satisfactory substitute evidence. There are about 20 similar lawsuits across the nation. In my case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson (a Clinton appointee), who summarily dismissed the case, and is rumored to be seeking an Obama appointment, wrote that Obama’s eligibility had been “blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry.” In other words, he accepted internet “blogs” in lieu of actual evidence.

He ordered me to “show cause” why I should not be sanctioned for promotion of a “frivolous” lawsuit. (It is significant that, although dismissed, none of the twenty odd similar legal actions have been designated by the responsible judge as “frivolous.”)

Other lawsuits have usually been dismissed for “lack of standing” including a lawsuit brought by Presidential candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes. If anyone has standing, it is an actual Presidential contender. I provided Judge Robertson 37 pages of explanation as to “why I should not be held in contempt” and he decided to “reprimand” me instead of his threatened sanctions. That case is now under appeal.

Any rational person with even partial knowledge of the facts must know that Obama-cum-Soetoro is desperate to conceal something he does not want known. I believe he is hiding the fact that he and his campaign conspired to assert eligibility for the Presidential office to which he well may not be entitled. In other parts of the world, this would be known as a coup d’etat....Continue Reading

From The Steady Drip we have a good rebuttal to the argument that Obama's birth certificate has been vetted.

Sunday, May 24, 2009
Please get this straight: AKA Obama birth not vetted
Please get this straight:

Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man.

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy is the former Emperor of China. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him....Continue Reading

Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, gives a brief update on the lack of progress on the murder of Donald Young.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE DIVISION AREA 2: No Arrest Has Been Made To Date.

I decided to check with the Chicago Police Departments Detective Division handling the Donald Young murder case to see if they had made any arrest to date. According to the Detective Division for Area 2 no arrest has been made in the December 23, 2007 murder of (Trinity United Christian Church Choir Director and admitted gay lover of Barack Obama) Donald Young.

In addition a call to the office of Chicago Mayor was met with a rude no comment on questions concerning the Mayor's possible involvement in interfering with the Donald Young murder investigation.

Will update you as soon as an arrest is made if ever at this point.

Vice President Cheney Responds to Obama the Appeaser - Atlas Shrugs - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Required reading from Atlas Shrugs (Vice President Cheney's AEI Speech)

Text of Cheney's AEI Speech on National Security

This should be required reading. This is the definition of common sense. Cheney is the very definition of Presidential. The speech is one for the ages. Send it to everyone you know.



Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions=2 0we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize t he policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see th e American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less20disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11.
It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that20tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

Obama - Dollar Losing Ground - Crisis Looms - Michael Savag - Larry Sinclair - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:


The following article is for America's younger voters who supported Obama and are now smiling, playing with their I-Pods - a glass of kool-aid in hand. I advise you to take just a little time to study basic economic/monetary theory because Obama's actions regarding the economy are flushing America's future down the toilet. You need to wake up and let Obama know when you are awake.

Day of reckoning looms for the U.S. dollar

Alia McMullen, Financial Post

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.financialpost.com/usdollar_istock.jpg iStock

The U.S. dollar's day of reckoning may be inching closer as its status as a safe-haven currency fades with every uptick in stocks and commodities and its potential risks - debt and inflation - are brought under a harsher spotlight.

Ashraf Laidi, chief market strategist at CMC Markets, said Wednesday a "serious case of dollar damage" was underway.

"We long warned about the day of reckoning for the dollar emerging at the next economic recovery," Mr. Laidi said in a note.

Mr. Laidi said economic recovery would weigh on the greenback as real demand for commodities, coupled with improved risk appetite, caused investors to seek higher yields in emerging markets and commodity currencies. This would draw investment away from the U.S. dollar, which was dragged down by growing debt and the risk quantitative easing would eventually spark a surge in inflation.

The U.S. dollar slid against most major currencies Wednesday, hitting a five-month low of US$1.3775 against the euro and pushing the Canadian dollar up US1.21¢ to a seven-month high of US87.69¢.

John Curran, the senior corporate dealer at Canadian Forex, said the U.S. dollar would likely fall further in the next week, with the Canadian dollar likely reaching about US88.35¢, at which point it could break higher to test the US92.35¢ level.

"The U.S. dollar is continuing to slide as investor appetite is gaining momentum," Mr. Curran said. "People are getting comfortable about taking on a little more risk."

The rise in the Canadian dollar has moved in lock-step with the improvement in equity markets since March 9. Over this time, the S&P 500 has risen by 34%, the S&P/TSX composite index has gained 35% and the Canadian dollar has increased by 14%, equal to almost US11¢. Since Feb. 18, light-crude oil has risen by 46% to US$62.12.

But as risk appetite and equities improve, Mr. Curran said it was unlikely the U.S. dollar would embark on a long-term decline....Continue Reading

You guys may also want to consider this recent post on NOQUARTER:

Welch on Obama: “He’s Fooling People”

By Larry Doyle

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . ”

Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric scorched Barack Obama’s plans in a presentation yesterday in Boston. Welch, author of Jack, Straight From the Gut, pulled absolutely no punches. Bloomberg reports:

Jack Welch, former chief executive officer of General Electric Co., criticized the government- backed bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC for favoring unions at the expense of creditors and said President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus programs will cause budget deficits.

“I don’t particularly like where he’s taking us,” Welch said, referring to Obama, during an interview yesterday at the Boston Convention Center. Welch, 73, who led GE from 1981 to 2001, was a guest speaker at the New England Business Xpo.

“To get the money he needs, he has to have a fake budget,” Welch said. “He’s fooling people about how we’re going to have the top line support the programs in the middle without enormous taxes and some programs not going.”

Who in Washington and our mainstream media are calling Obama and team on the carpet for this charade? In order for capitalism, free markets, and ultimately democracy to thrive there needs to be accountability and transparency in the process.

We will not achieve the necessary accountability and transparency without serious questioning and rigorous debate on the issues. Given the current makeup of our legislative bodies, the risks to our country are significant. Without a legislative check, the pressure on the media to expose the massive costs - financial and otherwise - of the Obama agenda are paramount. Aside from Bloomberg and typically the Wall Street Journal, what other outlets are holding Obama accountable?...Continue Reading

Michael Savage finds some welcome support.

MEDIA MATTERS
Radio fire ignited to burn Savage ban
Talkers urged to boycott U.K., rally around blacklisted host
Posted: May 20, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling

Bill Cunningham

A well-known right-leaning radio firebrand whose face has become a staple on cable TV news shows has vowed to speak out against the U.K.'s blacklisting of Michael Savage – and he's demanding that the nation's talkers join him.

Bill Cunningham, Cincinnati host of 700 WLW who replaced Matt Drudge on the Sunday night Premiere Radio Network talk show, is best known for being scolded by John McCain after he referred to President Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" during the presidential campaigns. He pledged Sunday to talk about Britain's ban every week on his live show, aired in more than 200 markets, until the U.K. removes Savage's name from its blacklist...Continue Reading

I hope Obama supporters will back Michael Savage in his efforts. I'm not holding my breath, given the way many Obama supporters have been relentless in their efforts to silence Larry Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair is the man who alleges that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999.

Boycott Obama's GM (Government Motors) - Buy FORD - Larry Sinclair - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

As I read and thought about the implications of the following few sentences of this story, I decided that I will not buy another GM product as long as the Federal Government has any control over the company. I will buy either a FORD, Honda, or Toyota for my next car.

Our buying power may be the only vote we have regarding the direction of this country. I for one do not want to support Obama's socialist government in any manner.

Boycott GM and Chrysler! BUY FORD

Feds to inject $7.5B more into GMAC
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- The Treasury Department is preparing to announce as early as today that it will invest an additional $7.5 billion in GMAC LLC in a deal that could allow the U.S. government to hold a majority stake in the Detroit-based auto finance company....Continue Reading

Larry Sinclair also has a story up about Obama's attack on free markets:

CHRYSLER BANKRUPTCY JUDGE PROTECTS UAW BENEFITS WHILE TELLING DEALERS "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.": A Member Of The Obama Regime?

Today the US Bankruptcy Court in New York where Chrysler's bankruptcy was filed, issued orders protecting the United Auto Workers while at the same time telling Chrysler Dealers they were on their own. This action by the US Bankruptcy Judge in New York is just another Obama ass kisser who has become an accomplice to the theft of American Citizens private business property.

The courts action in the Chrysler Bankruptcy makes the below letter of a Florida Chrysler Dealer that much more potent.

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida . My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people....Continue Reading

Obama - Eligibility - Congressman Goodlatte - Prove Eligibility Legislation - Dr. Orly Taitz - Right Side of Life - Mil. Officers - Treason - BOPAC

The BOPAC Report:

I almost missed these two items:

From World Net Daily and Dr. Orly Taitz's site:

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
2nd congressman: Prove eligibility
Virginia representative signs onto plan to demand evidence
Posted: May 13, 2009
11:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Now there are two.

A Virginia congressman, very quietly, has signed onto a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States.

WND earlier reported when freshman Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.-

According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The plan has been referred to the House committee on House administration, where it has remained.

Now, Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte has signed on as a co-sponsor, putting a notice on his website that it's one of the efforts in which he's joining.

"Another man with a spine – there are at least two up there on the Hill," wrote a WND reader who has followed the Posey plan....Continue Reading

From the Right Side of Life:

Military Officers Sign on to Treason Complaint; More Citizen Grand Jury Action
Submitted by Phil on Wed, May 13, 2009
Military Officers Sign on to Treason Complaint; More Citizen Grand Jury Action

As I had reported on May 5, retired Navy Officer Walter Fitzpatrick had officially submitted paperwork to US Attorney Russell Dedrick concerning allegations of treason on the part of President Barack Hussein Obama.

I have since been in communication with Georgia citizen grand jury foreman Carl Swensson and can confirm that two military Officers have agreed to sign on to Mr. Fitzpatrick’s complaint. One of those Officers had the following commentary regarding his sentiments:

Mr. Fitzpatrick:

I will gladly co-sign a letter with you calling on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to initiate the immediate arrest and detainment of the usurper president, Barack Obama, (AKA, Barry Sotoro), Rahm Emanuel, Eric H. Holder Jr., et al; and the immediate removal of all other federal employees who were appointed by the unlawful administration of Barack Obama, alias Barry Sotoro . This action is essential in the immediate interest of US national security. Detainees will be arrested and held on the charge of treason in the time of war....Continue Reading

Obama - Dr. Orly Taitz - Gov. Perry - Gov. Sanford - Tea Party - Eligibility Issue - GICC - Equal Protection - The Preakness - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Dr. Orly Taitz continues her efforts to inform the American public of her conviction that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of the Presidency. I agree.

Dr. Orly suggests an appropriate question in the title of the post:

See if they will talk about the eligibility

Govs Perry, Sanford Host ‘Tea Party 2.0′
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The anti-tax “tea party” protests held April 15 were so successful that two Republican governors are trying a variation of the formula Thursday.

Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina are holding a town hall meeting by way of a telephone conference call to mobilize support for the anti-tax cause, states’ rights and a smaller federal government.

The event is formally called “The Fight for Freedom Call.” Pundits have dubbed it “Tea Party 2.0.”

Each governor will speak for several minutes, and then they will answer caller questions for an hour. The Republican Governors Association expects 30,000 people to listen in.

To participate, see http://thegopcomeback.com/freedom. (Paste into browser)...Continue Reading

To those who criticize the Tea Parties and those who oppose Obama's policies as somehow in lockstep with the Republican Party image the media has tried so hard to create, you are wrong. The vast majority of Tea Party attendees are Democrats, Independents and Republicans who are deeply concerned about issues and the damage Obama is doing to the American economy. I'm sure that attendee's opinions differ on many issues but they have chosen to coalesce around economic concerns.

The media has embraced the role of advocate from Obama for some time now; and as advocates, they try to unjustly portray everyone who opposes Obama's policies as racist bigots/homophobes and ridicule them without concern for the facts. (Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?)

On that note, I would like to thank The Gender Identity Center of Colorado for including the article Marriage is the Domain of the Church and God in the news section of their site. It's a safe bet that 100% of gicofcolo's readers and I would not agree on 100% of the issues; however, I bet most of us agree on Equal Protection. I don't agree with 100% of anyone's views but I respect them (if they are thoughtful and not just parroting what someone told them).

I'm a "fiscal conservative" who believes the Constitution of the United States is just fine, has served America extremely well and should continue to be her road map to the future. On other issues, I prefer not to be pigeonholed.

Now, I need to turn my attention to making my picks for the Preakness.

Obama - CitizenWells - Torture Photos - Atlas Shrugs - Larry Sinclair Boxing - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

CitizenWells has an interesting post up this morning.

Obama
Manchurian Candidate
Part 2
Communist, Soviet, Russian ties

Let’s begin with something simple....Continue Reading

Nancy Pelosi's self-serving versions of truth continues to be called into question:

House No. 2: Explore Pelosi interrogation briefing

By LARRY MARGASAK – 10 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an al-Qaida leader.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding — simulated drowning — and sleep deprivation....Continue Reading

Atlas Shrugs continues to hit hard against Obama's undermining of American intelligence efforts:

Obama Betrays America, Gins Up Jihad: Demonizes Military, Bows to Islam - Will Release Interrogation Photos

Obama to release interrogation photos UPI
WASHINGTON, April 23 (UPI) -- The Obama administration, in an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Thursday it will release photos of alleged abusive interrogations.

At least 44 photographs will be released May 28, the Los Angeles Times reported. While details of the photos have not been reported, some are said to show U.S. military personnel pointing weapons at suspected terrorists during questioning.

Other material the administration is considering releasing includes transcripts of interrogations, a report by the CIA inspector-general and background information on a Justice Department investigation.

Despicable.

The traitor in the White House will release photos of interrogations of jihadis in the spirit of "transparency". If the Mansourian candidate is so interested in transparency, why not release the vault copy of his birth certificate, his school records, transcripts, and who funded his Harvard education. The most dangerous and secretive man ever to hold the oval office speaking of "transparency". That's rich.

And why not heed Dick Cheney's request to release the intelligence that was produced by torture-assisted interrogations. Why is Obama cherry picking only the ugly to release? Dick Cheney insists that those interrogations saved thousands of lives. Who do you believe? ...Continue Reading

Larry Sinclair is dusting off his boxing gloves:

Tuesday, May 12, 2009
OBAMA FAG LARRY SINCLAIR CHALLENGES C**T FAG PEREZ HILTON TO 10 ROUND BOXING MATCH:

I am posting this challenge to the idiot fag Perez Hilton.

Perez Hilton I challenge you to a 10 round boxing match, you can not be save by the bell and the three knock down rule use to end it if I don't knock your clap invested faggot ass out cold first,

So what do you say Perez Hilton: Are you a man faggot or just a big mouth gutless faggot?

All proceeds go to Charity and the winner decides what charity receives them....Continue Reading

Obama - ACORN - Talk Wisdom - A Wink & Nod to Torture - Exempt Firearms from Federal Regulation - The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Talk Wisdom has an interesting post up about Glenn Beck's show and ACORN.

From Talk Wisdom -

The ACORN Eight Story & More [Breaking News!]

I have fast become a great fan of Glenn Beck's T.V. show on the Fox News Channel. How refreshing it is to see this man have the freedom of speech rights as a news analyst (who is also very funny and entertaining, I might add) to discuss the things that many Americans want to hear about - but is either being muzzled or ignored by the rest of the Lamestream Media pundits.

Beck's shows are power-packed with information that the rest of the media refuses to report. I record it each day so that I don't miss one show. It also helps to be able to rewind and view again when blogging about an issue!

Today's show [Nice Deb has the videos!]
is one that must not be missed! Glenn will have seven of the eight former ACORN board members who, up until now, have not been given any platform to tell their stories about their former involvement with ACORN. During Glenn's show, we will get the inside story (that others don't seem to want to touch with a ten foot pole!) and they will have the chance to express their opinions, concerns, and reasons why they believe that this organization has been highly corrupted.

Yesterday, Kevin Mooney of the Washington Examiner was a guest on Glenn's show. He reiterated the fact that ACORN has nefarious ties to SEIU. Mooney also reported that after his story came out in the newspaper, the SEIU took down their online link to ACORN. Hmmm....

Glenn is right! There is MUCH MORE CORRUPTION going on with these groups than has already been revealed by the lawsuits against ACORN in twelve states for voter registration fraud.. And, the fact that Obama was once a prominent "community organizer" involved with ACORN for years, it will be interesting to see what the former ACORN employees have to say about the time when ACORN changed from being a good organization into its current highly corrupted management....Continue Reading

Thanks go to AustraliaTo for putting up my latest article.

A Wink & Nod to Torture

Will Spain Genuflect to Obama’s Misdirection?

Recently, I wrote an article concerning the Democratic left’s (Obama & Harold Koh) misguided infatuation with transnationalism, its undermining of American sovereignty and how transnationalism vis-à-vis unforeseen international actions/prejudices could jeopardize Obama’s precarious hold on the Presidency. I basically warned Mr. Obama that he should be careful what he wished for because he might just get it. Now, the transnational view from the Oval Office reveals more thunder clouds gathering several hundred miles behind the Azores in Spain.

In the Obama Transnational Irony, I recounted…a news article that indicated that “Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay.“...Continue Reading

The Right Side of Life has a post up about State initiatives concerning firearms, the 2nd Amendment and Commerce Clause that we should following and supporting:

MT State Rep Introduces Bill to Exempt Firearms from Federal Regulation (2nd and 10th Amendments)
Submitted by Phil on Wed, Feb 4, 2009

Here is a completely different take on States’ rights, brought about by Montana State Rep. Boniek (HB 246).

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

Update: Here’s an update from BozemanDailyChronicle.com via the StatesRightsReview blog.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”...Continue Reading

This Second Amendment and State Sovereignty protection strategy is also occurring in Alaska.

Gun owners pack meeting
By Dante Petri | Peninsula Clarion

It should come as no surprise that when guns are on the table in this community, the room doesn't empty, but fills.

That was the case Tuesday night at the Soldotna Sports Center, where guns might not have literally been on any tables, but they certainly were up for discussion.

More than 200 people packed into the meeting room for the Second Amendment Task Force meeting, an event locally spearheaded by Bob Bird, of Nikiski, a Nikiski Middle-High School social studies teacher, and most recently a candidate for U.S. Senate.

Bird explained to the crowd early on that the assembly was not politically based, saying, "This is not the National Rifle Association, this is not the Gun Owners of America, this is not a political party."

"We're here because we sense that our right to keep and bear arms is being threatened," he said....

...They've also pushed for the passage of the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act, HB186, that exempts from any federal regulation a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that's manufactured in the state, as long as it remains in the state.

Cox explained that the commerce clause is the only way the federal government can regulate guns and this would exempt them....

Continue Reading