28 November 2012

You're Either On the Bus, or Under the Bus

Tossing Susan Rice Under the Bus 

by Paul R. Hollrah

Trying to make some sense of the Susan Rice fiasco is like trying to make some sense of how the most incompetent and the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history managed to get himself reelected.  It probably can’t be done.  But, just for the sake of argument, it might be interesting to engage in a bit of conjecture about how Susan Rice got picked to go under the bus.   

First some background.  On Sunday morning, September 16, five days after an Islamic terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all five Sunday morning network talk shows.  Rushing from one broadcast studio to the next, Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press… and all within a time span of just two hours.  

The tale that Rice told at each stop was typical of what she stated on ABC’s This Week, where she said, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather – to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

So the question arises… and persists… why was the U.N. Ambassador chosen to deliver such a whopper to the American people when, in fact, she had no connection to and no responsibility for the consulate in Benghazi? 

The most logical pecking order of people who should have been called upon to answer for what happened at Benghazi is, in order: Barack Obama, President and Commander in Chief; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Michael Morrell, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor; and General David Petraeus, former Director of Central Intelligence.

As the principal architect and political beneficiary of the Benghazi fable, Barack Obama was not about to go on record as the bearer of what everyone would soon know was a false narrative.  But because he had hopes of explaining away the Benghazi terror attack in a way that would not damage his “al-Qaeda-is-on-its-heels” narrative two months before the November election, he had to have a patsy to carry his tale to the American people who was not only credible, but also expendable.  The one person who fit that description was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  And who is the only person who could make that decision, and who is the only person who could tell her exactly what to do and what to say?  Ambassador Rice is not in Hillary Clinton’s chain of command, so the order could have come from only one person: that would be Barack Obama.

He couldn’t expect Hillary to play that role.  As soon as the Benghazi story made the headlines, Hillary packed her polyester suits, grabbed her attaché case and her “body woman,” and got the hell out of town.  In a brief statement issued from Lima, Peru on Monday, October 15, where she was presumably conducting nuclear disarmament talks with the Peruvians, Clinton said, “I take responsibility.  I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Then, after stopping off in Washington just long enough to pick up a few changes of “undies,” she was off again on an extended tour of Hawaii, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia, returning on November 8, two days after the November election, when her testimony could not damage Obama’s reelection chances.

Compelling diplomatic business?  No.  Compelling political business?  Yes.  If Hillary had been in Washington and available to the Congress, she would have had some very difficult questions put to her.  And since it was Bill Clinton who was most responsible for exciting the Democratic base and getting Obama reelected, the last thing Obama wanted was to see Hillary sitting before a congressional committee.  The only thing to do was to get her out of town.

But what of Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense?  In terms of an attack on a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, Panetta’s only connection would have been in relation to a military rescue operation or a military response to al-Qaeda.  But since it appeared as if he had disobeyed Obama’s order to “secure our people” in Benghazi, Panetta was keeping a decidedly low profile.  Obama didn’t want Panetta having to answer questions about why he and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey had disobeyed his order.  Or, worse yet, having Panetta reveal that Obama had not given such an order… Obama’s public pronouncements to the contrary. 

General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?  In his previous incarnation he served as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Clapper's role in the Benghazi scandal shouldn't surprise anyone.  It certainly didn't surprise author Bob McCarty, who’s upcoming book, The Clapper Memo, will expose some of the DNI’s earlier exploits as USDI which are now “coming home to roost” in the form of so-called “Green-on-Blue” attacks in Afghanistan.

If there is a chief suspect in the effort to find who it was that rewrote the CIA talking points of September 12, which identified Ansar al Sharia as the al-Qaeda subsidiary responsible for the Benghazi attack, the finger would most logically point to General Clapper.  And since Obama must have known that his Director of National Intelligence was not a man to be trusted with the responsibility for carrying out an assignment of such strategic political importance… and get it right five times within two hours… he knew that General Clapper was not his man. 

Michael Morrell, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence?  This is the same Michael Morrell who in testimony before a congressional committee on Thursday, November 15, attempted to shield Susan Rice from criticism.  He told the committee that Rice had been provided with an unclassified version of the deadly attack in Benghazi that was incorrect. 

He failed to explain to the committee how or why, if the CIA knew on September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, that the attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist group, they allowed the U.N. Ambassador to appear on five Sunday morning TV interviews four days later, carrying a totally false narrative.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon?  When the White House leaked classified information detailing the Navy SEAL methodology that brought Osama bin Laden to justice in Abbottabad; identifying the Pakistani doctor who assisted U.S. intelligence personnel in locating bin Laden; and providing details of the US-Israeli cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, it didn’t take then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates long to figure out who was responsible for the leaks.

As Jake Tapper of ABC News has reported, “… Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the (bin Laden) raid.

“ ‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend...’

“ ‘What was that?’ Donilon asked.

“ ‘Shut the f_ _ k up,’ the defense secretary said.”

Donilon’s credibility was so damaged by that episode that Obama didn’t dare send him before the five Sunday morning talk shows carrying a false version of the Benghazi attack.

And finally, General David Petraeus.  In the days following the Benghazi attack, Obama knew two very important things about his Director of Central Intelligence.  First, in spite of numerous denials to the contrary, Obama had to have known that Petraeus was under investigation by the FBI in connection with the Paula Broadwell affair.  In other words, he knew that his Director of Central Intelligence was in a potentially compromising position.  And finally, he knew that he could count on a man of Petraeus’s caliber to go only so far in parroting a false narrative in which politics trumped all other considerations.

Obama’s only choice was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, another incompetent hanger-on who had ambitions to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Her ambition would dictate that she do what she was told without asking too many questions.  And with an ethically neutral mainstream media as watchdogs, there was a very good chance that they could pull it off.

Sorry, Obama.  Your luck just ran out.  There’s room for only so many “expendables” under that bus of yours and now you’ll have to pay the price.  Most importantly, if we’re lucky, and if we can find just a few members of Congress with the backbone to do what’s right, it appears all but certain that we’ll find an impeachable offense or two in all of this... just something to make your second inauguration a most memorable one.

Was Benghazi A False Flag Op Meant To Insure Re-Election?

and make the Muslim Brotherhood the heros in a rescue action? It would explain why the SEALs were told to stand down. It would not explain why Dear Leader was absent for 7 hours.
Where was he? Why are there no pictures from the Situation Room like there were when SEAL Team 6 took out Bin Laden? Dear Leader was ready to take all the credit for that operation. He wasn't shy about releasing a lot of intel regarding the Bin Laden take down. Why is he hiding from this one?

Why Petreaus was sacrificed:
This thing is playing out like a well written mystery novel. Is the worst still yet to come?

I received this message yesterday. If this proves to be true, it is impeachable grounds. It also may help explain why Petreaus was forced out a few days before the Benghazi hearings. It explains a lot of the behavior by Obama and his administration - the pulled security, the "stand down" orders, and blaming everything on that stupid video. The fireworks may be coming.
And it could be the first of many disasters ahead.

According to sources in the State Department and the CIA, and intercepted communications from the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama "staged" the attack in Benghazi in order to create a monumental "October Surprise" that would guarantee him re-election.

Yes, you read that right, and no, I'm not making this up. Obama, we now know is and has been working with the Muslim Brotherhood secretly to engineer the release of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

In Obama's October Surprise, he intentionally set up the consulate to have no security so that Chris Stevens could be kidnapped and held for ransom by Al-Qaeda (and the Muslim Brotherhood). Then, several days before the election, the plan was to trade Chris Stevens for the Blind Sheik, making himself look like a hero, and all but guaranteeing re-election.

This was one of the top reasons why Obama was so insistent on the Muslim Brotherhood getting $1.2 Billion in U.S. Aid. They were to have a primary role in getting Obama re-elected. That is why, even though they knew days before the attack that it was going to occur, no effort was made to bolster security. It was intended to be non-existent. The Libyan security forces were intended to quietly slip into the compound when the attack began. And they did, just as planned. That is why, even though 2 C-130U gunships, which were built SPECIFICALLY for this kind of attack, and which could have saved the lives of our people there
, and were a mere 45 minutes away, were never scrambled at any time during the attack.

There was to be no resistance whatsoever. That is why there were not one, but TWO armed drones flying over the consulate during the conflagration... Our CIA operatives on the ground were painting targets because they knew air cover was available. That is why, even though requesting support and backup three times, their requests were NOT ignored, but were intentionally
and specifically DENIED three times, and they were told to "stand down," which basically means to "surrender." That was part of Obama's plan.

They were not to fight back. That would potentially undermine the kidnapping effort and cause unnecessary "complications." That is why, even though the CIA operatives and ex-Navy Seals were on the ground, providing real-time reports, and even though they were "lighting up" the source of the mortars attacking the compound with lasers, no gunships or support ever came. They weren't supposed to resist. That wasn't "part of the plan." It also wasn't part of the plan for one of the CIA operatives to intentionally defy Obama's orders, and who rescued the body of Sean Smith and then stood up against orders and engaged the enemy who was attacking American soil. It was supposed to be "clean, quick and efficient”.

Kidnap the Ambassador and get out.

They didn't factor in a tiny group of highly trained ex-Navy Seals/CIA operatives... American Patriots and heroes. Even though they eventually lost their lives in the firefight, they managed to employ the full measure of their skills, and took out over 80 attackers in the process, which enraged the attackers who were led to believe that they would encounter no resistance.

THAT is why Ambassador Stevens was murdered and dragged through the streets. In their warped minds, they believed that they had been betrayed by the U.S.
yet again. They believed that Obama was their friend. They believed that they were going to get their beloved Blind Sheik back. And yet, there were 80 of their own dead by American hands.

Obama was asked directly in an interview if he denied their request for assistance
.  He refused to answer, and instead droned on with a canned response promising to "bring those responsible to justice."  Former CIA and State Department personnel are coming out now with damning evidence that indicts President Obama and reveals the truth about what is going on.  Stay tuned.

FBI May Impound ‘Pro-Obama’ Voting Machines

and that, my friends, will be that. We will hear no more of this nonsense. Now go back to your homes and pretend you still live in a free society that values honesty and integrity.

FBI May Impound ‘Pro-Obama’ Voting Machines
Despite there being evidence of massive voter fraud in the presidential election; despite the Obama Administration suppressing the traditionally conservative military vote by “losing” absentee ballots and simply mailing them out too late to make a difference, election officials have, as expected, ignored the mounting calls to investigate whether Obama actually won the election.

Now a movement is afoot to impound the thousands of voting machines that “malfunctioned”, switching a Romney vote to one for Obama. Some local officials have put the suspected voting machines in “quarantine” before they can be erased of information to determine if, in fact, the Obama campaign hacked into the machines.

Many local officials are calling on the FBI to do a forensic analysis of the voting machines—which are really computers—to determine if they have, in fact, been “hacked.”

22 November 2012

THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports

THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports

They stole it folks. We are now offically a third world country with a tincup dictator and sycophants in charge of everything. Thanks morons. Enjoy your "utopia".

For Fourth Straight Year, Obama's Thanksgiving Message Doesn't Thank God

For Fourth Straight Year, Obama's Thanksgiving Message Doesn't Thank God
No one cares as long Dear Leader keeps handing out the free stuff and giving the unions a reach around.

No mention of thanking God. None.

But, of course, we’re used to this. In 2011, there was no mention of God at all. In 2010, Obama was closer, but still missed the mark (“we’ll spend some time taking stock of what we’re thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another”). In 2009, Obama didn’t thank God, either.

Compare that to Obama’s Thanksgiving Day proclamations, which he does not read or speak. Those are filled with God – at least for the last three years. In his first year, filled with the vim and vigor of his original election, Obama preferred to eschew any direct thanking of God even in his proclamation.

2012: “On Thanksgiving Day, individuals from all walks of life come together to celebrate this most American tradition, grateful for the blessings of family, community, and country. Let us spend this day by lifting up those we love, mindful of the grace bestowed upon us by God and by all who have made our lives richer with their presence.”

2011: “As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives. Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the year to come.”

2010: “As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God.”

Of course, nobody sees these proclamations, so Obama doesn’t have to be embarrassed about them.

It’s no wonder that this President’s Democratic National Committee platform tried to remove God. He’s not a big fan of the Big Guy. Even on Thanksgiving. After all, what need do you have for God when you’ve got the state?

Fail: Lone Union Worker Walks Out of Walmart

Fail: Lone Union Worker Walks Out of Walmart

BAAAAWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Poor baby. She cant live on 12 bucks an hour then bitches about the taxpayers supporting her food stamp habit.

And Honey, YOU pay Medicare taxes.

“They pay low wages, then the taxpayers pick up the tab for food stamps and Medicaid,” said Ferreira. “They need to take care of their people. They need to be responsible to their workers.”

Huffington Post tried to champion Ferreira as a brave soul:

Whatever strikes hit Walmart stores this Friday, it's likely only a small, perhaps miniscule fraction of the retailer's 1.4-million member U.S. workforce will take part. And though news footage may show boisterous gatherings by activists outside stores, the more daring acts of protest will have been undertaken by individual workers like Ferreira who walk out when there are no TV cameras around. In recent days, it became clear that if she went on strike she would probably do so alone.

But even Ferreira acknowledges that the other Walmart employees say she doesn’t speak for them, and are annoyed by her theatrics.

Unions Set To Strike Against Boeing

Unions Set To Strike Against Boeing

Shut down LAX in the midle of the Thanksgiving Holiday.
Tell me again why these dhimmis are good for America?

SEIU Leader Incites Riot After Cory Booker Makes Controversial Vote

SEIU Leader Incites Riot After Cory Booker Makes Controversial Vote

And so it begins. They are turning on their own. Hopefully, this will help to thin the herd and reduce the number of opposition forces.

19 November 2012

A Message To WalMart Workers Preparing To Protest Increase In Healthcare Premiumns

I heard ya'll are going to picket/protest/march/gather/assemble/act stupid in front of your employers' stores on Black Friday to protest/whine/bitch about/blame corporate greed for the increase in ya'lls healthcare premiums.

Aint America a great place? You are actually free, by virtue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to perform the aforementioned actions without fear of being arrested/detained/renditioned/shot or otherwise deprived of your liberty/freedom/livelihood.

Now I have a piece of advice for all of you who will be performing the aforementiond actions and  I truly have your best interests in mind and this is for the sake of your own health and safety:

THEY WILL RUN YOUR ASS DOWN and never miss a beat.

Now I have an observation regarding the increase in the cost of your healthcare premiums:

Here's why:
90% of you whining, bitchy little girls voted to keep the poser in office who is responsible for the increase.
90% of you also voted for the low-life scum sucking dhimmicrat politicians who voted to force the healthcare legislation on the rest of us. The rest of you didn't vote. Neither group has the right to bitch about the increase.


Did you get that? Its YOUR fault. You did it to yourself. You also did it to the remainder of the Americans who have employer-furnished healthcare. I know this because my premiums have been going up about 20% every year since this montrosity was shoved down our throats.

I have one more piece of advice for you idiots, morons, and whing bitchy little girls:

Go to work and help your employer turn a profit. You might be surprised at the outcome.

An Explanation of Islam and Why It Cannot Work In America

H/T to a Brother Marine for the heads-up

There are those who say that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Of those, some are liars and the rest are delusional.  Islam is what it is, but the one thing it can never be is a respected participant in any civilized society.  Events of early September in which radical Islamists either attacked or laid siege to U.S. embassies across the Muslim world, should be proof enough of the violent nature of Islamists.  In Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. Ambassador and three others were brutally murdered in an al-Qaeda attack.  It is reported that Ambassador Stevens was brutally sodomized before he was murdered and his body put on display in the streets of Benghazi. 

The nature of Islam is such that, in the absence of a complete and total renunciation of the Quran and Sharia Law, it is impossible for any Muslim believer to participate in western society.  Under the Islamic concept called Taqiyya, a Muslim is permitted to deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, so long as that dishonesty inures to the benefit of Islam. 

It is what allows devout Muslims to take the naturalization oath that all new U.S. citizens must take.  They swear as follows:  "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

 When devout Muslims take that oath are they being sincere?  No, they are willfully lying.  It is the concept of Taqiyya… the right to lie… that Muslim’s rely on when they take the oath to become citizens of the United States.

 In the mistaken belief that their 7th century culture is superior in every way to western cultures of the 21st century, Islam has not attempted to hide or sugar-coat their ultimate goal, which is to replace civil society in every western nation with an Islamic society based on Sharia Law and the Quran.  Accordingly, Islam offers those of us in western cultures a rather simple choice: either convert to Islam or die. 

 But what if we in the Christian world refuse to convert, and what if we prefer to live rather than die?  What is our alternative?  Given the choice between converting to Islam or going to our final reward, our only reasonable alternative is to begin now to quarantine Muslims to those regions  of the world where they can share their misery with none but other Muslims.  If co-existence between Islam and the other major religions is not an option, then Islam must yield.  Islam must go the way of communism and fascism, and that must be done in a timely manner before they are allowed to achieve majority status in any Western nation.  Time is short. 

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Conversely, the Quran teaches that Islam is the only true religion and that all other religions and all the peoples of the world must yield to it and submit to it.  To suggest that those of the Christian or Jewish faith can somehow reach an accommodation or a compromise with Islam, or to co-exist peaceably with it, is to state an absurdity.

The Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most beautiful collection of words ever penned by the hand of man, proclaims that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Muslims may interpret those words to mean that all men are created equal, but we Americans interpret them differently.  We understand those words of equality to include all human beings, regardless of gender.  In the Muslim world, the Quran teaches the inferiority of women and specifically approves and recommends the practice of wife-beating.  Girls and women are treated no better than farm animals and in some cases, when the male members of a family feel as if the family honor has been damaged by a female family member… even in cases where she may have been forcibly raped… that woman may be put to death in what Muslims call an “honor killing.”         

Islam is so repulsive to civilized societies and such a great danger to the lives and property of all non-Muslims, that an organization called Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) has begun the process of developing a detailed plan to bring a halt to the Islamization of the Christian world. 

But who would know Islam better than those who’ve had the courage to leave the faith?  An organization called FaithFreedom.org is, in their own words, “a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims” whose goal it is to tell the truth about Islam and to promote the adoption of a   constitutional amendment outlawing Islam in the United States. 

The organization’s website states that, “Muhammad’s merry band of disciples raided villages, looted and raped the women, and enslaved all who were not killed outright… No other cause is responsible for more deaths than Islam… Islam can’t be reformed, but it can be eradicated.  It can’t be molded, but it can be smashed… ” 

 In a November 24, 2010 article published by FaithFreedom.org, Dr. Jai Maharaj outlines the scope of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As justification for the constitutional amendment, he writes:

“Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.  It is necessary to outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States of America because the teachings of this religion are antithetical to many vital provisions of the U.S. Constitution and represent an existential threat to the security of American citizens.  Furthermore, Shariah law, which is intrinsic to all orthodox forms of Islam, which is based directly on the Qur'an, seeks, as a stated goal of the religion, to replace civil law with a system based on inhumane values on the presumption that these values are superior to anything in the Constitution or in the religions of the world, including the religious faiths of the vast majority of Americans.” 

Dr. Maharaj reminds us that “The United States was founded on ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one's religion of choice, or no religion, and that compulsion to practice any religion is not tolerable… Islam, in contrast, rejects each of these principles and is therefore incompatible, on a fundamental level, with American citizenship.”

He writes, “Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and impose its will on all other religions and upon democratic institutions.  This view is completely unacceptable to Americans and is anti-Constitutional.” 

He reminds us that “Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam, does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil, and this being the case, it would be unjustifiable to regard Islam as in any way compatible with the many religions which exist in the United States.  To suppose that the character of Islam is such that it can peacefully co-exist with followers of other faiths is, to be candid, an absurd proposition. 

“Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of its faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions, none of which is remotely compatible with the (United States) Constitution.  Additionally, representatives of Islam around the world… have declared jihad on America and regularly declare that America should cease to exist, and this being the case, any other course than outlawing Islam within the (United States) would be folly.”

In making the case that 1st Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would in no way be incompatible with an anti-Islam amendment, Dr. Maharaj argues that Islam is a sworn enemy to everything that America stands for.  He writes, “Because Islam is subversive by its very nature, and antagonistic to followers of all other religions, actively seeking to harm people of other faiths, and actively seeking to replace the U.S. Constitution with an alien legal system that is abhorrent to Americans, Muslims have no claim to First Amendment freedoms or protections.”

So how do we respond to those on the political left who are certain to wave the Constitution under our noses, defending the right of radical Islamists to subjugate all non-Muslims, including the people of the United States?

The 1st Amendment contains no language prohibiting the people of the United States from taking whatever steps are necessary to defend themselves from invasion and subjugation by purveyors of an alien political, economic, and religious culture.  Nowhere does it compel the American people to drink the poison-laced Islamic Kool-Ade, and nothing in the Constitution compels us to commit national suicide.  It’s us or them.  Either Islam must be tamed or it must be outlawed, just as communism was in times past.  

11 November 2012

Not That It Matters Now, BUT...

These four questions are very interesting and thought provoking. Please check them out and if you find that the information is important, pass it along.
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time ?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth
as August 4, 1961 & Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right ? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet
exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".
3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place
of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological
Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged.

How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978 ?


Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media ?

4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936—if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book—one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals—to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still qualifies as a “liar”) ?