Dead cat on the line – Something suspicious or ‘fishy’ is going on…

Where’s PETA? The Obama administration is massacring “proverbial” cats at a rate that can only be described as an abomination (Obamanation?). This administration will one day be looked upon with the same disdain currently reserved for the likes of William “Boss” Tweed and the corruption of Tammany Hall. In fact, Obama and his Chicago thugs are starting to make Tammany Hall look like the work of amateurs! The latest outrage from the “Corruptocrat in Chief” stems from the blatantly illegal firing of the AmeriCorps Inspector General. Yet another scandal is brewing that has the putrid odor of…a dead cat on the line.

AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin was dismissed last week from his position by President Obama who claimed he no longer had confidence in this Inspector General. Just what is it that caused the President to lose his confidence? Competence perchance? Gerald Walpin was guilty of doing his job well, perhaps too well, for his own good. He dared to question the eligibility of the largest and most expensive AmeriCorps program, and also questioned the “propriety” of a settlement made with a mayor, and friend of President Obama, over the misuse of AmeriCorps funds. Essentially, Walpin audited two taxpayer subsidized programs and found a considerable number of violations that included lapses in criminal background checks, misuse of funds and “pervasive problems of eligibility, timekeeping and documentation.”

While investigating the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the research foundation of the City University Of New York (CUNY), Walpin’s office discovered duplicative educational awards of over $16 million and and undocumented costs of $775,000. CUNY refused to return the excess funds and also refused to revise the procedures that led to their drawing of the excessive funds. CUNY also refused to provide documentation that would verify that its AmeriCorps participants even existed! As a result, Walpin reasonably advised AmeriCorps parent organization, The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), to cut off any further funding and to re-examine all past government funding provided to CUNY. Since they have received $75 million in government grants, there is a potential cornucopia of fraud and abuse yet to be discovered.

The second program Walpin’s office challenged was the non-profit St. HOPE academy, run by Obama friend and supporter Kevin Johnson. The former NBA star is now the Democrat mayor of Sacramento, California. In a report released in May 2009, Walpin’s office exposed a settlement that the U.S. Attorney’s Office arranged with Johnson and his deputy, Dana Gonzalez. This settlement reeks of the kind of political cronyism we have come to expect in the short time Obama has been in office. Johnson and Gonzalez exploited $900,000 in AmeriCorps funds for personal and political gain. Based on Walpin’s findings, the CNCS suspended their access to federal funds when it was revealed they had six major violations which included:

1. Using AmeriCorps members to “recruit students for St. HOPE Academy.”

2. Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the “Sacramento Board of Education election.”

3. Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services “personally benefiting Johnson,” such as “driving him to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.

4. Improperly using AmeriCorps members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services that were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible for the benefit of St. HOPE.

However, in the aftermath of both Johnson’s victory in the mayoral election and President Obama’s election in November, the U.S. Attorney’s Office rushed to arrange a settlement with the new mayor so that he would be able to qualify for even greater funds being made available in the Obama stimulus bill. In April of this year, the new acting U.S. Attorney, Lawrence Brown, settled the case, requiring St. HOPE Academy to pay $423,836.50,  $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson. Walpin complained that he had not been consulted on the settlement.

Walpin charged that AmeriCorps made a “180-degree turnaround” on the circumstances in the case “based on the change of circumstances of Respondent Johnson, who had, after directing St. HOPE’s misuse of the grant funds provided to it and receiving the suspension notice, become Mayor of Sacramento. The suspension was lifted because, as one Corporation official put it, the Corporation could not ‘stand in the way of Sacramento’ — thereby effectively stating that, while Respondent Johnson was not sufficiently responsible to receive further Federal funds in his management position as a grantee, he suddenly became sufficiently responsible when elected Mayor of a city receiving substantially more federal funds…”

Walpin said this was “akin to deciding that, while one should not put a fox in a small chicken coop, it is fine to do so in a large chicken coop!”

Walpin charged that the settlement “sends the signal that acceptance of a grantee or its principal as ‘responsible’ can be purchased in a monetary settlement, overriding all evidence of wrongdoing previously found to warrant a suspension, without the presentation of any contradicting evidence.” -ABC News

According to the law, the President must give Congress 30 days’ notice and he must provide the reason before removing any Inspector General. The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for Inspector Generals, who are tasked with the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies. This law was passed to prevent interference by political appointees or the White House. In this Act is a requirement that the President give Congress 30 days’ notice BEFORE dismissing an Inspector General. The firing of Inspector Walpin, in violation of this requirement, is particularly distressing because one of the co-sponsors of the Act was Senator Barack Obama. It is one of the few pieces of legislation to bear his name, and yet one in which he chose to willfully violate!

According to Republican Senator Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel’s office on Wednesday. Walpin was told that he had one hour to resign or be fired. Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, “the answer that was given was that it’s just time to move on. The President would like to have someone else in that position.” Walpin, displaying the kind of spine we have seen far to little of in resisting this administration’s thuggery, declined to resign.

“I was troubled to learn that Wednesday night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated. As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. His independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.” -Senator Charles Grassley, in a letter to President Obama

According to Grassley’s version of events, the White House first tried to intimidate Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House notified Congress of the President’s intention to fire Walpin. Why is the president doing this and why is he attempting to do it so quickly? It appears Obama is firing Walpin over his investigation of Kevin Johnson, a prominent supporter of the President. As we have seen with the selection process for closing Chrysler dealerships, not being a supporter of Obama will be swiftly punished. However, “right thinking” Obama supporters, it appears, will be just as quickly defended and rewarded.

For its part, the White House went on to confirm that it decided to fire Inspector General Walpin because of the Kevin Johnson/St. HOPE affair. In a letter sent Thursday night to Senator Grassley, White House counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint lodged by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, accusing Walpin of misconduct in the St. Hope investigation.

The Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the President’s decision was carefully considered.” -Gregory Craig

In the referral which Craig mentioned, U.S. attorney Lawrence Brown accused Walpin of conducting a biased investigation and seeking “to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.” Brown was particularly angry that Walpin’s office had talked with the press at various times in the St. HOPE investigation. Brown asked AmeriCorps to investigate Walpin’s behavior.

In his response, Walpin wrote that several of Brown’s points were flat-out wrong and he reveals the process by which St. HOPE will supposedly return about half of the $850,000 grant it received from AmeriCorps. Walpin accused the U.S. attorney’s office of undermining his attempt at “suspension and debarment.” That procedure would prevent the organization from receiving any further federal money.

According to Walpin, the U.S. attorney’s office resisted efforts to get St. HOPE to repay the money.  Even though AmeriCorps inspector general officials had found “six specific instances of diversion and misuse of AmeriCorps grant funds,” and even though Kevin Johnson never “submitted a single fact to dispute those findings,” the U.S. attorney, according to Walpin, insisted that the settlement agreement forbid suspension or debarment.

Further, according to Walpin, even with the settlement agreement as it now exists, there is little hope the government will ever get any of its money back. “As St. HOPE is insolvent, the absence of any obligation imposed on…[Kevin Johnson], and the absence of any guarantee or security to ensure payment, makes the settlement a farce,” Walpin wrote. “Mr. Brown knows,” Walpin concluded, “that the settlement agreement was carefully drafted so that no obligation is imposed on Mr. Johnson to pay to AmeriCorps a single penny of the amount supposedly to be paid to AmeriCorps by St. HOPE.” -Washington Examiner

That was just the first exchange of charges and counter-charges resulting from the White House’s first public statement of its reason for firing Walpin. Unfortunately, President Obama’s charisma was insufficient to satisfy many on Capitol Hill, including Democrats.

“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.” - Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

In an attempt to further dig itself into a hole, the White House came up with still another reason for terminating the Inspector General:

“Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.” -White House letter

Yea, that clears things right up doesn’t it? Somehow, despite the fact that this alleged behavior occurred at a board meeting, there doesn’t appear to be a witness to corroborate this accusation. Further, the White House requested Inspector General Walpin to give a public presentation two days after the alleged episode of disorientation. Why would you ask a “confused” man to make a public speech? A speaking engagement he apparently made without any incident of “confusion” or “disorientation.” The Obama administration apparently is willing to engage in the politics of personal destruction, complete with mudslinging and false allegations. It is, after all, the Chicago way. When pressed on the matter, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn’t back down:

“These were views that were held by many people as part of that board, and certainly the administration stands behind what’s in the letter.” -Robert Gibbs

It’s really quite simple. The AmeriCorps Inspector General accuses a prominent Obama friend and supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. No one has denied or contested these findings. The prominent Obama friend and supporter even agrees to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Although, being insolvent, this almost certainly will not come to pass. The reward for offending Obama’s supporters is a swift termination of the AmeriCorps Inspector General. And, lest we forget, all of the criminals involved here are still eligible to receive future federal dollars! Its good to be king isn’t it Mr. President?

DON’T STAND IN THE WAY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION…

…OH YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT…

BUT DON’T DO IT!

---

There’s a dead cat on the line. I was first acquainted with this old adage in the early 90’s while living in Augusta, Georgia. Apparently it is an old expression referring to the likelihood that something, somewhere is wrong. Very wrong. I thought about this expression after Chrysler  (soon followed by General Motors) announced they would be closing down many of their dealerships. Since these are “franchise” operations that do not represent significant, if any,  expenses for the company, but instead represent streams of revenue, it seemed mighty strange that they would have a desire to close any of them. To the contrary, they should be encouraging as many of these businesses as possible to stay open since they represent the public face of the company during this economic downturn that has created such a malaise for the auto industry. Instead of putting the best face they can to the public, they have curiously chosen to do exactly the opposite and essentially lower their public profile. There certainly seems to be a dead cat on the line…and there is.

There are just too many things that don’t make sense. It isn’t just the unjustifiable business decision to cut operations that don’t affect the costs of the company’s business. It is also the process of selecting the dealerships to be closed. It is particularly suspicious that many of the dealerships selected for elimination are among the most successful operations within the Chrysler network. Many of them have been Chrysler and Dodge dealers for decades. What possible justification could they have for closing down successful dealerships that represent the very lifeblood of their company’s existence? Not only are they choosing to reduce the flow of cash into their company, they are doing so in the midst of a recession that has been particularly disastrous to the auto industry. Is somebody missing a cat?

Some of the dealerships that got the axe are telling stories that raise considerable doubt that there were ever any economic reasons for this process and that there was, instead, a political motivation. One dealership slated for closing in Alvin, Texas, increased its new car sales 50% in the first four months of 2009! How can you rationalize closing a dealer who is increasing sales while in the throes of the worst recession since the 1970’s? As it turns out, this story is not unique. Successful and highly profitable dealerships have all too often been the ones selected for elimination. Smell a dead cat?

As you dig into this you find that there is evidence to suggest that dealers selected for elimination tended to be ones who are affiliated with, or donated money to, the Republican party and its candidates. Coincidence? When the the list of 789 closing franchises is compared to the list of  political donors making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gave to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates. The franchise owners selected for dealership elimination contributed over $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP, while $7,970 was donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $2,200 was given to John Edwards’ campaign. By comparison, Barack Obama received a mere $450 in donations! Dead cat found.

Some of the dealers on the hit list jump right out at you:

“Vern Buchanan is a Republican Congressman from the Tampa Bay area. Robert Archer is the son of former Republican Congressman Bill Archer. John Culberson, a libertarian-leaning Conservative, is now the Congressman for that West Houston District. He was heavily supported in his election efforts by the Archers Family. Additionally, James Crowley, owner of a Chrysler Dealership in Escondido, California is on the list to be closed. Crowley is a big backer of libertarian-leaning Republican Cong. John Campbell of Orange County.”

The list is heavy with influential Republicans and libertarians. Another name on the list is Ray Huffines, who owns a large dealership in the Metro-Dallas/Ft. Worth area. The Huffines family have been major contributors to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) over the years…- American Thinker

Republican candidates – and Other GOP contributors include Michael Maroone, a dealer in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. He gave $20,000 to the Florida Republican Party, $12,700 to the Republican National Committee and $2,300 to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Likewise, Menomonee Falls, Wis., dealer Russ Darrow and his family gave $19,000 to the Republican National Committee, $6,029 to the Wisconsin Republican Party, $2,300 to John McCain and $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani. Bedford, Texas, dealer Eric Grubbs gifted $11,500 to Mike Huckabee, $4,600 to Rudy Giuliani, $6,500 to Texas Republican Congressional Committee, $1,085 to the RNC and $500 to National Republican Congressional Committee. Midlothian, Va., dealer Max Pearson donated $18,000 to National Republican Senatorial Committee, $6,900 to the RNC, $6,900 to John McCain, $3,600 to Virginia Republican Party and $1,000 to National Republican Congressional Committee.

The list continues with more than 60 political donors who are scheduled to lose their franchises – many of whom gave thousands of dollars to only seven dealers who contributed a total of less than $12,000 to the Democratic Party and its candidates. -World Net Daily

Another blogger, Doug Ross, also reviewed patterns on the closure list and noticed the trend.

“I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once on the list,” he wrote. “And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates.”

Jim Anderer, another of the disposed dealers, told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he doesn’t understand why Chrysler is shutting down his Long Island dealership because, he claims, it is quite profitable with sales volume ranking in the top 2 percent of the company.

“They won’t tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won’t give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense. This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they’re telling me there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Anderer also said Chrysler told him they want to combine their stores and that dealers cost the manufacturer money to stay in business.

“In the dealers that they cut, there seems to be no cohesive way that they did it. There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, ‘Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.’ They didn’t do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with.”

George C. Joseph, a Dodge dealer for over 35 years who employs over 50 people in his Melbourne, Florida franchise claims his operation is financially profitable, yet he too was selected for closing. Likewise he is not happy about it:

“On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009.”

He later went on to say that without his franchise, his facility can no longer perform any service warranty work. This even includes vehicles sold by his establishment while still a licensed franchise operator! This he says has the effect of rendering his $300,000 parts inventory worthless. Also, Chrysler is not required to buy back tools, parts or…vehicles from from the dealers it has terminated under these negotiated bankruptcy rules. The Obama administration, without any constitutional authority, has intervened and negotiated these terms in typical Chicago gangland fashion. The dealers have been made an offer they can’t refuse.

“This is a private business, not a government entity. This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through no fault of our own. We did nothing wrong.” - George C. Joseph

Chrysler was forced into bankruptcy by the Obama administration who took it upon themselves, with no legal authority, to manage the distribution of assets. He forced a deal that bypassed the bondholders, who actually invested money in the company, and gave a preferential deal to the United Auto Workers that made them the majority owners of the company. This, in and of itself, was nothing less than a political payoff to a union that generously supported him in the election. The decision making process that is closing down these dealerships appears to be a blatant political hit against the president’s enemies. No democrat ever need raise the spectre of Richard Nixon and his enemies list ever again!

“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.” - Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates,
who represents some of the terminated dealers

According to one of the discarded dealers Chrysler is already shopping for dealers to open franchises left by the eliminated dealers. Now why would you do that? This is just a political massacre designed to clear the landscape of political “undesirables” and replace them with dealers that meet with this administration’s approval. We have seen this particular brand of socialism before in 1930’s Germany. All of these actions are being done out in the open and all of them are totally illegal. Where is the media? Now we are starting to hear stories about how THEY are scared to offend this administration for fear of reprisals against them. Divine Justice, perhaps, but it does not bode well for our future.

“So we are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help GM succeed. What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM.” -President Barack Obama

Hot on the heels of the great Chrysler swindle, our president has yet again authored a bankruptcy to his own political advantage. Unlike the Chrysler deal, he has chosen to give the United States government 60% ownership of the restructured GM. And why not? GM is a considerably more valuable asset than Chrysler so why not keep that one for himself. Like the Chrysler deal, the secured bondholders were illegally placed behind the government and the UAW in the division of assets and ownership. Of course GM has been ordered to close hundreds of dealerships as well. Does anyone believe the GM closings are any less politically motivated than the Chrysler ones? He claims he does not want to run GM even as he is doing exactly that. He’s getting away with it too! What are we going to do about it?

This is a totally illegal nationalization of a private industry. However it sits well next to his ever growing collection of banks and insurance companies and is soon to be joined by the health care system and, perhaps, California. Is it any wonder such luminaries of leftist evangelical socialism are turning green with envy? Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro may soon find themselves to be more conservative than President Obama!

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.” – Hugo Chavez

There’s a dead cat on the line alright…

Scientists, not unlike journalists, are arrogant people. No, its not because they are, as some would have you believe, smarter than the rest of us. It really has more to do with their perceptions of their reputations. Science, we are repeatedly told, is concerned with facts and data and therefore it is supposedly immune to the sort of criticism leveled at the likes of politicians and clergymen. Unfortunately, scientists are, in fact, human and therefore susceptible to the same biases and temptations that befall the rest of us. Is it then shocking to find out that scientists would cast their “precious” reputations before swine and bias their research in favor of a particularly desired outcome, especially if by doing so they would gain both fame and the financing needed to continue their pursuits? Of course not.

The fact is, we have seen politics invaded by science all too often lately. Or is it the other way around? Sometimes it can get really hard to tell who is the whore and who is the customer. We have seen this a lot lately in the political discourse over so-called man made global warming. There are billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars at stake over public policy that is being debated to combat what is essentially a scientifically superficial fraud. The legislation now being considered in congress is nothing more than a redistributionist scheme to extract wealth from the private sector and place it in the control of the government. More scientists are coming out every day against the idea that any change in the climate is due to the actions of mankind or, more importantly, that any action taken by mankind could or should reverse it. Yet, experts who contest the concept of man-made global warming are not even being allowed to bring their arguments into the Democratically controlled congress’s debates on the issue. The game is being rigged and a sympathetic media is going along with it. There is still hope that this Cap and Trade swindle will be stifled by congressmen from energy producing states acting in their own self-interest. But who knows? In Obama’s world anything that generates economy destroying debt is seen as the “collective good.”

And how about the fiasco over embryonic stem cell research? We recently watched as the current president excoriated the previous one as being unfriendly to science because he failed to fund new lines of embryonic stem cell research. This, in spite of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has been a considerable failure compared to the research being done with adult stem cells. This entire episode is nothing more than a political sideshow in the continuing debate over abortion and the definition of an embryo as human life. The politics and the science is being intertwined into an unnecessary moral dilemma. One that, from a purely scientific point of view, should be resolved with the successes of adult stem cell research. But why put an end to a good fight?

It should therefore come as no surprise to find out that the politically motivated science of progressive social engineers has yet again been derailed from its devious and deceptive tracks. This time it is the myth that homosexuality is genetically inherited that is coming unravelled. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the progressive’s favorite lies is being scientifically destroyed. And not a moment to soon.

Many people today believe that homosexuality is part of a homosexual’s construction from the moment of conception. This idea that homosexuality is both a genetic and permanent condition has been promoted by both homosexual activists and a fawning media. One example often promoted by the media is this from a brochure issued by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1998 that stated:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

There is only one problem with that. It is not, and never has been, true. The truth is that such statements are, and always have been, part of a massive homosexual propaganda campaign designed to deceive the public into accepting homosexual behavior as natural and normal. It was neither, and many of us have said so all along. However, by taking control of the debate and framing homosexuality as non-choosable and inherited, it became possible to refer to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda as a bigot. A nice weapon to wield if you can get away with it. Unfortunately the real science of genetic research was always unwilling to go as far as the propaganda, as evidenced by this from Science Magazine in 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. “Unfortunately,” says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, “it’s hard to come up with many” findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. “…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.”

In other words, it is not as simple as the journalists and activists implied. They had a result they desired and proceeded to look for some science to back it up. In the meantime they were willing to stretch the inconclusive results into unsubstantiated data that would support their desired conclusion. That conclusion being that homosexuals are born and not the product of any “environmental” influences. How damning it is then that the APA, after years of research deliberately looking for this mythical “gay gene,” would be forced to change their statement on homosexuality to this:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

Although they declined to reveal the particulars of the research that made them change their position it is resoundingly clear that all efforts to prove that homosexuality is biologically and genetically transmitted have failed. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY GENE!

The MAJORITY of scientists now believe that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social and biological factors, as the following statements on the matter can attest:

“Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.” -American Psychological Association

“At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality is that multiple factors play a role.” -Simon LeVay, “Gay Brain” researcher

“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality.” -Dennis McFadden, University Of Texas neuroscientist

“I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” -Steven Goldgerg, Sociologist

“If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.” - Douglas Abbott, University of Nebraska

All of this information is documented by The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH also has this to say about a term often used by proponents of homosexuality: “homophobia”:

“The term ‘homophobia’ is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled ‘homophobia.’”

Homosexuality makes for strange bedfellows. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual. However, if we take this new Hate Crimes legislation to its natural conclusion, could not scientists who argue that homosexuality is not an inborn trait be considered guilty of violating the Hate Crimes legislation also? Homosexuals consider ANY criticism of them as hate speech so certainly if they decry the words of God from the Bible they must assuredly decry the words of scientists who fail to support their agenda. Something to consider as well is why we should allow such legislation to pass at all as it clearly is aimed at protecting behavior and not people. Perverse and un-natural behavior at that!

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center For People and the Press, attitudes about homosexuals have changed significantly over the last 22 years. This is especially true among people who consider themselves to be religious. There is a trend toward more tolerance towards homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage. This can be entirely attributed to the homosexual activists and their use of propaganda to deceive the public into viewing their “plight” as a civil rights issue. It is not. Their entire campaign has been built on deliberately misleading, and at times, entirely fabricated science. These lies are now being exposed. There is nothing virtuous about tolerating, supporting or endorsing homosexuals or homosexual behavior. If you are one of those who were led to believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are a victim of this deceptive propaganda machine. Be a victim no more.

All of this has to be devastating to homosexual advocates, and it would be, if the media would report any of it. Like the also less that scientifically valid theory of Evolution, some science is too politically important to allow the facts to interfere with the agenda. The theory of evolution is nothing more than a cog in the progressive religion of “multiculturalism” that is used to justify every social engineering scheme the socialist left favors. Genetic homosexuality, by contrast, is considered to be a poison to the only religion that can compete with theirs…Christianity. And to think these are the people who argue that they favor science over religion…

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then somewhere (hell, perchance?) Joseph Goebbels is basking in celebration. Certainly the infamous propaganda minister for The Third Reich has to be proud of the Obama administration’s bold use of his tried and true tactics of mass deception. Coordinated and “manufactured” stories and pseudo-events pour through the media daily, all in deliberate lockstep with the “Community Organizer In Chief’s” agenda to remake Amerika into a socialist/fascist state more susceptible to deception and, ultimately, control. Consider these headlines which appeared in newspapers across the country on April 7th and 8th, 2009:

 

• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6
- List directblue@blogspot.com

There are considerably more examples than this but I think you get the idea. All of these stories were “supplied” by an organization called “Families USA.” Actually they are nothing more than one of many liberal/progressive advocacy groups working under the larger umbrella of something that calls itself the “Progressive States Network.” And who, praytell, would you imagine that they receive their orders from? Why none other than our good friends at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).

Incidentally, aren’t these the same people who are attempting to backdoor engineer the so-called “fairness doctrine” under the concept of “localism?” Yet none of these stories that appeared all across the country in “local” media sources were actually generated locally. Oh, the hypocrisy of the progressive/socialist left!

“I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.” -Barack Obama

President Obama made this claim during the campaign that got him elected. Now he has initiated the propaganda campaign that he hopes will help him to fulfill that promise. Unfortunately, as with most propaganda campaigns, accuracy, honesty and truth take a back-seat to partisan objectives. The mainstream media, an active participant in the Obama propaganda machine, continues to tout the figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance. However, as always, this figure is both misleading and distorted. Data from the Census Bureau reveals:

• 9.5 million people are illegal aliens.
• 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance.
• 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance.

Not particularly the kind of uninsured “victims” that the American people should be enthusiastic enough to overhaul their entire medical apparatus just to rescue are they? Why do so many people CHOOSE not to get health insurance that they CAN afford? Because 60%  reported being in “excellent health or very good health” and purposefully decided not to buy insurance, a not unreasonable choice. Once we subtract these willfully uninsured from the original number we are left with approximately 20 million uninsured, that less than 7% of the population! Does 93% of the population really want to jeopardize the best health care system in the world over something that is most definitely NOT a crisis? There are ways to help the remaining uninsured that do not involve such a radical response as this president is proposing. The “crisis” in health care is false. You want to improve the system? Put limits on the judgements one can recieve for a malpractice/negligence lawsuit. However, since almost EVERYONE in government is a lawyer, and they tend to profit from such litigation, I wouldn’t hold my breath for such tort reform.

The new U.S. Propaganda ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream media) doesn’t satisfy itself with the mere misrepresentation of facts. Deliberately manufactured events and photo opportunities are just as useful in portraying our new president as something other than what he is. A recent “surprise visit” (c’mon “Clockwork Orange” fans) by the president to visit the troops in Iraq was plastered in the media all around the world. If you believed your lying eyes you thought the troops were elated to see the president. They were cheering and gathering around him in much the same way as they did for his predecessor who was very popular with them. The Associated Press expressed it thusly:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq. He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war. - AP

But alas, you didn’t see what you thought you saw. As it turns out the entire event was no “surprise visit” at all, but was instead a thoroughly planned and orchestrated event. When the curtain is pulled back we learn that all of the soldiers that were invited to greet the president on this fabricated “surprise visit” were, in fact, questioned beforehand so that only those who revealed themselves as having voted for Obama would be in attendance.

That wonderful cheering welcome that President Obama received with his unscheduled surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, was entirely a staged event. The troops were interrogated beforehand, with those military members who had voted for President Obama given identical digital cameras and placed in front of the media cameras covering the event. - Minority Report

Uh-Oh…

A sergeant who was there explained the subterfuge. “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.” - Minority Report

Isn’t it strange that all these soldiers managed to have their cameras with them when the president “surprised” them with his visit? And don’t they all look remarkably similar? Isn’t that curious considering the plethora of different cameras there are on the market? But really, has this administration shown any competence at ANYTHING? Why would we presume they would be all that good at deception?

Do you remember that episode of the classic TV show “The Brady Bunch” where Greg Brady was made into a rock star because he fit the suit that the record company already had? They even hired girls to attack him everywhere he went so he would look like a star. Barack Obama’s presidency is playing out much the same way. Everything is controlled and contrived, and he is not going to deviate from the pre-arranged plan. It worked to get him elected and as long as he keeps the mainstream media in his pocket, he hopes he can continue to manipulate public opinion through these deceptions. And boy does he have the media in his pocket!! Consider these recently revealed facts from the Center For Media & Public Affairs:

Total network news coverage for the first 50 days:

Obama 27 hours- 44 minutes– Reporting 58% Positive
Bush 7 hours- 42 minutes — Reporting 33% Positive
Clinton 15 hours- 2 minutes– reporting 44% Positive

Obama’s news coverage for the first 50 days:

CBS 10 hours 46 minutes — Reporting 58% Positive
NBC 9 hours 38 minutes — Reporting 61% Positive
ABC 7 hours 20 minutes — Reporting 57% Positive

Fox- Bret Baier 10 hours 24 minutes ( from the first 30 minutes of the show)–
Reporting 13% Positive

I would like to say these numbers are surprising but, unfortunately, we all knew this to be true. However what IS surprising is how blatantly and shamelessly journalists have sold their integrity. And for what? Like Esau in the famous Bible story, it would appear to be for food! Well, maybe not for food but certainly the transaction did take place over dinner. A recent report from Howard Kurtz revealed that David Bradley of the Atlantic Monthly has been, for over a year, regularly hosting dinners that allow certain elitist journalists to mingle with A list members of the Obama campaign and administration. These exclusive dinners are ongoing even as his campaign has become his administration. Who are these elitist journalists that merit invitations to these exclusive dinners?

“Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC’s David Gregory, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley’s Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch.” - Washington Post

And you wonder how Obama gets such favorable reporting!! Don’t be too impressed by all those polls that show Obama to have a high approval rating either. Numbers and statistics are even easier to manipulate than journalists…and they eat less! Barack Obama first conquered the media and effectively made them into his propaganda ministry. They have a lot invested in him. They need him to succeed to cover their own a**es. Those polls that originate from media sources reflect a higher opinion of Obama than the more respectable (and accurate) polls used to track elections. He is not nearly as well approved of as is being reported. But remember, according to the media in Germany during WW II, they were always winning the war, even as the American and Russian armies were destroying their country. When your entire government is built on a foundation of deception and manipulation, you cannot ever abandon those methods. Certainly Joseph Goebbels would approve of Obama’s methods. But then again, both Joseph Goebbels AND Barack Obama are…SOCIALISTS!!

Der Angriff (meaning “The Attack” in English) was a newspaper founded in 1927 by Joseph Goebbels.

You can’t make this stuff up. Even as the American taxpayer is being awakened from his slumber of tolerance for the outrage that is the Obama agenda, the “Parasite in Chief’s” faithful supporters insist on demanding their “right” to the fruits of other’s labor. The John Galt and “Tea Party” phenomena that are sweeping across America is sadly, if unsurprisingly, not being reported by the mainstream media who seem to think only the rage of the “entitlement” class is newsworthy. Yet what the media fail to perceive is the amount of anger that these so called “civil disobedience” demonstrations provoke in the Americans whose work and assets must be taxed in order to satiate the appetite of ACORN and their socially engineered parasites. Read for yourself and watch your anger rise as well…

LOS ANGELES — A school board meeting turned into a display of civil disobedience Tuesday as about 50 educators refused to leave, creating a brief standoff with police, who refused to make any arrests in the presence of media.

The members of ACORN and United Teachers Los Angeles — all wearing bright red shirts — entered the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education meeting on Tuesday afternoon, sat down and began chanting. Police said the protesters were staging an illegal occupation of a public building. The district said no arrests would occur as long as members of media were in building.

UTLA President A.J. Duffy approached the speakers’ lectern and told the board, “You know why we’re here. You know I’m not leaving this rostrum. You know I’m going to keep talking.” As he spoke several teachers sat on the floor in front of the board and held up signs saying “Students lose when we lose teachers, No layoffs” as the crowd began chanting.

Board President Monica Garcia repeatedly asked Duffy to sit down, but he kept speaking. The microphone was turned off, but Duffy continued to speak and the chanting continued. Garcia then announced that the “disturbance has interrupted our meeting to the point where the orderly conduct of this meeting is not feasible.”

There go our buddies in ACORN again. Its good that we have them looking out for our welfare…oops did I say w e l f a r e? Pardon me.
ACORN’s shakedown soldiers consider actions like occupying a public school board’s meeting room to be an act of “civil disobedience.” In truth it is just another arrogant display of a parasitic need to inefficiently consume resources that can be better used elsewhere. In this case they are trying to preserve employees of a teacher’s union in the face of dwindling tax revenues. The school board was merely attempting to do their job of deciding where to allocate the funds that are available. Unfortunately that involves cutting costs, firing teachers and living in the real world where tax revenue is not unlimited. Enter the parasites of the teachers union and their allies ACORN to demand that they be preserved at someone elses expense.

There are reasons why zoo’s and national parks have signs prominently displayed that say “please don’t feed the animals.” Once the animals get accustomed to the handouts, not only do they become dependent on them, they will actually get violent in making demands for them. We are seeing this “animal” behavior in the actions of ACORN and their fellow “community organizers.”

As surely as a hookworm believes that a dog exists just to further his own survival, so too do teachers unions and community activist groups like ACORN believe that schools and the government exist solely to provide them with the financial sustenance they need to survive and thrive. It is a complete misconception of the arrangement between the taxpayer and the receivers of the government’s largesse. In this case the misconception is abetted by the failure of the schools to educate anyone to know any better. A marvelously self-reciprocating system.

This misconception comes from the belief that things like government jobs and checks are somehow an entitlement. How did they come to view it that way? We fed the animals, that’s how. Teachers unions are no more concerned with the education of children than ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is concerned with reforming communities. The goal of the teacher’s union is only to increase their membership, not test scores. They are just parasites whose sole preoccupation is to educate, and thereby procreate, more parasites. These are the proceeds from our “investment” (our President’s term for this sort of social engineering) in forty years of the “war on poverty.” Do you feel cheated? Well you should, if for no reason other than the ingratitude and revisionist history the beneficiaries of these “investments” have construed. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than during a recent exchange between Bill O’Reilly and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill:

“The problem here is that you won’t acknowledge that for the last 20 years, we’ve had wealth redistribution. It’s just gone from the middle class and the poor to the rich.” - Dr. Marc Lamont Hill

Therein hides the lie that the American political left feeds to its all too willing victims. The idea that capitalists, industrialists and other assorted “rich” people acquired their wealth FROM the poor and the middle class. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but such “misconceptions” placate a desire for those who need an excuse for their life’s circumstances. It allows them to perceive themselves as a “victim,” as well as attach the blame to someone whom they can then extract some form of reparation. In the case of the current administration, income inequality is the justification for redistributionist tax policies.

However the wealth that these “rich” people have acquired was never in the possession of the poor and the middle class. In fact this wealth did not exist at all until these industrious people invested, worked and ultimately CREATED it. It is the fruits of their skills and labor that brought this wealth into existence and, lest we forget, this wealth was then taxed right off the top. Much of this taxed wealth was used for the great social engineering experiment that is the 40 year “War on Poverty.” It was the industrialists and capitalists whose taxed income was redistributed to the poor! What would they have been able to do with THEIR money if they had been allowed to keep it and reinvest it into the economy? We can only guess. However we do know what became of the money that was redistributed to the poor.

The U.S. government has spent close to $10 trillion dollars on domestic welfare programs since President Lyndon Johnson launched the “War on Poverty” in 1965. These include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families—TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); utilities assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); housing assistance under a variety of programs, including public housing and Section 8 rental assistance; and the free commodities program. And then state and local governments engage in welfare spending that includes free medical care for the impoverished through charity hospitals. And what, pray-tell, did this “investment” into the poor communities return?

Well, it could have happened to anybody right? Families were destroyed as the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed. Welfare programs that rewarded women for having more babies naturally produced…more babies! Those women who “qualified” as single mothers would get preferential treatment by the system so naturally this led to the phenomenon, entirely predictable, of more single mothers. Welfare quickly became a way of life. That’s what happens when the government tries to help people. They created a class of professional parasites whose sole area of expertise was fulfilling the criteria established by the government to get the “free” money. Way to go guys.

Lets not forget what our investment in education has returned as well. Federal spending on education has risen steadily over the past three decades to unprecedented levels. The United States spent $553 billion on public elemen­tary and secondary education in 2006–2007,  which is 4.2 percent of gross domestic product. In 2004–2005 (the most recent school year for which data are available), an average of $9,266 was spent per pupil in American public schools. This means that a student entering first grade in 2004 could expect approximately $111,000 to be spent on his or her elementary and secondary education if the student com­pletes high school. Yet the results for all this increased spending are increasingly mediocre. The more we spend…the less we get.

Math Rankings
Grade 4: 12th in the world
Grade 8: 27th
Grade 12: 19th

Science Rankings
Grade 4; 3rd
Grade 8: 17th
Grade 12: 16th

Its clear that something other than money is needed to “reform” our education. Perhaps outlawing the teachers unions would be a good place to start. Unfortunately the Obama administration is sending them MORE money. Feeding the parasites is not the answer.

In this election cycle the democrats made an appeal to one particular group of people whom they had previously not been very successful at drawing into their coalition of the damned and downtrodden. Christians fell into the old “social gospel” trap that actually was a hallmark of Franklin Roosevelt’s brand of social intervention. It’s the idea of trying to prey upon a Christian’s need to fulfill Christ’s many exhortations to feed the poor and the downtrodden such as:

LUKE 14: 13-14 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

And of course Jesus did set an example by feeding a multitude of 5000 in this passage that is a favorite of the “social gospel” apologists:

JOHN 6: 1-14: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

It is truly one of the great miracles that Jesus performed during his time on earth. Its amazing how even the most anti-Christian purveyors of social engineering love to use this particular moment in Jesus’ history in an attempt to shame Christians into supporting their socialist ideas. Often they even attempt to portray Jesus himself as some sort of “robin hood” liberal. As always, however, they leave out something very important. Jesus commanded individuals, not governments, to help the poor. There is a reason for this that eludes far too many people. It is not just the food that is the issue. It is the human interaction as one person CHOOSES to help another person. The feeling of worth and value that is imparted when someone goes out of his way to personally spend time with, and assist, another human being is as nourishing for the spirit as the food is to the body. No government social program can provide that interaction for it is a totally impersonal transaction that merely establishes your qualifications based on a set of criteria.

Then of course there is the one thing you will never hear from the liberal social engineers and their “social gospel” apologists allies. Its the next verse in the passage:

JOHN 6:15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Yea, that makes a difference. He knew they would come back. First, they would come back expecting him to feed them again and then they would want to make him a king. Therefore I think it is important to point out that Jesus fed them ONCE and then left. Once is charity. Anything more and you begin to create dependence. By engaging them just once they would better remember him AND what he said, rather than just associate him with free food. That Jesus was a smart man. Apparently he knew the worst thing he could do for them was to make them dependent on getting something for nothing. But then again, Jesus wasn’t running for elected office. He didn’t need their votes. Unfortunately that’s not the case with the social engineers of the modern welfare state.

Our new President doesn’t seem to share Jesus’ desire to help his fellow man as much as to get him to associate the government assistance with the “generosity” of his administration. It’s easy to be generous with someone else’s money. You can say he is right to call these programs an “investment” in America. It’s an investment in making as many Americans dependent on the government as possible, and particularly the Democratic party who “redistributed” it to them. This is how you encourage more parasites. There is nothing in a government program to provide that sense of self worth. In fact, by accepting such entitlements, there is an implied acceptance of one’s lack of worth. Therefore it must always be a dysfunctional relationship based upon need and dependence. The same attributes one finds in the relationship between an addict and his supplier. Make no mistake about it, all parasites are addicts. Especially those that are socially engineered.

The “War on Poverty” and the “Great Society” represented the crowning achievement of the liberals social engineering vision of society. Government programs hailed as the solution to social problems. The “unintended” consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that almost no political candidate desires that designation. Unfortunately these policies have returned with the election of the parasite messiah Barack Obama. However this time the professional parasite class created by these disastrous practices is arrogantly DEMANDING what was once GIVEN as an act of benevolence. And like the animals in a national park that were foolishly fed by well meaning tourists, they are willing to attack and use force to acquire their demands.

We must stop feeding these animals.

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” -Ayn Rand

The lawlessness that accompanied the campaign that brought Barack Obama to the White House is now escalating as the country’s parasites, emboldened and empowered with taxpayer money, continue their campaign to steal the fruits of other’s labor. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has put an emphasis on the “now” part of their name by adding violence, vandalism and outright robbery to their ever-growing list of attributes. Meanwhile our esteemed President has decided that the American taxpayer, fresh from being extorted out of 787 billion dollars by his diabolical economic stimulus package, must also pay another 75 billion in protection money to rescue the “victims” of housing foreclosures, lest the ACORN mobs be unleashed nationwide. Welcome to the new “remade” thug America…

A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience. The group wants to train homeowners facing eviction on peaceful ways they can remain in their homes. Derek Valcourt reports their actions are not without controversy.

Near Patterson Park, the padlock on the door and the sign in the window tells part of Donna Hanks foreclosure story. “The mortgage went up $300 in one month,” said Hanks, former homeowner. She says the bank refused to modify her loan and foreclosed, kicking her out of the house in September. The community group ACORN calls Hanks a victim of predatory lending.- WJZ News, Baltimore

Here we see all the traditional elements of the plight of the modern American parasite. A predator, an innocent victim, and of course, a collective of well meaning citizen activists claiming to pursue peaceful methods to help this poor “victim” remain in her home. As always when dealing with mobs of parasites, what lays underneath the veneer of altruism is a disgusting entitlement philosophy that insists that one person’s failure must be attributed to someone else’s success. That success, by their definition, must be “predatory.” In this particular case it is the bank that refused to modify her loan. The fact that she willingly signed the contract and lived in the house until she could no longer fulfill her part of the agreement is of no importance to the perpetrators of perpetual victim-hood. Never mind the fact that in every mortgage the bank ALWAYS owns the house until it is paid off. Poor Donna Hanks is a victim of “predatory lenders.” We must shed tears for her and help her. And that is exactly what ACORN did…

“This is our house now,” said Louis Beverly, ACORN.

And on Thursday afternoon, they literally broke the foreclosure padlock right off the front door and then broke into the house, letting Hanks back in for the first time in months. “We are actually trespassing, and so this is a way of civil disobedience to try to stay in the house,” said Beverly. “Legally it’s wrong, but homesteading is the only means that she has left to stay in her house. And we feel as though this is the right thing to do at this particular time to save this family.” Inside, there’s spray paint on the walls and evidence that someone has possibly been remodeling.

The group says it was staging similar demonstrations in six other cities nationwide while urging a moratorium on foreclosures.  They want that until President Obama’s stimulus plan begins on March 4. The plan is designed to help threatened homeowners. “As you all can see, Donna is reclaiming her home, and she’s putting a lock on her door at this time,” said Beverly.

But that padlock won’t stay there for long.- WJZ News Baltimore

At least they acknowledge that they are trespassing, however they keep making foolish references to “her home.” If it was “her home” she would not have been making payments on it in the first place! She was allowed to “occupy” the house so long as she made the payments that were her proof of intent to purchase the house. Once the payments stopped she no longer had cause to occupy the house. As usual, however, there is more to the story than anyone wants to tell. So tell it we must.

In their zeal to get out ahead of the President’s mortgage rescue plan, they have misrepresented this entire affair. Hanks bought the house in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point in the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000….Where did all that money go?

In 2006 Hanks house went into foreclosure and she filed for bankruptcy. All this occurred a full TWO YEARS before the current financial malaise that was spawned by the mortgage crisis. The house itself was sold in June of 2008 to a man named William Lane. So what does this prove? Well, it shows that the incompetence that ACORN displayed as they were repeatedly caught trying to fraudulently register voters before the election is still alive and well within that organization. You would think that they would have investigated these details themselves before they went out and made this woman their poster victim for predatory lending. But that would be reasonable and intelligent. Unfortunately such attributes are undesired by the likes of ACORN. This woman was no victim, she was a schemer and it caught up with her. William Lane rightfully says he will sue ACORN, and its intolerant thief, Louis Beverly, will face a burglary charge. Look for the mainstream media and the Looney Left to turn him into some sort of a modern day Robin Hood.

All of this is merely a theatrical way to draw a spotlight to the false notion that there is large number of “innocent” victims in need of rescuing, with President Obama coming to their aid with his 75 billion dollar mortgage rescue plan. Of course it isn’t really the president coming to the aid of these “victims” but instead it’s the U.S. taxpayer. Obama just wants to take all the credit. As with the mythical Robin Hood, our president has found it easy to provide assistance to these poor “victims” with money extorted from someone else. Keeping in mind that Obama was affiliated with ACORN in the past, one has to wonder if this attempt at “reclaiming” a home was just a demonstration aimed at scaring the public. Perhaps if we are sufficiently frightened of these “victims” we will more willingly tolerate paying them the protection money in the form of the aforementioned mortgage rescue plan. It certainly fits the thuggish pattern of behavior previously established by the organization.

The ever dependable mainstream media were, of course, all over the story initially. They loved the “victims strike back” aspect of the story and how this would certainly add propellant to the passage of Obama’s mortgage recovery plan. Unsurprisingly they lost interest when the details failed to match the story they wanted to tell. Now that the true victim is revealed to be the legal owner of the house it no longer fits their world-view so they must look elsewhere to find the “appropriate” victims to assist in Obama’s socialist remake of America.

And what exactly does this latest installment of the remake of America bring forth? Part of the $75B in The Plan will be used to subsidize the reduction of a mortgage payment to as low as 31% of their monthly income. The banks will initially need to make concessions to get the payment down to 38%, then the government will match the bank dollar for dollar to get the payment down to 31% of a borrowers monthly income. You read that right, that is taxpayer money that will be used to subsidize these defaulting borrowers. Of course the banks, like the rest of us, aren’t going to be given much of an option here as Judges will be allowed to modify the lending agreements without the bank’s consent. Just what we need, to render contract law subject to modification by a Judge with a predetermined outcome mandated by law. In these “politically correct” times this is what passes for justice…or should I say “social justice.” We have entered the age of the exalted parasite.

The fact that there is no money available for this 75 billion dollar swindle doesn’t bother the President. As the prophet of the “affirmative action” generation, his presidency stands as the ultimate parasite entitlement program. One of the benefits of being Parasite in Chief is that you are in charge of the printing presses that print the money. Inflation, perhaps even hyper-inflation, is going to happen. Too bad in Obamaworld they give you credit for attending economics classes rather than passing them or he might be concerned about it. But then again, he did well in his advanced Marxism classes and he understands that if he destroys the economy he will be able to “remake” it more to his communist liking…this will soon become intolerable to the American people. And perhaps it already has started.

A national movement against the bailout syndrome that is infecting the nation began in cities across the U.S. from New York City and Philadelphia, to the White House in Washington DC and beyond. American taxpayers are launching a movement against the bankrupting of our country. In over 40 cities across America, tea parties were held on Friday, February 27th. This movement is just the beginning of a much bigger revolution by productive hard working Americans to take a stand against the parasitic spending spree in Washington. This event got its tea party name in reference to the infamous Boston Tea Party that all too many American college graduates never heard of thanks to their expensive public educations. Its just more proof of the need to put the parasites in their place. And put them there we shall!

Obama revealed in his new budget his plans to set the nation upon itself in class warfare. He detailed his plans to raise taxes on those people who make over $250,000 annually. Unfortunately what President Obama is unable or unwilling to grasp is the fact that these are the nations EMPLOYERS. His plan is as foolish as it is childish. Obama and his band of merry parasites merely wish to punish the successful producers of America and reward losers with the booty that they extort through taxation. Lyndon Johnson had his “War On Poverty” but Barack H. Obama has a “War On Prosperity.” How much more childish can you get? I am afraid to find out.

The top 2% of earners are not going to become the slaves of the parasites. We know this because they are telling us this. I found this interesting statement from Russell Roberts, one of the top 2% that President Obama and his loyal parasites resent so much. It’s quite enlightening:

I’m in the target group to do the paying. I won’t do it.

I own my business and, unlike an employee, I have the option to work as much or as little as I like. At some tax rate, the marginal dollar won’t be worth earning. I’ll fire some employees, scale down the business or retire altogether and stick my money in tax advantaged muni bonds and do all the traveling and relaxing I can’t do now. The tax advantage of muni bonds will NEVER go away because municipalities will scream bloody murder. If I’m not ready to retire and the tax rate gets too high, I may just immigrate to another country because it’s very easy for me to get almost instant citizenship in any other country. I respond to incentives and I’m not incentivized by enslavement and neither is anyone I know. The specialness of this country is the lack of totalitarian regime and individual liberty. Once that’s gone, this country is no longer all that special. You can call me evil or “not doing my part” because I’m not willing to work myself into the grave for your family instead of mine, but the reality is that unless you plan to start a Gulag, you can’t make me.

Uh…

Note to Russell…

They are working on just such a Gulag apparatus to lock us up. Its called HR-645 - “The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.” Its provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. These installations are for, among other things, the purposes of a “national emergency.” With the Obama administration intentionally sinking the economy with more parasitic debt, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and the Kremlin’s recent crackdown on such demonstrations in Russia for what will be happening in the United States next. The tea party protests are just the beginning.

It appears these “national emergency centers” will be used in a national emergency, but only if the national emergency requires large groups of people to be arrested and detained. If that isn’t the case, then why have these national emergency facilities been built on military installations? We all know that our Parasite in Chief doesn’t tolerate rejection very well. Something to consider. Mr Russell continues:

The question is, why should I be expected to work and risk more than you to provide you with the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed? Yes, it’s sustainable to raise taxes on the most productive. However, it’s not sustainable at a high standard of living. It’s sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living. France and Germany are good examples.

There’s a difference between the natural altruism that occurs between family members and confiscation by the state. I feel great when I donate to charity. I feel really crappy when I write the check to the IRS. Maybe I should figure out how to receive one instead. Seems a lot less time consuming.

Mr. Russell is what the Obama acolytes call a hater. He doesn’t want to do his fair share. In their world it is fair that they should benefit from the work of others. That’s parasite logic. If you create a set of qualifications for government assistance, you will necessarily create a professional class of parasites whose sole expertise is fulfilling those qualifications. Likewise they will be perpetually beholden to the politicians who created that arrangement. An arrangement based on dependence. The democrats get the votes and the parasites get a freeloaders lifestyle. In their own pathetic way, everyone views themselves as winners. Everyone except decent hardworking free and independent citizens. They become the slaves of the parasites as the fruits of their labor are stolen to support this scheme…and there-in lies the inevitable failure that awaits the parasites.

As Mr. Russell said, “We won’t do it.” We won’t work and we won’t pay the taxes. Without the “forced labor” and the extorted revenue the system fails. As always, the parasite kills the host. When the American government collapses, then we can rebuild her as she was in the beginning. Where all men were “CREATED” equal. That is the only time in their lives they were meant to be so. Candidate Obama spoke often of fairness and the need to be fair. Yet his concept of fairness only looks at the results, and not the inputs that led to those results. In his concept of fairness all games must end in a tie. This is, in fact, completely unfair! Therefore who should want to play at all in a game they can’t win?

Let the restoration of America begin. It can be as peaceful, or as violent, as is necessary to vanquish the parasites. They are what they have chosen to be. They cannot and must not have a voice in the restoration of our constitutional government. Voter reform is in order. No one should vote for any office he is not qualified to hold. Getting all the under 35 crowd out of Presidential politics will solve a lot of problems. Children elect children. In the era of the perpetual adolescent this is a fatal problem. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer acting giddy as they squander money they extorted from taxpayers is as sickening as their childish rhetoric. Why are we being dictated to by them and their charlatan president? Is there a better example of childish behavior then these three?

The time to restore America is now. Lets not be squeamish about it either. Our enemies are fond of saying: “by any means necessary.” The choice was theirs. Let those words be their epitaph.

With the recession, and President Obama’s subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us “informed” citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth…

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.- Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued…

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.

In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a “coincidence.” Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course…where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!

All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren’t for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn’t even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off…Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted…U.S. economic counterattack?

Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the “terrorism” card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain’s chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush’s legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.

It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.

If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly have been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama…you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: “it’s the economy, stupid.” Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.

Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility…that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.

A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?

One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:

OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that “expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability.”

“In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts,” the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender’s takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, “Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.”

Schumer’s letter on June 26 said he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers.” - CNN

Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros’ name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated  1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.

Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?

Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:

“There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to — what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time.” - Barack H. Obama

Ahh, the the notorious “call me if you need me” line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn’t a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?

And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” [John 8:32].

There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. “The times they are a changin,” and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome…

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the “Islamisation” of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. “Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?” he added.

Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called “Fitna.” Fitna is an Islamic term meaning “strife.” Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu’ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu’ran to Hitler’s famous book “Mein Kampf” and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea…

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler

That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn’t it? One might even call it…”inconvenient!” The two leading Nazi’s of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalisations…which can amount to inciting hatred” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.”
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism - Gerard Spong, lawyer

So there you have it. “Offensive” speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is “one sided,” and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. “hate speech” is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for “insulting” religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the “defamation” of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don’t like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.

There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn’t have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn’t even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.

For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:

“The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don’t want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don’t fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004.” - Geert Wilders

And yet, this is not an isolated incident:

Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making “indecent advances” on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she “did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems.” The verdict is not yet legally binding.

Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their “perfect example” and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn’t call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a “Divine Blessing.”

“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of “incitement” for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the “incitement” consists of citing examples from Islam’s own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: “who’s your daddy?” Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)

You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don’t be so sure about that. Our new president is a “sensitive” sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to “incitement” laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those “protected” classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them “blasphemy laws” because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn’t want to stifle all the “artistic creativity” in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!

How is it you can be charged with offending someone’s beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words ‘human rights’ in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone’s intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn’t respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth” - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)

It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu’ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO’s “Axis Of Evil” are to be considered “hate speech” and guilty of the crime of “incitement,” might the same also be said of the Qu’ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn’t it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?

It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don’t stand against Islam’s desire to remain beyond criticism. “Tolerance” and “multiculturalism” may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas…Muslims. They can’t. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don’t believe me? Observe this:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)

There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of “crowd control.” Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such “emergency centers” are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as “incitement.” A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.

Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama’s new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won’t go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.

---

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

I have followed this story from the beginning and, like most people, I have been reluctant to put much faith in it’s validity. The media certainly has buried this story as deep as they can, for this will destroy them as certainly as the perpetrators of this scheme. Events are now are conspiring to bring this story out of the darkness of “urban legend” and into the light of the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears that now, after the election, the allegations that our president-elect is not who and what he appears to be are gaining traction. It’s a long and twisted tale of a man who may be a citizen of as many as four countries, or only three…and one of them would not be the United States! Allow me to present to you the conspiracy of all conspiracies, and one that, to some degree, has deceived us all.

“Deceivers are the most dangerous members of society. They trifle with the best affections of our nature, and violate the most sacred obligations.” - George Crabbe

Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetero, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham are all names that our president-elect has been known to use throughout his life. It is no small wonder, therefore, that so many people have been able to easily craft an image of Obama that fits their own hopes and wishes rather than conform to any sense of reality. You see there is no real Barack Obama. That may be the source of the magic that he wields over his hypnotized subjects. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all bundled up into a perfect “all things to all people” world leader. Of course, that which never was, can never fail us. However we did elect somebody on November the 4th. Somebody who claims to have been born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Or was he? This is where our story begins. Hang on, this is going to take you through a lot of twists and turns.

It’s simple really. Most of us have had to produce our birth certificate at some point in our life to prove we are who we say we are. It is the one piece of evidence that can prove that Barack Obama is a natural born American citizen. However attorney Philip J Berg, a Democrat,  alleges that Barack Obama was in fact NOT born in the United States, but instead was born in Mombassa, Kenya.

In Hawaii there are two forms of registering a birth. A medical “birth certificate” filled out at hospital signed by doctor attesting to birth, weight, race etc. of the infant, and a legal document called a “certificate of live birth” which is filled out at a government office. This document is a short form for legal purposes based off the medical record of the “birth certificate.” It is this second document that the Obama campaign produced on their website for a short time early in the campaign to refute the rumors of Obama’s non-citizenship. They didn’t keep it there long, however, since it created more questions than it answered. Largely because a “certificate of live birth” is used when a “birth certificate” cannot be found, and a “certificate of live birth” can be filled out up to a year after the birth. Obviously a “certificate of live birth” does not carry the same legal weight as a “birth certificate” when the absolute certainty of the birth record is required, as should be the case when ascertaining the qualifications for the presidency.

Berg also claims that there is no information available as to which hospital Obama’s mother used in Hawaii. Maya Soetoro, the half-sister with whom Obama was raised, seems not to know where her own brother was born. In the Nov., 2004 interview by the Rainbow Newsletter Maya Soetoro said Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February, 2008 Maya was interviewed by the Star Bulletin. That time she told reporters that Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Kaliolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

Another lawsuit originating in Washington state alleges that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. Later investigators interestingly found that the records had been sealed and would not be made available. Convenient isn’t it? But it gets better.

Hawaii’s Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican,  has placed the Obama’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state’s Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances. This was done just days after Obama visited Hawaii to see his dying grandmother and less than a week before the election. It appears a lot of people want to keep something hidden.

Berg also claims he has a recording of a telephone call from the Obama’s paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya as well as signed affidavits testifying to the authenticity of the recording. According to his grandmother, she was present at the birth. Grandmothers, unlike politicians, have an unfailing ability to tell the truth. In fairness though, she probably is unaware of U.S. laws and doesn’t realize that it might actually harm Obama’s chances of holding the office.

In spite of what would appear to be a reasonable enough amount of evidence to merit further hearings in the court, Berg’s case was dismissed on October 24th by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. A plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. You would think that ANY U.S. citizen should have standing to demand that a presidential candidate prove his qualifications. Especially since one birth certificate will usually suffice.

Berg then took the case to the next level, which is of course, the Supreme Court of the United States. There he presented a request to Justice David Souter to stay the election until Obama’s campaign produced three items:

1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version) birth certificate
2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship
3. a certified copy of Obama’s oath of allegiance

Well, we had the election so you know that Justice Souter and the court did not halt the election. That was never going to happen without a full hearing of the case. There was not enough time for that. So now the Berg case sits somewhat in limbo as the Obama campaign has thus far failed to respond to a Writ of Certiorari. Apparently Obama has until Dec. 1 to respond to it if they wish. The case can still be taken up for review regardless of whether Obama responds or not, should the court decide they wish to hear it.

In the mean time another suit has been filed by presidential candidate Alan Keyes, vice-presidential candidate Wiley S. Drake, and the Chairman of the American Independent Party, Markham Robinson,  in California’s Superior Court seeking to bar Secretary of State Debra Bowen from certifying to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the names of electors, and from transmitting to each presidential elector a Certificate of Election, until documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. In addition, they have asked that the court issue a peremptory writ barring Senator Obama’s California electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified. Since Alan Keyes was in fact on the ballot as a presidential candidate he should have standing to sue.

But wait! There’s more. A lot more. You see there are many angles to this story. In Berg vs. Obama the main allegation is that Obama is disqualified because of evidence supporting the likelihood that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S. There is another case being tried in the courts that has a more unique point of view. Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State alleges that even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, and having been born with split and competing loyalties, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Donofrio the birth certificate and later Indonesian citizenship issues are irrelevant.  Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya which was at the time of Obama’s birth under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Obama was a British Citizen at birth, just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he was born on U.S. soil, he still would not be eligible to be president.

The framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were British citizens and that’s why they  declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born citizens.” Therefore they created the “grandfather clause” that would allow them to be president. It is very clear:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; - U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1

They didn’t intend for future generations to be governed by a Commander In Chief who had any potential loyalty to another country. In Donofrio’s argument, both parents have to be U.S. citizens for their offspring to be considered a “natural born citizen.” Obama’s father was not an American citizen at the time and never attempted to become one. Interestingly enough, Obama’s British citizenship is something that the Obama campaign readily admitted. This was posted on his website during the campaign:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.” - FactCheck.org as quoted on Obama’s website

So as you can see, we clearly have a constitutional problem that needs cleaning up. Clearly the framers of the Constitution intended that a president not have competing loyalties. This was not an uncommon problem in Europe at the time of our founding. Often royal families would inter-marry across national borders creating all sorts of havoc that the framers were intentionally seeking to keep out of the politics of the United States. Therefore Donofrio is right, Obama cannot be a “natural born citizen,” as defined by the framers of the Constitution, by virtue of his dual citizenship at the time of his birth. Whether you believe it to be fair or not, it is the law and should be looked into.

“All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things.” - Robert Southey

If we just left off here you would have enough information to know that we have a real problem. But Barack Obama is good at creating these type of problems so guess what? There is more.

As mentioned earlier in Berg’s request, he was asking for two things not pertaining to the birth of Obama. A certified copy of Obama’s “Certificate of Citizenship,” and a certified copy of Obama’s “Oath of Allegiance.” Why? Because, as we all should know, Obama was also once a citizen of Indonesia. As the story goes, Obama’s parents were divorced and his mother remarried Lolo Soetoro. This is where the other complications to Barack Obama’s qualifications to the presidency arise. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married this Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized her citizenship to Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he could not have attended public schools there otherwise.

This also is something that has not been disputed by the Obama campaign. The problem, of course, is that you can not hold dual citizenship and qualify to be president. Therefore there must be a record of Obama re-instating his U.S. citizenship and taking an “Oath of Allegiance.” Likewise he would also have to reside in the U.S. for 14 years afterward before he would be eligible to be president. That qualification certainly is not in doubt. However no record of his “Certificate of Citizenship” or an “Oath of Allegiance” has been presented. Unless Obama produces documents that prove otherwise, we must conclude that Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen. This in spite of the fact that he moved back to Hawaii to attend school live with his grandparents in 1971. These documents would exist if either Obama, or his mother, had regained their U.S. citizenships. Where are they?

It has been shown that in 1981 Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesian citizenship, and had yet to regain his United States citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States passport. Obama’s registration in Indonesia was under the name Barry Soetoro. This poses another problem for our messianic deceiver.  According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not have any former names. If there is one thing we are sure of, it’s that Obama is a man of many names and many places.

Consider another interesting twist in the story. We have all been led to believe Barack Obama is an incredibly smart man. We know he  attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School as well as his being president of the Harvard Law Review. There is no disputing that his education appears formidable. The Obama campaign took great delight in pointing out that John McCain ranked 894th out of a graduating class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy. However do you know where Mr. Obama ranked in his graduating class at Occidental, Columbia or Harvard? You don’t know because Obama would not release any of his school records. Many people have openly wondered who paid for Obama’s college education. Such things don’t particularly interest me, however it would be reasonable to assume that he possibly gained an advantage to admission to these prestigious schools by claiming to be a foreign student. Considering we know he used an Indonesian passport at the age of twenty, this would appear to be the secret that Obama is hiding. I’m sure his grades were as outstanding as his disciples faithfully assure us they must be. It looks like Obama is a master at manipulating the system to his advantage. A talent that he appears to retain to this very day. Unfortunately, with no record having been presented that proves he re-instated his U.S. citizenship, we are left to ponder the possibility we have elected a non-citizen to the highest office in the land. If so, we’re done for!

But alas, I did not lead you down this path just to show you that we have delivered ourselves into our own doom. I have come to bring you that which our hypnotized fellow citizens were so enraptured of during the campaign…hope. For you see, we still have a chance. One chance to expose the fraud that is either Barack Obama or all of these challenges against him. Chance, thy name is Clarence Thomas:

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.

The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state
in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” - WorldNet Daily

That’s right, the first of these many cases has landed into the Supreme Court and you have Justice Clarence Thomas to thank for it. You can also thank Barack Obama as well. Many of you may remember that during a campaign interview Obama was asked which of the nine justices would he have NOT nominated if he had the choice. Well, if you didn’t see the interview I bet you can guess his answer. Although I’m sure that had nothing to do with this.

Nonetheless, as I have shown the evidence against Obama is there to be seen and it is substantial. Now, the fate of the country, if not the entire free world, will be decided in a room with nine justices. No one from the outside is allowed in during these conferences. They are the ultimate in secrecy…

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Let us hope they choose to hear the case in full, whatever the outcome may be. There are those who believe that the people of the United States might revolt in the event Obama is denied the presidency. Let them. A decent, armed citizenry WILL restore order. Nothing good can come from allowing someone to accede to the highest office in the land through deception. There are also those who claim this is merely republicans crying in their beer and being sore losers. The cases hitting the courts now were all initiated BEFORE the election. In the case of Berg, he wanted Obama removed from the democratic ticket even before he won it. These are serious matters. Anyone who would conspire to such a magnitude as to deceive an entire nation has not got the the best interests of that nation at heart.

Obama can provide proof of his true qualifications if there are records of them. It is entirely his responsibility to prove he is qualified. Unfortunately there appears to be plenty of proof that he may not be. This will not go away even if the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility to look into the matter. As Secretary of State of the United States it also falls to Condoleeza Rice to certify the results of the election. She too should demand that Obama provide proof of his origin of birth as well as proof that he re-instated his citizenship. I would say our best hope for review comes from the courts. Certainly you shouldn’t look to the media for any help. You won’t find this story there unless, or until, it explodes out of the Supreme Court. The media made Obama, largely by omitting anything negative that might be found. Their credibility, or what’s left of it, goes down with Obama. They will sink with his ship.

“Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, I will melt them, and try them; for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait. Shall I not visit them for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? - Jeremiah 9:4-9

Melt them did he say? Ouch! I wouldn’t want to be that nation, would you? There are those who fear that Obama is the Antichrist, the infamous “Beast” from the Biblical book of Revelation. As I have said before, he is NOT the Antichrist. However, the person who is the Antichrist will not ascend to his position of power without help from other world leaders. If we are currently living in the Biblical last days, that would require the consent of the United States. Barack Obama, especially if he is so great a deceiver to have pulled off such a fantastic scheme, would be just the kind of enabler the Antichrist will need.

If you will recall your Biblical eschatology, after the Beast ascends to power he turns against a portion of his power base and destroys it. The great “Mystery Babylon,” portrayed as the most powerful nation on earth, is annihilated in just one hour. A man who could deceive an entire nation, could easily watch it burn. A president who attained his office through deceit could easily order its powerful nuclear arsenal to remain sheathed even as his country is obliterated. Defenseless by executive order of the Commander in Chief. Once the “United States Of Mystery Babylon” is destroyed, at the hands of the Beast and his presidential conspirator, who will dare oppose him? Such events don’t seem so far fetched anymore do they?

For those of you who were hypnotized into voting for Barack H. Obama, a true “citizen of the world,” I have but one question to ask you: What have you done?

---

I love to watch the History channel. Particularly, I love to watch the shows they do on UFO abductions and religious cults. It is fascinating to study the willful self-deception of people who are consumed with violating God’s first commandment. You know, the one about not having any other gods before him. The self-deceived, by the very act of their self-deception, have created their own little universe, complete with its own set of truths and realities, that essentially have placed themselves, or their chosen surrogate, as the godhead of this new universe. The unprecedented subservient and self-congratulatory celebrations that have been taking place throughout the country and, most disturbingly, the media, following the election of Barack Obama have a juvenile quality to it akin to the intoxicated behavior one expects at a college football game from the fools who paint their otherwise half naked bodies in freezing temperatures. Devotees of the new messiah sound all too familiarly like a man describing a “flying saucer” to a skeptical reporter. “They mean us no harm. They’ve come to help us.” Of course they have…

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” - Barack Obama

There will be no more talk of change from those abducted by the campaign of Barack Obama. Now their leader must prove to us all that he means us no harm. That he wants to help us. Change he promised. Now change must be delivered. Ahh…but what change? From his first choices for his White House staff as well as the cabinet appointments it is pretty clear that the change isn’t going to be represented by new faces in the administration. Nope, its the same cast of characters we have seen before in the form of rank and file establishment democrats. Surprised? I hope not. The American left has been trying to remake America into a mirror image of European socialism since the time of Franklin Roosevelt. All of the characters for that makeover have been major players in the democratic party for a long time. Now, with majorities in both houses of congress and the White House in their control you are going to get the change you voted for. Unfortunately it will be the change that everyone in the media swore was a right wing fabrication before the election. For at least the next two years socialism will be on the offensive in America.

Its not like this hasn’t happened before. !992, 1976 and 1964 all come to mind. However the democrats would have you believe this is more akin to 1932 when the country truly was in dire straits. However a quick check of the facts not only shows this to be untrue but belies the true nature of the so-called economic crisis that supposedly holds us in its grasp. We are constantly told that unemployment is a major problem yet is it? Sure, the unemployment figures are on the rise but they are only at 6.5%. Compare that with the 7.5% rate in 1992 or the 7.1%rate in 1976 and things don’t seem so out of control. Certainly they aren’t at the 25% levels of 1932-33!

How about the inflation rate? Certainly that will betray the total mess we are constantly being told that the Bush administration is leaving for the messiah to fix. Well the “misery index” as it came to be known during the Carter administration shows a somewhat high rate of 4.9% for the month of October. Although for this year and the previous year it has been between 3.3% and 3.8%. Not particularly calamitous when compared with 3.38% of 1992 or even the 5.75% of 1976. Although it should be pointed out that four years of democratic policies such as the always prescribed, yet never successful, “stimulus packages” improved the inflation rate to a whopping 13.58% by the end of the Carter administration in 1980. Did I say improvement? Pardon me. Still it is nowhere near the disaster of the 1931-32 situation which saw 33% DEFLATION. This was largely assisted by a meddling Roosevelt administration’s insistence on raising interest rates. Carter himself repeated this act of genius during his administration getting them up to a whopping 21.5%. That will kill any economy. By contrast the Bush administration has managed this so-called “crisis” by reducing interest rates from 4.75 to 1.5% over the last year. No, Mr. Obama doesn’t have that much of a challenge no matter what the media tells you. Some people might even say the fundamentals of our economy are sound. Oh wait, somebody did say that. He lost the election to Mr. Charisma. Economic markets work just fine, its the government that is the problem. Giving the government more influence will only make it worse.

“We are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime and we are going to have to act swiftly to resolve it.” - President-Elect Barack Obama

No, we are not facing an economic “crisis.” We are in the throes of an elaborately planned scheme to gain control of our economy. Entirely planned by and executed by the democrats. Does anybody else find the timing of this event just a little bit conspicuous? Keep in mind that this situation was entirely the result of policies enacted during democratic administrations that insisted on forcing banks and other lending facilities to provide loans to those they knew could not repay them. Conveniently this calamity raises its head a few weeks before a major election. Before you accuse me of going too far on a “conspiracy” bender it is wise to remember that only 5% of mortgages are in foreclosure. It was the excessive selling, trading, insuring and other fantastic pursuits of this marginal part of the market that drove the credit market to a halt. Do you believe that at least 5% of the people who work on Wall Street, or in the banking industry could be democrats? Yea…its possible. If it is true would it not be likely that once Barack Obama takes office all this will magically right itself with him getting all the glory? Perhaps, but don’t be so sure. Remember the name of this game is regulation and government control.

This is not necessarily about economics at all. That was just a tool used to get Barack Obama elected. Just as the economy was used to bring Bill Clinton into office back in 1992. Hey, it worked before. Why not use it again? It worked again. Yet there is a different feeling to it this time. Take yourself back to England in 1945. The British people showed their appreciation of Winston Churchill’s war leadership by voting him out of office and voting in socialists. This in spite of all he had done for them in his conduct of the war against Nazi Germany. Why? The socialists promised “freedom from want” by offering all sorts of “something-for-nothing” goodies like government guaranteed employment, nationalized universal health care, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Sound familiar? Churchill, on the other hand, appeared to offer only “more of the same.” With the war concluded the “God and country” message no longer resonated with an electorate that could not perceive any immediate threat. The Soviet Union notwithstanding, the war weary electorate wanted hope and change. They got it. At least their population truly did have a reason to feel “war weary.” I grow tired of hearing how the United States is war weary when the only people who have had to make any sacrifice for the “War On Terror” are the soldiers and their families.

“It’s time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.” - Vice President elect Joe Biden’ attitude on paying taxes.

In 2008 we had an electorate blinded by the success (yes I said success) of the Bush administration’s ability to protect the homeland from further terrorist attacks thus deluding itself that no further realistic danger exists. Many on the political left have concluded that the “War On Terror” is itself a myth. The electorate was further blinded by an economic “crisis” designed and delivered by the democrats who then exploited it for their own gain as their messianic candidate offered his own version of a “cradle-to-grave” welfare state. Hell, he was even  HONEST about it by outwardly saying he wanted to use the tax system to “spread the wealth.” And there is where the treachery hides!  41% of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders pay absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them had an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. The Obama campaign, and its community organizing surrogates such as ACORN, trolled endlessly through these communities looking for people to register to vote and secured their votes by promising them a tax cut! When people who don’t pay taxes are offered a  tax cut this is called buying an election! It is estimated that 49% of folks voting this time do not pay income taxes and voted to steal money from the taxpayers to put into their own pockets. Joe Biden thinks that the rest of us should see this blatant purchase of votes with our money as “patriotic.”

This is a complete disenfranchisement of the taxpayers voice in government and goes against every principle of the American Revolution! Now we can be outvoted by people who have nothing at stake in the government except what the government can give them. This is an intolerable situation that a moral and decent people can not and will not tolerate. This country was formed by men who were paying taxes to a king that was not giving them a voice in the government. At least King George was supplying an army to defend the colonies. What do all of these voters that ACORN uncovered contribute? Nothing! They are parasites. It is all well and good to be charitable to those in need but now we find ourselves at the mercy of the “useless” and the “pathetic” who are being encouraged to use the ballot box as a means of enslaving us. Now they dictate tax policy to us? Lets face it, in the last election the taxpayer was told to send his money to Washington and shut up. If they want more money, they will take more money. They do NOT answer to us and they will NOT listen to us. That will be very apparent, very fast.

Our founding fathers believed in the concept of a “better man” and conversely of lesser ones. It was never their intention that the lesser ones would be granted the opportunity to vote…at all! Let alone use the election process to lord over better men. There is a reason why the American revolution was a uniquely successful and enduring one compared to other “revolutions” throughout history. It was not an uprising of the downtrodden, pathetic and poor masses but instead was a revolt from the productive sector of society. It began as a taxpayer revolt! It is time for us to stand up for the idea of voter reform. There is no reason for a taxpayer and a parasite to have an equal voice in government, and we must put a stop to it. If we fail to corral these parasites we guarantee ourselves an irresponsible spendthrift government. The parasites know no other way.

We have become a country that fears freedom, because freedom has consequences. It produces both excellence and failure in equal measure. The coward cannot risk failure so a system like socialism appeals to him. It creates an atmosphere where there is always safety in numbers and the outcomes are always equal. That’s why you hear socialists throw the word “fair” around so often. According to the socialist, the only fair game is a tie game. They divide us into small “minorities” that need protection and then offer to provide that protection. The price they extract, however, is our individualism. They have no use for individuals. All of us must work for the good of the “collective.” That’s also why in our socialist run public school system the only thing our children learn is to tolerate everything and criticize nothing in the name of “moral equivalency.” Everything is of equal worth. If they are lucky enough to get a student loan that they will resent having to pay back, then they will go to college and get a degree in “self-esteem.” And these are the “smart” people who tell the rest of us that voting for Obama was the right thing to do, though they can’t explain why.

“Obama stood against the fierce tide of history and achieved the unimaginable” - Rev. Raphael G. Warnock

Huh? Was he watching the same presidential election that the rest of us were? The worst element of this great hypnotization of America was the way the media, in all its forms, openly promoted the messianic candidate by creating the illusion of some great redemption the country would go through by electing the first African-American president. The “fierce tide of history” was working for Obama thanks to the blind loyalty of the loyal democratic sycophants in the mainstream media. They didn’t report the news, they created the news and in so doing, they made Obama the President. A great example of that was hearing Tom Brokaw say after the election that no one really knows Obama. Well if the press had done their job everyone would know they just elected the least experienced and most liberal president in the history of the country. Tom, you even had control of one of the debates! Why didn’t YOU find out who he was and what he was about? Everyone was swept away by this great fictional story about a man who truly is not great. Like the flying saucers on the History Channel, there was nothing there…but nonetheless everyone swears they saw it…and of course he wants to help us. He means us no harm.

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” - Theodore Dalrymple

Like another well known hypnotizer of the masses, Obama likes to write books about himself. Books in which he reveals much about what he will do in office. He clearly stated that he sought out Marxist teachers in college. What kind of person would do that? A Marxist! Of course you can’t say that because the democrats, in all their politically correct glory, ingeniously nominated Barack Obama entirely because he was an African-American. It proved to be a useful novelty. Not only did it seduce the media with the foolish illusion that this was a great moment in history, but it also insulated their candidate from the severe questioning and criticism that is due a presidential nominee. Say anything they don’t like, and you are branded a racist. You can’t argue with success though. It worked. The public did not vote for Barack Obama. They voted for the idea of Barack Obama. Even Obama himself doesn’t know what that entails, but it sets a lot of people up for a great disappointment.

Of course the world is in love with Barack Obama. There are all these wonderful stories about how his election will improve America’s image abroad and the celebrations overseas often look as juvenile as the ones here. However all is not as they would have you believe. World leaders like Vladmir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are celebrating the naive and inexperienced Obama’s arrival on the world scene much the same way a school of sharks celebrates the arrival of a naive seal swimming into waters it is likewise unprepared for. The only question is which one will sink their teeth into him first. Unfortunately, when Obama is devoured, so are we all. Nonetheless expect him to always remain outwardly calm, cool and collected. Thats all he has. When the next terrorist attack occurs, and it will happen swiftly after he assumes control, expect Obama to do…nothing. At least not to the terrorists and those who support them. That’s what Joe Biden meant when he said that an Obama administration would be challenged and their immediate response would not look like the right one. There will essentially be no response, just as their was none for the constant string of them through the Clinton administration. A little bit of fear is good to keep the population in line. Perhaps that is what Obama meant when he said:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Hmm, kind of reminds you of the kind of security force that came to be in 1930’s era Germany. How well did that work out? You can’t make this stuff up.

Don’t expect Obama to solve the so-called financial crisis either. The stock market has plummeted since his election in a way that is unprecedented in its history. Obama promised to tax the rich. See the rich take their money and run…and with them goes the jobs that you have, and could have had, if that money stayed in the market. He promised to “spread the wealth.” Unfortunately there won’t be any wealth to dole out. Four years from now when he runs for re-election you can expect him to still be blaming George Bush for what will then be his own failures. Maintaining a constant state of crisis is necessary to convince us to part with our liberties you understand. Its interesting that one of the first ideas being tossed about is the prospect of the government taking over everyone’s 401K plans. Oh, it will be voluntary at first. But as the crisis lingers and all that real money is just sitting there…

Of course there will be other crises to contend with. Global warming, energy, health care, and of course the imposition of the “fairness doctrine” to suppress any criticism of the administration’s policies. All criticism henceforth shall be referred to as “hate speech.” A veritable cornucopia of socialism is on the horizon. Individual rights will soon be an endangered species.

I just love listening to Sunday morning news pundits as they try to figure out how the Obama administration will govern. They say silly things like Obama “moved” to the center during the campaign so thats how he will govern. No he won’t. He didn’t “move” anywhere. He told us what we wanted to hear so we would vote for him! He told us what he was told to say. Obama is no leader. He is a follower. He will do what he has always done. He will be manipulated by the extreme left of the democratic party because he has no experience at doing anything else. When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid send him socialist policies to sign into law you will hear Barack Obama say “Yes we can.” If his desire for a national security force is an example of his own thinking, Reid and Pelosi might turn out to be conservative by comparison. How’s that for a thought?

Yes, it is entirely possible the United States of America died November 4th. We have elected a man whose past associations would have prohibited him from getting an FBI security clearance and given him control of OUR security. This was achieved largely through a process of political correctness, media manipulation, charismatic hypnosis and of course, trolling for the votes of parasites with the expectation of  latching them onto a government nipple from which they will forever vote to stay attached. If we accept this we are finished. We must reform the voting system and restore the greater influence where it belongs: to the productive, working taxpayer. We no longer hold the American voter to a high standard. We can therefore expect to get the government we deserve. We certainly did this time. One that will reflect the parasitic values that elected it. This election was a national hypnosis, deception and disenfranchisement of Biblical proportions. One destined to make a fine program on someones History Channel in the future. Perhaps with a notorious Styx song about angels and a UFO abduction as its soundtrack. Of course, they meant us no harm. They were here to help us. Abandon all hope, for change is in the wind…

I’m sailing away, set an open course for the virgin sea
I’ve got to be free, free to face the life that’s ahead of me
On board, I’m the captain, so climb aboard
Well search for tomorrow on every shore
And I’ll try, oh lord, I’ll try to carry on

I look to the sea, reflections in the waves spark my memory
Some happy, some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
We live happily forever, so the story goes
But somehow we missed out on that pot of gold
But we’ll try best that we can to carry on

A gathering of angels appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said
They said come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

I thought that they were angels, but to my surprise
They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies
Singing come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me
Come sail away, come sail away
Come sail away with me

"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think, in the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration, Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you." -Barack H. Obama

With the explosion of news coming out of the financial markets these days you could be led to believe the United States is on the verge of a massive economic collapse on par with the Great Depression. The stock market plunges 500 points one day on the news of AIG's impending failure then rebounds 700 points the next two days. Markets in other countries have to be closed because they are rising too fast! All this on the news that the Federal Government is coming to the rescue with hundreds of billions of our dollars by assuming control of still more of the mortgage industry. Ahh, the smell of socialism comes to America and Wall Street rejoices. With the collapse of the mortgage industry, a lot of politicians are calling for heads to roll. Somebody should have said something...right? Somebody should have done something...right? Well my friends, somebody did say something and somebody did do something. Step inside a twisted tale Hollywood could have never imagined, yet most assuredly, will vote for...

The Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, it was originally created to bail out failing banks after the collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression. Borrowers were defaulting on mortgages not unlike they are in the current situation. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise the level of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. It operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of home buyers.

In 1968, due to economic pressure created by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the federal budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing.

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 also as a GSE privately owned and operated by shareholders and financially backed by the Federal Government.  These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. Freddie Mac was created largely for the purpose of preventing Fannie Mae from operating as a monopoly.

Although these entities have been getting all the media attention due to their recent failures, the true culprit of the mortgage debacle is something called The Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977! The CRA allowed banks to lend money based on minority status, not the ability to repay the loans. Banks who were given federal money to lend were assessed ratings that were not based on the soundness of the risk of their loans, but on the number of loans given to minorities. President Bill Clinton took the CRA even farther by committing U.S. banks to make available nearly one TRILLION dollars for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects.

Banks were required to furnish a certain percentage of their loans to low income minorities, regardless of their inability to re-pay the loans, and the banks' ratings were tied to these loans. In other words, the banks could not maintain a high rating unless they participated in this disastrous practice. Government coercion at its finest! The standard 20% down-payment rules were eliminated. New terms of length were installed, abolishing the traditional 20 year mortgage and giving loans of up to 40 years!

Left wing community groups like ACORN were allowed to set up offices to help minorities qualify for  loans and banks were required to accept the information provided by ACORN. Information that was often false! Borrowers, who often made as little as $30K a year, were listed as having incomes of over $70K in order to qualify and the banks were required to accept that information without question. There were even loans like NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans. Unstable income, such as child support payments or welfare payments, were allowed to be considered part of the borrowers income! How dependable is that for a source of income? This was a disaster waiting to happen. Somebody should have said something! Somebody should have done something! Unfortunately those who opposed the Clinton Administration's Financial Modernization bill were often called bigots for opposing these lending practices that were, on their face, designed to encourage minority participation in home ownership. The reality was that this became a pet banking system for the democratic party and some of its most questionable allies.

Enter Franklin Raines, Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1996. In 1996 he joined the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae, but this time it was as the CEO, the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company. In 2004 Raines accepted what was called an "early retirement" after a report from The Office of Federal Housing Oversight found numerous accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae's operation. Raines tried to take his money and run, but he did not get away.

Raines was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses. Exactly the behavior that led to the infamous ENRON scandal.
In 2006, the OFHEO initiated a lawsuit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the falsified earnings statements. He is accused of overstating Fannie Mae's assets to the tune of 6.3 billion dollars.

Then there is the case of James A. Johnson. The same Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million in compensation.

With all these shenanigans going on in government sponsored entities you would think somebody would have wanted to get involved. Somebody should have said something...right? Well, somebody did, as this report from 2003 indicates:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. -New York Times

Though the President was attempting to take action he was of course met with criticism from the usual cast of characters whose statements now seem rather foolish:

''These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." 
 -Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."  -Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina

That's keeping your eye on the ball. Why do you think these democrats were so defensive of this particular enterprise? Why would they go out on a limb to defend the indefensible? As always those who sought to criticize the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of bigotry and hostility to the poor. Still, somebody else did dare to say something in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Who was this man who dared to present legislation to gain control of these two GSE entities that were running amok? Senator John S. McCain. It looks like he was ahead of the curve on this economic crisis just like he was ahead of the curve on the need for more troops in Iraq. What were the objectives of this bill?

In lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and  the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Like the Bush administration's attempt to reign in the renegade GSE's two years earlier, this bill failed to get through congress. In fact it died in committee. Is it a coincidence that the ranking Democrat on the committee (and its current chairman) is also the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae? Senator Chris Dodd received $165,400 in contributions from the wayward GSE. It appears to be money well spent as it helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate the hostile waters of republican meddling. After the Democrats retook the House and Senate in 2006 it looked like smooth sailing. Well, until the housing market hit its zenith and started to slow down, causing home values to go down and these dubious mortgages to accelerate their defaulting.

Which brings us to the conclusion of our master deception. How does this play out to the voters in this year's presidential election? Well, there is an interesting twist to the final act in this drama. Consider this statement concerning the action the government is now taking to try and rescue the situation:

"One of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust." -Barack H. Obama

It would appear from this statement that Barack Obama feels that the executives of these companies are the villains. Strange when one considers that both Franklin Raines and James Johnson, the two CEO's who profited from the fraudulent and misrepresented reporting at Fannie Mae, have found themselves working for... Barack Obama! That's right. Mr. Obama, who claims to be worried about violating the public's trust, has found it within himself to trust these two criminal CEO's to work with his campaign. I guess the reason he did not want the government to bail out the senior officials of these companies is because he wanted to bail them out himself! And this from a man who claims his "judgement" qualifies him for the presidency.

James A. Johnson was tapped by Obama to head his search committee to choose his Vice President. Perhaps another disastrous failure in and of itself considering the result. And though Obama is attempting to deny that Franklin Raines is actually one of his economic advisers, Raines has already confirmed that he has had several "conversations" with Obama regarding economic policy and, ironically, the mortgage crisis. I guess you can say Obama showed good "judgement" by consulting an "expert" on the subject. This is extremely disconcerting when one considers that presidents generally pick their staff and cabinet from the pool of people who advise them during their campaigns. How does the prospect of Franklin Raines' and James Johnson's hands fondling the federal treasury appeal to you?

Obama also has dirty hands when it come to being a recipient of some of Fannie Mae's "generosity" regarding political contributions. Fannie Mae donated $126,349 to Obama. Second only to Senator Dodd, and we know what "favors" they received from him. What, praytell, do they expect to receive from Obama? With the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, why would Obama accept contributions from such a source? In fairness, the list of Senators and representatives that have received contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008 is a long one. John McCain himself received $21,550. But Obama has only been in the senate since 2004! Yet he is the second largest recipient! So much for change you can believe in.

In conclusion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with enhancements to The Community Reinvestment Act, have been creations and favored pets of democrats and Clinton administration appointees. It was an illusion that on its face appeared to be designed to make mortgages available to people who were ill suited to pay for them. Hidden from public view, it was a banking system to funnel money to left wing operations and democratic operatives who were handsomely rewarded for their misreporting and misrepresenting of the going's on within their criminal enterprise.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi came in as Speaker of the House and promised the most ethical House of Representatives ever? Where are the prosecutions? The investigations? Funny how she loses interest in such ethical matters when its the Democrats who are on the take. Gotta restart those "impeach Bush" hearings again!

Try as he might, there is no way Barack Obama can lay this crisis at the feet of the Bush administration or John McCain. Both men made valiant attempts at intervening. Somebody should have said something. They did. Somebody should have done something. They did. Unfortunately too many others were looking out for their own interests and not the taxpayers. Don't be deceived any further. It is Barack Obama and his sycophants whose lips are firmly wrapped around Fannie Mae's nipples...and you know what that sucking sound is!

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for “war crimes” for attacking Iraq under what they claim were “false pretenses.” Not the least of the president’s critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don’t actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn’t actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.

The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn’t flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush’s belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.

You can argue whether or not the basis for the president’s decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a “slam dunk” (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.

It is true that no “working” weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president’s actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement…a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

“When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don’t have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done.” 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president’s wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the “Doomsday Machine” known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian’s call it, “change you can believe in:

“WASHINGTON — Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America’s technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world’s lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan’s top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America’s critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the “stone age.” Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.

What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the “Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack” described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

“A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ’shocked’ - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects.”

“The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation.”

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone’s aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it’s electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an “Achilles Heel” that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?

The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?

This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran’s relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.

I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won’t they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.

It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing “technical assistance” to the Iranians in developing their “peaceful” nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?

Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

“I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. “Judgement” himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the “audacity” to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public’s ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.

But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran’s nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.

There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear program in the 1980’s. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.

No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.

But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.

Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting…

Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

“When a country doesn’t recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens.”

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don’t tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970’s…and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain…so be it.

I’ll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: “Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?” Who else, indeed?

A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change…this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum…give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!

August 17, 2008 - Sunday