Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Is Arizona Behaving Like The NAZIs?

Is Arizona behaving like the NAZI Party that Hitler joined in 1919 Germany?


Then why are so many from the Left screaming about Arizona officials demanding to see the official papers of suspected illegal immigrants?

Because they're using the same old tactic of distract and divert to get folks to discuss something other than the issue at hand.

The Left wants to destroy ANY substantive conversation about illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom has called for a ban on travel to Arizona, and the late night talk shows are having a field day demeaning Arizona's officials.
That's right, stir it up, make jokes about it, distract and divert, riot in the streets, get that Al Sharpton down there...
ANYTHING to keep from fixing the problem!

Let's get something clear right away...

What did the NAZI Party stand for?
According to Wikipedia...
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, (abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945.

It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) prior to a change of name in 1920.
The party's last leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich.

Nazi ideology stressed the failures of communism, liberalism, and democracy, and supported the "racial purity of the German people" and that of other Northwestern Europeans. The Nazis persecuted those they perceived as either race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, Roma, and so-called "Mischlings" along with Communists, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and others.

They became one of many völkisch movements that existed in Germany at the time. Like other völkisch groups, the DAP advocated the belief that Germany should become a unified "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines. This ideology was explicitly anti-Semitic as it declared that the "national community" must be judenfrei ("free of Jews").

OK... Got it?
The NAZIs were a narrowly focused NATIONALIST political party that advocated the destruction of their enemies. They hated anybody that stood in the way of Germany's return to power and splendor.
And I mean HATED!!!
Hell, they MURDERED millions!
No American advocates the destruction of any human being.

Americans that want illegal immigration to stop, advocate the return of illegals to their home country. No killings, no murders, no gasing, no concentration camps. Just go home!

Why don't they(the illegals) apply for visas and immigrate legally?
It's because their home country, like Mexico, makes it so very difficult and expensive to obtain the necessary paperwork and credentials to come to America legally! It's very expensive and can take up to 3 years or more to get the paperwork! They usually end up frustrated and just say, I'll take my chances with the Border Patrol!

Personally, I don't blame the immigrant for wanting to come to America.
I blame his country.
Mexico is corrupt and a country full of theives and drug dealers.
No wonder people want to flee!

But I ask you... Is it so wrong to want America to be strong and free of these parasites?
NO. It's not.

But The Left will not tolerate any discussion. They are intent on granting amnesty to all illegals. They want to be able to go to the illegals home or place of employment and say, "I was the one who gave you the opportunity to stay in America!" They want the illegal's VOTE!
It's that simple...

It has nothing to do with human rights, or racial equality, or nationalism, or border security. It's all about the votes!

But of course, along the way The Left will do all they can to villify those of us on The Right who disagree with them. They'll call the Arizona officials Nazis. They'll call anybody that disagrees with them all sorts of dirty names... Including NAZI!
Hmmm... I wonder, if The Left were to look into a mirror... I could be wrong, but, I believe they would see an image that is very close to that of Hitler's NAZIs... They themselves are more NAZI-like than anybody I've seen in the last 50 years!
But shoot... It's not Fascism when they do it! Right?

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Whose Country Is This?

Whose Cuntry Is This?
By Pat Buchanan

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers.

He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies.
He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief.
Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided."

He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights.
But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome.

But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in.

Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered.

There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security.

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States.

Why is Obama paralyzed?

Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home?
President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he?

Because he is politically correct.

Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.

Fair enough.

But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" – i.e., amnesty – that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law.

Let him go.

Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people?

Whose country is this, anyway?

America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.

Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.

This is not an option. It is an obligation.

Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?

Friday, April 23, 2010

GM... Paid In Full? - I Don't Think So!

GM Could Be in Hot Water With FTC Over Truth in Advertising
From FOXNews

General Motors is running ads on all the major networks this week claiming it has repaid its bailout from the taxpayers "in full." But the claim isn't standing up to scrutiny from lawmakers and government watchdogs who have found that the automaker was able to repay the bailout money only by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds.

General Motors is running ads on all the major networks this week claiming it has repaid its bailout from the taxpayers "in full." But the claim isn't standing up to scrutiny from lawmakers and government watchdogs who have found that the automaker was able to repay the bailout money only by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds.

The TV spot may land GM in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission over its truth-in-advertising laws, which prohibit ads that are "likely to mislead consumers."

"We have repaid our government loans in full — with interest — five years ahead of the original schedule," says Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of General Motors Company, asking Americans to give the bankrupt company another look.

But a top Senate Republican has accused GM of misleading taxpayers about the loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was able to repay a $6.7 billion bailout loan only by using other bailout funds in a special escrow account.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout — also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The FTC said it could not provide any comment on the ad or whether it had received any complaints or inquiries about GM's claims from the public or from government officials.

The FTC has a division of advertising practices that investigates possible false claims, but specific investigations are not made public. If the FTC determines that truth-in-advertising laws have been violated, the agency files complaints against the organizations in violation.

GM announced Wednesday that it had paid back the $8.1 billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments in 2009. Of that, $6.7 billion went to the U.S. Treasury.

"A lot of Americans didn't agree with giving GM a second chance," Whitacre said in the 60-second ad. "We invite you to take a look at the new GM."

Well, meet the new GM. Same as the old GM. The company is still majority-owned by the federal government, which has a 60 percent stake in the Detroit titan; the Canadian government owns another 12 percent.

GM is not yet solvent, continues to be racked by debt and is still unable to turn a profit — something that has eluded the company since 2004. GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009 but was saved from collapse by a $52 billion infusion from the federal government.

But the company says the repaid TARP loan is a "good start," a signal that the company is emerging from its debts and moving back into the black.

"I think any way you look at it, that we're giving (loans) back with interest before we had to should be taken as a positive sign," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

Martin said GM has not received any communications from the FTC or complaints from federal officials, and said that public feedback has been positive.
But Senator Grassley has called on Treasury Secretary Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep.

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote.

But Barofsky told Fox News that while it's "somewhat good news," there's a big catch.

"I think the one thing that a lot of people overlook with this is where they got the money to pay back the loan. And it isn't from earnings. ... It's actually from another pool of TARP money that they've already received," he said Wednesday. "I don't think we should exaggerate it too much. Remember that the source of this money is just other TARP money."

Barofsky told the Senate Finance Committee the same thing Tuesday, and said the main way for the federal government to earn money out of GM would be through "a liquidation of its ownership interest."

Grassley criticized this scenario in his letter.

"The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government's ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment," Grassley wrote.

The boys in Detriot were trying to pull a fast one on us!

Seems to be a lot of that going around nowadays!

Paid in full my ass!

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Why Islam Is Intolerable

Islam is intolerable because of its unholy sacrament: Jihad, defined in Islamic law as “to war against non-Muslims”.

Suhas Majumdar called it The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War.
Jihad is not an anachronism, the demonic command to perform it does not expire until Judgment Day, as evidenced by this quote from Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 “…jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)….”.

The following quotation comes from Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, Chapter 3.31.

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

1. What makes a war holy?

The mission: to establish Islam and make Allah’s word superior. What would profane a holy war? Embezzling the spoils, which includes killing enemy women and children because “they are property for Muslims”.

2. What makes holy war a religious duty?

Surah al-Baqarah 2:216 “Jihad is ordained for you”… and the commands to fight found in Surah al-Anfal 8:39 and Surah at-Taubah 9:29. They are confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

3. What makes the Muslim mission universal?
This saying of Moe found in Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331: “Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.”

4. What is the basis of the obligation to convert everybody?
In Surah al-Anfal 39, one of the compound terminal conditions is that only Allah be worshiped ["and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone"].

5. What is the basis of conversion by force?
In Sahih Muslim 19.4294, Moe’s order to his commanders in the field is quoted. He told them, when they meet the enemy, to offer three choices, to submit, submit and join Jihad or to pay jizya and live as second class citizens. If the demand for Jizya was refused, he ordered his commanders to fight the disbelievers. In Surah al-Imran 3:110, Allah refers to believing Muslims as “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”. That ayeh is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 “…means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

6. The translators of the Noble Qur’an define Jihad in a footnote to Surah al-Baqarah 2:190. Establishment of Islam is one of the elements of that definition: “…By Jihâd Islâm is established…”

7. In the footnote cited above, the quote continues with: “Allâh’s Word is made superior…”. That objective is clearly stated in Surah at-taubah 9:33 “…to make it superior over all religions…”. This is confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 9.93.550 “…”The one who fights that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.”…

8. The orders in Sahih Muslim 19.4294 include ” … Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils…”.

9. The quote comes from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad by Ibn Taimiyyah .

Muslims are obligated to make war on us, some by the heart through dua, some through the tongue and pen with propaganda, some with the purse by financing Jihad and others with whatever weapons they can acquire. The Qur’anic imperatives cited above are codified into Shari’ah in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9. “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians …”. “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…”.


Notice any similarities?

Monday, April 12, 2010

New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud

From American Thinker

New Obama Bio Strengthens Case for Dreams Fraud
By Jack Cashill

It surprised me to learn that David Remnick had dedicated three pages of his comprehensive new Obama biography, The Bridge, to my thesis that Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write Obama's 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father.

It will surprise Remnick even more to learn that he has unwittingly reinforced a thesis that he set out to discredit.

I stumbled on the reference to yours truly rather by accident. I was searching the index to see what Remnick had to say about Bill Ayers and found the first mention on page 253 in this intriguing context, "The true author of Obama's book, Jack Cashill suggested, was likely Bill Ayers."

The reference to me, I quickly discovered, is not a kind one. In the way of credentials, Remnick allows me no discernible Ph.D. in American studies, no Fulbright, no articles in Fortune or the Wall Street Journal, no well-received book on intellectual fraud, no books at all.

Instead, Remnick describes me a "little-known conservative writer, magazine editor, and a former talk-radio-show host." The "little-known" stands in obvious contrast to the well-known, Princeton-educated, Washington Post-groomed New Yorker editor Remnick. The "talk-radio" I did as a sideline more than ten years ago. Remnick intends the reference as a slight.

More damning still, I have done my writing for "right-wing Web sites, including American Thinker and World Net Daily," obscure dwarf stars in the "Web's farthest lunatic orbit." (FYI, the American Thinker editors have better credentials than Remnick or I.) Having reassured his cocoon-mates that I am not to be taken seriously, Remnick reduces the 20,000 or so words I have spent on textual comparisons to three patronizing sentences and dismisses all of it.

Remnick likewise spares his cocoon the research Christopher Andersen had done on Dreams. In his bestseller, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Andersen spends six pages confirming my thesis through boots-on-the-ground reporting. "Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers," writes Andersen in summary, "Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books."

Remnick ignores Andersen completely. He is in good company. Of the scores of Andersen's mainstream reviewers, not a single one addressed Andersen's most newsworthy revelation, not even to challenge it. To his credit, Remnick understands just how newsworthy that revelation should have been. "This was a charge," he writes of the fraud accusation, "that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy."

This "libel," Remnick tells us, had a "diabolic potency," and the devil himself -- Rush Limbaugh -- was spreading it. Remnick quotes Limbaugh's October 10, 2008 discussion of my book at length. The Limbaugh quote reads in part:

There is no evidence that [Obama] has any kind of writing talent. We haven't seen anything he wrote at Harvard Law, or when he was at Columbia, or any tests that he's written. But if you read his books, if you listen to the audio reading of the book here, you don't hear this when Obama goes out and speaks.

Remnick cannot resist the progressive urge to race-bait. True to form, he reminds his audience of "the ugly pedigree" of my and Limbaugh's "racist insinuation." Given the nastiness of the charge, one would have expected him to supply some supportive evidence. He doesn't. Ironically, all the new information that Remnick does provide serves only to strengthen my argument.

In his 600-plus pages of surprisingly lifeless prose -- Ayers is the better writer -- Remnick does, at least, find his way into certain corners of Obama's life that the media had not previously penetrated. Among these are the New York years, about which Obama had declined even the New York Times' "repeated requests" for information. Post-election, Remnick makes a little more headway.

At Columbia, Remnick tells us, Obama was an "unspectacular" student. Northwestern University communications professor John McKnight reinforces the point, telling Remnick, "I don't think [Obama] did too well in college."

McKnight, a Chicago friend, wrote a letter of reference for Obama to attend Harvard Law School. Remnick assures us that Obama was a "serious" student at Columbia, just not a particularly good one. Still, Obama finessed his way into a law school that chooses its 500 new students each year from 7,000 applicants whose LSAT scores generally chart in the 98th to 99th percentile range and whose GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95. How this "unspectacular" student got in is a mystery that Remnick chooses not to explore. As to Obama's LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa's body may well be discovered before those are.

Obama certainly did not write well when he was at Columbia. Remnick charitably describes the one article Obama wrote for Columbia's weekly news magazine, Sundial, as "muddled," and he is referring only to the content. The grammar is worse. As I have previously noted, in his 1800-word, article Obama manages an appalling five noun-verb mismatches, and the punctuation is equally capricious.

Still, like millions of other Americans, Obama saw himself as a would-be novelist. Unfortunately, as Jerry Kellman, the organizer who recruited Obama to Chicago, informed Remnick, "[Obama] told me that he had trouble writing, he had to force himself to write."

After leaving for Harvard Law in 1988, Obama returned to Chicago in 1991, where he signed on at the law firm of Davis Miner. There he worked as a full-time associate until he launched his state senate campaign in 1995. During those same years, Obama also taught classes at Chicago University Law School -- not as a professor, as Obama claimed during the campaign, but as a lecturer. Despite the fudge, Remnick makes a point of detailing how thorough and meticulous Obama was as both lawyer and teacher. Still, for all of Obama's presumed literary talents, it strikes even Remnick a bit strange that "he never published a single academic article."

In 1991, Obama also began to work in earnest on the book that he had contracted to write for Poseidon, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. "The advance was reportedly over a $100,000," Remnick writes. "Obama received half of that amount on signing the contract."

By 1991, Obama had met Michelle, and the two indulged in a social life that would have left Scarlett O'Hara dizzy. Writes Remnick, "He and Michelle accepted countless invitations to lunches, dinners, cocktail parties, barbecues, and receptions for right minded charities." Obama also joined the East Bank Club, a combined gym and urban country club, and served on at least a few charitable boards.

Obama's obligations were taking their toll. "Obama had missed deadlines and handed in bloated, yet incomplete drafts," Remnick tells us. Simon & Schuster lost patience. In late 1992, weeks after the Obamas' marriage, the firm canceled the contract.

Not surprisingly, Remnick skips some of the details that Andersen included, like how Obama had spent $75,000 of the advance and could not pay it back. According to Andersen, the publisher let Obama keep the money only after he pled poverty due to "massive student loan debt."

At the time, the Obamas, still childless, were making well into six figures between them as they partied their way through progressive Chicago's frenzied social life. According to Remnick, Bill Ayers and weatherwoman bride Bernadine Dohrn played a highly visible role in that life. Remnick calls them collectively the "Elsa Maxwell of Hyde Park."

After his agent secured Obama a smaller contract with the Times Books division of Random House, Barack decamped to Bali -- Bali? -- in early 1993 in the hope that he would be able to finish the book without interruption. The sojourn proved fruitless. He still could not produce.

Remnick papers over the two years between Bali and the book's 1995 publication. He quotes Henry Ferris, the Times Book editor, to bolster Obama's claim to authorship. Ferris "worked directly with Obama," Remnick tells us, but Ferris edited in New York while Obama wrote in Chicago. Ferris would have had no way of knowing just how much of the editing or writing Obama was doing himself.

In late 1994, Obama finally submitted his manuscript for publication. Remnick expects the faithful to believe that a mediocre student who had nothing in print save for the occasional "muddled" essay, who blew a huge contract after more than two futile years, who wrote no legal articles, and who turned in bloated drafts when he did start writing, somehow found the time and inspiration during an absurdly busy period of his life to write what Time Magazine would call "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."

In his New York Times review of The Bridge, Gary Wills argues, "The art with which the book is constructed to serve his deepest personal needs shows how ludicrous is the charge of Rush Limbaugh and others that he did not write it." No, Gary, the "art" betrays the fraud. Obama's muse whispered in his own voice, not in Obama's.

The defense of Obama by Wills and Remnick should not surprise. As I discovered five years ago in the research for my book, Hoodwinked, America's intellectual elite has been crafting and enabling intellectual fraud for nearly a century. "Not unnaturally," I wrote, "people of influence in the cultural establishment are inclined to promote, praise, and protect those creative individuals who think as they do." The protected, by the way, include people of all colors, genders, and orientations. The protectors usually vote, sound, and condescend just like Wills and Remnick.

By any standard, Andersen's account of Dreams' publication rings truer than Remnick's. As Andersen tells it, Obama found himself deeply in debt and "hopelessly blocked." At "Michelle's urging," Obama "sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers." What attracted the Obamas were "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American. A tellingly specific sentence in Andersen's account is the one that follows: "These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers."


So... It looks like Obama is not only a charlatan, but also a fraud!
And so it goes...

We MUST rid ourselves of this menace!

Friday, April 9, 2010

NPR Archive Describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'

Why won't the news media talk about this?
Do they want to destroy America too?

No wonder America is having a crisis of confidence!

Houses are not selling, automobiles are not selling, there are NO jobs, there is no trust in our elected officials, they have mortgaged our children's future, and there is damned little hope in American households!

If only this charlatan would come clean and tell the truth, maybe we could get on with our lives and rebuild this great country!

But if he continues to deceive us and drive this country toward socialism, it may take a generation, or more, to Restore America to her former greatness!

Here's more information on the deception and the coverup...

NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'
Description accompanies interview about 'son of Africa'

Posted: April 08, 2010
11:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Those crazy "birthers" are citing National Public Radio.

Really? NPR?

Archives for the tax-supported organization reveal that a 2008 report described then-Sen. Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born" and a "son of Africa."

NPR's promotion for the story included a brief description of West African correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, who "describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama."

After discussing various issues developing in Africa at the time – such as Kenya's violent elections, the attacks in Zimbabwe and the presidency of South Africa – the conversation on the program "Tell Me More" turned to Obama.

At about 9:45 of the audio report, interviewer Michelle Martin said "a son of Africa. Barack Obama is poised to at least have the opportunity to become the next president of the United States." She asked, "How does this campaign look overseas?"

Quist-Arcton responded by describing Obama as a member of the Kenyan Luo tribe and reporting how Africa viewed the race.

"You know [the campaign] has absolutely fired the imagination not only of American people but of people in Africa," she said. "For a start Barack Obama's father is from Kenya. People were very excited and because they had had a failed election in Kenya, and the opposition leader Raila Odinga comes from the same tribe as Barack Obama's father, the Luo. The joke was going around Kenya that America is going to have a Luo president before Kenya does."

She continued, "There's huge interest. Not just in Kenya. All over the continent. … The fact that a black man and one with African blood has managed to get this far … you know, I think has made young people sit up and listen and watch and follow the campaign and made the older generations who lived through the colonization and independence say, 'Well, well, well. So it can happen in American too."
(See WND site for more...)

Also this AP report from 2004 was mentioned...

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."

So... There seems to be abundant evidence that this man in the White House is a fraud, a charlatan, and a deceiver.

He has been exposed...

Let's GET TO WORK!!!

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Greenspan Says Congress Pushed Fed On Housing Boom

From Reuters

Greenspan Says Congress Pushed Fed On Housing Boom

WASHINGTON, April 7 (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan chastised critics on Wednesday by pointing out that Congress pushed the U.S. central bank to make sure lending to poorer Americans kept rising in the 2000s.

"If the Fed as a regulator had tried to thwart what everyone perceived as a fairly broad consensus that the trend was in the right direction, homeownership was rising and that was an unmitigated good, then Congress would have clamped down on us," he told a questioner at a congressionally appointed commission investigating the financial crisis.

"There's a presumption that the Federal Reserve's an independent agency, and it is up to a point, but we are a creature of the Congress and if ... we had said we're running into a bubble and we need to retrench, the Congress would say 'we haven't a clue what you're talking about'," Greenspan said.

Gee... and I thought it was all George Bush's fault?

Most of us that have worked in the Real Estate Industry have long known that The Congress was behind this 'housing crisis' all along. The constant demands from the left to make housing affordable to 'everyone' is what drove the so called 'housing boom'.

If you are looking for someone to blame, just check out the Congressional Democrat lounge... Pelosi, Frank, Reid... they were ALL in on this fiasco!

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Black Conservative Tea Party Backers Take Heat...

Associated Press Writer

Black Conservative Tea Party Backers Take Heat...
From Breitbart.com

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say.

"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."

"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."

Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.

Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election—and their distaste for his policies—with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.

"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.

Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives—away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.

Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.

A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.

The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.

"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."

Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally—and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.

McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by Democrat Travis Childers. The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.

McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.

Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partyers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.

Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think—something that offensive—you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.

"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.

"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."

If you do not agree with Obama and the Democrats, they will use ANY method to destroy and discredit you!

They will stop at NOTHING!

Keep your wits about you folks...