REAL UNEMPLOYEMENT RATE IS OVER 17%. THE Government cons us because they do not want the panic to set in.

Simple Math Proves Jobs Report a Lie

Recently a Conservative said there were more people unemployed this month than there were last month -- because a bunch of people just threw their arms up in the air and said "I'm not even going to file a paper with the Department of Labor."
File a paper with the Department of Labor? Nobody that I know that's unemployed has ever done that.
It seems that nobody, besides those who work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (and 27 million unemployed Americans) know that the head of the RNC has no clue at all as to what he's talking about.
The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics GUESSES how many people stopped looking for work based on a household survey (CPS) conducted by the Bureau of Census.
The only thing unemployed people can file is a claim for unemployment benefits from their State every week -- until they no longer qualify, and then run out of unemployment benefits. After that, they can't file anything, with anyone, at the Department of Labor -- even though they're still out of work. END UPDATE
The jobless numbers are much worse than they say. A conservative estimate is 17% unemployed, but it could be as high as 19%.
"This in not class warfare, it's math." No mister President, it's worse than class warfare when our government doesn't even acknowledge 8.4 million unemployed Americans; when they don't count them in the unemployment rate and doesn't honestly report the statistics to the general public. We want honest math, not sugar-coated convoluted numbers.
A New York Times article that came out yesterday is the subject of my post today. The writer says, "The number of long-term unemployed workers is starting to fall." He, like most in the media, takes the government (the Bureau of Labor Statistics) at their word. I don't, and rarely have, especially when I know politics is involved. It is our U.S. Labor Department's "Lies, damned lies, and Statistics". So I did my own research and math.
First, there are many more than 13.3 million unemployed (8.6%) It's also interesting to note that 16-year-olds who are still in high school and living at home are also counted in the CPA " household survey" as among those who are employed.
Today in December 2011 there are actually over 27 million working age Americans (18 to 65*) with no job at all (and who are not on Social Security, and so therefore, are not counted). So we have a REAL unemployment rate of well over 17% (based on a workforce of 154 million in 2008).
*According to the 2010 Census, there were 40.3 million people 65 and older (13% of population), and 33.5 million are retired and collecting Social Security. Out of a total U.S. population of 308.7 million, 63% are between the ages of 18 and 65 (194.5 million) and 24.0% are under 18 years old.
It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labor force." These are people who have no job and are "not looking for work". Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities.

Typically, employment and the labor force include only work done for monetary gain. Hence, a homemaker is neither part of the labor force nor unemployed. Nor are full-time students nor prisoners considered to be part of the labor force or unemployment. As of 2005, roughly 0.7% of the US population is incarcerated (or 1.5% of the available working population at that time).
But disregarding those people, and with only 141.1 million income tax filers last year for 2010 (out of 194.5 million between the ages of 18 and 65), and if we called this our "new reduced work force", based on the government's own numbers, the actual unemployment rate could really be an astounding 19.1%...higher than many years during the Great Depression, and many more people too.

Let's just go back two years to the present...
Over two years ago in October 2009 (at the supposed "peak" of unemployment) the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the national unemployment rate was at 10.2% with 15.7 million Americans out of work. So we can safely assume that, even if every single person received the maximum of 99 weeks in unemployment benefits, they would have all expired two months ago (and 15.7 million jobs have not been created in the last 26 months).
Since October 2009 Obama says that according the Bureau of Labor Statistics 3 million jobs were created. During the past 2 years during that same period of time 6 million Americans also graduated from high school and college.
15.7 million unemployed + 6 million new people entering the labor force = 21.7 million MINUS 3 million new jobs created = 18.7 million. Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 13.3 million unemployed + 2.6 million marginally attached (and not counted in the media-reported U-3 rate) = a total of 15.9 million unemployed.
So right away we see a difference of 2.6 million (15.9 MINUS 13.3 million = 2.6 million) being reported of ALL people who are without any work at all. Add to those 2.6 million "missing workers" all the additional layoffs there were since October 2009.
Job cuts announced in 2011 are up, already more than 2010's full-year total. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 1.2 million separations in 2010 alone, with many more on the way (the media is only reporting half this figure). Now add those 2.6 million "missing workers" + approximately another 2.4 million laid off worker in the last 2 years = 5 million.
The banks have already announced thousands of planned layoffs. Bank of America confirmed it will slash 30,000 jobs over the next few years and HSBC previously said it will also slash 30,000 jobs by 2013. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics' next Mass Layoffs news release for November is scheduled to be released on Thursday, December 22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. EST)
And today the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reports that 7 million people are CURRENTLY receiving unemployment benefits. Remember, over 2 years ago 15.7 million were unemployed and as late of May 2010 when unemployment was reported lower as 9.7% 10 million of those were receiving unemployment benefits (that have since expired), so we know that at any one time over the last 2 years, at least 17 million were receiving some form of unemployment benefits.
So, not even counting those that didn't qualify for unemployment benefits, 17 million who received benefits MINUS the reported 13.3 million unemployed today = 3.7 million MINUS 3 million new jobs created during that time = 700,000. Now add all the layoffs since October 2009 over the last 26 months. (700,000 + approximately another 2.4 million laid off in last 2 years = 3.1 million + 2.6 million "missing workers" = 5.7 million).
Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reports that, just last month alone, 315,000 Americans were reported as "no longer looking for work" and they were no longer counted in the media-reported unemployment rate of 8.6%. How many more are no longer being counted over that last 2 years, or since the "peak" in October 2009? Since keeping track over the last 2 years, I'm estimating about 2.7 million more, for at total of 8.4 million not counted at all, in ANY measure by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (either as unemployed, marginally attached, or discourage...in either the U-3 rate or the higher U-6 rate.)
And most of the 3 million job gains were nothing to brag about either, as most were part-time (or temp) low-paying jobs (like the holiday help that is now being hired).
According to one study, just 7% of those who lost jobs after the financial crisis in 2008 have returned to or exceeded their previous financial position and maintained their lifestyles. About 15 percent say the reduction in their incomes has been drastic and will probably be permanent. Even among those who found work, many made much less than before the downturn. More than two years after the "recovery" officially began, American employers have reinstated less than 25% of the jobs lost during the downturn.
Even among the college-educated, there is one cohort that is still feeling more pain: older workers. More than half of all unemployed workers 45 to 54 years old have been out of work for six months or more.
Some domestic manufacturing may be picking up a little, but employers are not hiring...workers in the United States are increasing their "productivity" (working harder). But these manufacturers could face strains overseas in important export markets, especially if Europe’s debt crisis worsens and leads to another recession. China, the world’s second-largest economy, is also slowing. Manufacturing in China contracted in November for the first time in nearly three years.
One article in the New York Times gleefully reports that the number of long-term unemployed workers (or the number of unemployed) is starting to fall...but they're NOT! They're just no longer being counted in the U-6 rate and described by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as "no longer looking for work" (whether or not they are).

Already, millions of people have exhausted their benefits (10 to 17 million). Failing to renew the federal benefit extensions will cause 5 million additional people (by eliminating federal extensions) to lose benefits next year. Unemployment benefits are believed to have one of the most stimulative effects on the economy, because recipients are likely to spend all of the money they receive quickly and pump more spending through the
economy.
This blogger estimates that of those who already exhausted all their benefits and are no longer counted in Bureau of Labor Statistics' U-3 unemployed rate (media-reported), "marginally attached", or as "discouraged workers" (the U-6 rate) to be approximately 8.4 million (also known as UI "exhaustees", of which about 3 million are "99ers".)
8.4 million (reported as "not looking for work) + 13.3 million reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-3 rate + 2.6 million reported as marginally attached = 24.3 million + 6 million kids graduated from high school and college = 30.3 million MINUS 3 million jobs were created = over 27 million with no job at all and a REAL unemployment rate of over 17%.
According to the IRS, for 2009 142.2 million individual federal tax returns were files with the IRS. In 2010 it was only 141.1 million, a difference of 1.1 million less. For 2008 there were 154.3 million tax returns filed (what the total work force used to be). That's a difference of 13.2 million less federal tax returns that were filed for 2008 and this year for 2010 (Note: That's about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports as unemployed. Also note: Even people who received unemployment benefits are required to pay federal taxes and file a federal income tax return).
Today the joke is: 8.6% are unemployed, but 17% are without a job.
And expect more layoffs as companies like American Airlines go through bankruptcy in hopes to be able to rewrite its labor contracts, shed obligations and debt and perhaps reduce the pension commitments. (I recently heard Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines say that these companies shouldn't be bailed out or allowed to go bankrupt, they should stand or fall on their own viability.)
And according to this article, even if the unemployment rate ever does significantly drop, it would be mostly for low-paying jobs, because more and more jobs will continue to go overseas for cheaper labor. Read: Workers of the Western World. In the past 10 years alone we've already lost 56,000 factories and 8.2 million jobs.
One hedge fund manager had said at a recent dinner speech in New York, “The low-skilled American worker is the most overpaid worker in the world.”
China's largest employer is Foxconn, a Taiwanese-owned company which has nearly 1 million employees making products for American companies. (READ "America's Race to the Bottom). The worker's average pay: about $149.24 a month. But for Foxconn, even that is too much for payroll, so now they want to automate jobs such as such as spraying, welding and assembling. Foxconn's CEO unveiled a plan to hire 1 million robots by 2013 (because robots are easier to manage and don't commit suicide).
So I guess low-paying jobs and high unemployment in America is here to stay.

A Better Way to Count the Unemployed

If the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service and all 50 states' Employment and Security Division had computerized records of EXACTLY when everybody worked, what they earned, where they were employed, how much tax they paid (or owed), and when they were no longer showing earnings on a W-4 form, can't all this information be easily cross referenced and shared (in part or completely) with the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics?

It seems it would be fairly easy to do. You would have an EXACT count, at any given time, of how many people are working and how many aren't. You could also say for certain how many people had exhausted all their unemployment benefits and still remain unemployed. You could also determine EXACTLY what percent of high school and college graduates find jobs after completing school.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics CPA "household survey" is extremely obsolete and flawed in this day and age of technology.

from http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2011/12/simple-math-proves-jobs-report-lie.html

Bill Clinton at the DNC: 50-minute bromide of lies, prevarications, and misdirections so fictional that it ought to be placed on the shelves alongside Fifty Shades of Gray

Bill Clinton’s speech last night at the Democratic National Convention lied like he did when he said he did not have sex with at Woman!!!  RIGHT !!!!!

Actually, to be more blunt, it was a toxic, 50-minute bromide of lies, prevarications, and misdirections so fictional that it ought to be placed on the shelves alongside Fifty Shades of Gray (come to think of it, the speech was also sadomasochistic, if the reaction of the Clintonite media was any indicator).


There are dozens of problems in the Clinton speech. But let’s just start with the top ten:

1.  “Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.”
   
   Technically, this is true. Just as technically, Barack Obama should run screaming with his hair on fire from this statistic. There’s a reason for that: Clinton is measuring presidential tenure purely from inauguration to inauguration. For example, he’s taking jobs numbers from January 1981 to January 1985 to measure Reagan’s first term. Only one problem with this: by this standard, Barack Obama is the second-worst private jobs creator of the last half-century (George W. Bush is first, but still created far more net jobs than Obama overall, putting Obama dead last if you include state and federal jobs in the statistic). Which is why our unemployment rate is terrible.
   
   
2.  “Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats.”
   
   This is crapola. Clinton frequently says or implies that Republicans are racists who want to toss grandma off a cliff. Here’s what Clinton said about the Tea Party’s view of Barack Obama just a couple years ago: “They want to turn him into a space alien. It helps that his skin color is different. But their motivation is what it always is: power and money.” And when he was president, Clinton was fond of using the FBI to investigate his political opponents. His political guru, Dick Morris, suggested that Clinton try a “ricochet strategy” to link Republicans with terrorists. Clinton is a hater. He always has been, as Barack Obama should know. He just hides it well because he’s a genius politician.
   
   
3. “We all know that [Obama] also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and new jobs.”
   
   Really? Obamacare passed with precisely zero Republican votes, and only after the Democrats used legislative dirty tricks to pass it. On the debt reduction, Obama killed a deal with House Speaker John Boehner by trying to shoehorn massive tax increases into his final proposal. Republicans voted for Obama’s proposed – and sheepish – extension of the payroll tax rates. The Republican House has passed dozens of jobs bills. The Democratic Senate hasn’t even brought them to a vote. Obama’s budgets are so ridiculously non-moderate that they’ve received zero votes in the House and Senate – twice.
   
   
4. “They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit federal bailouts.”
   
   Ah, the irony. Obama’s Dodd-Frank regulations enshrine bailouts into law. And as for those “pesky financial regulations,” Clinton’s administration is responsible for doing away with the Glass-Steagall Act, the left’s favorite bugaboo on this score. The fact is that Democrats are the largest proponents of bailouts – hell, Clinton was championing Obama’s GM bailouts a few minutes after this point in the speech. And they’re the ones who designed the regulatory regime that created the subprime mortgage crisis.
   
   
5. “I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early '95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States.”
   
   Clinton’s policies were not working early in his tenure. The fabled Clinton recovery started under President George H.W. Bush; from January 1992 to January 1993, the H.W. Bush economy created 1.46 million jobs. Clinton’s job creation numbers only jumped after he admitted that he had raised taxes too much, proceeded to cut capital gains taxes in a major way, signed free trade acts, increased the death tax exemption, and worked with a Republican Congress to pass fiscally responsible budgets. The idea that Clinton just kept applying the same leftism in 1995 that he did in 1993 is a lie.
   
   
6. “President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”
   
   False. The economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states. And let's not even discuss how Warren G. Harding's administration dealt with the crippled economy left by Woodrow Wilson.
   
   
7. “The Recovery Act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes -- let me say this again -- cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people.”
   
   Saved or created means nothing. Millions means nothing. This is pure hokum. According to certain analysis of CBO data, the Recovery Act – the stimulus – cost taxpayers over $4 million per job created. And as for cutting taxes for 95% of the American people, nearly half of all Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. So how can you give them a federal tax cut? You can’t. These are redistribution checks.
   
   
8. “And in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs. We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president's job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.”
   
   Love this magical thinking. If President Obama created 4.5 million jobs over the last 29 months, and if we’re supposed to date responsibility for job creation from the day people take office, then Congressional Republicans, who entered office in January 2011, are responsible for the creation of 2.9 million jobs, and Democrats in Congress are responsible for a massive net loss in jobs. And once again, every time Congressional Republicans attempt to pass jobs measures, President Obama stymies them with the help of his Senate Democratic majority.
   
   
9. “During this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.”
   
   Picking and choosing periods again. Over the course of Obama’s tenure, approximately 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost on net.
   
   
10. “He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2.5 trillion coming from -- for every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.”
    
    This one’s so bad that even the Washington Post, Obama’s favorite news outlet, debunked it. The fact remains that both Simpson and Bowles are fans of Paul Ryan, the Republican VP nominee. And Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan outright. As the Post puts it, “virtually no serious budget analyst agrees with this accounting.”

This doesn’t even get to Clinton’s take on how many kids have been given healthcare they wouldn't otherwise have under Obamacare (false), his explanation of why health care costs haven’t risen as fast (bull), his take on Obama gutting welfare work requirements (absolute bunk), his description of Paul Ryan’s budget (garbage), his line about oil and gas exploration under Obama (nope), his narrative about student loans (a major stretch), his scare statements about Republicans poisoning air and water (nonsense), and his lionization of the GM bailout (horsepucky).


In short, this was a Clinton classic: lies, lies, and more lies. It was lies posing as “arithmetic,” as Clinton put it. He says where he comes from, 2 + 2 = 4. Unfortunately, where he comes from, that may be the only math problem he can get right.

"If I wanted America to fail"

“If I wanted America to fail” video goes viral. WATCH THIS VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE THE SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE ANTI AMERICAN GAME PLAN....
SIMPLE ...HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT AND LETHAL TO THE WELL BEING OF OUR NATION!!!

This video produced by Free Market America went live on YouTube — and it is racking up nationwide hits. Deservedly so. The Earth Day-timed message is compelling and extremely relevant this campaign season. As the group writes: “The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism — it’s become an economic suicide pact. And we’re here to challenge it.” Watch:

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE PATRIOTS... THE SWING STATES MUST BE OURS....!!

SEPTEMBER 6,    2012

The table below gives you a look at some in-depth polling information from Rasmussen.  It's from Rasmussen's Daily Swing State Tracking Poll for September 6, 2012.  Take a careful look at these numbers and you'll see some very interesting developments.  

The Rise of Islam - Muslim Demographics...Islamic Immigration to Increase in America

Islamic Immigration to Increase in America

Persons concerned about the survival of Western Civilization watch Europe’s degradation with alarm, as hostile Muslims use intimidation and violence to destroy freedom of speech, individual rights and women’s equality.
Those freedoms are increasingly under assault in America too; one example is the woman who suggested Everyone Draw Mohammed Day was forced into hiding by Muslim death threats.
As terror analyst Walid Phares noted last fall, “According to open-source reports, between 2001 and 2008, U.S. agencies stopped one or two terror attempts a year. However, from 2009 until today, the government has been uncovering one or two cases a month, a troubling growth in jihadi activities.”
The prudent thing for Washington to do would be to stop Muslim immigration entirely, since there is no right to immigrate, and national security is endangered by the historically adversarial group.
We should have ZERO Muslim immigration, not a continued open door to potential enemies.
But as a recent Pew study showed, more Muslims is what we are getting. A disturbing major point is that the world’s Muslim population will grow at double the rate of non-Muslims over the next 20 years. Demography is merciless, and history has shown that the higher the proportion of Muslims in a country, the worse the social conflict.
The main page for the Pew report is The Future of the Global Muslim Population, Projections for 2010-2030.
The specifics about the number of Muslims in America has its own sub-page:

Region: Americas, January 27, 2011
The number of Muslims in the 51 countries in the Americas is projected to more than double in the next 20 years, from 5.3 million in 2010 to 10.9 million in 2030. Nevertheless, Muslims will remain a small minority in the region, accounting for an estimated 1.0% of the population in 2030, compared with 0.6% in 2010. Muslims in the Americas also will continue to represent a small share of the global Muslim population. The percentage of the world’s Muslims living in the Americas is expected to remain roughly the same (0.5% in 2030, compared with 0.3% in 2010).
Most of the projected growth in the region’s Muslim population will take place in North America, particularly in the U.S. and Canada. If current trends continue, the Muslim population in the United States is projected to more than double in the next 20 years, from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030.40 Canada’s Muslim population is expected to nearly triple, climbing from 940,000 in 2010 to 2.7 million in 2030. [. . .]
Muslim Immigration to the United States
Muslim immigration to the United States has been steadily increasing since the 1990s, except for a slight dip following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City in 2001. In 1992, nearly 50,000 Muslim immigrants were granted permanent residency status in the United States. By 2009, the annual number had increased to more than 115,000. If current trends continue, about 130,000 Muslims are expected to be granted permanent residency in the United States annually by 2030.
This report’s projections for Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are based partly on data from the 2003 New Immigrant Survey. Pew Forum staff used these data to calculate the proportion of all immigrants who are Muslim for each country from which large numbers of Muslims recently have come to the U.S. (This proportion does not necessarily match the religious composition of the country of origin. For instance, while Pakistan is 96.4% Muslim today, 89.5% of immigrants from Pakistan are estimated to be Muslim.) The proportion of immigrants who are Muslim for each country was then applied to the actual number of immigrants receiving permanent residency from that country, as reported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 1992 to 2009.
These calculations show that Muslim immigrants have been rising both in absolute numbers and as a share of all immigrants receiving permanent U.S. residency. As previously mentioned, the number of Muslims receiving permanent residency grew from just under 50,000 in 1992 to about 115,000 in 2009, while the share that Muslims represent of all new permanent residents rose from about 5.1% in 1992 to about 10.2% in 2009. At the same time, the total number of immigrants receiving permanent residency status has fluctuated from year to year but has increased, on average, by about 2% annually from 1992 to 2009.

Watch this Powerfull Video by Our Nations Best Fighting men..Dishonorable Disclosures..

Special Forces: Obama “You Didn’t Kill Osama bin Laden, America Did”

Special Forces and intel operatives, that include Navy SEALs, are slamming Barack Obama because of his bragging about killing Osama bin Laden. The main reason for doing so is the fact that top secret details have been released as a result of Obama’s inability to keep his mouth shut.
Ben Smith, a Navy SEAL said,

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.”

Dan Spencer, at Red State, writes:

The good folks at Special Operations OPSEC see their mission as stopping President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets, which allows the special operations and intelligence capabilities to be degraded., and educating the public about the importance and necessity of Operational Security. The video does a good job of doing that.
The Former Special Operations and C.I.A. personnel are upset about the “avalanche” of leaks obviously intended to politically benefit Obama:

• Immediate disclosure of the killing of Osama bin Laden rather than waiting to exploit the information taken by SEAL Team Six.
• Disclosure and special access to Department of Defense and C.I.A details about the Osama bin Laden operation to Hollywood filmmakers.
• Disclosure of the unit, the cover name, The aircraft that were used, the number of raiders, and how the team entered and moved around the grounds.
• Disclosure of details pertaining to the intelligence gathering before the raid, including the identity of the Pakistani doctor who provided information.
• Disclosure of U.S. and Israeli involvement in the computer viruses which targeted Iran’s nuclear program.
• Disclosure of a joint U.S./British/Israeli covert operation that planted a spy in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, whose information stopped a terrorist bomb plot against a U.S.-bound airliner.
• Disclosure of the secret Obama “Kill List.”

OPSEC is not all alone in its outrage against Obama. Democrat Senators Bob Kerrey and Dianne Feinstein also took Obama to task for his disclosures.
However, it was Robert Gates, the former defense secretary who blasted the White House when he told Obama’s national security team to “Shut the F*** up!”

Obama in 2008: Fraud, Forgery, Murder, and Mayhem WATCH AND BE DISGUSTED!! IS THIS GOING ON IN AMERICA ???

A short documentary showing the widespread fraud, forgery, voter and delegate intimidation, death threats, and alleged murder perpetrated by the Obama campaign in 2008, using clips from the groundbreaking documentary "We Will Not be Silenced," and WND investigative reporter Jerome Corsi's ongoing investigation of Barack Obama. Produced by Obama Files. Opinions and statements expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Obama Files

http://web.me.com/kzvideo/OF/Obama_Files_Home.html

Clintons Knew Obama Ineligible & DNC Primary Fraud - Claims Hollywood Producer. with Inside Information!

Hollywood Producer Bettina Viviano says that the Clintons were the original "birthers" and people were silenced and threatened. Also talks about voter fraud in the Democrat Primaries.

Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.

Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg's company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.

During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.

She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.

Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama's eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton's remained silent about Obama's birth certificate or lack thereof.

This is a powerful video from a lady that has nothing to gain and probably everything to lose by coming forward with her information. It could well ruin her career in Hollywood as so many of the film industry are flaming liberals. It could also cost her her life.

I took note of how she described the Obama campaign's reign of terror and intimidation and how well coordinated it was. I thought to myself that if they were bold enough to threaten the life of the Clinton's daughter then have they made similar threats to all of the leading Republicans in both the House and Senate? Is this why Congress has remained so silent ever since Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's March 1st news conference where he provided the American people with the evidence that Obama's birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries?

When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it's not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intimidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected.

And if the voter fraud will be as prevalent in November as it was in 2008, it seems a sure thing that he will be re-elected. Obama has had the DOJ strike down every voter ID law and any other measure taken, to reduce the chance of voter fraud. They have set the stage for an old fashioned Chicago style election with padded and illegal votes. Wait a minute, he is a Chicago politician, so guess he's just following local history at a national level.

If he does get re-elected, I'm positive it will mean the end of free elections and free America. We will become another Soviet Union: a land run by an elite group of Marxists who will exploit all of the people for their own personal gain. America, for all intent and purpose will be dead if Obama gets re-elected.

WHY GUNS ARE SAFE....

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is

700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians

per year are

120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician

 

is

0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of

Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.

is

80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths

per year, all age groups,

is

1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths

per gun owner

is

.0000188

Statistics courtesy of the FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, Guns don't kill people, doctors do!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than as by a gun owner!!!

Now if you have more than one doctor,

You're just shit out of luck!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends

to this

alarming threat.

We must ban doctors

before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large,

I withheld the statistics on

 

Lawyers

For fear the shock would cause

people to panic and seek medical attention!

Obama to Ban Recreational Fishing? WTF does this Kenyan wnat to do next ?? He is not American in his cultural upgringing !!

Obama to Ban Recreational Fishing? HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN ( CULTURALLY! )

 

The Obama administration is considering new environmental rules that would, in effect ban recreational fishing in the United States, according to ESPN. This move is apparently being contemplated under pressure from environmental groups.

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

"This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

"That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning."

The excuse for this contemplated ban is the notion that recreational fishing as well as commercial fishing is depleting the stock of fish in American waters. This notion is disputed by fishing groups, which fear not only that a ban would prohibit Americans from pursuing a traditional form of recreation, but also devastate the industry that supports recreational fishing. Angling groups maintain that there is no basis in science for an attempt to ban recreational fishing.

If the ban is ordered, it would likely come via executive order rather than an attempt to have Congress pass legislation. Various environmental groups are demanding that such an executive order be issued as soon as possible.

The idea that any president would contemplate arbitrarily banning a sport that millions of Americans enjoy, from young boys dropping lines at the local fishing hole, to adults struggling with Marlins on the high seas, is just mind boggling. A potential ban on recreational fishing suggests that this administration is possessed by a myopic version of environmental ideology that transcends common sense. It also feels empowered to tell Americans what they can or cannot do at a whim.

If a ban on recreational fishing were to take hold, one would suspect that a ban on recreational hunting would not be far behind. Environmental groups have been trying to stop hunting for decades and now seem to have an administration willing to do their bidding.

There will almost certainly be a pushback against these plans. To paraphrase the president himself, Americans have traditionally clung to their fishing rods as much as they do their guns and their God. The writer Norman Mclean wrote a story, 'A River Runs Through It', that explored the spiritual aspects of fly fishing. The story was made into a film by Robert Redford.

Incidentally, one of the most famous anglers in the United States is a former vice president named Dick Cheney. So far Cheney has not commented on the proposed ban on recreational fishing. When he does, the effects should be interesting to behold.

Sources: Culled out: Obama administration will accept no more public input for federal fishery strategy, Robert Montgomery, ESPN Outdoors, March 8th, 2010

 

Obama sends form letters as condolences to Families of Navy Seals...Commander in Chief??? HELL NO !! Obama is a SHIT that cares more about his Lefty Conytraceptive Bitch Sandra FLUCK and personally calls her when she was called out by Rush Limbaugh!

Obama disrespects dead Navy Seals with auto-signed form letter to next of kin ...

In what I regard as a singular mark of disrespect, Barack Obama has been caught using auto-signed letters to the next of kin …

Obama Honored Fallen SEALs By Sending Their Parents a Form Letter Signed By Electric Pen

On August 6, 2011, 30 US service members were killed when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were being transported in crashed in Wardak province, Afghanistan. It was the deadliest single loss for U.S. forces in the decade-long war in Afghanistan. 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs were killed in the crash.
Yesterday, Karen and Billy Vaughn, parents of Aaron Carson Vaughn, spoke at the Defending the Defenders forum sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots outside the RNC Convention in Tampa. Karen brought a copy of the form letter they were sent following their son’s death.
It’s a form letter.

Read more at: Obama Honored Fallen SEALs By Sending Their Parents a Form Letter Signed By Electric Pen | The Gateway Pundit

These are not campaign donors who are sent routine letters thanking them for their donations …
These are the parents and next of kin of men and women who have lost their lives in the service of their country. To believe that any President does not have the time to personally sign condolence letters for fallen soldiers – when he continually shoots hoops, golfs and vacations on the taxpayer’s dime is unbelievable.
Bottom line …
Barack Obama has always been regarded by many, myself included, as a lazy self-indulgent narcissist who appears to have things handed to him by affirmative action or to fulfill the role assigned to him by others. Here is a so-called constitutional scholar and the Editor of the Harvard Law Review with not one published article on constitutional issues or anything else. Here is a man whose early life remains a mystery to the very people who had elected him to the highest office. Here is a man who wrote not one, but two autobiographies while a young man. Of course, written under the suspicion that one or both were probably ghostwritten. Here is a man who received a Nobel Peace Prize for zero accomplishments.
And here is a man who is an empty suit whose pattern of failure and ineptitude is likely to be repeated if re-elected.
But this latest revelation disgusts me most of all. Disrespecting fallen soldiers and their families and treating them if they were $3 campaign donors is not only unacceptable, but WRONG.

How Barack and Michelle Obama lost their law license

Did YOU KNOW... that Barack Hussein Obama & Michelle Obama had both lost their law licenses?

The LEFTY PRESS WILL HIDE ALL THE FACTS!

AND SCREW THE SNOPES DETRACTION. SNOPES IS A LEFTY PROPAGANDA MACHINE FUNDED BY GEORGE SORROS!

 This is 100% legit check it out yourself.
I check it out at https://www.iardc.org Stands for
Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's
the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Any Attorney who wants to maintain his law degree will maintain it at the cost of approximately $600/year. A law license is something one worked so hard and long to earn.

Big Surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law
Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to
escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary
Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is
not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew
your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when
you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender"
your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama" voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!  

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts. Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/ 

4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of
Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a
statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a
title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a
spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger
Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law
at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source:  http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S.
Constitution the other night during his State of the
Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of
Independence ... not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart..tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/ 

9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all
created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Mr. President.

By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable
rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Keep this moving -- Educate others.

Beth Fouhy an AP ( "AFRICAN's PRESS??) Schill who writes asskissing articles for the left Protects Obama While Attacking Conservative Film 2016 by Dinesh DeSouza.

Beth Fouhy  an AP ( "AFRICAN's PRESS??) Schill who writes asskissing articles for the left Protects Obama While Attacking Conservative Film 2016 by Dinesh DeSouza.

( What a Pathetic attempt to provide protection!! )

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Article By Cliff Kincaid August 30, 2012 6:50 am 

 

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press (AP) has reviewed Dinesh D’Souza’s popular conservative film, “2016: Obama’s America,” attacking its central claim that Obama’s alleged philosophy of anti-colonialism stems from the influence of the Kenyan Obama who was mostly absent from the President’s life. The AP is one of the most influential news organizations in the world. Her article is running in literally hundreds of papers here and abroad and conveys the impression that D’Souza, a popular conservative author and scholar, and president of a Christian college, is deliberately misleading the public and distorting the facts about Obama’s background and history.
However, Fouhy completely ignores the part of the film that features an interview with Professor Paul Kengor, an accomplished author who discusses Obama’s mentor in Hawaii, Communist Party member and writer Frank Marshall Davis. This is the relationship that the media continue to regard as taboo. The failure to talk truthfully about Davis, identified merely as “Frank” in Obama’s memoir, constitutes one of the most important and insidious cover-ups in presidential history.
Exhibiting her service to the Obama campaign, Fouhy doesn’t want to blow the lid off this scandal and clearly prefers that the cover-up continue. Her movie “review,” as such, appears to be designed to warn people not to take any critics of Obama seriously when they raise questions about his foreign connections.
However, she knows that the truth is available because it was in the film that she supposedly saw. She cannot refute it. Obama was heavily influenced by a member of a Communist Party controlled and funded by Moscow. Frank Marshall Davis was even a supporter of mass murderer Joseph Stalin.
As AIM has documented, D’Souza in his film and book claims that “anti-colonialism” is behind Obama’s beliefs and policies. But anti-colonialism was a tactic of the international communist movement, which attempted to create the Soviet Union’s own colonial empire.
AIM has argued that Obama’s Marxist connection is far more newsworthy and significant than whatever “anti-colonial” views he may have had. Communist parties that engage in subversion and espionage against the United States, and use agents of influence to manipulate U.S. policy, still exist and operate against the United States, sometimes in collaboration with Islamist movements.
A communist writer by the name of Frank Chapman once referred to Obama himself as a revolutionary mole, while Marxist historian Gerald Horne spoke of Obama being influenced by Frank Marshall Davis during an event at the Tamiment Library in New York where the archives of the Communist Party were put on display. These remarks were delivered on March 23, 2007, and published on April 6, 2007—more than five years ago.
Fouhy, an AP political reporter covering the 2012 presidential campaign, has written her review, “Fact Check: ‘Anti-colonial’ Obama not plausible,” in a way that suggests she has ascertained the ultimate truth about the film and Obama. This is laughable. She blatantly ignores the facts about Davis mentioned in the film.
Focusing on the movie’s faulty claims of Obama’s anti-colonialism, Fouhy writes, “…it’s difficult to see how Obama’s political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D’Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D’Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president’s ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.”
She is correct that there is no hard evidence the Kenyan, who may not in fact have been Obama’s real father, had any significant influence over Obama.
However, Fouhy ignores the fact that D’Souza attempts to make up for this deficiency in his film by including the interview with Cold War historian Paul Kengor, who had access to Davis’s 600-page FBI file and his writings for Communist Party papers. His new book is THE COMMUNIST Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Davis guided Obama’s thinking for about eight years in Hawaii, before Obama went off to Occidental College. Obama’s classmate John Drew says Obama was a Marxist at that time.
Kengor makes the well-documented assertion that it was Davis who most heavily influenced Obama as he was growing up in Hawaii. The interview with Kengor in the D’Souza film, which is showing in hundreds of theaters, gets on the record many of the long-neglected facts about Obama’s relationship with a communist.
While D’Souza’s film is flawed in terms of the anti-colonialism angle, Fouhy’s strange omission of the Davis matter makes her review even more questionable. D’Souza at least included the Kengor interview, which seems to represent his awareness that there is an alternative view of how Obama turned out that is more consistent with the facts as we have come to know and appreciate them.
The Fouhy review is the latest in a series of examples of how the major media have refused to address the facts, known by them for more than four years, about how Obama was influenced by a key member of the Communist Party member in Hawaii, and how Obama and his campaign tried to cover it up.
Four years ago, AP ran a story about Davis without mentioning the smoking-gun evidence that Davis was a Communist Party member. AP then called Davis a “left-leaning black journalist and poet” known for “leftist politics” and someone who might be accused by some of having “allegedly anti-American views.”
Fouhy could have set the record straight, by citing the Kengor interview in the D’Souza film, and she could have written about the 600-page FBI file on Davis. But she decided not to. Perhaps she realized that the facts about Davis and Obama are not in dispute and that her best approach was simply to ignore them. This is not real “fact-checking,” but dishonest journalism designed to guarantee a second term for Obama.
---
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother.

MORE FRAUD EXPOSED: HELL THE LEFTY MEDIA IS PILING COVER ON THIS STUFF... VERY LONG READ... BUT CLICK ON THE LINK AND SEE THE FRAUD PERPETRATED ON US!!

WHERE THE HELL WERE John McCain and Sara Palin ?? ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH ???

New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

by Pen Johannson
Editor, The Daily Pen

Honolulu, Hawaii - At the center of the war over Barack Obama’s illegitimacy as president are a series of deep seated, unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several municipal employees and officials within the government of the State of Hawaii. From former governor, Linda Lingle’s convenient deniability, to former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino’s intentionally misleading statements about Obama’s vital records. From the blatant, dismissive ignorance of Hawaii’s legislature about the difference between "U.S. Citizenship" and "Natural-born citizenship", to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections office clerk that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well kept secret from the American people.

ow, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the administrative power held by too few unaccountable officials and their unmonitored capacity to override the U.S. Constitution. The evidence reveals that municipal agents, working within the jurisdiction of Hawaii state law and complex administrative rules, opened shadowy legal channels which, ultimately, enabled Obama with an opportunity to usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.

SETTING THE STAGE

The details of the following account seem somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive. However, it is more important to remember that Obama's handlers engaged the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed him onto his present stage. They looked at all the angles. They weighed all the concequences. They engaged all the legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them. The evidence reveals they may have even pushed too hard on the limits of lawful conduct.

If those seeking the truth about Obama's identity are not equal to that same diligence, then they should question their understanding of the importance of constitutional sovereignty. Remember, among the primary objectives of liberal globalists, in concealing Obama's identity and, ultimately, his illegitimacy, was the endowment of executive political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would "push" extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American invidualism. Otherwise, if that truth fails to impress, then we should simply consider the massive five trillion dollars of added indebtedness upon our children and grandchildren, since Democrats took over the government in 2006, the cost of being America.

By now, America is realizing that Obama was tactically positioned not to make America a better nation for all of its citizens, but rather to confiscate the value of America's superior, prosperous heritage and redistribute it to those he and the liberal establishment believes are more deserving of it, globally! Obama's desire for economic equality is motivated by the very same communistic values which have failed humanity for more than 200 years.

However, since communism cannot succeed in America, the neo-liberal establishment is exploiting the executive powers usurped by Obama as a President to enact "punitive" legislation which, essentially, redirects money from vintage American society into an epic liberal cause sought since the end of World War II. Two generations ago, the American people sought to prosper from their work. Now, under Obama, the definition of a new "American Dream" has been hijacked by those lusting to make a profit by defaming the prosperity and sacrifice of coming generations.

Therefore, our momentary visit into the realm of plausibility serves well the value of our new found lessons and reinforces the importance for the American people to seize responsibility and proactively protect the sovereignty of their blood-ransomed, Constitutional freedom. Sometimes, in order to accomplish this, we must vigorously deny access to those with plural, or ambiguous, allegiances. Otherwise, we should resign ourselves to the idea that our value as the last hope for humanity can never be defended or preserved. Unless of course, we are willing to cast out the peddlers of corrupt ideas.

Expulsion is an essential first step in physically removing foul influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders. This starts by identifying and exposing the components of corruption by members of this radical ruling class. The following report is just one of many authored by other Americans which attempts, in small part, to do this.

THE "O" CON

Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the furor over the Democrat Party of Hawaii's refusal to certify Obama's constitutional eligibility. The DPH is the Democrat Party authority in Hawaii in charge of requesting, reviewing and verifying the legal qualifications of a candidate's eligibility for inclusion on the Hawaiian ballot, in compliance with state and Constitutional election laws.

Ultimately, the DPH's rejection of Obama was due to a refusal by Obama to make available the original documented evidence confirming his eligibility. However, this justifiable lack of certification by the DPH was followed by a covert attempt by the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, to artificially proclaim Obama eligible in Hawaii by submitting two separate, sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Obama, each containing different legal language. Both versions of the OCON were sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while only one version was submitted to other states' Election authorities. The DNC's fraudulent OCON was an obvious, desperate attempt to control damage and prevent Obama from being disqualified from the Hawaiian ballot and prevent public awareness of the DPH's refusal to certify Obama's eligibility.

The Official Certification of Nomination is a legally required document submitted by each party's state and national authority to every state elections committee authority prior to each election. It affords the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance that the candidates seeking inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed certified as constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek.

continued in the link.....READ IT ALL.... IT IS LONG AND A GREAT LAYOUT OF THE FACTS....

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html

Obamacare shock: College insurance prices soar... SO TEACH YOUR CHILDREN.... THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH AND OBAMA IS GOING TO GOUGE YOUR MEAGER POCKETS!!

TEACH YOUR CHILDREN.... THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH AND OBAMA IS GOING TO GOUGE YOUR MEAGER POCKETS!! 

WELCOME TO THE LIES THAT NO ONE SAY EXCEPT THE PATRIOTS...WELCOME TO YOU NIGHTMARE..

YES CHILDREN..... THIS WAS HIS PLAN ALL ALONG...DESTROY AMERICA...ONE GREAT INSTITUTION AT A TIME !! 

ARE WE THERE YET ???  WANT TO STOP THIS RIDE YET ??  NOVEMBER IS COMING!!!

Obama rewards friends and punishes enemies. This is what I call Third World "Afrocentric" politics..that Obama and his father are used to.

On energy, Obama rewards friends and punishes enemies. This is what I call Third World "Afrocentric" politics..that Obama and his father are used to. Chicago helped fine this to a n evil science. This November it must stop!

August 23, 2012 | 8:00 pm 

 

On the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama accidentally summed up his governing philosophy in an interview with Univision: "[W]e're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends ..."
This is the cornerstone of politics in Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago. It is also one of the few promises Obama has actually kept.


Just look at the Obama administration's treatment of utility giant Exelon Corp., which has had Illinois' legislature (and especially Obama's old state Senate mentor, Emil Jones) wrapped around its finger for years. An Exelon lobbyist once referred to the company as "the president's utility." One of Obama's top fundraisers sits on Exelon's board. Obama's top political adviser, David Axelrod, worked as an Exelon consultant. Obama's former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel helped create the company through a merger when he was an investment banker. Exelon is one of Obama's oldest "friends."
As such, Obama has rewarded Exelon with a $200 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department, a $646 million loan from the Treasury Department and favorable regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Obama gave similar friendly treatment to the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm whose board members have received U.S. ambassadorships from Obama. When the United Steelworkers union needed more than $200 million to save a Philadelphia oil refinery, Obama worked with Carlyle to waive EPA emissions requirements for the plant. Without the special regulatory treatment, Carlyle never would have invested the money.
Meanwhile, in Texas, Obama was busy trying to punish his enemies. His EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would have inflicted $2.7 billion in economic costs on the 28 states that produce the vast majority of electricity in the United States. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has intervened. In their opinion throwing out the new rule this week, the judges said Obama's EPA was "reluctant to acknowledge any textual limits on its authority."
Obama wants Americans to believe the foundation of America's economic success comes from all the roads and bridges that government builds. He's wrong. America's economic miracle came from our 200-plus-year commitment to economic fairness and the rule of law. Obama's energy agenda is a testament to how his administration is undermining the foundation of America's economic growth.
At every turn, Obama has favored some firms (Solyndra, Exelon, Carlyle, Duke Energy, etc.) while simultaneously punishing others (coal plants, oil companies, the natural gas extraction industry, transportation firms, etc.). There is a phrase for Obama's economic policies: "crony capitalism."
Warning America not to go down the same path his native Italy has chosen, economist Luigi Zingales recently advised: "For the U.S., the moment to act is now, before the cancer of crony capitalism metastasizes. ... [W]e must curb the political power that large industry incumbents have over legislation. Not only does it distort legislation, it also forces new entrants to compete on lobbying instead of concentrating on making more innovative and cheaper products."
As a candidate, Obama promised to change how business was done in Washington. In office, he has done so by making it worse.