Obama’s Birth Certificate, Really?

Eventually when a person lies, the lie becomes his snare. And the nose continues to grow with the President’s birth certificate. Is there are genetic factor here?

The official web site for Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological hospital says the name of the hospital at the time of his birth should have been Kauikeolani ChildrenÂ’’s Hospital. According to the web site the name didn’Â’t change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children’Â’s Hospital merged with Kapiolani Maternity Home in 1978. So how could his official long form birth certificate that was generated in 1961 have the name of the hospital that wasn’Â’t created until 1978? Only a 17 year gap oops, oh

Another interesting tidbit not mentioned here is the reported sequencially numbered birth certificate has a lower number than those of a pair of twins born a day before the date of Obama’s birth.  If this “birth certificate” were real, it would have been produced two+ years ago instead of spending millions to hide this and the fact that he entered college as an Indonesian citizen, Barry Sotero, and obtained scholarships under that name as a foreign student.

April 28, 2011 — World intelligence agencies: Obama’s long form birth certificate a rank forgery.
From intelligence agencies around the world, the verdict on President Obama’s newly-released certificate of live birth from Hawaii is in: the certificate is a rank forgery on the same level as the Niger “yellow cake” uranium and Iraq Oil Ministry forged documents. Intelligence and law enforcement services are experts on fake documents since they have to deal with large numbers of counterfeit documents, such as birth certificates, passports, identity cards and driver’s licenses, as well as currency. Intelligence agencies are also experts at forging their own documents for their clandestine agents.

Within 24-hours of the release of the long form Certificate of Live Birth on April 27, intelligence agencies from Britain and China to Germany and Russia examined the document and concluded it was a forgery based on the fact that Barack H. Obama Sr.’s race, listed as “African,” was a monumental error, considering that not only the United States, but other English-speaking nations described Africans and those of African descent as either “Negroes” or “blacks” in 1961.

Intelligence experts point out that “African” is a major clue indicating a forgery.

In 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare classified non-Whites, who were not Asian, Eskimo, Aleut, Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, or other “non-White,” as “Negro.” The U.S. Census Bureau also used the term “Asian and other Pacific Islander” in 1961, which included Filipino, Hawaiian, and part-Hawaiian. The Census Bureau, like HEW, used the term “Negro” to describe blacks and those of black descent. The term “mulatto,” used to describe those of mixed white and black ancestry, ceased being used by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1918.
1961 Vital Statistics of the United States;
U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
Public Health Service;
National Center for Health Statistics;
National Vital Statistics Division;
Race and color

Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”

The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.

In the United Kingdom, the terms “black” and “Asian” were used in the 1961 census to describe those who were “non-white British” nationals. Barack Obama, Sr., as a citizen of the British Colony of Kenya, would have known that his British racial designation was “black” in 1961. The term “African” was not used as a racial designation in either the colony of Kenya or on the British mainland. In South Africa and other British colonies in Africa, “Coloured” was used to describe those of mixed white-black descent.

The consensus among intelligence agency experts is that the Obama long form Certificate of Live Birth was hastily manufactured by an amateur who never thought of using the standard race designation of Negro in Barack Obama, Sr.’s racial designation block on the form either due to ignorance or an attempt to be politically correct in 2011 by refusing to use an accepted term from 1961.

The past decade has seen the use of crude forgeries to propel the United States into a war in Iraq (the bogus Niger “yellow cake” uranium documents) and to try to indict various U.S. and foreign politicians and businessmen (the fake Iraq Oil Ministry “Oil-for-Food” documents). The Obama forged Certificate of Live Birth represents yet another attempt to perpetuate a fraud on a grand scale.

Why Would Anyone Now Question Obama’s Birth Certificate?

Like many of you, I listened to the president the other day and was impressed once again at how well he positioned himself as being above the hawkers and those with a carnie mentality (was that a slam against carnival people?). He said, and I paraphrase, there will be those who will still not let this rest (birth certificate issue), but people I’ve got more important things to do. We only wish that he would deal with some of those important issues. His point was to place anyone who still had the courage to question anything about him (that he refuses to reveal), on the lowest rung of the IQ latter. After the president has spent more than $2,000,000 and nearly three years to keep these and other records from the public, why would anyone in their right mind question the authenticity of this resurrected birth certificate, (Of course the last statement is with tongue in cheek).

Some rather shocking information has just been released that if proven true, provides evidence that this so called long-term birth certificate is forged. If you happen to be conversant with Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, the possibility of this being true would move lower IQ people to the top of the class and demonstrate that the president is less than truthful, perhaps even subject to impeachment. This brief video will cause you to ask a reasonable question at least.

YouTube – Proof Obama’s 4/27/11 “Long Form Certificate of Birth” is forged!
P.S. If any of you has information that disputes this, please let me know. You might want to read the article above as well.

Islam Bashers Repent

Amil Imani, I have found to be one of the most thought provoking writers on all things Islam. He comes from that tradition and consequently has a perspective that warrants your serious consideration. His article which follows was published on April 28, 2011

What does it take to make Islam bashers mend their ways? Why don’t these folks come to their senses and see Islam as a religion of peace and praise the God of Abraham for continuing his beneficence on humanity by sending Muhammad to guide and humanize us?

Why is it that some people keep criticizing a religion that has nearly 1.5 billion followers throughout the world? Now, if this faith was indeed what its detractors claim it is, wouldn’t these masses of people see through it and dump it?

Didn’t our very own President go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn’t he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn’t he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn’t he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn’t he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn’t he appoint a raft of “devoted” Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?

Even ignoring the President’s behavior and pronouncements, we have numberless others in the know such as politicians, media experts, academics and what nots who keep preaching to us that Islam is indeed a sanctified religion wrongly vilified by a bunch of hatemongers. After all, its very name means peace. How could anyone possibly have anything but praise for a religion called peace? What is more precious than peace?

Exacerbated, the champions of the religion of peace bemoan: what does it take to convince the detractors of Islam to stop their unceasing effort to present a distorted image of this wonderful world-encircling religion?

Well, just a few problems that makes taking the President’s remarks and actions, as well as all the other Islamic apologists and know-it-alls, difficult.

  • Claiming “Islam” means “peace” is fraudulent to begin with. Islam is an Arabic word. And the word for peace in Arabic is “solh,” and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word “taslim,” which means submission or surrender. Hence, Islam’s true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, unconditional submission and surrender of the individual and the community to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by his “rasool,” messenger, Muhammad.
  • Further proof of the fraudulent nature of billing Islam as a religion of peace is the irrefutable fact that Muhammad himself led his followers during his lifetime in 78 battles, only one of which was defensive in nature
  • Perusing the religion of peace’s holy book, the Quran, taken by Muslims as the literal revelation of Allah, reads more like a manual of intolerance and war than a divinely-revealed prescription from a benevolent God for a life of brotherhood and peace.

Quran 2:216 “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.”

Quran 8:65 “O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence”

  • * Deeds speak louder than words. From its very inception, Islam was a movement of violence. Violence both within its ranks as well as against the non-Muslims has been the unceasing practice. The minute Muhammad died, jockeying for power among his disciples led to numberless murders and battles. The faith of peace never saw peace even within its own ranks and never allowed the rest of the world any peace at all by lashing out to other lands near and far.
  • A quick scan of the daily news shows the adherent of the religion of peace engaged in unspeakable acts of mayhem and murder in much of the world. There is hardly any need to allude to them here. But the Islamists have an answer for that too. Islam is not responsible, they say. It is only a bunch of opportunists who commit these acts for their own political and economic objectives. We are to believe that those daily suicide bombers explode their vests in the midst of marketplaces, funeral processions, and even mosques are doing so to further their own personal agenda.
  • All these aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.
  • The Muslim population is rapidly burgeoning in America by high birth rate as well as successful extensive conversion in prisons. Even by the rules of probability, a fraction of these Muslims may be deeply influenced by the Jihad preachers and take upon themselves Islamist missions of various severity and destruction. How many Jihadists did it take to pulverize the NY Trade Centers? It took one Maj. Nidal Hasan to take the life of 13 and injure 29 others in an outburst of Islamic peace-making.
  • Islamist apologists come in all shades. There are true faithful who are out and out in front about it. They believe Islam and its ways are the answer. It doesn’t matter whether it is seen as good or bad by others. Then there are those who are hired mouthpieces who are like lawyers that defend a murderer to the limit of their ability simply because they are paid to do so. That’s their chosen profession. We may not like either of the above two types, yet it is understandable.
  • What really is hard to deal with are those who either, through ignorance or a misplaced sense of fairness and multiculturalism, keep saying that Islam itself is not bad, the Quran contains no more violence than does the Bible, and that the moderate Muslims who are the vast majority are good people and need to do something about the criminal minority. These folks go even a step further and call those of us who sound the alarm against Islam in general, as unjustified hatemongers.

But the notion of moderate Muslims is an illusion created by the wishful thinking of a good-hearted yet deluded people. The so-called minority Jihadist-types are indeed the real Muslims. These Jihadists hate the so called moderate Muslims as much as they hate the kefirs – the infidels. And it is always the small group, the militant minority that eventually topples the complacent uncaring majority. History is replete with support of this contention.

In my view, truth and the naked truth should be the only standard. No sugar-coating, no political correctness, no hired-guns to cover up for the Islam menace that has inflicted humanity for so long and keeps marching across the globe for doing more harm.

So who is to repent? A Muslim by any other name is a Muslim. It is the human calling for every Muslim to cast off the chain of Islam and take his or her rightful place along the ranks of the truly peaceful and free people of the world.

May be the best Pro Life Argument yet

A  worried woman went to her gynecologist and  said:

‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said:

‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’

She  said:

‘I  want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with  this.’

The  doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:

‘I  think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued:

‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at  the same time, let’s kill your present one-year-old. This  way, you could rest a little before the other one is born. If we’re  going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it  is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose to kill  the one in your arms.’

The  lady was horrified and said:

‘No  doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

‘I  agree’, the doctor replied.

‘But you seemed to be OK on killing your unborn child, so I thought maybe that you’d agree to kill the other one. I believe that what I propose, given your situation, is the best solution.’

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb.

The crime is the same!

Love says: “I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.”
Abortion says: “I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.”
Love them or kill them.

The latter was the choice made yesterday in the U.S. Senate when 58 senators voted to fund Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) for another five months. We kill the babies and save the whales. God must be pleased.

The Color of Green

April 20, 2011 by John Myers

“You walk in to a shoe store with $150, you walk out with one shoe.” —Paul Newman speaking to Tom Cruise in the film “The Color of Money.”

Earlier this month another terrible blizzard struck in what has been one of the worst winters in memory. As snow packs finally begin to melt I can’t help but think that the environmentalists are not telling us the truth. Of course, having two terrible winters in Western Canada over the past three years can’t yield a scientific conclusion. Yet my observations may carry as much evidence as the Green’s theory that the earth is melting beneath our mukluks.

In his 2009 book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming—The Missing Science, Australian geologist Ian Plimer makes the following points:

  • There is little to no geological, archaeological or historic analysis on what is causing climate change.
  • Greenland was once a green land because of natural occurring global warming. During medieval times Earth was several degrees warmer than it is now.
  • Climate has always changed but it is not because of industrialization.
  • Atmospheric CO2 has been far higher than it is now.
  • The hockey stick graph that charts global warming as the result of manmade CO2 emissions is fraudulent.

The book concludes that the slogan, “Stop climate change”, is a public phenomenon based on widespread ignorance rather than real science. The sheer number of TV programs that go out of their way to hammer home the dangers of global warming is evidence that Plimer is on to something.

You can order this book from Amazon.com by clicking here.

President Barack Obama is staking America’s future on clean energy while ignoring these truths. A few weeks ago in a major policy address, Obama announced that America would continue to pursue green energy solutions from wind, solar, biofuels and nuclear power.

According to the President, “We cannot keep going from shock when gas prices go up to trance when gas prices go back down.”

This prompted The New York Times toconclude: “The path to energy independence—or at least an end to dependence on the Mideast—could well be dirty, expensive and politically explosive.”

What the Greens seem blind to is the fact that a shift away from fossil fuels will have huge opportunity costs for the United States at a time when the country can least afford it. The technology for clean energy does not yet exist. To embrace it when competitors like India and China do not would be economic suicide.

What the President either cannot or will not grasp is that these solutions involve huge subsidies and are cost ineffective.

Why Adam Smith Would Hate The Environmentalists
Over the past couple of years I have written to you about all the problems inherent with renewable energy. On that list is the vast amount of cropland needed to create ethanol, the inefficiency of solar energy and the lack of an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles. In time, all of these problems can be worked out, but the best way to achieve a seamless switch is to take government out of the equation.

And while Adam Smith died more than 200 years ago, the father of economic thought would object to Obama’s energy agenda because it does not allow free markets to operate.

The invisible hand that Smith spoke of when describing how free markets create wealth was at work when oil was trading above $120 per barrel. The record purchases of hybrid cars three years ago were evidence that free markets work.

The chart below shows hybrid car sales statistics along with the price of gasoline over the past seven years. As gasoline prices have declined so too have sales of hybrid cars. That is how the free market works.

As petroleum becomes less and less affordable, consumers will switch towards other types of transportation, including electric cars. This will encourage outside investment and, over time, crude oil will be displaced. This won’t happen because the Federal government mandates a changeover which is neither practical nor affordable.

Despite this fundamental truth, Obama is hell-bent on the Federal government fixing a problem (global warming) that doesn’t even exist. It seems hard to understand why, but theLas Vegas Review Journal suggested an answer. A headline in the April 4 issue read, “Green goal: End capitalism, destroy our quality of life.”

According to that newspaper:

“Those who claim to be trying to save the planet from the scourge of greenhouse gases and catastrophic global warming have a few other goals: social engineering, assaulting capitalism and assailing the American lifestyle.

“United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) defines a green economy as one that results ‘in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.’ In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.

“By socially inclusive they appear to mean a leveling [SIC] of the capitalist system under a global government, with less wealth spread equally among a population of green-collar workers without social or employment mobility.”

I don’t know if Obama and his Green coalition are nefarious. But there remains one simple fact—fossil fuels still make economic sense. To claim otherwise and keep subsidies for renewable energy or pass carbon tax legislation would only serve to sell the American people a useless bill of goods.

Yours in good times and bad,

Muslim Brotherhood Reveal True Intentions in Egypt

Monday, 18 Apr 2011 03:32 PM
by Frank Gaffney

The Muslim Brotherhood’s mask is slipping in Egypt. Small “d” democrats there and elsewhere are alarmed by top Brotherhood officials who now aver openly what has been utterly predictable: Once in power they will impose Shariah — the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military-legal program practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and increasingly elsewhere.

The prospect that the most populous Arab nation, one that sits astride the strategic Suez Canal and has a vast American-supplied arsenal, is heading in such an ominous direction is made all the more remarkable since the Obama administration has done nothing to deter the rise of the Ikhwan (as the Muslim Brotherhood is known in Arabic). Consider a few data points:

  • In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be prominently in attendance when he addressed “the Muslim world” at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has observed, the message of American legitimization of the Brotherhood was unmistakable.
  • Wikileaked cables suggest that the U.S. government was working with Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition parties to bring down the Mubarak government long before the so-called “Arab Spring” of 2011.
  • Within days of demonstrations erupting in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in Egypt, President Obama was calling for his Egyptian counterpart’s immediate removal from power — the sort of statement he has studiously refrained from making in Iran or Syria where demonstrations have gone on longer, and been far more bloodily repressed.

As the Center for Security Policy’s recently released report, “Shariah: The Threat to America illuminates, the Brotherhood has since 1963 operated a growing number of front organizations tasked with mounting highly effective influence operations in the United States. According to the the organization’s own strategic plan, their mission here is “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

In the past week, we have been given chilling insights into the success of such operations by Justice Department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to one of Shariah: The Threat’s co-authors, counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole. In two different articles published at Pajamas Media, we learn how U.S. government “outreach” to the Muslim-American community has become a vehicle for empowering and protecting enemies of this country and affording them opportunities they systematically exploit with the goal of “destroying [us] from within.”

Of particular concern is Poole’s revelation that political appointees in the Obama-Holder Justice Department have been allegedly responsible for “quashing” the prosecution of some of the Brotherhood’s operatives and organizations. According to one DOJ source, the reason the U.S. attorney in Dallas was not allowed to pursue the planned indictment of  individuals and entities previously listed as Unindicted Co-Conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial was “a political decision from the get-go.”

The source added: “The administration would look like absolute fools. It’s kind of hard to prosecute someone on material support for terrorism when you have pictures of them getting handed awards from DOJ and FBI leaders for their supposed counter-terror efforts.”

In an April 16 column at National Review Online, Andy McCarthy surmises that the suppression of the Holy Land 2.0 prosecution and the absence subsequently of any similar efforts to stop material support for terrorism could have their roots in the president’s 2009 paean to Islamists and other Muslims in Cairo.

On that occasion, Obama promised to ease U.S. “rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation” of zakat (or tithing).

Yet, McCarthy rightly notes the only “rules” that might fit that description are ones prohibiting funding of terrorism — a “charitable” contribution Shariah requires its adherents to make.

If there is any good news, it is that Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., last week became the latest congressional leader to launch a series of hearings aimed at examining the Muslim Brotherhood, here and abroad.

In an interview on Secure Freedom Radio Monday, she made clear her intention to have the Terrorism Subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee clarify the true nature of the Ikhwan and to explore, if necessary in classified sessions, its successes in penetrating and influencing our government.

Myrick said, “I am very concerned how this is all playing out internally . . . This something that most people don’t have a clue . . . This will undermine our way of life if we don’t get a handle on it.”

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Muslim Brotherhood Proclaim True Intentions in Egypt

Gangster Government

Gangster Government
Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy

By David Freddoso

To his admirers, President Barack Obama is a philosopher king—or a philosopher president—as this snippet from the New York Times suggests:

In New York City last week to give a standing-room-only lecture about his forthcoming intellectual biography, “Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes, and the American Political Tradition,” [Harvard historian James T. Kloppenberg] explained that he sees Mr. Obama as a kind of philosopher president, a rare breed that can be found only a handful of times in American history. “There’s John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams, then Abraham Lincoln and in the 20th century just Woodrow Wilson,” he said.

His vice president, Joseph Biden, informs us that Obama only comes off as aloof because “he’s so brilliant. He is an intellectual.” His longtime friend and White House advisor, Valerie Jarrett, reminds us, through author David Remnick, that Obama is like no ordinary man:

I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is.…He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability—the extraordinary, uncanny ability—to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually.…So, what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.…He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.

Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas says Obama’s greater than any small idea like America. He compares him to another recent president—and to the Almighty:

Reagan was all about America. . . .Obama is “We are above that now.” We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something—I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above—above the world, he’s sort of God. . . .

Sort of God. The One. The Light-Worker. The Philosopher President. Descriptions like these abound in our mainstream media, where our president’s fan club never loses its zeal. But they do not apply so well to the real Barack Obama—the one who comes from the murky politics of Chicago and Springfield, Illinois. The one who won his first election for state Senate by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot. The reputedly arrogant and prickly state senator who nearly got into a fist fight with one of his state Senate colleagues in 1997, declaring to him on the Senate floor, “I’m going to kick your ass!”

The Obama of media myth also bears no resemblance to the president of the United States whom we’ve seen over the last two years—the one who refers to his political adversaries as “teabaggers” (which as liberals snickeringly know refers to an obscene sexual practice), and talks about “punishing” his enemies.

Obama didn’t come to Washington from Mount Olympus. He came from the corrupt and dirty politics of Chicago. “Philosopher” seems like the wrong word for anyone who got ahead by forging so many unsavory but expedient political alliances with Chicago politicians. Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko do not strike one as types who “pal around” with philosophers.

Neither does former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, an Obama political ally whose brother William now serves as Obama’s chief of staff. Daley’s ways are captured well within Obama’s 2008 campaign boast: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

It’s the Chicago way.


Above the Law

The professorial columnist Michael Barone, whose Almanac of American Politics is the essential reference on every Washington journalist’s shelf, was the first to use the words “gangster government” to describe the Obama administration. He coined the phrase in May 2009 while describing how the Obama administration intervened in Chrysler’s bankruptcy to make sure that the autoworker’s union was protected at the expense of the firm’s senior creditors:

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party.…We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.

Barone had sounded an alarm, but this was not alarmism. No one was suggesting that Barack Obama was a government version of Tony Soprano, who sends “Sicilian messages” or sells drugs or moonshine or untaxed cigarettes out of the White House basement. Gangster government is about something else: about governing without recognizing the legitimate limits of one’s power. It’s about officials who use public office to make winners into losers and losers into winners; who bend, break and make the law to help their friends and punish their enemies.

If you want to understand “gangster government,” there’s no better place to start than Chicago, the place where Barack Obama learned the art of politics from some of its most notorious figures. Obama has brought Chicago to Washington, not just in the sense that some of his most trusted aides and advisors hail from there, but also because the city has left a mark on him and his political methods.

In Chicago, politically connected contractors think it’s safe to defraud the public. Political appointees run bribery and extortion rackets from their positions of power. City lots are sold to politically important pastors for a dollar in exchange for their support. It’s a place were city Aldermen fix tickets and firefighters’ exams for friends and family, and extort business owners who need permits. It’s a place where the lowliest Alderman and the mightiest governor take kickbacks, put friends and relatives on the government payroll, and use their clout to get family members admitted to the state’s prestigious flagship university in Urbanai-Champaign.


Expanding Power

As president, Obama shows a healthy appetite for expanding government power and the federal government’s indirect, subsidy-driven patronage, on a scale that makes former Chicago Mayor Daley look like an apostle of Adam Smith. Gangster government on the federal level creates new, trillion-dollar opportunities. Our current president is not letting them go to waste.

  • Obama has reached well beyond the federal government’s constitutional powers. Our Founding Fathers could not have imagined a day when the nation’s executive branch would guarantee the warranty on your car, fire business executives, or require Americans to purchase a commercial product, like health insurance, as a legal condition of living in the United States.
  • Obama has dramatically intervened in the private sector, not just bailing out selected industries, but dictating how they will do business from now on.
  • Obama has politicized the Department of Justice, endangering government’s most important domestic function.
  • Obama has appointed nominees to powerful positions who are unworthy of the public trust. Among his choices are people who have lied to Congress, cheated on their taxes, abused previous positions of authority, and received massive, hard-to-justify payoffs prior to entering public service. When their extremism or shady business dealings have been too ludicrous for Congress to overlook, Obama has simply bypassed the Senate with recess appointments, despite having a Democratic majority that could approve any reasonably acceptable liberal.
  • Behind a thin veneer of concern about average Americans, Obama has displayed aggressive favoritism to the groups that got him elected. This favoritism comes at average Americans’ expense, and at the expense of government integrity and effectiveness.
  • Obama has used the appearance of “transparency” to mollify those overseeing his administration, all the while concealing the business-as-usual nature of its affairs. Even as his administration was revealing the names of White House visitors in a laudable and unprecedented fashion, his aides were concealing countless meetings with lobbyists by holding them in locations outside the White House grounds.

The automotive bailout, finalized in the opening days of Obama’s presidency, provided an early taste of things to come. In order to save a politically important union—a cash-rich but member-poor stronghold in the dying world of organized labor—Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler with tens of billions of dollars in taxpayers’ cash. He hired a team of bureaucrats to run the two automakers and to manipulate the bankruptcy and tax codes to the United Auto Workers’ advantage.

Obama was not content to turn the federal government into the world’s largest automotive investor. He went on with a stimulus package that turned the federal government into what the Wall Street Journal called the world’s largest private equity firm. With the health care bill, he effectively made Uncle Sam the world’s largest human resources firm, insurance claims adjuster, hospital administrator, and even primary care provider.

Gangster government views the private sector sometimes as its handmaiden, and other times as its adversary. Obama’s administration speaks of American business with casual comments like this one: “You don’t want to kill the golden goose, but you don’t want it to crap all over you either.” His officials have deprived lenders of their money, telling them, “I don’t need lenders.”

Gangster government is arrogantly confident that its business-novice officials know more about creating prosperity than businessmen do. It knows more about health care than the nation’s doctors. Witness Obama’s famous comments:

If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well? . . .[Y]ou come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.

Gangster government is also politically reckless, arrogant, and tone-deaf. When Congressman Marion Berry of Arkansas, a five-term moderate Democrat, expressed his concern that the health care law would cause a repeat of the Republican victories of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”

For all the high-minded reform rhetoric of his 2008 campaign, all the talk of a “new politics,” all the passages in his books about respecting others’ points of view, Obama’s response to people who objected to his administration’s massive expansion of federal power was to deride and insult them. He didn’t merely criticize his political opponents or conservative talk radio hosts, he disparaged and belittled the voters who disagreed with him as irrational or “teabaggers.” Of Republicans, as noted, he said, “They can come for the ride, but they have to sit in back.” As for listening to other points of view, he said, “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking.”

More on the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt

Its leaders have sized up the current situation thus: Egyptians are not happy with Israel, but they are not ready for a war.  They are more interested in stability.  So for now, sit tight.

Decades ago, the Muslim Brotherhood decided to avoid the path of instant Jihad for the purpose of removing Arab regimes from power, choosing instead to patiently invest in charities, schools and hospitals in poor areas and to spread its Islamist ideology quietly, waiting for an opportunity to leverage its support base.

A spokesman for the Egyptian Brotherhood was even allowed to speak to an Israeli journalist. He was reassuring:  “We are not going to declare war on anybody.  Egypt has many internal problems that need to be solved before we can look to project our power abroad.  We need to judge those that punished our society,” he said, referring to ministers in former dictator Hosni Mubarak’s cabinet.  “Our position on the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is well known, but we have other priorities.” (The Jerusalem Report, 14Mar11)

On the other hand, Al-Qaida’s strategy is to move quickly and violently into countries in chaos, such as what Libya is experiencing.   Dislodging the regimes of Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others and replacing them by force with an Islamic super state – a caliphate – has most definitely been the preliminary objective of al-Qaida for more than two decades.

However, unlike al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood views democracy as a front gate to power.  It stands a far better chance of profiting from recent events than the militant al-Qaida radicals.   The Brotherhood has always had patience.  They are absolutely convinced that time is on their side, and they will ultimately win.

Undoubtedly there are groups within the Brotherhood that disagree on the preferred means to achieve their goal, but they do not disagree about the objective.  The ultimate goal for Egyptian revolution is the formation of an Islamic nation ruled by Sharia law.  And their worldwide goal – exactly the same as al-Qaida’s – has been, is and will be to usher in a global Islamic caliphate.

The Brotherhood is pleased to let the “seculars” secure the beachhead first. For example, a secular activist, Ayman Nour, who spent time in jail under Mubarak, and actually ran for President in 2005, is calling for an annulment of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty, and the closing down of the gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel.

Why should the Brotherhood do anything but continue preaching from the mosques and developing their community organizing?

The greatest nightmare for every democratic nation is a duplicate of the Iranian revolution.  How in the world did such a disaster happen?

First of all, a secular, reform-minded Prime Minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, was installed after the Shah fled.  Bakhtiar had spent six years in jail under the Shah.

In the first month as Premier of Iran, Bakhtiar ordered all political inmates to be freed, lifted censorship of newspapers, relaxed martial law, ordered the dissolving of SAVAK (the former regime’s secret police) and requested that the opposition give him three months to hold elections for a constituent assembly that would decide the fate of the monarchy and determine the future form of government for Iran.  His fatal mistake was to invite the Ayatollah Khomeini to return home from his banishment in Paris.  The Prime Minister then lasted a total of 36 days before he was dumped and the Ayatollah installed himself by popular acclamation.   Islamic extremists, if given the chance, win.

In many ways, Mubarak’s overthrow is a waving red flag for Israel.  Egyptian natural gas, pumped through a pipeline, produces 20% of Israel’s electricity.  A takeover by Islamists will sooner or later end the supply of natural gas from Egypt.  Providentially, immense gas fields have lately been discovered off the coast of Israel.

However, Israel’s government will have to offer more incentives to lure foreign investment from the U.S. and Europe for the billions of dollars needed to develop the potential fields.

What seems almost certain is that the next Egyptian government will be less pro-American.  That in itself will directly endanger the security of the U.S. due to the important intelligence gathering and operational role Mubarak had been leading against global Jihad.  Mubarak fell, not only because of his corrupt government, but because he was perceived as being pro-American.

Obviously the next Egyptian president will also be less pro-Israeli.

The new Egyptian opposition leaders are currently demanding the opening up of their border with Gaza – meaning a massive flow of weapons into Gaza.  Already ten Hamas terrorist leaders escaped Egyptian jails during the riots and are now back in Gaza.  Undoubtedly, a destabilized Egypt could mean Israel’s southwestern border could become the scene for renewed military conflict.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor and prominent advocate for Israel’s right to exist, told the Jerusalem Post that “Israel must prepare for a worst-

case scenario, because neither Israel nor the U.S. has much influence over unfolding events.”  Israel will have to create a much larger and stronger Israeli army.  It will have to invest far more money and the defense budget will go up dramatically.  The result is that we cannot develop our economy and society the way we had expected, but must invest much more in defense.  The one strongest restraint on Egypt would be the loss of $1.5 billion in foreign aid from the U.S. if they break the peace treaty with Israel.

The Brotherhood has stated that they do not plan to present their own candidate for Egypt’s upcoming elections.  Nevertheless, both of the two names being tossed around for the next President are known for their anti-American, anti-Israel stances, and are considered a good fit for the Brotherhood.  One is Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate and former head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog who clearly protected Iran from the Western countries by continually understating the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program.  The second, Amr Moussa, often a scathing critic of Israel and the West as head of the 22-member Arab bloc in the U.N. for ten years, enjoys even wider popularity in Egypt and would certainly continue to be hostile to the U.S and Israel.

But the U.S. administration is still locked into the mentality that Islam is a religion of peace.   Isi Leibler, an international Jewish leader from Australia, says that to apply such a blithely generalized descriptive term to Islam as practiced in the 21st century is really like saying that pigs can fly.   Western democratic leaders must come to their senses and recognize that the ongoing appeasement of our “engagement” with radical Islamic forces poses a real threat to the future of Western civilization.

Here’s what the indomitable Israeli strategic analyst Barry Rubin has to say to President Obama and the West.  “You want a foreign policy that backs freedom?  Stop supporting upheavals in the relatively moderate Muslim states friendly to the West.  Help the rebels in the radical states hostile to the West.  Mr. Obama, here’s a start for you.  Down with Ahmadinejad! Down with Bashar al-Assad! (Syria)  Down with Hezbollah, Iran-Syrian puppet regime in Lebanon!  Down with the Islamist government in Turkey! Down with the repressive, terrorist Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip!

Rubin adds, “That should be enough to keep Western policy busy for a while!”


Their strategic documents are published only in Arabic.  At the trial of the United States vs. The Holy Land Foundation, a handbook presented as U.S. prosecutors’ evidence was translated from Arabic.

It outlined the strategy of the Brotherhoods’ goal of converting the U.S. into an Islamic nation through sabotage and subterfuge.

“The Ikhwan [Brotherhood member] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions


Created in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, to promote Islamic Sharia law in opposition to social injustice.

Al-Banna’s credo: “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Widely distributes Hitler’s Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Arab translations, deepening the already existing hostile views of Jews.

After WWII, it spread throughout the Arab nations, incorporating thousands of Nazi experts into the Egyptian and Syrian armies and governments.

Assassinated Egypt’s Prime Minister in 1948.

Attempted assassination of President Gamal al-Nasser in 1954.   Nasser then executed its leaders and imprisoned thousands of its members.

Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel and began releasing imprisoned members of Brotherhood.  Was assassinated in 1981 by a jihadist – an offshoot of the Brotherhood.

In 1980, attempted to assassinate the President of Syria, who then wiped out the Syrian branch.   Survivors fled to other countries.

Currently a serious danger to the moderate King of Jordan – the second Arab country that made peace with Israel, seeking every opportunity to gain ground, while the Jordanian king works to keep a lid on their growing power.  Of special significance to Israel, because Jordan has the longest border with the Jewish state of any other nation.

Exists as a strong force in every Arab nation.

In Egypt it dominates the professional and student associations, and is famous for its network of social services in neighborhoods and villages.

Is the only organized opposition to former president Mubarak’s government.

Has branches in 70 countries.  Exists as a militant clandestine group, and claims to have taken part in most pro-Islamic conflicts.  Organizes school students, university students, operates inside mosques and the workplace.

Unites with leftists and unions until strong enough to expel them.

Since 2005 has become a significant movement online.

Uses Internet, CDs, booklets

EDITOR’S NOTE:  In spite of all the stated objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood and their commitment to rule the world with Sharia law, the Bible has a different scenario – ISRAEL will be defended and honored by the Messiah Himself!  The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our LORD YESHUA, the MESSIAH of Israel, and the HOPE of the world!.

David Hocking, Respected authority on the middle-east
HFT Connect
April 17, 201

The National DEBT

Many continue to believe that the Washington establishment has our best interest at heart. If you happen to embrace such a pollyanna distortion of the facts, then you must see how the best Republic in the world is  being destroyed from within by our National DEBT that may be impossible to recover from.

After you view this viedo, there are a couple of corrections to note. Currently we bring in approximately 1.1 Trillion in tax dollars a year. The video spokeman states that by 2046 our annual interest will consume every dollar received in tax revenue. That will not happen in the year 2046, but rather in the year 2021.

View Government Gone Wild and decide for yourself the level of moral integrity in Washington, D.D.

Misprision of Treason: Top DOJ Officials Abandon CAIR Terror Financing Prosecutions

The Center foir Security Policy and it’s director Frank Gaffney provide some of our most reliable reporting onsecurity issues. You will want to read this one

It is a felony offense to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it.  The term used in the U.S. Code for such a crime is “misprision of treason.” Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole reveals today that political appointees in the Obama-Holder Justice Department would appear, at a minimum, to be candidates for prosecution for obstruction of justice and perhaps guilty of violating this statute.

In a Pajamas Media article headlined “Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions?” (and reprinted below[I made it a separate blog post with the same name]), Poole reports that two Justice Department sources confirm that the decision not to prosecute unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial was taken “at the top” of the department, not by the federal prosecutors in Dallas who had secured convictions of five HLF officials and had planned next to put away their helpmates.

As a result, one of the most prominent and problematic of those listed by the prosecution – the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front known as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – has not only been allowed to continue to run its  influence operations in Washington and elsewhere across the country.   It has been free to enjoy what is, if anything, even greater access to and influence over the Obama administration than it enjoyed during previous presidencies.

A book published late last year by Patrick Poole and eighteen other national security professionals, Shariah: The Threat to America, documents how such access advances the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in this country of waging a kind of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  As it happens, just yesterday, Chairwoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) convened the first of what she says will be a series of House Intelligence subcommittee hearings aimed at investigating the Brotherhood and its operations, here and abroad.

One of the most chilling passages of Poole’s article is a quote from a DoJ official who, on condition of anonymity, came forward with confirmation of this scandal:

“This is a national security issue. We know that these Muslim leaders and groups are continuing to raise money for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation. It was the right thing to do. Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief and Viva Palestina. Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers. And until Congress starts grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover, that is not going to change. My biggest fear is that Americans are going to die and it will be the very Muslim leaders we are working with who will be directly or indirectly responsible.”

It is high time Congress starts “grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover.” If the facts warrant impeachment and prosecution on misprison of treason or other grounds, so be it.