Saturday, April 30, 2011

Take your global citizenship and shove it (UP YOUR ASS!), Superman

Washington Times Water Cooler Blog ^ | 4/30/11 | Kerry Picket

Look - up in the sky. It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s Superman renouncing his American citizenship. In a move that can only be described as a punch in the face to fans of a more-than-70-year-old American cultural icon, DC Comics will have the famous Kryptonian renounce his U.S. citizenship before the United Nations in Action Comics No. 900.

In the story, Superman says to an American official, “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship.” The Man of Steel then complains, “I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy … ‘truth, justice and the American way’ - it’s not enough anymore.”

Superman comes to this revelation after he appears in Iran to offer nonviolent help for the country’s dissidents. As a result of his actions, the Iranian dictatorship accuses the United States of committing an act of war.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Barack Hussein Obama Senior: Nightmares of my Father

The Arizona Independent newspaper published the Immigration and Naturalization Service file on Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

It is astonishing. Barack Hussein Obama's father's immigration file was just released under a F.O.I.A request, and what a ugly picture is paints. The BHO fairy tale narrative, made up out of whole cloth and sold to the American people, is blown to bits. BHO's impossible philandering, multiple wives and rampant bad behavior led to his removal from Harvard and the country. His polygamy is attributable to BHO Senior's Muslim faith. But at a time when America enforced her laws and immigration policy, Barack Hussein Obama Senior would be forced to leave Harvard, his visa not renewed.

He was a terrible man -- immoral and irresponsible. His treatment of women was incredibly callous and cruel -- not to mention the abandoment of his children and his multiple wives.

President Obama is indeed a bastard, literally and figuratively.

What a horrible man. Dreams of My Father. Indeed. Perhaps this explains President Obama's animus towards the United States.

Obama Senior was a polygamist and all-around bad guy. The fact that this NY Times writer tries to make this about racism and not about his pattern of abusive behavior and abandoment is telling. The writer in the article below ignores Obama Senior's abject corruption, and sees racism everywhere. It's like something of a mental disorder.

Was Barack Obama Sr. 'eased' out of Harvard, and America, for dating white women? by Andrew Rice



I think the file proves, fairly conclusively, that racism drove the president's father from the United States. I went back and forth a bit with Ben Smith (whose blog post brought this file to my attention) over whether "racism" is really the right word for the bureaucratic attitudes and actions these documents contain. There's no use of slurs or harsh language, certainly. What I think the documents reveal, though, is a subtle, institutionalized conspiracy that in a way seems more insidious than overt cross-burning racism, because almost surely none of its participants thought of their actions as discriminatory at all. In that sense, the file is an instructive artifact, not just of our president's biography, but of our nation's history of conflicted attitudes about race, foreign cultures, intermarriage and sex.

Hard as it may be to believe today, it seems clear from a close reading of the the file that the president's father was driven from this country because of his messy personal life. And reading between the lines, it's not hard to see a subtext of miscegenation.

First, a little historical background: the elder Barack Hussein Obama arrived in the United States in 1959, via an exchange program known colloquially in Kenya as the "Tom Mboya airlift," after the politician who sponsored it, a Luo tribesman of his. (These sorts of ethnic connections matter in Africa.)

During his first year of studies at the University of Hawaii, Obama took a Russian-language class where he met Stanley Ann Dunham, the president's mother. The earliest non-routine memo in Obama's file is a 1961 memo in which the I.N.S. is warned by a foreign student adviser at the University of Hawaii (a "Mrs. McCabe"), who informed the authorities that Obama had married Dunham. Further, the informant noted that he had been "running around with several girls" and had been "warned about his playboy ways." He had been confronted by school officials about another wife he had back in Kenya, from whom he claimed to be customarily divorced.

I have no intention of arguing that the elder Obama conducted himself honorably in his relations with women. However, having lived in East Africa, his explanation rings familiar to me. Even today, it is common for a well-traveled young person like him to have a first wife back in his home village. We call this "polygamy;" they see it as moving on with life.

First marriages fizzle out in Africa, as they do everywhere else. The difference is that culturally, legal divorce is very frowned upon: It's viewed as shirking financial and familial responsibilities. Epidemiologists, who have studied this cultural pattern because of its impact on the spread of H.I.V., often say that Africans tend to have "concurrent" relationships, while Americans have "consecutive" ones. That's a wild generalization, but the point is that Obama Sr. would not have viewed his first marriage back in Kenya as something disreputable. It clearly became worthy of investigation to school and immigration officials, though, after he started fooling around with white women.

After the 1961 report about Obama's marriage to Dunham, the I.N.S. resolved to keep eye on him. Polygamy is not a charge meriting deportation, the memo notes, adding that "If the subject were convicted of bigamy we might get a deportation charge but not before." But it recommends that Obama be "closely questioned before another [visa] extension is granted—and denial be considered." This sets the tone of the rest of the file, throughout which the issue of his American wife back in Hawaii keeps popping up.

The birth of Obama's mixed-race son—the one who would go on to be president—is duly noted, and then things go quiet for a couple of years. During this time, the president's parents separated and Obama Sr. went to Harvard to study for a graduate degree. The relationship went on as a long-distance proposition for a little while, though it was over by Jan. 1964, when Dunham filed for a divorce that Obama did not contest.

The same month as the divorce, another note appears in Obama's file. There seems to have been some kind of affair with a Kenyan exchange student (the file indicates a high school student, but that doesn't necessarily mean a minor—African children often started school quite late in the 1950s and '60s). The Unitarian Universalist Service, which had sponsored the woman's scholarship, is up in arms about the relationship and an unpermitted overseas trip. "The suspicion exists," says a memo, "that she may have gone to London for [redacted]."

We don't know what the couple was suspected to have done, but since this was a decade prior to Roe v. Wade, we can guess. A related memo reports that an informant considers Obama to be a "very slippery character."

Maybe he was. But again, what the I.N.S. really wants to know about is the elder Obama's situation with his wife back in Hawaii. The authorities get in touch with Harvard and ask officials there to press him on his marital status. Obama tells the school that he is separated from Ann Dunham, who is reported to be now living in the Philippines. (Though that's what the report says, it's inaccurate: Dunham was still residing in Hawaii in 1964, where she met her second husband, who did eventually take the family to Indonesia.)

In a handwritten note, the agent says a school official promises to talk to the student, "re his marital problems." Clearly, Harvard has decided that it has a problem with Obama's personal life.

In May 1964, Harvard gets back to the I.N.S. and reports that while the student has passed all his exams, the university is "going to try to cook something up to ease him out." The school follows up with a letter telling Obama that they don't have any more money to fund his scholarship and suggesting he finish up his thesis back in Kenya. Without the scholarship funding, his student visa won't be renewed. A follow-up memo says that Obama "was not satisfied" with the decision and has appealed.

Still, it seems that Obama can't stay out of trouble. In July, there's a handwritten note that says someone has called to complain that her 27-year-old daughter has agreed to marry him. This is almost certainly the mother of Ruth Nidesand, who met Obama's father at Harvard and eventually became his third wife. Again, another white woman. The I.N.S. investigates and determines that Obama had already departed for Kenya. The last note of interest in the file is a follow-up report—once more, circumstances strongly suggest it came from Nidesand's family—complaining that their daughter had eloped to Nairobi despite knowing that Obama had a couple of other wives floating around. The memo says there's nothing the government can do, since the woman was an adult and went of her own free will.

Again, the very fact that the memo exists and was placed in the immigration file—which presumably would have been consulted if Obama ever wanted to come back to live in America—is an indication of the seriousness with which the authorities at the time viewed the nature of his supposed misconduct.

It's clear that Obama Sr. marked himself as an undesirable from the very moment he married a white woman, and the racist subtext is pretty overwhelming throughout the documents. Sure, he seems to have behaved like a cad. But ask yourself this: if the male student involved was, say, French, is it conceivable that the U.S. government would have spent so much time investigating his romantic entanglements with various Americans? And, it seems clear, not-so-subtly nudging the Harvard authorities to cut off his scholarship? The answer to these questions is self-evident.

We know that Barack Obama Sr. died young, disappointed about many things. One of them, I have to imagine, was that his education at Harvard was cut short. Until now, it has typically been said that he "gave up" his doctoral studies, but this file makes it clear that he was never given a choice about leaving Cambridge. Who knows how his life might have turned out if he had been allowed to stay? Maybe he would have become an economics professor at some Northeastern liberal arts college, maybe he would have played a little more of a role in his son's life, and maybe his son would have never written Dreams From My Father, which would have been too bad, because it is a fantastic book and an unparalleled source of insight into the president's personal history and character.

For all the personal anguish described in that memoir, things turned out just fine for Barack Obama Jr. But we can't say the same for his father, who ended his life a disillusioned alcoholic, believing that he had been the victim of immense injustices. From reading this file, I think he had a pretty good case against the U.S. government.

He was "disillusioned." You can't make Times shiz up.

UPDATE: Interesting factoid by Jack Cashill at the Thinker:

The Obama Lie That Drove the Birther Movement

Newly released documents from Barack Obama Sr.'s immigration file, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, justify "birther" doubts about the nativity story on which Barack Obama based his presidential campaign.

The problems, of course, go deeper. According to divorce papers filed in 1964, Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham married in Wailuku, Maui, on February 2, 1961. One has to wonder, however, whether it was a marriage in anything but name or whether there was a marriage at all.

The immigration authorities certainly wondered. An April 1961 memo notes, "If his USC [United States Citizen] wife tries to petition for [Obama Sr.] make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage."

The facts get more problematic still. After the birth of baby Barry in August 1961, Ann left for Seattle as soon as the doctors cleared her to travel. Once there, she enrolled at the University of Washington, not Washington Sate. Barack Sr. stayed behind in Hawaii.

... based on these documents, the union, if there was one, ended before Obama was born.


Time to Pull The Cloak of Invisibility Off Of Black Conservatives

By Lloyd Marcus
CNN traveled with us on Tea Party Express, to approximately 40 rallies nationwide. I, a black conservative, opened each rally singing my "American Tea Party Anthem". And yet, not I nor any of the other blacks on our team were seen in the CNN documentary; thus, causing viewers to conclude the Tea Party Movement is a "white thing."

For the most part, the liberal media ignores black conservatives. And when they do interview one of us, it is from a, "Can you believe this stupid Uncle Tom," point of view.

Unfortunately, conservative media and most tea party organizers do not seem to grasp the strategic wisdom in featuring and supporting black conservatives.

Brothers and sisters, the Left is exploiting Obama's skin color for everything it is worth. Their guy in the indestructible black coat of armor is making all of their liberal dreams come true; usurping more power than any "white" president could imagine in his wildest dreams.

You can't say "no" to Obama. He's black! All opposition is racist. Folks, the left is fighting to win, working the "black thing" to the hilt. We cannot afford to leave our black weapons of mass influence on the sidelines.

Our economy is an unprecedented disaster. Pundits are saying under "normal conditions" the president would be fired. However, they believe Obama will be re-elected. "Normal conditions" means the president would be white. In other words, pundits believe Obama's black skin is the ultimate trump card deflating all opposition to his systematic destruction of America.

Patriots, a second Obama term is the end of America as we know it.

Meanwhile, black conservatives are giving it their all, tirelessly fighting to defeat Obama; for the most part, in anonymity.

We have many great black conservatives on our side. They should be featured front and center at our rallies, TV shows, radio shows and etc; not for the sake of black conservatives, but in defense of our Tea Party Movement.

Here's how a black radio talk show host began his interview with me, "If they (meaning white tea partiers) want to attract black people, the least credible thing they could do is to stick a black guy out front wearing a cowboy hat (meaning me)."

I wanted to say, "Screw you and end the interview". But, a still small voice in my brain said,

"Hang in the there". I boldly espoused conservative principles. His scheduled 10 minute radio interview with me went for 30 minutes. Remarkably, every caller into the program agreed with me. Praise God! Folks, we have got to take our message to the black community.

Also, funding should be targeted to take our Tea Party message to the black community. Seasoned politicians say nothing gets votes like going to the people; knocking on doors and showing up at community events.

Obama and his minions including the liberal media continue to lie about the intentions of the tea party. In a soon to be released book, Obama says the tea party is motivated by race. It's time we go to the black community and tell our side of the story, the truth. Let black America know the tea party has nothing to do with race and everything to do with preserving our freedom, liberty and culture.

I am trying to launch a mini tour to black colleges titled, "Reach Your Dreams". The message of my rallies targeted to black youths is, "The best route to reaching your dreams is conservatism." The rallies will feature mostly black conservative speakers including a few black conservative rappers. I will emcee, speak and sing. I need sponsorship.

Two of my buddies, Joe the Plumber and Kevin Jackson have launched their tour designed to deal with the "race" issue. Please support them folks financially and with your presence at their events. Again, not for them, but for America. Black conservatives should be flying all over the country speaking, performing and singing at tea party events.

Patriots, please do not think I am whining or asking you to feel sorry for black conservatives. Heaven forbid, I am not. All I am saying is the Left is exploiting Obama's race "big time", destroying America, while aggressively pounding the drum more than ever that the Tea Party is racist. Meanwhile, we have powerful black resources not being maximized.

Black Conservatives are valiantly fighting along side our fellow white patriots in the Tea Party Movement. It is time to rip away the cloak of invisibility.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
"Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!
Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus Facebook Page
Tea Are The World, "Taking Back America" The Making of Documentary... The MUST SEE Tea Party Historic Conservative Music Event !

Page Printed from:


Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, blasted President Obama's anti-business administration in an explosive interview. Alford, a 2008 Obama supporter, labeled the administration "Marxist" and "fanatical." "They might as well put on the brown shirts and swastikas," he said.


Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle's report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward's statement.

Messy ball now firmly in White House court.


The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci - who, like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times -shot some protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.

She was part of a "print pool" - a limited number of journalists at an event who represent their bigger hoard colleagues - which White House press officials still refer to quaintly as "pen and pad" reporting.

But that's a pretty Flintstones concept of journalism for an administration that presents itself as the Jetsons. Video is every bit a part of any journalist's tool kit these days as a functioning pen that doesn't leak through your pocket.

In fact, Carla and her reporting colleague, Joe Garofoli, founded something called "Shaky Hand Productions" - the semi-pro, sometimes vertiginous use of a Flip or phone camera by Hearst reporters to catch more impromptu or urgent moments during last year's California gubernatorial race that might otherwise be missed by TV.

The name has become its own brand; often politicians even ask if anyone from Shaky Hand will show at their event. For Carla, Joe and reporters at other Hearst newsrooms where Shaky Hand has taken hold, this was an appropriate dive into use of other media by traditional journalists catering to audiences who expect their news delivered in all modes and manners.

That's the world we live in and the President of the United States claims to be one of its biggest advocates.

Just the day before Carla's Stone Age infraction, Mr. Obama was at Facebook seated next to its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and may as well have been wearing an "I'm With Mark" t-shirt for all the mutual admiration going back and forth.

"The main reason we wanted to do this is," Obama said of his appearance, "first of all, because more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through different media. And historically, part of what makes for a healthy democracy, what is good politics, is when you've got citizens who are informed, who are engaged."

Informed, in other words, through social and other digital media where videos of news are posted.

The President and his staffers deftly used social media like Twitter and Facebook in his election campaign and continue to extol the virtues and value. Except, apparently, when it comes to the press.

So what's up with the White House? We can't say because neither Press Secretary Jay Carney nor anyone from his staff would speak on the record.

Other sources confirmed that Carla was vanquished, including Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, who said he was "informed that Carla was removed as a pool reporter." Which shouldn't be a secret in any case because it's a fact that affects the newsgathering of our largest regional paper (and sfgate)and how local citizens get their information.

What's worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla's spanking became public. Really? That's a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.

But bravery is a challenge, in particular for White House correspondents, most of whom are seasoned and capable journalists. They live a little bit in a gilded cage where they have access to the most powerful man in the world but must obey the rules whether they make sense or not.

CBS News reporter, Mark Knoller, has publicly protested the limited press access to Obama fundraisers, calling the policy "inconsistent." "It's no way to do business," wrote Politico's Julie Mason, "especially [for] a candidate who prides himself on transparency."

A 2009 blog by the White House Director of New Media states that "President Obama is committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history."

Not last week.

Mason referred to the San Francisco St. Regis protest as "a highly newsworthy event" where "reporters had to rely on written pool reports..."

Except, thanks to Carla's quick action with her camera, they didn't.

I get that all powerful people and institutions want to control their image and their message. That's part of their job, to create a mythology that allows them to continue being powerful.

But part of the press' job is to do the opposite, to strip away the cloaks and veneers. By banning her, and by not acknowledging how contemporary media works, the White House did not just put Carla in a cage but more like one of those stifling pens reserved for calves on their way to being veal.

Carla cannot do her job to the best of her ability if she can't use all the tools available to her as a journalist. The public still sees the videos posted by protesters and other St. Regis attendees, because the technology is ubiquitous. But the Obama Administration apparently wants to give the distinct advantage to citizen witnesses at the expense of professionals.

Why? Well, they won't tell us.

Some White House reporters are grumbling almost as much as the Administration about Carla's "breaking the rules." I can understand how they'd be irritated. If you didn't get the video because you understood you weren't supposed to, why should someone else get it who isn't following the longstanding civilized table manners?

The White House Press Correspondents' Association pool reporting guidelines warn about "no hoarding" of information and also say, "pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog." While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.

But the guidelines also say, "Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures...but can make them available if they so choose."

Then what guidelines is the White House applying here? Again, we don't know.

What the Administration should have done is to use this incident to precipitate a reasonable conversation about changing their 1950's policies into rules more suited to 2011. Dwight Eisenhower was the last President who let some new media air into the room when he lifted the ban on cameras at press conferences in 1952.

"We've come full circle here," Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism told me today. "A newspaper reporter is being punished because she took pictures with a moving camera. We live in a world where there are no longer distinctions. The White House is trying to live by 20th century distinctions."

The President's practice not just with transparency but in other dealings with the press has not been tracking his words, despite the cool glamour and easy conversation that makes him seem so much more open than the last guy.

It was his administration that decided to go after New York Times reporter James Risen to get at his source in a book he wrote about the CIA. For us here in SF who went through the BALCO case and other fisticuffs with the George W. Bush Attorney General's prosecutors, this is deja vu.

Late today, there were hints that the White House might be backing off the Carla Fatwa.

Barack Obama sold himself successfully as a fresh wind for the 21st century. In important matters of communication, technology, openness and the press, it's not too late for him to demonstrate that.

Friday, April 29, 2011



Pomp, pageantry...
AP... REUTERS... PA...



Canadian Showdown

By Bruce Walker
Next Monday, May 2nd, Canadians are going to the polls for their third general election in five years. Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party have governed Canada since the 2006 election which made that party the largest party in the Canadian House of Commons, although a minority within that chamber. In October 2008, right before our presidential election, Harper received a larger mandate, though still with a minority in Parliament. Prime Minister Harper governs but he cannot enact real reforms without a majority in Parliament.

Harper and his party need 155 seats. Right now they have 144 seats. The Liberal Party is the strongest opponent of Harper right now. It has 77 seats in Parliament. Next is the New Democratic Party with 37 seats. The Bloc Quebec, or French separatist party, has 48 seats. Elections in Canadian ridings, or legislative districts, are "winner take all," so that the candidate with the most votes wins the seat even if he does not have a majority of the votes. Out of these four parties, only the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have governed Canada.

Unlike other parliamentary democracies, minority governments -- governments in which the party in power does not command a majority, directly or through coalitions with other parties -- are not unusual. Since 2004, the governments of Canada have all been minority governments. Stephen Harper and his party are urging Canadians to let the Conservatives really govern, and give his party a majority.

Might that happen? The pre-election polls are all over the map. Recent polls show a surge for the New Democratic Party led by Jack Layton. The NDP has moved from its historic role as the third largest national party (Bloc Quebec has votes only in Quebec). That surge may siphon off enough leftist votes from the Liberal Party to allow Conservatives to win a majority, but it might also give the NDP enough seats to actually push the Conservatives out of power, either by becoming the largest party (which is pretty unlikely) or reducing the Conservative plurality to below 2006 election levels.

What does this general election mean to us? Jack Layton is an old-style leftist who supports higher corporate taxes, increasing social welfare spending, supporting union rights, making environmental regulation tougher, defending gay rights, and supporting nice sounding international efforts. There is nothing "New" about the New Democratic Party at all. It is a mishmash of every failed policy of modern leftism.

Canadian business and conservative Canadians know what to expect with the "Grits" or Liberal Party. It has held power for most of the last twenty years. They also know Harper and his party, which has governed since 2006. The New Democratic Party, however, would pursue policies very much like Obama and his minions. Layton would try to use the public treasury to spend away every problem of life. Tax rates would jump. All the grim decline which has followed Obama's policies would be replicated in Canada.

Should that matter to us? Yes, emphatically, it should. Canada under Harper has been one of the few bright spots; some might say the only bright spot, in the democratic West. The Canadian Prime Minister has been as clear in denouncing anti-Semitism as any Western leader, including our own Obama. The Canadian dollar is doing well. The public finances of the nation are good. Our neighbor to the north, our greatest trading partner and closest ally, has one of the largest economies in the world, and Canada is by far the largest producer of oil among the stable Western world. We take Canada for granted -- we nearly always take Canada for granted -- but Canada is a vitally important country to America.

Stephen Harper is from Alberta which produces vast amounts of oil, and he understands the petroleum industry. He is, by far, the Canadian political leader most sympathetic to free market solutions to problems like energy. Although a comparison to Texan George W. Bush is a big stretch, it is fair to say that Harper with a majority would do more than any Canadian in recent memory to expand oil production. A true Conservative majority in Parliament could also guarantee stability and growth in the Canadian economy. A prosperous Canada with a strong dollar producing as much oil as practicable would help the American economy significantly. Economic prosperity is not a zero sum game, particularly with nations like Canada which are closely connected to our economy. If Canada stays out of recession and keeps inflation low, we win too.

What if Harper loses power? What if Layton is the new Prime Minister of Canada? Almost certainly, investors and businesses with operations in Canada will see tax increases and regulatory burdens increase. If the Canadian dollar begins to weaken, then that will not help our public financial situation at all. Energy costs will rise and energy supplies shrink. We can expect more political correctness and less help in combating terrorism in our nation and, perhaps, a more porous border with Canada. We will also see in Layton yet another of those dreary dinosaurs whose sympathies lie first with our nation's enemies, rather like the man sitting in the White House today. America, already, seems very alone in the world. If Harper loses, we will feel much lonelier.

Watch next Monday closely. No one, honestly, knows what will happen. It could be very good news or it could be very bad. But it will be very important to us.

Page Printed from:



Thursday, April 28, 2011



Usurper (lat. usurpare = to seize for use, to use) is a derogatory term used to describe either an illegitimate or controversial claimant to the power; often, but not always in a monarchy, or a person who succeeds in establishing himself as a monarch without inheriting the throne, or any other person exercising authority unconstitutionally. It may also be applied to an official acting ultra vires, outside his authority or jurisdiction.

Some famous examples considered usurpers are Pope Leo IX, Henry IV of England, Miguel of Portugal and Habibullah Ghazi of Afghanistan.


"President" Obama (if that really is his family name) should be immediately removed from the office of President, United States of America on the basis of the foreign birth of his father. The U.S. Constitution requires BOTH parents of the president to be native born U.S. citizens.

Therefore, the man named "Obama" is a USURPER and ENEMY of the Republic who enjoys authority he is not legally entitled.


Some Americans Still Dream

Some Americans Still Dream

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Yes, I am a dreamer. Always have been. I hope I always shall be.

As I reach that point in the human life cycle where one can sense the end approaching, my dreams are now blunted by the knowledge that much of the “stuff” I dream about will not become real until I have left this plain of existence. That makes me sad.

As I was looking through the archives of Longstreet’s Commentaries a while back, I came across a piece I wrote way back in 2007, in which I stressed how important it was for man to continue the exploration of space… not just near space but on out into the stars. I was then, and I remain today, convinced that THAT is where man’s future lies.

OK. I DO know America is broke, at the moment. And I admit to being pessimistic about America’s complete recovery due to, as I see it, a lack of intelligent, and brave, and innovative leadership. I long for a GOP presidential candidate I can support and for whom I can vote. A candidate that can stir my heart and mind as Ronald Reagan did with his “Morning in America” philosophy of optimism that brought America roaring back from the depressing doldrums of a Jimmy Carter Administration that seemed to believe it was Carter’s calling in life to preside over an America in decline.

It is obvious the Obama Administration feels the same as Jimmy Carter. We see the evidence everyday right before our eyes as Obama pulls America out of the global leadership role in favor of allowing other countries to take the lead in solving problems that affect everyone on the globe. (See the war in Libya)

Not studying history condemns one, including nations, to make the same mistakes over again. We are seeing the results of Obama’s lack of historical knowledge and perspective playing out in the war in Libya today.

If America withdraws from its global leadership role chaos will reign on the globe. How do I know? How can I make such a bold statement? Simple. History teaches us that. Read it. Study it. You will find I am correct.

If I have learned anything, at all, in my many decades on this earth, it is that we will survive and we will create a new country, or countries, on this continent. I must say, that I do not see how the fifty state country we know as the “United” States of America can survive, at all. We are simply too divided. Differences in regional cultures and political philosophies will not allow us to remain a single people, a single nation.

Understand: many of the states now in “The union” cannot abide socialism. On the other hand, many of the states are pushing for more socialism. That alone will be the single most important factor in shattering the US and creating at least two separate countries, maybe more.

It is a nightmare for me. But, I have come to believe it will, eventually, be the only way freedom-loving people will be able to preserve their freedom.

The US monetary system now employed will, of necessity, be dropped in favor of a new monetary system to meet the needs of the new country domestically and for worldwide trade. In fact that may happen even before the separation becomes a reality.
Needless to say, I will be among those who refuse to live under socialism.

Now here’s the rub, at least ONE of them: Man’s time on this planet is not unlimited. To ensure the continued existence of the human race we have no alternative but to explore and seek out new worlds to settle where we can propagate and flourish.

I say again: Man MUST look to, and MUST go to, the stars. It is our destiny. It is what we humans do. We have reached our limits here on Earth, so now we must stretch out into the myriad of worlds awaiting our arrival.

The sad thing is, we should already be there. Curbing America’s space program, after the visits to our moon, was the biggest mistake the US has ever made. I am convinced history will prove the sagacity of that statement.

While our space program is nearly 4 decades behind where it should be today, we have no choice but to gear up, suck it up, pay the price, and get back on track… as soon as is humanly possible.

We Americans must never give up our dreams and we must never allow ourselves to cease dreaming. America, itself, was a dream. Remember? To some around the world it remains a dream.

I am convinced man’s destiny lies out there, among the stars. Some even speculate that man originated out there someplace. If so, we will simply be going home!

Whatever the case, I am convinced we are treading a path that can be trod only once. There is no going back. We can only go forward – IF, that is, we wish to survive -- not only as Americans -- but also as a species.

J. D. Longstreet



Not So Fast, Mr. Obama: Trust But Verify

By Carol A. Taber
Yesterday, President Obama released a long form birth certificate. In doing so, he lectured Americans about what was truly important in America. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness," he intoned. "We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve, and I'm confident we can solve them, but we're going to have to focus on them, not on this." He then promptly boarded Air Force One to solve one of those vital problems -- by flying to Chicago for another appearance on Oprah's show.

Let's focus now on one very simple question: why did he fight not to release the long form birth certificate?

Why did it take the moving of mountains (or at least poll numbers) to get Obama to release a long form birth certificate after literally years of stonewalling? Although there is incriminating evidence on the long form birth certificate -- in that the numbers are still out of sequence with the Nordyke twins' numbers -- we already knew that from Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB). In fact, were it not for the certificate numbers and the date accepted by the Registrar General on the Nordyke twins' birth certificates, and the certificate number and the date filed by the registrar on Obama's COLB, this indication of forgery would never have been detected.

So why did he fight not to release it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Obama wasn't hiding anything that is on the present long form birth certificate. The evidence indicates that what he is hiding is that his long form birth certificate may not be genuine.

Two years ago, the mainstream media published online a Certification of Live Birth for Mr. Obama and told us it was a birth certificate, which the White House at the time did not correct. More recently, in an article written by Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, Joshua Wisch, was interviewed. The article stated:

"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he [Wisch] said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

Despite Hawaii's own statute stating otherwise, this was the reporting. Some investigative work!

Mr. Obama sent Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a decorated combat-experienced Army flight surgeon, to jail because Obama refused to release his birth certificate. That document couldn't have been produced 6 months ago to prevent Lt. Col. Lakin's being manacled and shipped to Fort Leavenworth prison to rot in a cell? What possible explanation and what sort of character does Obama have, especially as Commander-in-Chief, for sending a soldier to jail, ruining his career, over the very same document the soldier had to produce for his military deployment orders?

And then there is the case of Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke. A few weeks back, American Thinker published my article, Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge. In it, I explained that the certificate number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" is out of sequence to the certificate numbers on the long form birth certificates of the Nordyke twins, also born in Hawaii. We know by both the Nordyke and Obama long forms that an incremental stamp was used for the certificate numbers, yet Obama's certificate number is higher than the twins' when it should have been lower.

Mrs. Nordyke, copying an attorney, wrote to say that the reason why Obama's certificate number was higher than her twins' was because Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, entered the hospital after Mrs. Nordyke and the time of a pregnant woman's entrance to the hospital is what determined the birth registration number.

In what can only be described as a "lawyered-up" email, Nordyke went on to say "The 'sequence' refers to time of birth certificate registration -- not to the actual time of delivery," cleverly confusing the two ideas of a birth certificate registration and the mother's registration at the hospital. It is clever because of this fact: the birth certificate numbers were not assigned at the hospital; rather, they were assigned at the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) at the Main office in Honolulu when the birth certificates were accepted and filed there. That is the only place it was done, so Nordyke's statement is entirely misleading since no birth certificate numbers were given when the mother entered the hospital. Nor were they assigned when the baby was born.

I wrote back to her and said among other things:

Your letter has engendered a few questions. Previous statements of yours indicate that you did not see Ann Dunham in Kapiolani Hospital during the time when you were there to deliver your twins in August 1961.... Also, since the hospital records are closed to the public and Mr. Obama is not talking about or unsealing his records, how do you now know or believe that Ann Dunham arrived shortly after you did, or if she ever did, and how do you know when she delivered her child? [...]

Without proof (someone to attest by name to Ann Dunham entering the hospital or an admissions record or a record of birth time), information which neither the hospital, the state, nor Mr. Obama will provide, and because of your conflicting statements, I'd need to know more about how or why this information in your email is now valid or meaningful.

Why would Mrs. Nordyke say this? In my opinion, the Obama supporters are very concerned about the central message in my article -- that whatever he releases as a birth certificate simply must be forensically tested. An honest man does not fear a forensics evaluation of his birth certificate.

President Reagan was right when he said, "Trust, but verify."

President Obama's long form birth certificate must be tested forensically.

At the very least, a forensics expert should examine the hospital admission records for Stanley Ann Dunham, as well as the paper and ink formulation on the original long form birth certificate.

Do these requests seem unreasonable? Not at all as one considers that, when enemies of George W. Bush began to question his Texas Air National Guard service, they demanded copies of his service records. He then released them, and they continued to question him, demanding hard copies.

Oh! -- and now that President Obama has released a long form birth certificate, will he ask the Democrats to drop their opposition to state laws requiring forensic testing of such documents? I would hope that Mr. Obama now would wholeheartedly endorse efforts of state legislators introducing eligibility bills, to include provisions for forensics testing of any documents where authenticity might be in question.

An honest man has nothing to fear from a forensics test: like DNA evidence, it helps to convict the guilty and protect the innocent.

Carol A. Taber is president of

Page Printed from:

Wednesday, April 27, 2011



For those of you who have Adobe Illustrator...

Open the Obama PDF. Click in the center. Right click and select “Release Clipping Path”. Ta Da!

It’s fake.



Former Obama Adviser Van Jones Helping to Push 'Human' Rights for Mother Nature

Van Jones is now helping to push the issue of giving the environment rights comparable to those provided to humans.From the Tunnel Wall: Fox News "Van Jones, the Obama administration's controversial former "green jobs czar," has found a new calling: helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans."

Photo: Van Jones

Atlas Is Shrugging

 Editor's Note: Occasionally I send you free samples of TIA Daily just to remind you of the kind of news and commentary available to our subscribers. Below is a story about how Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is once again reflected in real-life events. This article is also available on our website here. For my response to the recent film version of Atlas Shrugged and the whole cultural phenomenon surrounding it, see here. If you like these articles, please consider subscribing at—RWT

TIA Daily April 26, 2011


Atlas Is Shrugging

We're Living Through a Live-Action Version of Ayn Rand's Novel

by Robert Tracinski

The producers of the new movie version of Atlas Shrugged struggled over how directly they should attempt to tie the story to current events. It turns out they needn't have worried, because events have a way of catching up with the story all on their own.

I was amused to read a blogger's report about going to see Atlas Shrugged at the nearest theater where it was showing: a vast mall built with millions of dollars in government subsidies—which now stands virtually empty. How fitting for a story that shows how government management of the economy is dragging America down into economic collapse. He concludes that the mall is like "a life-sized, 3-D diorama promotional display for Atlas Shrugged."

He understates his case. The whole country is a life-sized, 3-D promotional diorama for Atlas Shrugged. We are all living through a live-action version of the novel.

In Atlas Shrugged, businesses begin moving to Colorado, a state that is denounced as regressive because it has "hardly any government," in order to escape strangling government regulations in their home states. In response, the federal government issues a decree forbidding companies from relocating. Sound fantastical? Last week, in the real world, the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint demanding that Boeing locate its assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in Puget Sound instead of Charleston, South Carolina—on the grounds that Boeing should not be allowed to escape the death grip of the unions by moving to a "right to work" state.

In Atlas Shrugged, a brilliant young oilman invents a revolutionary process to extract oil from shale, but even though the country is desperate for energy, he is shut down by government regulations. Science fiction? In the real world, a process called hydraulic fracturing—hydrofracking or just "fracking" for short—is making it possible to extract astonishing quantities of natural gas from shale formations across the country. This promises to revolutionize domestic energy production. But even though the country is desperate for energy, the media and the government are readying a campaign to impose a moratorium on fracking and smother it in its infancy.

In Atlas Shrugged, productive firms are bled dry to provide bailouts for failing companies which produce "unreliable goods at unpredictable times." In the real world, General Motors and Chrysler were bailed out with $80 billion dollars of our tax money so that they could bring us nine of the eleven "Worst Cars on the Road."

In Atlas Shrugged, men of talent and initiative are disappearing and withdrawing from the economy because they refuse to accept punishment for their hard work and ambition. In the real world, legendary ad man and entrepreneur Jerry Della Femina just announced that he has sold his famous restaurant and is withdrawing from all of his other ventures because "I'm just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I'm not ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than $250,000 a year." And to show that art imitates life imitating art, he explains: "So why am I dropping out? Read a brilliant book by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged, and you'll know."

In Atlas Shrugged, the advocates of uncontrolled government keep spending money faster than they can expropriate it from a shrinking number of producers. A chapter later in the novel is titled, "Account Overdrawn." In the real world, S&P has just downgraded the long-term outlook for US government debt, a precursor to downgrading the nation's credit rating. Enough said.

Atlas Shrugged was published more than 50 years ago, and Ayn Rand certainly didn't write it with today's events in mind. But she drew from real-world observations that suggested universal principles. She lived through the Bolshevik takeover in Russia and escaped to America in the Roaring 20s, a period of extraordinary industrial growth and achievement. She then watched in horror as America plunged into the Red Decade and the Great Depression, a permanent "temporary crisis" that was always used as an excuse for the government to grab more power. So when it came to understanding what made America great and what was destroying it, she had plenty of real-life material to draw from.

That's why Atlas Shrugged has been a perennial best-seller that resonates in any era. I remember how I became a convert to Ayn Rand's literature and philosophy. When I first picked up Atlas Shrugged, I read the first 200 pages and put it down, because I thought that her view of the world just wasn't realistic. Then over a period of months, I kept seeing people do or say something that made me think: "That's just like something from Atlas Shrugged." It made me realize that the novel might be realistic after all.

What was this dark, dystopian time that I lived through that made me think Atlas Shrugged was reflected in the real world? It was 1987, during the final years of the Reagan administration—years that seem like a comparative utopia from today's perspective. So I can only imagine what it is like for young people living through today's events.

Around that time, not far from where I grew up, there was a giant warehouse that was half-built and then abandoned by a struggling manufacturing firm. As you drove down I-74 in rural Illinois you could see the unfinished framework of the building, its white-painted girders gleaming like the bleached bones of a dead animal in the desert. At some point, someone had come along and spray-painted on one of those girders a tagline from Atlas Shrugged: "Who is John Galt?"

It was yet another life-sized, 3-D promotional diorama for Atlas Shrugged.


QUICK: Someone take Boehner to Atlas Shrugged

By C. Edmund Wright
If you happen to be some congressional bureaucrat on the staff of the Speaker of the House and you are reading this, please kidnap your boss and take him to the nearest theatre playing Atlas Shrugged Part 1. Why, you ask?

Because in the same week that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats cost Shell Oil four billion dollars and ran them out of drilling off Alaska -- and more bureaucrats began their attempt to cost Boeing over a billion dollars and South Carolina a thousand jobs -- our feckless Speaker of the House sided again with the wrong team.

So grab the Speaker and please go see Atlas Shrugged today. Do not wait. Do not walk. Run. Please go see it, and take Mr. Boehner some notes, before he becomes totally irrelevant and takes the free enterprise system down the drain with him.


In a life-imitates-art period like few others I can remember, we have seen the following happen in the few days since the movie was released:

-Jesse Jackson Junior publicly blames the iPad for a loss of jobs. His econ babble speak reasoning is not worth repeating here.

-The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sues Boeing to keep America's largest exporter from opening a plant in South Carolina that will create over a thousand new jobs, because the state is a non union (Right to Work) state. By the way, Boeing has already built the plant and has added 2,000 union jobs in Seattle in the last couple of years to boot.

-President Obama orders Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate oil companies and speculators (known as investors) over the rise of gasoline prices. Holder will not be investigating the EPA or any other bureaucrats who have halted or slowed down oil production, however.

-Seven more oil rigs are run out of the Gulf of Mexico by government regulations and headed to Brazil -- where crony capitalist extraordinaire George Soros will make a killing. Soros supports Obama of course.

What the juxtaposition of Atlas Shrugged's release and the events described above shows, if nothing else, is that we understand them more than they understand us. And by us, I mean freedom-loving supporters of the free enterprise system. By them, I mean liberal statists and socialists. And Ayn Rand, for all of her quirks, understood both the free market right and the big government success-punishing left. She also saw crony capitalism coming down the pike with scary prescience.

In short, in 1957 Rand understood the America of 2011 better than our current Speaker of the House does. This is inexcusable on the part of Boehner, who was elected to Congress in the early 90's as a small businessman. It's one thing for an elected Speaker to make poor political calculations and/or to negotiate weakly with the opposition. The unhappy nuances of the realities of the legislative process -- which Boehner did not invent -- can also be forgiven to a certain degree by thinking supporters.

But when a Republican Speaker -- with a business background no less -- flunks the very basics of Economics 101 on an issue as critical to our republic as energy production, it is a cardinal sin.

It's bad enough for former Speaker Newt Gingrich to sit on a park bench and wax eloquent with Nancy Pelosi on manmade global warming. It's quite another when the sitting Speaker "goes Pelosi" on us at the very moment we need a clear voice in Congress on the realities of the market and the realities of the self inflicted wounds from our very own government.

The irony of Boehner's cluelessness this week is that he and those like him were very clearly predicted by Rand in the mid 1950's. Without beating the analogy to death for those who haven't seen the movie, Shell Oil fits almost perfectly the situation "Wyatt Oil" faced in the movie. Boeing is part "Taggart Transcontinental/John Galt Line" and part "Reardon Steel." You could switch Colorado with South Carolina.

There is no specific Boehner character, but he certainly fits the mold of a politician who just finished his visit from "Wesley Mouch." This week in an interview with ABC News as reported by The Hill, Boehner said:

I don't think the big oil companies need to have the oil depletion allowances, but for small, independent oil-and-gas producers, if they didn't have this, there'd be even less exploration in America than there is today.

This is eerily reminiscent of the line in the movie where a government bureaucrat said "in an age of steel shortages, we can't have one company producing too much." That is classic liberal logic if I've ever heard it. The idea was that fairness, as defined by the government, is more important than production. And Boehner stepped right into Rand's 54 year old trap. And nowhere in this statement is any evidence that Boehner is at all concerned that the EPA is forcing Shell to walk away from their four billion dollar investment in the waters off Alaska.

But he wasn't through stepping in it. He added:

We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. We need to control spending, but we need to have revenues to keep the government moving. And they ought to be paying their fair share.

Pay their fair share? There was a lot in Atlas Shrugged about the heavy hand of government propelled by "fairness." So what is their fair share? Who decides that? Are they not subject to tax laws now, or do they have the GE plan? Or the Tim Geithner plan? How about the Charlie Rangel plan? And if they pay more in taxes, how will that produce more oil and how will that help me at the pump?

So we have to ask just what's next Mr. Speaker? Will you side with the NLRB against the Boeing Corporation? Or the state of South Carolina? Where does your siding with government against private companies stop? What do you think about states' rights?

In short, Mr. Speaker, Ayn Rand saw you coming. She warned us about the likes of you. Go see yourself on the silver screen. She knew you in 1957 better than you know yourself. And if you don't start to understand yourself today as well as she did 54 years ago, the power of your office means that we will all suffer from your ignorance.

Page Printed from: