Monday, January 31, 2011

Clueless in Washington

Our World: Clueless in Washington


Does the US fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the region if the Muslim Brotherhood is the power behind the throne of the next regime?

The Egyptian multitudes on the streets of Cairo are a stunning sight. With their banners calling for freedom and an end to the reign of President Hosni Mubarak the story these images tell is a simple one as old as time.

On the one hand we have the young, dispossessed and weak protesters. And on the other we have the old, corrupt and tyrannical Mubarak. Hans Christian Andersen taught us who to support when we were wee tots.

But does his wisdom apply in this case?

Certainly it is true that the regime is populated by old men. Mubarak is 82 years old. It is also true that his regime is corrupt and tyrannical. Since the Muslim Brotherhood spinoff Islamic Jihad terror group murdered Mubarak’s predecessor president Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt has been governed by emergency laws that ban democratic freedoms. Mubarak has consistently rejected US pressure to ease regime repression and enact liberal reforms in governance.

This reality has led many American commentators across the political spectrum to side enthusiastically with the rioters. A prestigious working group on Egypt formed in recent months by Middle East experts from Left and Right issued a statement over the weekend calling for the Obama administration to dump Mubarak and withdraw its support for the Egyptian regime. It recommended further that the administration force Mubarak to abdicate and his regime to fall by suspending all economic and military assistance to Egypt for the duration.

The blue ribbon panel’s recommendations were applauded by its members’ many friends across the political spectrum. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard’s editor William Kristol praised the panel on Sunday and wrote, “It’s time for the US government to take an active role… to bring about a South Korea/Philippines/Chile-like transition in Egypt, from an American-supported dictatorship to an American-supported and popularly legitimate liberal democracy.”

The problem with this recommendation is that it is based entirely on the nature of Mubarak’s regime. If the regime was the biggest problem, then certainly removing US support for it would make sense. However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.

Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

WHAT ALL of this makes clear is that if the regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism. The US’s greatest Arab ally will become its greatest enemy. Israel’s peace partner will again become its gravest foe.

Understanding this, Israeli officials and commentators have been nearly unanimous in their negative responses to what is happening in Egypt. The IDF, the national security council, all intelligence agencies and the government as well as the media have all agreed that Israel’s entire regional approach will have to change dramatically in the event that Egypt’s regime is overthrown.

None of the scenarios under discussion are positive.

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?

Distressingly, the answer is that indeed, the US has no idea what it is doing. The reason the world’s only (quickly declining) superpower is riding blind is because its leaders are trapped between two irrational, narcissistic policy paradigms and they can’t see their way past them.

The first paradigm is former president George W. Bush’s democracy agenda and its concomitant support for open elections.

Bush supporters and former administration officials have spent the last month since the riots began in Tunisia crowing that events prove Bush’s push for democratization in the Arab world is the correct approach.

The problem is that while Bush’s diagnosis of the dangers of the democracy deficit in the Arab world was correct, his antidote for solving this problem was completely wrong.

Bush was right that tyranny breeds radicalism and instability and is therefore dangerous for the US.

But his belief that free elections would solve the problem of Arab radicalism and instability was completely wrong. At base, Bush’s belief was based on a narcissistic view of Western values as universal.

When, due to US pressure, the Palestinians were given the opportunity to vote in open and free elections in 2006, they voted for Hamas and its totalitarian agenda. When due to US pressure, the Egyptians were given limited freedom to choose their legislators in 2005, where they could they elected the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood to lead them.

The failure of his elections policy convinced Bush to end his support for elections in his last two years in office.

Frustratingly, Bush’s push for elections was rarely criticized on its merits. Under the spell of the other policy paradigm captivating American foreign policy elites – anti-colonialism – Bush’s leftist opponents never argued that the problem with his policy is that it falsely assumes that Western values are universal values. Blinded by their anti-Western dogma, they claimed that his bid for freedom was nothing more than a modern-day version of Christian missionary imperialism.

It is this anti-colonialist paradigm, with its foundational assumption that that the US has no right to criticize non-Westerners that has informed the Obama administration’s foreign policy. It was the anti-colonialist paradigm that caused Obama not to support the pro-Western protesters seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime in the wake of the stolen 2009 presidential elections.

As Obama put it at the time, “It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the US president meddling in the Iranian elections.”

And it is this anti-colonialist paradigm that has guided Obama’s courtship of the Syrian, Turkish and Iranian regimes and his unwillingness to lift a hand to help the March 14 movement in Lebanon.

MOREOVER, SINCE the paradigm claims that the non-Western world’s grievances towards the West are legitimate, Obama’s Middle East policy is based on the view that the best way to impact the Arab world is by joining its campaign against Israel. This was the central theme of Obama’s speech before an audience dominated by Muslim Brotherhood members in Cairo in June 2009.

Like the pro-democracy paradigm, the anti-colonialist paradigm is narcissistic. Whereas Western democracy champions believe that all people are born with the same Western liberal democratic values, post-colonialists believe that non-Westerners are nothing more than victims of the West. They are not responsible for any of their own pathologies because they are not actors. Only Westerners (and Israelis) are actors. Non-Westerners are objects. And like all objects, they cannot be held responsible for anything they do because they are wholly controlled by forces beyond their control.

Anti-colonialists by definition must always support the most anti-Western forces as “authentic.” In light of Mubarak’s 30-year alliance with the US, it makes sense that Obama’s instincts would place the US president on the side of the protesters.

SO THERE we have it. The US policy towards Egypt is dictated by the irrational narcissism of two opposing sides to a policy debate that has nothing to do with reality.

Add to that Obama’s electoral concern about looking like he is on the right side of justice and we have a US policy that is wholly antithetical to US interests.

This presents a daunting, perhaps insurmountable challenge for the US’s remaining authoritarian Arab allies. In Jordan and Saudi Arabia, until now restive publics have been fearful of opposing their leaders because the US supports them. Now that the US is abandoning its most important ally and siding with its worst enemies, the Hashemites and the Sauds don’t look so powerful to their Arab streets. The same can be said for the Kuwaiti leadership and the pro-American political forces in Iraq.

As for Israel, America’s behavior towards Egypt should put to rest the notion that Israel can make further territorial sacrifices in places like the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley in exchange for US security guarantees. US behavior today – and the across-the-board nature of American rejection of Mubarak – is as clear a sign as one can find that US guarantees are not credible.

As Prof. Barry Rubin wrote this week, “There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.”

Unfortunately, given the cluelessness of the US foreign policy debate, this situation is only likely to grow worse.

Actually We Could Use Some Of This Kind Of Justice Here In America-We Really Need To Clean Up Our Act As A Nation

Indonesian Star Jailed for Sex Tape Scandal

Published January 31, 2011
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (66) Text Size

Jan. 31: Indonesian singer Nazril "Ariel" Irham of the group Peterpan pauses while talking to journalists after his trial at a district court in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. The Indonesian pop star who rocked this predominantly Muslim nation after several homemade sex tapes found their way to the Internet was sentenced Monday to three and a half years in jail. (AP)
BANDUNG, Indonesia -- One of Indonesia's best-known pop stars was sentenced Monday to 3 1/2 years behind bars after sex tapes with his celebrity girlfriends found their way to the Internet, riveting and dividing this predominantly Muslim nation.

Liberals said the embarrassment suffered by Nazril "Ariel" Irham -- who insists the videos were not intended for public viewing -- was punishment enough. But hard-liners were outraged, saying the singer was contributing to the country's moral decline.

Hundreds charged the gates of the courthouse in the city of Bandung after the verdict was read out, yelling "Too light! Too light," as he sped off in an armored police car.

Ariel, lead singer of the country's most popular band, Peterpan, was the first celebrity to be charged under Indonesia's strict anti-pornography law, which came into effect in 2008 despite strong opposition from the public and members of government.

It is seen by many as vaguely worded and as carrying overly harsh penalties.

Ariel insists the tapes were stolen from his house and posted online without his knowledge, but presiding Judge Singgih Budi Prakoso said the pop star did nothing to prevent their widespread distribution.

He sentenced him to 3 1/2 years in jail -- well short of the maximum 12 years -- and slapped him with a $25,000 fine.

"As a public figure, the defendant should be aware that fans might imitate his behavior," Prakoso said, adding that the frontman for Peterpan -- which is also popular in neighboring Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei -- did not show remorse.

His supporters were devastated.

"He's just a victim," said Roslawati, 30, as tears streamed from his eyes. "He didn't post that video."

Indonesia, a secular country of 237 million people, has more Muslims than any other country in the world. Though most are moderate, a small extremist fringe has become more vocal in recent years.

They have pushed through controversial laws -- including the anti-porn bill -- and been known to attack anything perceived as blasphemous, from transvestites and bars to "deviant" religious sects.

More than 500 demonstrators turned out Monday, some pelting the police vehicle carrying Ariel to the court with rotten eggs and tomatoes. Others held placards criticizing the star.

When the verdict was read out, they rushed and rattled the gates of the courthouse and briefly scuffled with the singer's supporters. Police fired warning shots to break up the fight.

"More years for Ariel!" shouted Kurnia Maryati, a 33-year-old mother of three who was wearing an Islamic headscarf.

The videos were made public in June.

The first six-minute clip purportedly showed Ariel in bed with his girlfriend, Luna Maya, a top model and actress who joined him at the court Monday. She broke down in tears when the ruling was read out.

The second clip showed him with a former girlfriend, also a well-liked model and television presenter, Cut Tari.

The clips were spread on Facebook and YouTube and distributed by mobile phone rapidly, prompting the government to try to impose a so-far unsuccessful online filter for porn.

It is not yet clear if the women in the videos will also be punished.

But the man who admitted to posting the tapes on the Internet was sentenced Monday in a separate trial to two years in jail.


McLachlan sponsors birther bill in Hartford
Published: 02:21 p.m., Monday, January 31, 2011

DANBURY -- State Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, submitted a bill proposal last week mandating presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates in order for their names to be placed on the ballot.
"You have to have a birth certificate to get a driver's license," McLachlan said. "The same should be true to become president or vice president."
McLachlan submitted his proposal after hearing several arguments about President Barack Obama's citizenship, he said.
"They claim that he is not a natural-born citizen," McLachlan said.
McLachlan said he is not suggesting that Obama is not a natural-born citizen with this bill. Instead, McLachlan said, he hopes passage of the bill will stop these types of arguments in the future.
"Let's stop talking about this," McLachlan said.
McLachlan suspected he might receive some negative feedback about his proposed bill, but he said he is trying to enforce the U.S. Constitution, which says in Article 2, Section 1, "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."
The proposed bill is currently being reviewed by the Legislative Committee, McLachlan said.
Contact Stacy Davis at 203-731-3331 or

Read more:

Hawaii: Formal complaint of election fraud against Lt. Gov. Brian E. Schatz, acting as Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; Investigate Now!

-Obama & Schatz- Snippet via jbjd; If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election...

The Emperor’s Pink Burka
 By Judi McLeod Full Story
Completely missed amid the agonizing cries of human misery in Egypt is that the ending of a United Nations fairytale is being written.  The bum’s rush for President Hosni Mubarak has now gone global and from out of nowhere the Muslim Brotherhood-endorsed Mohamed El Bardei has arrived on the protest scene.  El Baradei’s got the Nobel Peace Prize.  All he’s really missing is the white horse.
Egypt will be turned over to radical Islam leadership.  And it would never have happened without President Barack Obama, who first ran the white flag flying over America up the flagpole—without the permission or knowledge of the American people—on April 6, 2010.




BREAKING: Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

The full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who've seen the decision, he's ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The ruling favors of the 26 state attorney generals challenging the law. The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner:



Al Jazeera: 250,000 Pack Downtown Cairo..
New Government Sworn In, But Mubarak Still In Charge 


Hannity gives green light: Questions that Bill O’Reilly should ask the usurper, Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Hussein Obama on Superbowl Sunday

- The Pillars of Good Journalism: Thoroughness, Accuracy, Fairness and Transparency - Give Us Liberty - Sadly, FOX News led by the pompous, self-righteous and arrogant Bill O’Reilly have failed and actually...
Chris Field

Chris Field

Who Are the Muslim Brotherhood?

Pundits and experts are everywhere talking about the Muslim Brotherhood and their role in the current protests in Egypt.

But who are they? Where did they get their start? Are there Islamic jihadists influencing our government? Who are the jihadists influencing? What have they accomplished? And what is their end game?

Click the photo below to read the full column we first published in the May 2010 issue of Townhall Magazine that exposed the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Egyptian Uprising: Could it Happen Here? »

The Egyptian Uprising:  Could it Happen Here?CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT, POOR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SPARK UNREST THROUGHOUT THE ARAB WORLD by Sharon Rondeau (Jan. 30, 2011) —The current uprising in Egypt stemming from...
Jan 30 2011 / Read More »

The Silver Bullet

©2010 drkate
It is often said that there is no ‘silver bullet’, no one pathway to stop a destructive element once it has begun.  But in the case of the U.S. ‘march to socialism’ and its own internal destruction, there IS a silver bullet:  it is Obama’s lack of eligibility.
What eligibility issue?
Those who haven’t already, wrap your mind around this:  the man has no authority whatsoever to do anything: nominate Supreme Court Justices, appoint czars, to spend our money, or to nationalize the auto, banking and health industries. He certainly has no authority to decide, all by himself, to nuke the oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and destroy us all.
Don’t send me another petition to stop this or that nomination or bill– focus on the source of the problem: he is illegally occupying the office of the Presidency. Don’t write me any more analyses of what is wrong with this psycho, he is illegally occupying the White House.
And don’t tell me he can harass Arizona for implementing federal law, he is an illegal himself and, like they say in Arizona, ‘illegal is not racist‘, its a crime.
First principles:  the basic legal authority for the office of the President is  missing because Obama/Soetoro does not meet the qualifications for the office: two citizen parents and born in the United States. Obama was not born anywhere in the United States, and he is not an American citizen. Period, end of story.  No more distractions or initiatives.
On this issue alone, millions have been waiting for his arrest and removal from office.  Millions have been waiting for the so called Congress to do its job and investigate.  Millions have been waiting for the statesmen and women to arise above the trash heap of politicians, regardless of the consequences. And the military?  Who actually does uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States?
Afraid of the Race Card
Behind the fear of being labeled a ‘birther’ is the fear of being accused of being racist.  “The only reason you are questioning Obama’s birthplace is because he is black”.  This race card, and the political correctness affliction, has been used to suppress all questioning of Obama, as he rushes his agenda through America like a freight train.  He knows he will be caught, but he figures we are too afraid of name calling to say anything.  So far, this has worked.
Duped by the Politicians
I am glad that the clarion call for Obama’s resignation has  been sounded by Pastor Manning, and also by individuals such as General Paul Vallely.  To build on this call, a campaign has been launched to send a million letters to Obama demanding his resignation.
And do we think he cares?
Very cleverly but not at all courageously, Congressman John Boehner has ‘stepped up’ to have his office deliver these letters to the White House.
And says nothing, and has said nothing, about Obama’s eligibility or Congress’ right to investigate him.  The Post and Email’s report begins with this response from Boehner’s staffer:
From: Tom Arnold
Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 7:48 PM
So big deal, Mr. Boehner.
A New Strategy
It is time to lose the fear of labels and the false race card or race baiting.
Can you imagine if the 15 million tea party members focused on the investigation of Obama’s eligibility?  And just that as a first step, must do action, before anything more business can be transacted by Congress?  Clogging the hallways until they act?  Shutting down the city?
It is also time to send 50 million letters to Congress demanding they investigate Obama.  And specifically, targeting the Republicans.  The extent to which they delay, avoid, or lie about this issue will identify whose side they are on.  Can we copy these letters to the top military lawyers for the each of the armed services?
Call them out on this, Boehner should not be allowed to slide and somehow be a ‘champion’.  They need to do their job or get out of the way.  And we demand the truth, no matter where the chips may fall.
Misprision of felony, and misprision of treason, are two important reminders for all of these politicians and their staff.
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.  Title 18USC
When Obama goes down, so does Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Clinton, Napolitano, Sotomayor, Kagan, the czars, and many, many others.
Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions for the content of this letter, and who should receive it?  :smile:


The birthers have a plan to end Barack Obama's presidency

Yes, they have a plan—and it may not be crazy

— By David Corn [A CERTIFIED OBOT]

"Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so."
The birthers have a plan to end Barack Obama's presidency—and in Arizona, they're making progress.

Last week, Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican, introduced a bill that would bar presidential candidates who do not prove they were born in the United States from appearing on the ballot in the Grand Canyon state. And state Rep. Chad Campbell, the top Democrat in the GOP-controlled Arizona House of Representatives, tells Mother Jones that the bill is likely to pass. It was introduced with 25 co-sponsors in the House and 16 co-sponsors in the state Senate; the measure needs 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate for approval. "Will it matter?" asks Campbell. "We've started a tradition here of passing legislation that is political grandstanding or that sets up litigation."

But the birthers—those ardent Obama foes who believe the president was not born in Hawaii and, thus, is not constitutionally qualified serve as president—see this measure as more than symbolic. For them, it's part of a well-orchestrated campaign to deny Obama reelection.

It's not that Obama necessarily requires Arizona's 10 electoral votes to win reelection in 2012. In 2008, he lost there to John McCain, Arizona's senior senator (though in 2012, Obama could make a play for the state). More important, Burges' bill—which would establish a strict standard for proving natural-born citizenship (which the birthers presume Obama could not meet)—is a model for other states, and similar efforts are under way in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Georgia, and Texas. (Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes.) Arizona may be where this birther ball gets rolling.

"We've started a tradition here of passing legislation that is political grandstanding or that sets up litigation."Last year, Burges introduced a similar measure that stalled in committee. Her new one is much tougher. The original bill would have set up a system under which a presidential candidate would have to document his or her citizenship to be listed on the state ballot. Here's how it would work: The national political party would submit an affidavit from its presidential candidate in which the candidate states his citizenship, and this affidavit would have to be supported by "documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen." Arizona's secretary of the state would then review the affidavit and supporting documents, and if there were "reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship" requirement, the secretary of state would be able to keep the candidate off the ballot.

This system left discretion to the secretary of state. And Burges' original bill did not specify what documents would be acceptable. Consequently, the certification of live birth that the Obama campaign produced in 2008 might well qualify as sufficient documentation under that measure.

Burges' new version raises the bar. It notes that the affidavit must be accompanied by "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance." (The other documentation required would include a list "that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.") And the law states that if the candidate fails to submit these records, the secretary of state "shall not" place his or her name on state ballot.

There's no wiggle room: Produce a long-form birth certificate, or no ballot-listing. That certification of live birth issued by the Hawaiian government would not count. (Two weeks ago, radio personality Mike Evans said he had been told by Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie that no original birth certificate could be found for Obama—a remark that lit up the birther community—but this past week, Evans said he had been misunderstood. Meanwhile, Hawaiian legislators have introduced a bill charging anyone requesting Obama's birth records—meaning that certification of live birth—$100, in order to cut down on birther requests.)

"Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so."
Burges' bill, if passed, would have to be signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to become law, and, if enacted, could well face a court challenge. It would establish a hard-and-fast criterion for all presidential candidates.

"Imagine if just one or two states adopt such a measure before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for reelection."But what if a candidate does not have a long-form version of his or her birth certificate, and the state where he or she was born could not locate a copy—say, it was lost in a fire, or simply misfiled? Would he or she be out of the running? The law also demands the candidate produce an "original" long-form birth certificate. Does that mean a copy wouldn't suffice?

Birthers are ecstatic about the Arizona move. "It could be a game-changer," declares WorldNetDaily, a conservative site run by Joseph Farah, a leading birther. "Imagine if just one or two states adopt such a measure before 2012," Farah says. "Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for reelection. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so." In the past, Farah has put up billboards around the country asking, "Where's the birth certificate?"

Campbell complains that the Arizona measure is "not based on an factual evidence. I'm trying to figure out the thinking behind this bill. I can't. It's just another conspiracy." But the strategic intent is clear: maintaining the marginalized birther movement. Numerous lawsuits filed by the birthers have failed in the courts. Last month, Lt. Col. Terry Larkin, an Army doctor who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan because he questioned whether Obama was born in the United States, was dismissed from the Army and sentenced to six months in prison for refusing his orders. And last year, a Republican birther bill in the US House of Representatives fizzled.

Yet the birthers are charged up about this new battle plan: using GOP-dominated state legislatures to pressure Obama to produce a long-form birth certificate. A win on this front in Arizona will not in and of itself scuttle Obama's reelection (assuming no such document for Obama can be produced). But it will certainly encourage birthers in other states to follow suit—and to keep their hope, and conspiracy theory, alive.


 WOLF: Tawdry details of Obamacare

White House quietly exempts pampered politicos

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf
The Washington Times
If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.
Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.
Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.
Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.
Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.
For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.
Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.
In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.
The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?
Story Continues →


Weekend Edition
The U.S. government wants to take you down with it
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Have you ever wondered why the State of the Union speech involves so much pomp and posing?

You don't have to be an astute political analyst to realize the whole charade is propaganda designed to make people feel good about the government. But why bother?

Why risk embarrassing yourself on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" program by saying something stupid… or something that's exactly the opposite of what you promised last year?

For example, in 2009, President Obama said, "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination."

But this week, the same president, standing in the very same room, talking to essentially the same audience, said exactly the opposite. He was grandstanding to the new political mood and scolded the assembled lawmakers. He issued a "warning" that he would veto any bill that contained so much as a single earmark.

What a phony. What a liar. Why go on national TV and prove it?

If Obama doesn't want to, who's going to force him? His government is the world's only superpower, with troops in more than 100 countries. It listens to every phone call that's dialed. It reads every e-mail that's sent. It watches every road. It looks at every financial transaction.

Our government is so powerful, it can borrow $0.40 of every dollar it spends while demanding the rest of the world use its paper money. Its own courts are afraid of ruling against it, to the point of ignoring the plain language of its own Constitution.

So… why bother with this charade?

The most important element to a stable society is the idea (the lie, mostly) that the government is legitimate. Government is violence and coercion. Government is force. And for that force to be tolerated by millions, it must appear to be legitimate.

Any information or argument that the government is corrupt or inept is dangerous because it threatens its legitimacy. That's why there's such a tremendous fight over the obvious corruption between state employee unions and elected officials. That's why no one wants to explain to the American people that our federal government is bankrupt. We're printing money because it's better to steal from our creditors than admit our government is inept.

And that's why the State of the Union is such a spectacle. See The State in all its glory…

But remember this: Our State, as powerful as it is, relies on an assumption that's made collectively by millions of Americans.

We must believe the people we saw on TV listening to the president are fundamentally good and honest people. We must never come to doubt the character of those people or the process they used to gain power.

If that happens, our State, even though it's the most powerful in the world, could quickly collapse. It is nothing without the consent of the governed. And our consent depends entirely on its legitimacy.

I believe our government is in imminent danger of losing its legitimacy. Why?

Our federal government is bankrupt and threatening to bankrupt several generations of Americans. At some point – one that is rapidly approaching – Americans will repudiate these debts and the legitimacy of the government that incurred them.

Unaffordable foreign debts and the obvious perfidy of "quantitative easing" will soon render our currency worthless. It is a shame upon the honor of our country that we would even consider using the printing press to finance our debts… It is a high crime that we have done so. The world will long remember the way we have treated our creditors.

Over the last 50 years, the government became a socialist tool. It steals assets from responsible, hard-working citizens and distributes them to others, mainly on the basis of political patronage. At some point, these policies become self-destructive. So many people end up on the dole, the government has no way to finance their needs. We have reached that point. Today, more than half of all voters pay zero federal income taxes.

Our aggressive foreign policy has created billions of enemies overseas while propping up regimes that would disgust most Americans – like the Saudis.

Most critically… our government is for sale. As the price of influence in Washington continues to escalate, it will become impossible to deny the patently obvious truth: Government policy is awarded to the highest bidder and our "free" elections are essentially rigged by the massive sums spent on advertising for candidates.

While I look forward to the day my fellow citizens begin to see their government as it really is, I also fear that day… for it will surely mark the beginning of an "interesting" moment in history.

The leadership of the United States is pretending this day of reckoning will never occur… that Bernanke can successfully paper over these debts along with however many trillions of additional dollars are necessary. This is the absolute height of ignorance. The destruction of our currency and our country's standing in the world's economy is certain.

We are already at the point where our government's debt cannot be financed at any legitimate rate of interest… And yet our leaders show zero interest in doing anything to prevent this unmitigated financial disaster.

As many of you know, I've produced a video about these real problems and my suggestions for dealing with them. If you haven't watched it yet, I strongly encourage you to do so.


Porter Stansberry

Sunday, January 30, 2011


January 29, 2011
©2011 jbjd
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
“A citizenry that cannot compel its current elected officials to carry out those laws already in effect, cannot change this outcome by electing new officials or enacting new laws.”

If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job.  Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.  Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts.
Those of you in states without existing ballot eligibility laws can focus on drafting smart candidate ballot eligibility laws for 2012.  The rest of you can work to persuade your A’sG to enforce existing laws.  In this way, that is, by concentrating on eliminating election fraud viz a viz the ballot using both prevention AND remediation, we can get at the problem of candidate eligibility coming AND going.

For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii.  Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov.  And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.  (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)
All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

The WTF? Campaign

©2011 drkate
What the F***?  The usurpers are running again?
The primary reason the Obama-nation campaign is a what the f*** campaign is this:

…and this, this, and this.
I don’t know, maybe he made up “WT F***” like a sort of  ‘Hail Mary’ pass (when he wants to be Christian) because he knows at least ten states will not allow him on the ballot, and neither will tens of millions of people.
The Obamas started their 2012 campaign with the disgusting rally on the coffins of American citizens.  To the Obrats–Barack, Michelle, and Jarett, “Winning the Future”  makes it about America versus the Obamas, a paradigm tainted with death, harassment, ridicule, and ruination if you do not comply agree.
Continue reading ‘The WTF? Campaign’

We'll see Bastard...we'll see... ain’t easy smacking the White House with questions about missing birth certificates, dual citizenship, multiple social security numbers, illegal campaign finance, treason, et al., all the time if you’re getting invited to their exclusive parties, now is it?

 While Cairo Burns, Obama Parties

by Keith Koffler on January 30, 2011
The Washington A-List was out in force Saturday night at the farewell party for senior adviser David Axelrod, with a roster of guests featuring Cabinet secretaries, big shot journos and – President Obama.
As revolution threatened to sweep Egypt and possibly other allies – with the horrifying prospect of Islamism replacing reliable friends – the president was on view partying with the IN crowd.
The skepticism beyond the Beltway about whether Washington is just one big Love-In certainly gets fed by the sight – as conveyed by the press pool report – of reporters like ABC’s Jake Tapper, NBC’s Chuck Todd, National Journal’s Major Garrett, and John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times emerging from a bash with the president that was held to toast his chief political fixer and leading spinmeister.
I understand why reporters would do this – other than the admittedly pathetic notion that, gosh, it’s fun to party with the president of the United States! It is pretty good for building sources and getting inside dope. But man, it ain’t easy smacking the White House with tough stories all the time if you’re getting invited to their exclusive parties, now is it?
Also on hand were Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The party was at the Washington residence of Linda Douglass, the former hard-hitting ABC reporter who dropped out of journalism to spin the health care bill out of the White House. She’s now a VP at Atlantic Media.
So we have an official with a journalism outfit – Atlantic Media – HOSTING a party for the president and his consigliere.
Mrs. Obama stayed home. Good for her. Maybe she was monitoring the situation in Egypt.

Hannity gives green light: Questions that Bill O’Reilly should ask the usurper, Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Hussein Obama on Superbowl Sunday

- The Pillars of Good Journalism: Thoroughness, Accuracy, Fairness and Transparency - Give Us Liberty - Sadly, FOX News led by the pompous, self-righteous and arrogant Bill O’Reilly have failed and actually...

Muslim Brotherhood Group CAIR on FOX Pushing for Overthrow in Egypt

Why is Muslim Brotherhood CAIR on FOX news right now? The Islamic supremacist Ahmed Rehab is on FOX denouncing Mubarak, advocating for overthrow.
Rehab is in Egypt right now. How coincidental. The American Muslim Brotherhood in America is in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood plots to take over that secular Arab country.
Rehab: "It pains me that my own government back home supports a dictator....."
Horrible. We expect this from the leftist apologist cable networks, but FOX is dangerous because they pretend to get it.
CAIR has been sending out press releases pushing Obama to push Mubarak out (so, inevitably, ElBaradei, Iran and the Brotherhood can take over).
If anyone can get video -- please send it. FOX must stop this propagandizing for the Brotherhood via CAIR. Or at least identify them as such. Why do they cover for them?
CAIR on the Iranian revolution back in June 2009: CAIR: Iran? Nothing to see, keep moving

Thanks to

It's common knowledge that the USURPER supports the Muslim Brotherhood...The MB is poised to seize control of Egypt if Mubarak's government falls...


In Egypt

Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Ismailia in March 1928 along with six workers of the Suez Canal Company. It began as a religious, political, and social movement with the credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran 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. Al-Banna called for the return to an original Islam and followed Islamic reformers like Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. According to him, contemporary Islam had lost its social dominance, because most Muslims had been corrupted by Western influences. Sharia law based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah were seen as laws passed down by Allah that should be applied to all parts of life, including the organization of the government and the handling of everyday problems
The following link has a dual purpose. The Muslim Brotherhood is indeed banned in Egypt and yet so many of them were elected to the Egyptian Parliament
The protesters in Egypt are the young. When all of the flurry is over, if Mubarak is ostracized it will be the Muslim Brotherhood who will gain control of Egypt, and put an end to the treaty between Egypt and Israel, and being in control of the Suez Canal will have a stranglehold on the United States.
Hamas is joining the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
From and idea put forth by Frank Gaffney, I recently wrote a blog entitled:
This thing with Egypt is just another page in the drama


The Muslim Brotherhood (terrorists) Invited To Obama Speech

"Brotherhood" Invited To Obama Speech By U.S.
The Atlantic
A sign that the Obama administration is willing to publicly challenge Egypt's commitment to parliamentary democracy:
Various Middle Eastern news sources report that the administration insisted that at least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's chief opposition party, be allowed to attend his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

The brotherhood is a Salafist/ Islamist party with branches in many countries, and it does not have a reputation for liberalism and has supported violent campaigns against Israel (and Egypt's own government).

It has deep roots in the region and traces its intellectual lineage to Sayyid Qutb, a top American-educated Islamic intellectual who was executed -- or martyred -- by the Egyptian government in 1966.
The Brotherhood has direct links with Sunni groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
Its standing in Egypt has suffered as of late because of a crackdown by the Egyptian government and a growing frustration that it is too conservative (anti-women's rights, the whole gamut) for a modern Middle East. Still, it's the largest Sunni opposition party in the world, and it's clear that the Obama administration wants to engage the Sunnis -- even the less moderate Sunnis -- in his "Mutual Respect" tour. Hoping to tamp down criticism that by speaking in Egypt, Obama is giving legitimacy to Hosni Mubarak's quasi-dictatorship, the administration also invited leading human rights activists to the speech.

When is the name Barrack Hussein Obama going to be listed as a co-conspirator against this nation? Everyone knows that he supports the Muslim Brotherhood. He should be arrested for crimes against our nation.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Write to your representatives today and ask that they introduce eligibility bills in their respective state legislatures...

"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further,"
- Atty. Orly Taitz

What a great point Dr. Kate!...

If Lakin is in jail, shouldn’t Abercrombie be too?

©2011 drkate
Usurper v USA
As an Officer whose oath requires a duty to protect and defend the Constitution, LTC Terrence Lakin asked the same question Governor Neil Abercrombie did:  where is the birth certificate?  Lakin asked the question as part of his duty as an officer not to obey unlawful orders; Abercrombie asked it as a ‘favor to an old friend’, and with concern for the political ramifications for 2012 .
Lakin’s punishment was stripping him of his livelihood, benefits, and jailing him in Leavenworth. Abercrombie’s punishment for asking the same question is remaining Governor to continue obfuscating the truth, handing out benefits, and spying on public employees.
Shouldn’t Abercrombie be in jail?  After all, in Obama’s world, anyone who asks him who he is gets punished.