These LEFTY IDIOTS ARE NOT "hosts" of the presidential debates they are not “moderators”? They’re left-erators or Obama CROTCH SNIFFERS!

 It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. Journo-Tools For Obama

 

 

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 22, 2012 08:23 AM

Journo-tools For Obama
by Michelle Malkin
Creators SyndicateCopyright 2012
Can we stop calling the hosts of the presidential debates “moderators”? They’re left-erators. It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. And it’s time for the GOP to stop perpetuating these rigged exercises in futility.
Last week, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the names of 2012′s chosen referees: CNN’s Candy Crowley, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and CBS’s Bob Schieffer will preside over the three presidential debates; ABC’s Martha Raddatz will host the sole vice presidential debate. While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.
Crowley has lived and worked in D.C. for liberal CNN for a quarter-century. Raddatz worked for liberal National Public Radio for five years before joining ABC News; she has been based in the D.C. bureau for the better part of a decade. Schieffer has been a fixture in the nation’s capital at CBS News, home of the faked Rathergate documents, for three decades. Lehrer, the liberal patriarch of PBS News, is nearly as aged a Beltway monument as the Washington Monument itself.
The presidential debates are the last bastion of “mainstream” media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle. Now, Democrats are lobbying the supposedly nonpartisan debate commission to disallow questions about President Obama’s phony dog-and-pony deficit panel.
Why does the Republican Party agree to play along with this ideologically stacked deck masquerading as an objective pantheon of disinterested journalism? The Romney campaign’s capitulation to the liberal debate racket and its narrative-warpers comes at a time when more and more members of the Fourth Estate itself are admitting that they have served or been treated as tools for the Obama administration:
–Just this week, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham that he “thought the media helped tip the scales” for Obama. “I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, (the) campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.” Duh.
–MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged this weekend on the “Today” show that the Beltway press corps is helping Obama drive campaign issues that most voters don’t care about: “I think the press still likes this story a lot. The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on (Mitt Romney’s tax returns). … Do voters care about it? I don’t think so. … I think it’s mostly something that the press and insiders care about.”
–Another MSNBC political reporter, Chuck Todd, disclosed that gaffetastic Vice President Joe Biden’s staff was trying to edit the press pool reports to cover for the second-in-command’s lack of rhetorical command. “This is an outrage that they do this,” Todd said.
–Independent political blogger Keith Koffler of whitehousedossier.com reported this week that Team Obama was dictating interview topics to local TV reporters in battleground states, just after holding a kabuki press conference on Monday to capitalize on the Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin “legitimate rape”/magical uterus debacle. “In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of ‘sequestration’ if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases,” Koffler reported.
“The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. ‘The president invited me to talk about sequestration,’ NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at: ‘What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?’ she asked.”
These willing lapdogs and stenographers follow in the footsteps of the hallowed Fishwrap of Record, which ‘fessed up last month to allowing Obama campaign officials to have “veto power” over statements. “We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”
If not the 2012 GOP presidential ticket, then who? If not now, then when?

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

(From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation! )




From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation!
In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Not only did PPACA (Obamacare) pass Congress without any mention of the word “tax”, its defenders have emphatically denied that the law’s “mandates” represent taxation.  Had the funding for the bill been presented as a tax increase, it would almost certainly have failed.
Incredibly, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the Government’s argument that the “mandate” is after all just a tax (wink, wink), and consequently the Government has the Constitutional authorization it needs to fund PPACA through taxation.  Thus the SCOTUS majority effectively rewrote the bill, “deeming” it to say something that it does not, and then declaring as Constitutional a bill that does not even exist!  I would have never believed such a thing could happen in the Supreme Court.
As noted by John Eastman, a Constitutional scholar:

• A Constitutional tax bill must originate in the House.  The reason is that the Framers wanted tax increases to be launched only by those who would most immediately be facing re-election.  But PPACA originated in the Senate.  Strike 1.
• A Constitutional tax must be an income, excise, or direct tax, and there are rules that must be followed for each.  Clearly the PPACA tax is neither an income nor an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax.  But Constitutionally, a direct tax must be apportioned by population.  The PPACA tax is not apportioned by population.  Strike 2.
• Even without these explicit violations of the Constitution, by the rule of reason and good faith, Congress can vote for taxation only via legislation that explicitly calls that taxation by its proper name — a tax — in full view of the voters. Congress and PPACA did not do that. Strike 3.

How could any Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, ignore all this?  By voting as Roberts and the majority did, our own Supreme Court has aided and abetted a massive fraud on the American people.   This should be the stuff of novels, not real life.
Normally, one can seek redress for fraud through the courts.  Where does one go when the highest court in the land aids, abets, and virtually commits the fraud?
For the minority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

… to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

Right on. The entire law should have been rejected and offered back to Congress either for the trash bin or for editing and a re-vote by elected representatives in full view of We-the-People.  Has Roberts no shame at all?

Many Conservatives are so disappointed in Roberts that they are frantically concocting explanations and rationalizations for his astounding malfeasance.
One wretched contrivance argues that Roberts’ real motive was, somehow, to protect the integrity, balance, and honor of SCOTUS itself.  Really?  How does aiding and abetting a gargantuan national fraud do that?
Another rationalization argues that Roberts is cleverly giving Conservatives a “Remember-the-Alamo” loss that will so anger and energize Americans that they will throw Obama and his neo-Marxist, redistributionist entourage right out of Washington.  But if SCOTUS is politically gaming its rulings to that extent, how can we count on SCOTUS in the future?  If there is any government branch that should play it straight, surely it is SCOTUS.
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has ruled PPACA to be Constitutional by deeming the bill to be something that it is not.  The SCOTUS decision is an Orwellian absurdity and a stain on SCOTUS that will remain until long after we’re all gone.
Memo to Chief Justice Roberts: Et tu Brute?  With this betrayal and breach of the Framers’ final bulwark of protection for Constitutionally limited government, all we have have left is the ballot box.  In November, we must win a new President and Congress, and we must exercise eternal diligence thereafter.  The Left will never quit, and neither should we.
Pass the word:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/06/29/no-taxation-by-misrepresentation/

How do you spell Hawaii ?? HUWAII if you are bad speller and forger on OBAMA's BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Savannah Guthrie Further Proves She's Complicit: 

Hawaii Spelled Huwaii on Obama's Birth Certificate

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or in this case the usurpation of the highest office in the land.

Savannah Guthrie proves that Obama was born in Huwaii? 

Or did she mean Huwai, Indonesia?
By Mara Zebest

A YouTube user by the name of Bigone5555J made an observation that needs some attention. His video covers the discovery that Obama was born in Huwaii according to Savannah Guthrie. Savannah Guthrie is the reporter that was allowed to be the only member of the press to feel and photograph the real Certificate of Live Birth (according to her). Why she was appointed as the only individual allowed access is certainly curious, but even more suspect is the two low resolution photographs issued of Obama’s long form Certificate of Live Birth touted as the authentic paper document copy with seal and all (get out your magnifying glass if you expect to find it). My first question is if Savannah was confident that it was an official and authentic copy, then why the thumbnail low resolution images? Why not provide something in a higher resolution similar to the AP version in which we can all see the raised seal and details of this original paper version of the PDF file so proudly announced by Savannah. How curious that the images have no evidence of the qualities Savannah Guthrie gushes over.

The two images Savannah Guthrie provided are seen below, and even more curious is that the first image shown offers less information of the overall document then the second. But the information in the second view is the target of this discussion since the cropped version conveniently—and perhaps purposefully—centers oddly on information that not only leaves out the information for President Obama in boxes 1 through 5, but also crops away a view of box 7c information in question.

If the second image information is compared to the White House PDF or AP versions (seen in the image comparison below), there is a problem that Bigone5555J correctly identifies. A misspelling in box 7c for the Savannah Guthrie image that is not found in the AP and WH versions—Hawaii is the state listed in box 7c for the AP and WH files while the Guthrie image shows Obama was born in Huwaii—Freudian slip maybe? Was the creator of this third version sham of a certificate thinking of Huwai, Indonesia as Bigone5555J referenced in his discussion on the Peter Boyles Show? The Indonesia location of Huwai is spelled with one “i” instead of two, but if used to living in a country in which spelling the name of a location with a “u” instead of an “a” is the norm, it could be an easy mistake to make when forging yet another version of the document that no one has seen except for Savannah Guthrie. After all, who are you going to believe, Savannah Guthrie or your lying eyes?

Savannah Guthrie's original images of Obama's birth certificate published here and here.

FLASHBACK: NBC's Savannah Guthrie Unintentionally Proves Obama Birth Certificate Tampered With - DETAILS HERE.



WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

PROOF POSITIVE THAT Obama and/or someone in cahoots with him...FORGED Obama's Selective Service Draft Registration card.

Did Barrack Hussein OBAMA... Commander-in-Chief Falsify his Selective Service Registration?
Or Maybe just never Actually Register till 2008?
Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions that you as the reader can decide about!
Just look at the facts. JUST THE FACTS IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES !!

LOOK AT THIS CARD. WE WILL EXAMINE EACH PART OF IT... ONE AT A TIME...



By Debbie Schlussel 2008

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.


The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter.

If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration (“SSS Form 1″) and accompanying computer print-out (“SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

As the retired federal agent notes:


Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?
It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80″ instead of the current “08″. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.

And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:
When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.

Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.


The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08″ in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!

* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form

On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B“. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80″ or “90″. The retired federal agent investigated further:
Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80″ or a “90″.


But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001# ), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here) – meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980″.

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.”

And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C“. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature

Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1′s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D“. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E“. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)

* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E“–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID (F above)

The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F“. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?

* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:
Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:

Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.

Sincerely,

Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.


* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page

Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?

And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:


The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.

Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?

A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).

Which is it?

It’s incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.


The documents indicate it’s one or the other.

*** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:
My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A“) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8″ was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.

He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.
UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document.

On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008.

The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number.

And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered.

So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980?

Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80″ instead of the current “08″. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.

And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:

When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.

Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.

The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08″ in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!

* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form

On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B“. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80″ or “90″. The retired federal agent investigated further:

Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80″ or a “90″.

But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)–meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980″.

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C“. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1′s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D“. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E“. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)

* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E“–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID

The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F“. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:

Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.

Sincerely,
Janice L. Hughes/SSS

AMERICAN Economic collapse is inevitable, here’s...Obama is just speeding it up at HYPERSPEED for his Socialist ends!! why…

America is quickly approaching a catastrophic economic collapse. Before you dismiss this as hype or paranoia, take a few minutes to review the facts outlined on this page. The numbers don’t lie. At this point, the dollar crash is unavoidable… far from an exaggeration this is a mathematical certainty. As repelling as that sounds, it’s in your own best interest to learn just how bad the situation is.

According to the talking heads of mainstream press the economy is slowly recovering and the financial crisis is all but behind us, but we need a reality check. It’s time to stop being naive and start being more discerning. Instead of more false hope, we need the truth as bitter as it might sound… and the truth is, from our local municipalities, to our states to our federal government, we are broke… the truth is we can’t payback our debt without getting into even more debt… the truth is the housing crash of 2008 was just a small preview of what’s to come.
America is drowning in debt. The government’s liabilities are now growing at an exponential rate. Our national debt is on a vicious downward spiral.
To our detriment our government continues to pretend that we can borrow our way out of debt and only handful of our politicians are willing to admit that our nation is now bankrupt.

Contrary to rhetoric coming out of Washington, no tax hike or budget cut will get us out of this mess. The kind of measures that would actually bring about meaningful change to curb the financial collapse are deemed too severe to be even considered.
Examine the evidence outlined below, connect the dots and think for yourself.

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

– Arthur Schopenhauer

What does the “national debt” even mean?

Let’s cover the basics first… When the government can not cover its spending using the collected revenue from corporate and income taxes and other fees it imposes, it goes into debt. The U.S. national debt is the sum of all outstanding debt owed by the federal government. It includes the money government borrowed, plus the interest it must pay on this debt.

Let’s also clear up the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit is the shortfall we have in any one year. If you take in $100 billion and spend $130 billion, you get a deficit of $30 billion. Now at the end of that year, you’ve got to do something with that $30 billion you owe, so you move it over to your long-term shortfall – which is the national debt.
Obviously, like any other debt, the national debt must be paid back to the holders. Of course, having a little debt is just fine as long as it’s manageable. On the other hand, if a country borrows too much it can drown in its debt, like Greece did.
So how bad is our situation? Numbers don’t lie, so let’s compare our debt and deficit to 1974 just to get a feel for our path and pace (later on we’ll look at national debt chart spanning 1940-2011).
In 1974 the deficit (annual shortfall) was $4 billion and the total debt was $484 billion. It had taken us 200 years from the start of the republic until 1974 to create that debt of $484 billion.
However, since 1974, our deficit went from $4 billion to a shocking $1.33 trillion… stop and think about that for a second… this means that our current annual budget shortfall is roughly triple the size of the total U.S. debt in 1974. Our national debt in 1974 was $484 billion… it is now approaching an unprecedented $16 trillion!
How is that possible? How do you go through World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War – and have only $484 billion debt, then skyrocket to 16 trillion in such a short time?! The answer to this question has to do with a key event in 1971 that we’ll go over in a moment… for now, let’s stick with the national debt, so we can understand why it is no longer sustainable.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
“All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises,
not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor
or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”
– John Adams, Founding Father

Sixteen trillion dollars, so what?

Sixteen trillion dollars is certainly a lot of money, but most people usually don’t deal with that many zeros in their life. It’s hard to really appreciate this almost unfathomable sum and the dire consequences it represents for us. But to understand how deep of a hole the government is in, we need to grasp the enormity of this dollar amount.
So, how big is one trillion? Here are a few helpful illustrations.
Imagine you decided to count to one million out loud. How long do you think it would take you at a pace of one number per second?. If you do it non stop, it would take about 12 DAYS. Now, how long would it take you to count to one trillion?… The answer?… 32,000 YEARS!!!
Here’s another illustration.
If you were alive when Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now.
Last one… If you had a trillion $10 bills and you taped them all end to end. Your money ribbon will become so long that you would actually be able to wrap it around planet Earth more than 380 times!!!… But, that amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
Are you getting the picture yet?
On the right is an illustration of our federal debt that might help you get a better idea visually. You can click on that image to see a larger size.
Keep in mind that what you are looking at are pallets of $100 bills stacked on top of each other. To give you an idea of the size and height of these pallets, in the center is standing the Statue of Liberty in proper scale relative to the money towers. The cash surrounding and dwarfing the Stature of Liberty taken together constitute 16.394 trillion. This represents our current debt ceiling that we’re scheduled to hit in September of 2012.
It’s interesting to note that when we hit this debt ceiling this year, our government will once again move the ceiling up to allow for the debt to grow. Now ask yourself, what is the point of a movable ceiling? A movable ceiling is an oxymoron. If you can move your debt limit on demand, why bother pretending that you have a debt limit in the first place?

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me
and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations
have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power
of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices
of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic destroyed.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

Statistics the government would rather you didn’t know

Now that you have somewhat of an idea of how big a trillion is, consider the chart on the right (U.S. national debt from 1940 to 2011 in trillions of dollars) and look at the mind-boggling statistics below:

• The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2011.
• In 2011, the government borrowed $41,000 every second.
• Currently, the government’s burden is growing by $10 million per each passing minute
• Just during the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
• Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that paper money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.
• The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt on the entire planet.
• Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.
• If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.
• The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

Hopefully at this point you’re starting to realize how big our debt is and how fast it’s growing. Shockingly, our government’s biggest liabilities are not even shown here, so this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another 54 trillion excluded from the national debt figures

The short video below was broadcast by CNN in 2007 featuring the head government accountant David Walker.

Click Here to see the Video
http://youtu.be/25_APRkrXeY

According to David Walker who served as United States Comptroller General in the Government Accountability Office from 1998 to 2008,U.S. government’s real financial burden is close to 70 trillion dollars.
This is because the national debt of 16 trillion does not account for obligations like Social Security, Medicare, Public Employee Pensions and other liabilities which the government is already committed to.
These liabilities are ticking time bombs, primed to explode with each new wave of retiring baby boomers. On top of this, medical costs continue to rise across the board driving medicare expenses through the roof.
Keep in mind that at the time this video was broadcast our national debt was “only” around 9 trillion dollars and it is now close to 16 trillion. The catastrophic economic problems predicted by our government’s head accountant are playing themselves out right now.
What’s most disheartening is that David Walker was forced to accept that admonishing Washington of unsustainable debt was a waste of effort. His warnings of the impending financial collapse fell on deaf ears as both administrations simply ignored him. In desperation, Mr. Walker quit his job as the federal government’s chief auditor to travel around the country to find ways to deliver his message directly to the public.

Father of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, James Madison is quoted saying:
“History records that the money changers have used every form
of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
to maintain their control over governments
by controlling money and its issuance.”
– James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President of the United States

How did we get in so much debt?

To outline all the events that lead us to this mess would take a separate article, but here’s a quick summary.
In 1913 Congress passed the “Federal Reserve Act,” relinquishing the power to create and control money to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a private company owned and controlled by bankers. Over time, more and more legislation was passed to expand Federal Reserve’s functions. The Fed (short for Federal Reserve) was granted two extremely critical powers: the ability to purchase U.S. treasury securities and to manipulate the interest rates. Interest rate manipulation and quantitative easing (pumping money into the economy) by the Fed, are the two driving forces behind the boom/bust cycles and economic bubbles.

Click Here
http://youtu.be/YjwDrZeqM_g

The Fed was suppose to be the guardian of U.S. currency, in reality it turned out to be a debt and bubble machine, ran for profit by greedy bankers.
Our founding fathers understood the danger of putting the power to control the currency of a nation in the hands of a few individuals in the form of a monopolistic central bank and were vehemently opposed to such a system.
In 1944, as World War II was drawing closer to the end, representatives of 44 allied nations met in Brenton Woods, New Hampshire where the dollar (backed by gold at $35 per ounce) was accepted as the world reserve currency.
America was granted unprecedented benefits as the issuer of the dollar. However, the gold standard restricted Federal Reserve from printing money unless it had the gold to backup new currency. Even though this ensured the stability of the dollar and a strong economy, such restrictions would not be tolerated by the Fed for very long.
In 1971, under president Nixon, U.S. moved away from a gold-backed monetary system to a fiat paper debt-based monetary system which allowed Federal Reserve to print dollars out of thin air.

This opened the door for unrestricted spending and borrowing. Once we moved away from a “gold standard” to a “debt-currency system” it was only a matter of time before America transformed from the world’s biggest creditor to the world’s biggest debtor.
If you look at the national debt chart by scrolling up, you can see a direct parallel between the explosion of debt and U.S. switching to fiat currency in 1971. Once the Fed could create dollars out of nothing, it took only a few years for the government debt to gain an exponential climb rate.
Now on the surface, Federal Reserve’s ability to print money with no restrictions might sound great since you can just create new currency on demand… but it carries with it two very grave consequences. Consequences that we’re paying for now.
The first consequence is inflation. Each time the Fed issues new dollars, it increases the money supply, which in turn diminishes the value of the rest of the dollars already in circulation. Basically, that means the more dollars are printed, the less they are worth. As the inflation rises, so do the prices and cost of living. Inflation also encourages spending and debt, and discourages saving and capital formation. In the long run, currency inflation wipes out the wealth of the middle class and wrecks the economy. By the way, the dollar has lost 95% of its value since Federal Reserve took over in 1913.
The second consequence is that, we (the people) go into debt every time new money is created. When the government needs extra money, beyond what it collects in taxes, it issues U.S. treasury bonds, which are interest-bearing IOUs guaranteed by the government. These bonds are exchanged with the Federal Reserve for currency. This process is called “monetizing the debt”, hence “debt-currency” system. Federal Reserve collects the interest and the tax payers collect the debt. The bankers prosper and people get enslaved.
Besides debasing the dollar and binding America into debt, the Fed manipulates the interest rates overriding market self regulation. These manipulations create bubbles resulting in devastating consequences for the economy and the average American.

President Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter (a grant of monopoly) of the Second Bank of the United States. In 1836 Jackson said to the bankers trying to persuade him to renew their charter (so they could continue their harmful monopoly):

“You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
-– Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States

How is the U.S. government going to finance 70 trillion in liabilities?

If you have been paying attention so far, you should be able to guess correctly… by borrowing. The U.S. government is planning to finance 70 trillion in obligations by selling treasury securities (interest bearing IOU’s) putting America into even more debt.
Since our national debt is exploding and our annual deficit keeps growing every year, we’re forced to admit an obvious fact: our government can not pay its debt without taking on more debt.
This is by definition, a Ponzi scheme. To keep the Ponzi scheme going you must have a constant and ever expanding flow of investors. If the flow stops or even slows down, the whole thing starts to collapse. This is why the government must continuously raise the official debt ceiling.
All Ponzi schemes eventually collapse and our debt-currency system has the same fatal flaw by design.
The video below was broadcast on CNBC, May 24, 2012:

Click on this link
http://youtu.be/9X6BUgLuaZs

Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, who not only famously predicted the 2008 housing bubble, but also predicted the specific banks that would go under, as well as the government’s exact response to the 2008 crisis, makes the following statements about U.S. treasuries (short for U.S. treasury securities… again these are interest bearing IOU’s the government must sell to pay for obligations):
“There’s no safety in U.S. treasuries. When interests rates go up, we’ve got to default on those treasuries. We can’t pay a market rate of interest, let alone retire the principal. Most of the treasuries that are being bought have very short maturities. We have 5 or 6 trillions coming due in the next year, we can’t pay that back. We’re counting on our creditors to loan us back the money to repay the debt. This is a Ponzi scheme.
It’s the same situation as I said Greece was in. They had no problem selling their bonds when the rates were low. But the minute people figured out that the Greeks couldn’t repay the debt, they didn’t want to buy them anymore. The same thing is going to happen. You have a false perception of safety in the Treasury market. It’s not safe at all. It’s a trap. And it’s being set by Central Banks, the Fed is the biggest buyer, they’re buying like 90% of long term treasuries… ”

How long can we keep borrowing?

Some economists like to imagine that we can just grow our debt endlessly, because we have the ability to print dollars out of thin air. These “experts” allege that the treasuries market is strong as ever and we can just keep borrowing endlessly. These are the same “experts” that insisted that the real estate prices will continue to rise perpetually, right up to the 2008 crash. They argue, just raise the debt ceiling and keep growing that debt evermore.
But even though we can raise our debt ceiling time after time, there is still a natural debt limit we can not cross. The notion that our government can keep growing our debt without end is preposterous.
First, it’s based on a foolish assumption that the rest of the world is willing to to lend us money that they know we can’t pay back. Second, it ignores a mathematical consequence: exponential growth due to interest alone.

We’ve been able to get away with borrowing so much up until now because the dollar is the world reserve currency, but this privilege has its limits. It’s also a privilege we’re going to lose because we have been shamelessly abusing it.
The Federal Reserve has been keeping the interest artificially low, to help the government keep borrowing. Of course this is no favor on Fed’s part, because the end result is debt enslavement. Since whatever the government owes is inherited by the people, it’s the people who get screwed at the end. If the interest was allowed to return to market rates, it would help prevent the government from borrowing beyond its means.
However, at this point our lenders are realizing that our debt has long passed a sustainable level. If you have ever applied for a loan, you should be familiar with this universal rule: when the borrower is in too much debt, the loan becomes high-risk and so the lender demands a higher interest to make the reward worthy of the risk. With every passing day U.S. plunges into a deeper debt pit and this makes lending to U.S. (by buying treasury securities) a more and more riskier investment.
To make things worse, the Fed is devaluing the dollar at an increasing pace by issuing bailouts, stimulus packages, quantitative easing, etc… and our lenders are realizing this too. This means that the dollars that our creditors are loaning to us now, are worth less when they get them back.
For these two reasons, the U.S. treasury securities (government IOU’s) are now high-risk, low-return investments. What was once considered the safest investment is now a Ponzi scheme at the point of collapse.

Who will bail out America when it runs out of lenders?

Our pool of willing lenders is starting to shrink as our creditors are waking up to the fact that treasuries are now a high-risk, low-return investment. To compensate for this the Fed is forced to buy up all the long term U.S. treasuries in an effort to artificially stimulate demand, to keep up the smokescreen. Of course this only inflates the U.S. bond bubble even more.
When the pool of willing lenders dries up, the scheme will reach its end and the final bubble will explode. Without lenders, the U.S. government has only two appalling choices: default on debt or hyper-inflate the dollar.

Option one is to default on all debt, essentially declaring bankruptcy to renegotiate all obligations. This would create a severe financial shock as the dollar collapses and loses its status as reserve currency. This would lead to a sharp increase in the cost of nearly everything, as more US dollars would be needed to pay for imports, resulting in a catastrophic economic impact for every American. The government will be forced to cut spending dramatically. A broad range of government payments would have to be stopped, including military salaries, Social Security and Medicare payments, unemployment benefits, tax refunds, etc. Companies would be crushed by a US consumer that would no longer have any buying power. In addition, credit would dry up virtually overnight, which would force untold numbers of companies to shut their doors. Unemployment in the country would spike to obscene levels. Interest rates would rise significantly forcing millions of families with adjustable mortgages to go into foreclosures.
Option two is to have the Federal Reserve create trillions upon trillions of dollars out of thin air. This creates an illusion that the debt is being paid back, but in reality the dollars issued to pay the debt would become increasingly worthless, turning rapid inflation into hyperinflation. This would actually create a much worse scenario then the first option as hyperinflation will be even more economically destructive for the average American. Prices would soar to unimaginable levels, unemployment would skyrocket. The average American would be forced to work overtime just to put food on the table, that is if he or she is lucky enough to still have a job.
It’s worth mentioning that it is highly unlikely that U.S. will choose default (option one). Even though hyper-inflation is by far more destructive for the American people in the long term, the government will most likely try to print its way out.
Either way the economy will collapse. Economically, the first option would feel like a heart attack and the second option like a terminal cancer.
The ripple effects of either scenario would be unprecedented. It would not be the end of the world, but you can expect massive social unrest, protests, riots, arson, etc. Supply disruptions on all levels. Basic utility failures and infrastructure decay. Rampant violent crime, specially in metropolitan areas. Eventually followed by a long and very painful readjustment period of living standards for most Americans.

What if we cut spending, raise taxes and balance the budget?

It’s amazing, that even now, you hear the same old catch phrases thrown around by politicians on all the major news shows, like “recovering economy”, “budget cuts” and “responsible spending”. But, anyone out there that insists that this crisis can be fixed under our current system is lying.

The spending cuts and tax increases that Congress is talking about are absolutely meaningless when compared to how rapidly our debt is exploding.
Calling those cuts and taxes “pocket change” would be an insult to pocket change.
No bailout, stimulus package or manipulation by Federal Reserve is going to avoid the massive financial pain that’s coming our way.
So what can our government do to fix the current financial crisis and avoid the dollar crash? What would it take?
It would take the kind of measures that are our government considers too extreme to even discuss and so there’s no chance of them being approved. For starters we would need to abolish the Federal Reserve, go back to the gold standard, shut down overseas military bases, completely reform the tax code, restructure entitlement programs, etc.
Unfortunately, proposing such changes is the fastest way to lose your political funding, become the laughing stock of Washington and be ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media. Just ask Ron Paul.
Our Congress knows full well that fighting against the system is political suicide. And so no meaningful change that would help lessen the impact of the coming crash will be approved.
As far as the oval office and Congress is concerned, postponing the crash by issuing bailouts and stimulus packages is a more politically favorable approach, even though this ensures an even bigger catastrophe at the end.
The bottom line is this: we’re on a path to an inevitable dollar crash. The ones that run our monetary system and hold the keys to our economy are actually part of the problem instead of the solution. The ones in power that can make the desperately needed changes, dare not.
Rather then risk their careers, they will continue to shamelessly distribute our hard earned money among their friends on Wall Street. The hand full of our honest politicians that are actually brave enough to stand up for the people are shut out by the system.
At this point, we’re on a run away train without brakes, so you better brace yourself. The good news is, there is still time for you to prepare for what’s up ahead. Most people will be completely unprepared when the whole thing comes crashing down.

Whether you are broke or wealthy, whether you live in an apartment or a mansion, no matter what your current situation, there are specific things you can do to prepare for the impeding dollar crash.
The next article we publish will focus on step by step action plan that you can follow to minimize the impact of the financial meltdown on you and your family. It will include practical but critical actions you should take to protect your loved one from the ensuing chaos, along with financial advice to safeguard whatever savings you might have.
Lastly, please share this with your family and friends and coworkers. Warn the ones you care about by emailing them the link to this page. We need to wake our people up from their entertainment induced comas.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Valerie Jarrett...Obama's Handler.... and Jailkeeper. You see this unelected nebbish sitting in on all Obama's Meetings.

Obama has named his longtime friend and supporter Valerie Jarrett to be his White House senior adviser.

 

Longtime Friend And Supporter

Obama has named his longtime friend and supporter Valerie Jarrett to be his White House senior adviser. Jarrett, who hired Michelle Obama for a job in the Chicago mayor's office years ago, is one of the president-elect's closest friends and advisers.  Her name has been floated for several top administration jobs.  But Obama settled on the senior adviser role, said a person close to the president-elect and willing to speak only on background because the decision has not been officially announced. A White House senior adviser can handle a range of duties. President George W. Bush's top political aide Karl Rove held the title in the current administration. Jarrett has a background in real estate and politics in Chicago and is linked to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko. According to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis, Obama's former boss.  Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis. As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza.  According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Obama signed an executive order in March 2009 that established a "White House Council on Women and Girls."  The Council will be chaired by Jarrett, and the day-to-day operations will be run Tina Tchen, who is currently director of the White House Office of Public Liaison and was a major fundraiser for Obama during the campaign. "The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families," reads a memo describing the move and obtained by The Fix. As soon as I saw Valerie Jarrett's name, I knew this was going to be a big job -- every single policy, of every single government agency will have to fit the women’s rights agenda -- As interpreted by Obama and the Bride -- as executed by the trusted aid -- that's breathtaking!

Jarrett's Habitat Company

Earlier this year The Boston Globe reported on the stunning failures of Jarrett's companies. "Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this [past] winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems."

Jarrett's Staff

But in order to get the full impact of the presence of Jarrett on the Obama team, one must take a close look at her team. Click here to see Video>>>http://youtu.be/Pr4eNqUcOXw Jarrett has surrounded herself with some rather unsavory characters who appear to be more like 'enforcers' than 'advisers.' Meet Mike Strautmanis, Jarrett's Chief of Staff. Strautmanis is one of Barack and Michelle Obama's closest friends, going all the way back to the beginning in Chicago.  He has worked not only for the Obamas but for disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. But here is an interesting tidbit concerning Strautmanis, in Jarrett's own words: Obama describes him as a "utility man," and campaign advisor and Obama family friend Valerie Jarrett says he's the person you call when you need help with a delicate situation.  "He understands the importance of the personal touch and that e-mails and phone calls are not always appropriate," she said, talking about a specific example that she wouldn't describe in detail.  "There are times when a face-to-face is just the right thing to do. He dropped everything and hopped on a plane. And now meet an Obama mystery man that the campaign staff didn't even know existed. In fact, nobody knew what he looked like. His name is Michael Signator. Michael Signator, a 50-year-old police officer in suburban Chicago, is paid as one of Barack Obama's campaign staffers -- nearly $50,000 during Obama's Senate campaign in 2004; and $47,600 from March 2007 through August of this year -- yet no one knows what he looks like, and even Obama staffers didn't know he works for the campaign. So just who is Michael Signator? Although his job description is to provide "supplemental security support" and to coordinate the Obama family's personal and campaign schedules, Signator appears to be much more than an aide. The relationship between Obama and Signator is one of the most highly guarded secrets in Washington and Obama's home-base of Chicago.  In fact, at first Obama officials denied that Signator worked for Obama...until it became clear that he was Obama's driver and bodyguard during the campaign.  But the extent of Signator's activity on behalf of Obama is murky.

The Jarrett Connection -- Obama’s Hawaii And Chicago Communist Networks Were Linked

Romantic Poet blog has published some interesting artifacts that provide proof that Obama’s Hawaii and Chicago communist networks were linked? It is now well established that Barack Obama was linked to the Hawaiian Communist Party network through his boyhood/teenage mentor Frank Marshall Davis. It is also well known that after moving to Chicago, Obama linked up with the local communist networks. Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism claims that Obama "understands what socialism is.  A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists.  There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years…" This leads to two key questions. A. Were the Hawaii and Chicago networks connected? B . Did Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis in any way influence his progress up the Chicago political ladder? If the answer is yes to both, there are significant implications. It means that that the Communist Party USA was watching Obama from an early age and was willing to help his political career. Frank Marshall Davis was active in the Chicago Communist Party until he moved to Hawaii in late 1948. I speculated in this post that Davis may have known left wing journalist Vernon Jarrett in post war Chicago.  A connection would be significant because the Jarrett family has played a very important role in Obama’s rise to power. Both Jarrett and Davis worked in the communist dominated South Side Community Art Center and on the communist influenced Chicago Defender newspaper, in late 1940s Chicago. I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organization -- The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. Continue reading here . . . there's some real stuff . . .

Obama Rules

According to Jarrett, the Obamamessiah is "ready to rule." (video) The co-chair of Barack Obama’s Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he’s officially sworn into office.  She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one.  It’s a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he’s here to "rule" instead of govern. Jarret told Brokaw that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one." Someone needs to get to Jarrett and inform her that American politicians are not Kings and do not "rule" from office.  But if this is the attitude of Obama’s transition team, what does The One himself imagine he is about to unleash?  Could the fears that Obama thinks he is being anointed America’s King be far off with this sort of talk flying about?

Obama’s New Nuclear Advisor

Front Page Magazine says the last time that Obama’s senior advisor and assistant Valerie Jarrett was in the news, her favored political recruit, Anthony "Van" Jones, was resigning his post as White House presidential advisor amid revelations of a radical background that included communist sympathies and his support for 9/11 Truther conspiracy.  Now Jarrett, widely viewed as Obama’s radical alter ego, has reemerged -- this time as a foreign policy guru. As Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new nuclear arms treaty last week, Jarrett sat observing nearby.  That Jarrett has once again found herself in a position of influence is not surprising.  Jarrett proudly acknowledges her remarkable closeness to President Obama.  "We have kind of a mind meld" is the way she put it in a New York Times magazine interview last summer.  "When senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, Valerie Jarrett often stays behind" with Obama, the Times article reported.  In short, Jarrett is like a member of the Obama family, but one who has seized command of a variety of policies at the White House. Although neither elected, nor confirmed, nor even vetted, and without previous Washington experience, Jarrett has been installed as senior adviser and assistant to Obama for intergovernmental and public engagement.  She also was given the recently created Office of Urban Affairs, even though we have a cabinet member who is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  Now it appears she is involved in our nation’s foreign policy. Why else would she be in Prague for the preparations and signing of the arms treaty?  As Obama has said, "She is someone I trust completely.  She combines the closeness of a family member with the savvy and objectivity of a professional businesswoman and public-policy expert," the Times magazine article stated.  She is trusted "to speak for me particularly when we are dealing with delicate issues."  Such as nuclear arms matters?  If so, that should be cause for concern.  Jarrett’s only experience in foreign affairs is the insignificant fact that she was born in Iran, where her father was a doctor working for an American aid program.  She lived in London as a child before coming to the United States. Continue reading here . . . Trevor Loudon has documented the close working relationship between Jarrett's late father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, and a certain Frank Marshall Davis, in a Communist Party front in late 1940s Chicago. Frank Marshall Davis -- a covert Communist Party member -- then went to Hawaii and ended up mentoring the young Barack Obama, and when Obama moved to Chicago, Vernon Jarrett used his newspaper columns to promote Obama's political career. The Chicago Communist Party mucks in as well and writes Vernon a lovely eulogy when he dies a few years ago. Then, coincidentally, Valerie Jarrett hires Michelle Obama, becomes friends with Barack and ends up advising him in the White House.  Chicago -- it's such a small, small world.

And Speaking Of Communists

Trevor Loudon says senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett's late father-in-law and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Vernon Jarrett, was a key member of the South Chicago communist left of the late 1940s. After graduating from Knoxville College in Tennessee, Jarrett moved to Chicago in 1946 to work as a journalist.  On his first day on the job at the radical Chicago Defender, he was sent to cover a race riot.  The Defender was heavily influenced by the Communist Party USA and included on its roster well known Chicago Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett and Davis worked on the Defender around the same time.  They certainly knew each other through the Communist Party and its fronts. In June 1946, Vernon Jarrett was elected to the Illinois Council of the Communist Party's youth wing, then known as American Youth for Democracy.  This is according to Testimony of Walter S. Steele regarding Communist activities in the United States.  Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first session, on H. R. 1884 and H. R. 2122, pages 75,76.  It is the first hard evidence tying Vernon Jarrett directly to the Communist Party.  Frank Marshall Davis, incidentally, was an official sponsor of American Youth for Democracy, along with confirmed communists Howard Fast, Langston Hughes, John Howard Lawson and Dirk Struik. In April 1948, Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett were working together as members of the publicity committee of the communist controlled Citizens' Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers.           Besides Davis and Jarrett, communist officials of the strike committee included Oscar Brown (Treasurer), Louise Patterson (Assistant Treasurer) and Ishmael Flory (food & groceries committee). Later that year, Frank Marshall Davis left Chicago for Hawaii to work on the Honolulu Record, then edited and run by Communist Party member Koji Ariyoshi. Loudon is just getting warmed up.  He's got a ton of stuff here . . .

Valerie Jarrett Has A Secret Service Detail

Keith Koffler is reporting that Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett apparently has Secret Service protection.   This is highly unusual, and of course, costly. I’ve never really heard of someone who is merely a senior White House aide getting assigned Secret Service agents.   My understanding is that at the senior levels of the Bush White House, at least during the latter days, only the president and his family, the vice president, the chief of staff, the national security adviser, and the homeland security adviser were assigned Secret Service agents.    It’s possible that Jarrett has received enough specific and credible threats to justify Secret Service protection, or that the Secret Service has for some other reason calculated that she needs bodyguards. But it’s also possible this is a case of oddly overdoing it -- and overusing taxpayer resources.   Is she really such a public figure? I’m sure 90 percent of Americans have little to no idea who she is. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is far better known and spends his time warning terrorists and our foreign adversaries about bad behavior while trumpeting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I’m sure he does not have protection. According to a local report, Jarrett was accompanied by at least two Secret Service agents during her pre-Martin Luther King Day appearance in Atlanta Sunday, where she bashed Republicans in church.       One source of mine, who is knowledgeable about what a Secret Service detail would look like, said he spotted Jarrett at Reagan National Airport with her protection as she departed Washington just before Christmas. After watching her blow past a long line at the security gate, he noticed she had one Secret Service agent in back and the other in front, with someone who was possibly a third agent to her side.   Valerie Jarrett NEEDS Secret Service agents assigned to her. Who else will carry her luggage? You don't expect her to carry her bags -- do you?