Obama’s Silver Spoon – A Reprise and Open Thread

 
© Miri WTPOTUS April 25, 2012
 

Too many times over the past few weeks, Barack Hussein Obama II has alleged that he was NOT born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth. But he most certainly was! FACTS turned up by our team here at WTPOTUS, supported by our intrepid force of Internet, library, and newspaper researchers and commenters, have proven that this man grew up in circumstances that many in today’s America would envy.  To wit:

  • Obama’s grandmother was vice president of the Bank of Hawaii.
  • Obama’s grandparents on his mother’s side both attended college.
  • Obama’s parents both attended college.
  • Obama lived with his maternal grandparents from age 10 until he went to college in California. They lived in a 2-story apartment at the top of a high rise in one of the most expensive areas of Honolulu.
  • Before Obama’s mother and grandparents moved to Hawaii, they lived on Mercer Island–one of the 100 richest zip codes in America.
  • Obama’s first home in expensive Hawaii (when he was an infant) was less than 10 years old and had 5 bedrooms and two baths.
  • Obama’s second home in expensive Hawaii, where he lived with his mother and new stepfather, had four bedrooms and 2000 sq. ft. of living space.
  • Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather, was a colonel in the Indonesian Army, was from a wealthy Indonesian family, and was a manager at an oil company. Obama’s childhood friends in Indonesia said on the record that Obama lived in the largest and nicest home in the neighborhood–4 bedrooms, 3 baths, room for 6 cars.
  • Obama was taken to school in a chauffeur-driven limo. He wore the best clothes. He had a nanny. The family had other servants besides.
  • Obama attended a private school and then later a public school reserved for the children of the “elite.”
  • His sister Maya attended a private college prep school that today costs more than $20,000 per year.
  • From childhood through young adulthood, Obama traveled the worldIndonesia, Hawaii, Australia, Japan, Bali, Kenya, England, France, Pakistan, India. A regular jet-setting family in an age when air travel was not the norm.
  • Obama and his sister Maya attended Punahou school in Hawaii, one of the most expensive schools in the USA.
  • Obama’s father worked as an economist for the government of Kenya and had many wealthy connections, including Tom Mboya and other leaders of government. Obama Senior’s second wife was born to wealth, and he lived with her in one of the most upscale areas of Nairobi. His education was funded by several wealthy American women. His children by his second wife also attended expensive international college prep schools.
  • Obama inherited nearly a half-million dollars from his grandmother Madelyn Dunham, when she died.

There’s more, but you have the picture. This was not the life of a poor child, raised by a single mother.

That’s a prevarication, too.

His mother was married from 1960 to 1980–his entire childhood, save a few months between husbands. His married grandparents raised him from age ten until he left for college.

Details of our sources and photos of these various homes are placed into evidence on our original post about Obama’s life as a “child of privilege” and also on our O Timeline.

It remains to be seen whether the New York Times will actually keep their promise to vet the claims that Obama makes on the campaign trail.

They can start with this whopper–that he claims that he was NOT born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

166 responses to “Obama’s Silver Spoon – A Reprise and Open Thread

  1. Received answer to ebay question about if the first edition being sold was the one with Shirley printed for Obama’s mother. Three times the question did not go through — got error page. So, was surprised when I got an answer as no indication the question went through. I really tried to find where this discussion had taken place to post appropriately :(

    Dear ,

    No, she is referred to as Stanley in this book. This copy is from the
    first 7,500 copies printed. Please let me know if you have any other
    questions.

    Thank you!

    -intellectualchoc

    • So it took this person a while to decide. Huh? ;) Don’t worry about where you posted the response. I’ll find it and link to it here. Do you believe this answer? I’m still puzzled, then, why so many of the original stories referred to her as Shirley. They were written after 1995, for the most part. His bogus memoir was the source for most of the fake stories. So where did SO MANY references to Shirley come from?

    • Well, this relates to your quest. Breitbart has found a letter from Obama to Prof. Bell from 1995. He asked Bell for a blurb for the book and Bell sent one. It WAS published on the first edition, but not the 2004 reprint. Gee. I wonder why? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/26/The-Vetting-Obama-Letter-Derrick-Bell-Blurb-Dreams-from-My-Father?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+26%2C+2012&utm_campaign=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+26%2C+2012&utm_term=More

      “The blurb reads:

      Dreams from My Father is a beautifully written chronicle of a gifted young man marked and molded by a family whose love for him was as deep as its diversity was daunting. We hear in Barack Obama’s soaring book that survival demands resilience in the face of frustrated expectations, and that one’s committed opposition to the destructive tides of America’s obsession with color cultivates a vision of life that is nourished by struggle.

      – Derrick Bell, author of Faces at the Bottom of the Well

      By the time Obama reached out to him, Bell’s radicalism was well and widely known. He had just blurbed Louis Farrakhan’s book on black self-reliance, A Torchlight for America, and praised the Nation of Islam’s community education programs.

      Clearly, Obama’s link to Bell was more than just a “hug,” but part of a sustained effort to align himself with the radical left–and to be seen by others as a legitimate radical–in the early stages of his public life.”

      • Normal people in normal jobs get fired for using company letterhead for personal business.
        “The letter, dated February 3, 1995, is on a letterhead from Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland, the civil rights law firm that hired Obama.” To the tune of Duke of Earl, “Mooch, mooch, mooch, Obamba, mooch, mooch….”

        • Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland….
          hummmmmmmmmmm…

        • Oh, good point! Or was the law firm encouraging him to do outreach to leftist radicals and to write that “memoir”? I wonder who wrote the letter for him or if a secretary cleaned it up for him before it was sent. It doesn’t read like his circa-1990 writing. Maybe the law firm sent him to remedial writing class. It’s happened. I’ve seen it happen in another field of endeavor with an affirmative action hire. Despite having a master’s degree. Unable to write at third grade level. Being a “civil rights law firm”, I’m sure they didn’t mind Barry being in touch with race baiter Bell. The last part of his endorsement cracked me up. “We hear in Barack Obama’s soaring book that survival demands resilience in the face of frustrated expectations, and that one’s committed opposition to the destructive tides of America’s obsession with color cultivates a vision of life that is nourished by struggle.” Despite that it’s the usual bloviating, diarrhea-of-the-mouth claptrap, the part about Barry’s “struggle” is hilarious. He, who never worked a day in his life. :) What hypocrisy for Bell to talk about AMERICA’S “obsession with color” while praising a man whose entire career is predicated on obsession with color.

  2. To be fair, in Swahili it would have been called a fedha kijiko, and not a silver spoon…..

  3. http://news.yahoo.com/first-hispanic-supreme-court-justice-takes-prominent-role-004059717.html

    “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court was deep into arguments over Arizona’s new immigration law on Wednesday when the high court’s first Hispanic justice focused on how difficult it could be for police officers to determine whether someone they stop is in the United States legally.”

    What’s missing? WHITE. She’s a WHITE Hispanic; is she not?

  4. These guys just never give up. They are determined to spy on us. Big Brother WILL BE WATCHING unless we stop this proposed bill in its tracks. Now it’s the CISPA instead of SOPA. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/25/piracy-act-reborn-as-cispa/print/

    Having failed earlier this year to foist an Orwellian kill switch on Internet free speech, Congress is now peddling a kinder, gentler piece of “cybersecurity legislation.” However, Washington’s latest attempt to play Big Brother on the Internet poses an equally clear and present danger to our fundamental liberties.

    With the furor over the Stop Online Piracy Act having subsided, congressional leaders apparently are hoping that the ire of America’s burgeoning information freedom movement has been exhausted. They’re also hoping that the same coalition that successfully shot down the Piracy Act won’t notice the sinister outlines of its latest alphabet soup invasion – the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). In fact, they’ve enlisted the help of heavy hitters such as Facebook and Microsoft in an effort to convince us that the Web is somehow on-board with this latest example of unchecked government intrusion into our private lives.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The stated purpose of CISPA is to “allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyberthreat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.” While the first part of that equation isn’t particularly problematic (law enforcement is a core function of government and should alert providers to criminal activity allegedly occurring within their networks), the “sharing” component of this legislation represents an insidiously expansive assault on liberty.

    How expansive?

    “CISPA would allow [Internet Service Providers], social networking sites, and anyone else handling Internet communications to monitor users and pass information to the government without any judicial oversight,” writes Rainey Reitman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    In other words, concepts such as “probable cause” or even “reasonable suspicion” would no longer apply.

    What sort of information are we talking about, though? And who would be reviewing it?

    According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this legislation “would give the government, including military spy agencies, unprecedented powers to snoop through people’s personal information – medical records, private emails, financial information – all without a warrant, proper oversight or limits.”

    Translation? “Big Brother is watching you.”

    And not only does CISPA permit such online snooping, it actively encourages it by shielding providers from the liability associated with these surveillance actions, shredding the existing framework of privacy protection and replacing it with broad new definition of immunity.

    Specifically, CISPA enables providers to “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyberthreat information,” which would then be turned over to the government. The problem? Based on the law’s expansive definitions, almost anything can be construed as a “cyberthreat,” and just as there is no limit to the type of information that can be transmitted, there also is no recourse for those whose privacy is violated. In fact, CISPA would force individuals to prove that providers supplied information intentionally and with a “wrongful purpose” in order to win a judgment.

    “This is an insanely onerous definition of willful misconduct that makes it essentially impossible to ever sue a company for wrongly sharing data under CISPA,” say the authors of TechDirt, an industry website.

    Additionally, this broad, new standard of immunity would be applied “notwithstanding any other law,” further eroding existing privacy protections.

    It gets even worse. Once your private information has been passed on to the government without your knowledge or consent – and with no way to right the wrong – there is absolutely no limit to how Big Brother can use it.

    “CISPA lacks any meaningful limitations on the ways in which the federal government may use personal information and the content of private communications that it receives from private companies,” writes Sharon Bradford Franklin of the Constitution Project, a bipartisan watchdog organization.

    In other words, there is no requirement that the information obtained via CISPA’s snooping be associated with the threats the legislation ostensibly addresses.

    This is precisely the sort of unwarranted intrusion that our Founding Fathers set out to protect us from - which is why opposition to CISPA is coming from all points along the political spectrum.

    “CISPA encourages some of our most successful Internet companies to act as government spies, sowing distrust of social media and chilling communications in one segment of the world economy where Americans still lead,” Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, wrote recently in opposing the legislation.”

    I imagine Rep. Paul knows that that’s the GOAL! It’s win/win. They know EVERYTHING about us and so can CONTROL US and it further destroys our economic superiority by chilling use and development of communications technology. It’s heartening to know that opposition to this insane proposal is across the political spectrum. But what’s disheartening is that ANYBODY IN CONGRESS IMAGINES THIS IS A GOOD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE! What kind of people are up there who think this is remotely constitutional? And who think it’s within their power to enact?

    • Don’t forget that Obamacare includes having all your medical records in a big database up in DC. This bill gives them the okay to plunder it for intimidation factors, if you get my drift.

    • Ron Paul seems to be one of the few sane ones Miri. I do not care who pushes for who. I LISTEN to what they SAY and THINK. Not what anyone’s version of someone is. Proof is in the pudding for me these days. No time for anymore fakes.

    • Expect things like this to be pushed quickly if they believe that BHO won’t be in power come November. What they didn’t get done in the first two years under total Democratic rule, they are still trying to enforce whether through their czars, or agency heads like Panetta, or congressional progressive (Communist) players in the House and Senate. This was their “time” and they don’t want to lose what they have gained.

      Do we know who introduced this new CISPA?

      • A Republican! I don’t remember his name. It’s at the Wiki link. What do we need this spying for when the WAR on TERROR IS OVER?!!!

      • http://www.startribune.com/politics/149064025.html Might have to rethink this is Barry threatens a veto and Boehner doesn’t want DHS controlling the process, like Barry does.

        “WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday defended a cybersecurity bill as a common-sense approach to stopping electronic attacks on critical infrastructure and companies. He rejected the Obama administration’s criticism that the measure could lead to invasion of Americans’ privacy.

        The White House believes the government ought to control the Internet, government ought to set standards and government ought to take care of everything that’s needed for cybersecurity,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters at his weekly news conference. “They’re in a camp all by themselves.”

        The administration has threatened to veto the bill, which the House debated and planned to vote on Thursday. The bipartisan bill would encourage corporations and the government to share information collected through the Internet to thwart attacks from foreign governments, terrorists and criminals. The information sharing would be voluntary.

        The administration says the bill falls short of preserving individual privacy by failing to set security standards and broadly allowing liability protection for companies that share information. [Hate to agree with Barry but …] The administration wants the Homeland Security Department to have the primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity. [Nope! No to Big Sis. No to Big Bro.]“Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive,” the White House said.

        During the debate, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., complained that the measure would allow companies to share information with the government, including the National Security Agency. The legislation, Polis said, would create a “false choice between security and liberty.” [It might. We need to look at this closely. Is it a set up by the obots, though?]

        Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the bill was necessary to stop the potential threat of computer attacks from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He disputed claims that the measure would lead to spying on Americans.

        “There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill,” said Rogers, R-Mich. [No, sounds like there’s corporate surveillance with passing it on the the government. Same difference.]

        Rogers and the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger of Maryland, planned to add an amendment that would limit the government’s use of threat information to five specific purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of national security. [Well, Barry will throw criticism of himself into that last category.]

        Still, some liberals and conservatives adamantly opposed the measure.

        “Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. [Don’t mess with Texas or our RIGHTS and FREEDOM.]

        A coalition of groups and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union and former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., expressed concern that the legislation would allow companies that hold personal information about an employee to share it with the government. [Employees? AND CUSTOMERS, it sounds like.] The information could come from Internet use or emails and be relayed to defense and intelligence agencies, such as the NSA.

        “Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined `national security’ purposes unrelated to cybersecurity,” the groups wrote lawmakers.

        White House and outside groups’ opposition is not expected to derail the House bill, which has bipartisan support.

        The administration backs a Senate bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, giving Homeland Security the authority to establish security standards.

        But that legislation is stalled and faces opposition from senior Senate Republicans.”

        I guess there’s nothing for it but to read the danged bills. Will read tomorrow and report back, if nobody’s done it in the meantime.

    • The House of Representatives passed legislation protecting US businesses and agencies from cyber-attacks, a measure that critics say erodes civil liberties by allowing firms to onpass private data.
      April 27, 2012

      The Republican-controlled chamber defied a veto threat by the White House to pass the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in a 248-162 vote.

      Its fate is less assured in the Democratically controlled Senate, but supporters like House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers said it was vital to shore up computer systems woefully vulnerable to outside attack.

      “We can’t stand by and do nothing as US companies are hemorrhaging from the cyber-looting coming from nation states like China and Russia,” Rogers said.

      Reaction to the bill, which would allow private companies to exchange confidential personal information with the federal government, was mixed.

      CISPA is reportedly endorsed by Facebook and Microsoft as well as communication giants Verizon and AT&T.

      Texas Republican Joe Barton voted no because the bill “does not protect the privacy of the individual American citizen,” and erosions of such civil liberties are “a greater threat to democracy and liberty than the cyber threat is to America.”

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/27/US-House-passes-controversial-cyber-security-bill

      • This was bad enough but the Senate bill is worse. I read both of them the other day and forgot to say what I took from them, which isn’t much because they’re written in a bunch of arcane legalese. And it all depends upon what the meaning of “cybersecurity” is. The Senate bill puts Big Sis Napolitano and DHS in charge of making the rules. So that’s BAD. Fo shizzle. The Senate bill also seems to have language that would OUTLAW using anonymizers or encryption or other software systems to allow you to remain anonymous or keep them from reading your email. I’ll bet buried somewhere in the “intent” of both bills will be what Barry’s peeps have wanted for a long time–to ENSURE that nobody online can ever be anonymous. To ensure that even if you use a pseudonym, the government, via your spying ISP, will KNOW who you really are and then they can link that knowledge up with your bank records, your work records, your school records, your purchasing habits, your credit information, your medical records, etc. The proof will be in the pudding when they try to reconcile the bills, if they even do. But there is a lot of opposition, like with SOPA, their last attempt. MANY amendments would be needed before this would fly. The House bill SEEMS more concerned with critical infrastructure, which of course we’re told is pipelines, electrical systems, water systems, and the like, but Barry WILL, if he can, call the Internet a critical part of infrastructure and then he WILL try to regulate it and probably cable systems, too, even though the SCOTUS has told them they have no such power over the Internet or cable TV. By any means necessary. The Senate is NOT to be trusted, nor is DHS. The House? Who knows? But I’m sure the House bill would be less onerous and less suspicious than anything put together by the DemocRATS with the help of two RINOs. Likely neither is constitutional.

  5. http://www.africanmeccasafaris.com/swahili.asp

    More like eats with the tip of a silver spear… very cutting & sharp!
    Mbwa=Dog…. Nyoka= Snake….

  6. I saw this site on Ulsterman, and wondered if you are aware of it. It has lots of info on Obama.

    http://www.commieblaster.com/

  7. Excellent recap of the information about the guy whose fabricated roots shows he wasn’t as por’ as he and his synocphants try to portray him. Someone or some people gave this guy a lift from the get go. A guy that did nothing but agitate uneducated blacks to go to the polls to vote is sitting in the oval office, and his lack of experience has taken our country back 50 years. He along with his radical friends who are leftist educated still are trying to rewrite history and destroy the USA.

    The Isms need to be thoroughly taught again in the US so people will realize and recognize the real threat we are up against. Obama is a prime example of evil as are his associates. Their goals are for themselves – they want the seat of power and to dictate to the masses. They are no better than other communist dictators. What holds them back…we the people and that out-of-date faulty document, the Constitution. They can’t seem to get past that, although they are trying their darndest. They crowned a man with no past, no real history or family, and no experience to lead our country down the path of destruction, yet they have no idea of what really would take its place in the aftermath. These people are mired in their Marxist ideology and whatever it takes to their goal they are willing to do, be it lying, cheating, or stealing.

  8. Wasn’t it Grassley that suggested this might have been a set-up by the Communists? Planted spies acting as prostitutes?

    Today’s New Secret Service/El Salvador Strip Club Revelations Show Why Obama Picked Napolitano
    April 26, 2012

    A television reporter from Seattle has discovered that the Secret Service agents who formed the advanced security team for Barack Obama’s 2011 trip to El Salvador may have done the same things that the Colombia team did.

    Reporter Chris Halsne of KIROTV traveled to El Salvador and talked to eyewitnesses about what went on during the lead-up to Obama’s official visit last year. Their revelations suggest a pattern of behavior that would be very helpful to anyone plotting to harm the president with information blackmailed out of these agents.

    Halsne’s witnesses told of heavy drinking and repeated visits to a strip club with both Secret Service and US military personnel. As with the Colombia team, many of these agents took prostitutes back to their hotel rooms. This is a very serious violation of protocol because it provided the potential for a terrorist cell to access Obama’s official secret itinerary.

    Worse still, one witness reports having warned the agents about the dangers of carrying on in such a manner and being told not to worry because “[we do] this all the time.”

    To his credit, Halsne confirmed the report by interviewing the owner of the strip club who not only confirmed the story but added that he “ routinely takes care of high-ranking employees of the U.S. embassy in San Salvador as well as visiting FBI and DEA agents.”

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/todays-new-secret-service-el-salvador-strip-club-revelations-show-why-obama-picked-napolitano/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=94ea52918b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

    • About the first link: The man needs to take it to the last level and ask a “forensic digital evidence examiner” to examine the online birth certificate.

      • wonder if maddy and stan the man’s first kid was a boy…named stanley armour dunham and all they did was change the f to m on the bc. maybe anne came later. maybe stan’s has kids boinked all over the place like his dear dreamy african friend.

        maybe there’s a parallel in the ayre’s narrative. lookthataway. maybe the dreamy africani had a sister drop by too. like omar t and zpetunia but she didn’t hang to squat. Miri, like kezia maybe?

        i don’t know. maybe his name really Barry Dunham, after all. maybe kenya is a crap sammich. a made up crock. cock and bull.

      • http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-birth-hawaii-gov-proof-presidents-birth-certificate/story?id=12721552

        He could have used ABC news instead of the Honolulu Advertiser story that he says was scrubbed.

    • We will see the results of an ABFDE examination when hell freezes over. Just like JFK and 911, we will get what bid brother wants us to get. Democracy really sucks, huh?

      Sorry, I am sure it wasn’t anything I ate. :)

      • yeah, just like Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea. reverently, protocol.

        with respect… makes me wonder what the heck Qaddafi did.
        say what again? i’m dense.

  9. TRENDING: Republicans request investigation of Obama travel
    CNN’s Gregory Wallace Snips
    April 25

    (CNN) – President Barack Obama isn’t just playing politics – he may be committing fraud on the taxpayer’s dime, the Republican National Committee charged on Wednesday. In a letter to the Government Accountability Office from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, the committee requested an investigation into Obama’s recent travel – including trips this week to Iowa and North Carolina – alleging those trips were more political than official.

    The White House and Obama For America, the president’s reelection campaign, go to great lengths to distinguish between official and campaign activities, as do elected officials and their reelection efforts at various levels of government.

    But Obama’s recent speeches, the RNC said in the letter, were “events widely reported to be equivalent to campaign rallies.” The committee’s case sees supporting evidence in a list of the states Obama has visited this month, including the general election battlegrounds of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio.
    ~
    When candidates travel by government means – such as a president traveling by Air Force One to a campaign event – Federal Election Commission regulations require the campaign to reimburse the government at a market rate. Typically, this means campaigns pay the cost of first-class airfare for the candidate and any campaign staffers. Travel by Air Force One – which costs over $180,000 per hour – is much more expensive than the price tag for commercial seats.

    Such scheduling allows “his reelection campaign to save on fuel for Air Force One,” the letter said.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/25/republicans-request-investigation-of-obama-travel/comment-page-3/

    • From one investigation to another. Exactly when will the Obama administration get charged with anything like those people involved in Fast and Furious? Or Solyndra and the other 12 failed green companies that received taxpayer money? Shorebank? How about those foreign campaign funds that BHO received in 2008? What does it take to get something to stick?

    • yeah, B, and was he just moonlighting on Jimmy Fallon’s network?

      who paid for that dose of entertainment?

    • Saw a story today somewhere that says he openly criticized a Republican congresswoman, telling the college students to “google” her. So he was campaigning against Republicans when he was supposedly acting as president, speaking to college students about the student loan “crisis”.

  10. Take 3 minutes… listen

    SOE > SPAIN > SCYTL your vote… heads up!

  11. Take 3 minutes… listen

    SOE > SPAIN > SCYTL your vote… heads up!

    scary. frightening. incredible. blip.

    who’s paying for it? what department does fall under?

    exporting our sacred right to a cheap vacation spot?

  12. Speaking of global government, I thought this was interesting.

    http://www.whale.to/b/obama_h.html

    http://www.whale.to/b/masonic_handshake.html

    Barack Obama’s amazingly consistent smile

    • Who is it?

    • Not sure, found it when hunting down names connected to ip’s I emailed about. Probably totally irrelevant, but avoiding putting names up until I can search somemore — don’t want to get cut off at the pass. Is is just me, or does the long-haired guy look like someone we know? I think it is a current picture, although it sort of has the same seedy feel as the prezdidn’ts college couch pic, huh? Oh well.

      • Guy on the right looks familiar. Somebody in the administration?

        • I agree. He does look familiar. My first thought was Alexi Giannoulias (who lost the IL Senate election to Mark Kirk). I read that Lexi headed down to Buenos Aires, Argentina to write a book after the election loss.

          The other guy looks like (?) he would be from Argentina.

          Once I started really looking at pictures of Lexi, I came to the conclusion that the smile isn’t right. Still, he really does look familiar.

    • hummmm…

  13. Identify this language?? Bhosdike ramdev tere muh me or brak obama ki gand me koi frk nhi h dono ek jsi h kute

  14. Does LaSalle Bank mean anything?

  15. Saw this today…

    At the women’s forum, Obama remarks, “And then there is the woman who once advised me at the law firm in Chicago where we met. Once she gave me very good advice. That’s why I decided to marry her. And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career—and something that could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling, and we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work [sic].”

    (It is absurd to believe that Obama could not support his family on his income as an attorney and state legislator. As an Illinois state legislator in the late 1990s Obama earned more than $50,000 per year, plus $125 per day in expenses, plus his income as an attorney when the legislature was not in session. Obama also earned income from speaking fees in 2000 and 2002, even though it is illegal in Illinois for state legislators to accept fees for speeches. Obama and his wife Michelle declared income of $240,505 in 2000; $272,759 in 2001, $259,394 in 2002; $238,327 in 2003, and $207,647 in 2004. In June 2005 they bought a Chicago mansion for $1.65 million, with a down payment of $330,000. Their reported income in 2005 was about $1.7 million. Their 2006 income was $991,296; that total included $273,618 for Michelle Obama from the University of Chicago Hospitals, and $506,618 in advances and royalties from Obama’s books. In 2004 Michelle Obama earned $121,900 at the University of Chicago Hospital. After her husband got a $1 million earmark for the hospital, her salary was increased to $316,962. Obama’s “Michelle had to work” remark is clearly intended to suggest that he and his wife Michelle are just “middle class folks who struggle like everyone else,” and to portray Mitt Romney and his wife as wealthy elitists.)

    HotAir.com observes that “…most stay-at-home moms would bristle at the idea of that being a ‘luxury.’ It’s a sacrifice in most cases, a denial of luxuries from the lack of a second income. Obviously Obama wanted to draw a contrast between himself and the Romneys with the word ‘luxury,’ but instead it suggests that only wealthy families that commit to one full-time parent at home.” (For the record, Michelle Obama’s mother was a “stay-at-home” mother throughout her childhood.)

    • Whoa! That is great data. Where’d this commenter get his 2000 tax return? No surprise that he was breaking laws back as far as 2000, when he ILLEGALLY accepted speaking fees. Laws are for everybody but Obama.

      So, imho, Romney’s life growing up in an upper middle class family was not very different from Obama’s. I wonder how Barry’s and Michelle’s income in the ’90s compares to the Romneys’ income at a similar point in their marriage?

      • I also found this….
        Obama tells the audience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that he and his wife “…only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago. That wasn’t that long ago. And that wasn’t easy. Especially because when we had Malia and Sasha, we’re supposed to be saving up for their college educations, and we’re still paying off our college educations.” (Obama is lying. Eight years ago would have been 2004.

        Obama’s financial disclosure statements, going back to the year 2000, list no outstanding education loans. As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities. Obama listed zero for liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms. If Obama’s school loans had been paid off prior to 2000, then his statement that he had “only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago” is a lie—a pandering lie intended to make him and his wife appear to be “just another struggling middle class family.” If the loans had in fact not been paid off until about 2004, then he lied on his financial disclosure forms. Additionally, Obama and his wife declared income of $207,647 in 2004, and in 2005 they purchased a Chicago mansion for $1.65 million—hardly the circumstances of a young couple struggling to pay off student loans and raise two children. Obama, of course, expects no one in the audience or the media to check any facts. He wants the college students to believe that he is sympathetic to their financial plight by making them think he struggled financially; and he wants to leave the impression that Mitt Romney was born with advantages he never had.)

        • 57th, I’ve been working on a post about this for the longest time. Well, at least for the last week or so. I keep finding new stuff and you are getting ahead of me. I’ll incorporate your finds and hat tip you, if I remember to. Remind me to if I forget, which I often do!

          I was happy to see those 2000 income statements, if they’re correct. Would love to know that person’s SOURCE. Oh, I see. His financial disclosure statements. I assume from the state of IL? I hate to cite something without evidence.

          A comment isn’t proof, but it sounds as if the person is citing a news story or some state records. Maybe state senators had to report income. Or could this be from campaign reports? Do you have a link to where this is coming from?

          Just the other day, Bridgette wished she had his tax returns prior to 2005 because it would show if he had any student loans.

          I have another explanation for his false claim of 8 years ago, but I think I’ll save it for my post. But the way things are going, my find will be outed before I can finish, so who cares? So long as HE IS OUTED.

          He expects nobody in the media to fact check him BECAUSE THEY DON’T FACT CHECK HIM. And even though we all do, nobody notices it, so that’s why he laughs to himself, out loud, as he tells these whoppers.

          He knows he’s lying and gloating to himself that either they know and don’t care or they will never find out because he knows they love him so much that they will not even dare check up on him. Like a wife who’s head over heels for her husband, suspects he might be cheating, but looks the other way and never tries to find evidence to confirm her suspicions because then she has to dump him or live with the humiliation because she just can’t give him up. The press are cuckolded by this guy every day of the week. He laughs as he f***s them over. And us, too.

    • How did they afford a house for $1.65 million? The rule used to be that you could purchase a home at 2 1/2 times your income. I know that changed and was lowered, but that would still mean in 2005 they should have only been allowed to purchase a home for about $519,117 unless their windfall from the book occurred between January – June and was in the bank showing them better off than there previous tax returns proved. Of course, this is also all in question, since their names don’t appear on a title for the home. Yet their names are on properties throughout the US with fictitious social security numbers to go along with their various names.

  16. U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/judge-wants-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/

    very goooood news!

    • [Judge] Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

      “It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.

    • http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1878/fed-court-eligibility-question-important-and-not-trivial/

      “Last week I reminded you that one of our Certification Class Action lawsuits was filed in State court in Tennessee, and that that case had been “removed” to Federal court by the defendants. I also told you that LLF had filed a motion to remand the case back to the State court. Last Friday the Federal court denied our motion. While we’re disappointed that the Court denied our motion, there is some good news that came along with the denial. In its 12-page opinion the Court made several very positive statements about our case. Here are some quotes:

      “The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

      “The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial.”

      “It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’”

      “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

      The Court’s statements strongly imply that it has already decided many of the issues that usually lead to procedural dismissals, and that it has decided them in our favor. While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this Federal court are encouraging. The Court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”

  17. I walked into the house and heard John Boehner calling Obama the Emperor who wore no clothes. From the short time he spoke it appeared he was saying that Obama is bringing up issues that aren’t worthwhile talking about instead of speaking about major issues facing the country. Obama was using these to create diversions from his record, he said. It was amazing hearing Boehner say what we have said all along. He also said Obama was diminishing the presidency and it has never been so low, and he has worked under several presidents. Wow. I hope there is a video of this.

    Also Issa’s committee is giving Eric Holder until the end of May or sooner to turn over the documents requested in subpoenas. They are preparing the papers for Contempt of Congress. Their patience has run out. Boehner gave them the go ahead to prepare the documents.

    • Better late than never. I heard about Obama’s appearance on the little-watched Fallon show. People said it was embarrassing to hear how Obama spoke. It demeans the office of the presidency, which of course doesn’t bother Barry one iota. That’s his goal, in fact.

  18. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/26/Get-bin-laden-memo-CYA?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+27%2C+2012&utm_campaign=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+27%2C+2012&utm_term=More

    A little more information about how the OBL takedown actually happened and Barry’s role in it. TIME got hold of a memo about the decision process.

    ” This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

    HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

    Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

    The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

    The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

    Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

    President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.”

    • It becomes clearer. Barry put out an ad claiming that he, the Big Kahuna, personally took down OBL, UNLIKE ROMNEY WHO WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THAT “GUTSY CALL”. Oh, please. Like it even matters when his own administration declares that the War on Terror is OVER, leaving us all vulnerable to jihadists. What else can we take from his UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT IN THE WAR ON TERROR? His spying will now be on US, the American People. He will use those drones on US.

      “”Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?” asks the on-screen text. The video recalls Romney’s contention, in an April 2007 interview with the Associated Press, that Americans will not be markedly safer if bin Laden were killed and that “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” (Days later, in a May 3, 2007, debate, Romney was asked about his words and responded, “We’ll move everything to get him. … This is a global effort we’re going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It’s more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.”) It also cites a Reuters report referring to an August 2007 Republican candidates debate: “Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for vowing to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary.” (That’s probably safer than directing viewers to the transcript of the debate: Romney criticized Obama for openly discussing the possibility of striking inside Pakistan, not for entertaining the idea. When moderator George Stephanopoulos asks whether it’s fair to summarize his position as “keep this option on the table, but it is foolish to talk about it in public,” Romney doesn’t disagree.) … On Friday, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul bristled at the video.

      It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad,” she said.” http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-not-killed-bin-laden-implies-obama-campaign-144436931.html

      Isn’t it nice that Hollywood is helping Barry to lie? Tom Hanks, I’ll NEVER watch one of your movies again. What a TOOL.

    • http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/04/26/white-house-insider-news-new-information-confirms-bin-laden-report-from-2011/

      memo confirms the endrun around Obama. they got go ahead from Obama for a ground mission, which was an attmept by Jarrett to stall because of plannign it would take, but unbeknownst to Jarrett and Obama, Panetta had already been planning the mission for months and was ready to go. Seal Team Six was given the go ahead

      • I remember that story. I thought Obama’s reign was over and Panetta and the military had taken over – a coup – and that Jarrett was ousted from policy making. It wasn’t to be. It was peculiar since Panetta’s communist ties had been exposed, so it was concerning to hear that he was in charge of the mission.

        Speaking of Bin Laden, Judicial Watch lost their case to get the death photos of Bin Laden released. It was announced today. They are appealing. The government is claiming the photos are a national security risk. I think there are no photos to release and it was a hoax to begin with. All we will ever see is the photo of Osama sitting on the floor in a dimly lit, sparsely furnished, room watching television. Did he have a remote in his hand? Was he watching FOX?

        • I have it on good authority that he was watching MSNBC.

          So let’s get this straight, they can put out photos of Abu Ghraib, Urinegate, and those recent ones allegedly of our troops “desecrating” the blown up remains of suicide bombers (as if they’re “sacred” to start with), but photos of a dead OBL endangers national security?

  19. Something to HIDE ?.. let’s turn up the HEAT.. & walk on the WILD SIDE !
    I’m tired of sitting still….. & U ? Pressure … CAN clear the EYES!

    http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html/

  20. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

    i had to turn down the volume… of course he lied… he had all that
    cash….”free Money”… yea… that someone else worked 4…

  21. http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/superstitions/

    Do you find this as funny as I do? He’s out of touch with his black AND white roots. Actually, rich people who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia probably don’t EAT these things. I know people of ALL races who believe in this “superstition”. You can guess why Gibbles wanted him to do this, though:

    “Obama’s communications director, Robert Gibbs, apparently buys into a southern idea that eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day brings good luck. So on January 1, 2008, as The Wall Street Journal reported, Gibbs had a staffer fetch a can from an Iowa grocery store. “I like black-eyed peas,” Obama said, “but I don’t understand.’’ Gibbs told him it was for good luck, and according to the Journal, “Obama dug in without another word.””

    For the “visual” and to pretend that he’s your typical African-American. So even if he doesn’t eat them, why wouldn’t he “understand” when someone puts a plate of them in front of him on New Year’s? A CLUE: He’s out of touch with AMERICAN CUSTOMS. I bet even Mitt Romney KNOWS about the “superstition”.

    • Mitt and I are from Michigan, and whether he knows about that superstition is a good question. I can say that I never heard of the tradition until I moved to TX. My southern sister-in-law prepared them (I hate them and have tried several recipes). I had the worst year I’d had in years after eating those darn peas! After that, I noticed they were served at New Year’s at many parties. Perhaps my family and Yankee friends were sheltered from this southern “delicacy” and saved from participating in the superstition.

      • on the coast of carolina a black eye pea dish called Carolina Caviar is some good eatin. Don’t know what all is in it,but if someone finds how to make it, eatin black eyes might not be such a bad experience Bridgette.

    • Lots of bacon and vinegar makes them taste better.

  22. http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/books/

    “According to his Facebook page, Obama’s favorite works are Song of Solomon, Moby Dick, Shakespeare’s tragedies, Parting the Waters, Gilead, “Self-Reliance,” and the Bible. When asked in an interview which books had touched his life, he cited the “wonderful book” Gandhi’s Truth, by Erik Erikson. E.L. Doctorow and William Shakespeare are his favorite authors. As a high schooler seeking to clarify his own racial identity, Obama looked for answers in the works of James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and W.E.B. Du Bois. He also read The Autobiography of Malcolm X at that time, a book now conspicuously absent from his reading list.”

    • I thought The Godfather was on his list, or was it the movie? I believed that information summed up what we were in for by electing him, and it hasn’t been much different than watching how the mafia operated. I am positive that The Godfather was important to him in 2008 and I have remembered that little tidbit.
      Shakesphere, Obama? The Bible, reallly? What a bunch of hooey.

  23. http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/coreposition/

    I know you’re finding this as hilarious as I am!

    Never-Altered Core Position Jan 11, 2008

    Obama: Making Nice With Others, Including Republicans

    From his early leadership roles at Harvard through his short Senate career, Obama has always believed in pragmatic politics based on bipartisanship. At the Harvard Law Review, he was elevated to the presidency with the support of the publication’s conservative faction, whose positions he was open to hearing out. In the Senate, Obama has drawn heat from the more ideologically fervent wing of the Democratic Party (well represented by the blog Daily Kos) for his reluctance to engage in the type of confrontational, combative politics it felt was necessary to achieve the party’s progressive goals. “I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in,” Obama writes in The Audacity of Hope. “What Obama understands,” writes John K. Wilson in Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, “is that success in pursuing progressive policies comes from uniting the country behind these ideas.” “

  24. O’s Diet: Hold the BEETS…. but bring on the DOG…..

    http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/diet/

    • I know! Isn’t this hilarious? It’s from the 2008 campaign. The New York Magazine PRETENDS to be fair and balanced but even the categories they chose are loaded in Barry’s favor. Their spin is so funny, especially in retrospect. Here’s a good one:

      Obama’s greatest political blunder:
      “When Obama announced his candidacy for Illinois’ First Congressional District in September of 1999, he made the decision to challenge four-term incumbent Representative Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther leader and Chicago alderman, had recently lost in his bid for mayor of Chicago, and Obama’s team sensed vulnerability. Soon after starting his campaign, Obama, with one term as a state senator under his belt, commissioned a poll and discovered his name recognition was at a paltry 11 percent, compared to Rush’s 90 percent. In the cold world of political calculation, Obama was put at further disadvantage when Rush’s son was gunned down by drug dealers, and sympathy flowed in the grieving father’s direction. Things only became worse when it was revealed that Obama missed an important gun-control vote in the state senate while he was on vacation with his family in Hawaii (an absence he attributed to his daughter becoming sick, preventing the Obamas from coming home).”

      There’s just so much here. Given his history with HOW he defeated opponents throughout his career, forgive me for wondering about the circumstances of the younger Rush’s death.

      He was ON VACATION in HAWAII instead of voting on one of the progressives’ favorite issues–gun control. Then he BLAMES his daughter’s sickness for his absence.

      Now, given that he traveled to Hawaii many times WITHOUT the family, why couldn’t Michelle have stayed in Hawaii with the sick child while he returned to do his jop?

      Hmmm. Couldn’t they have gone to Madelyn’s, where granny could help Michelle with the sick girl? I wonder: Did those girls even VISIT their grandmother on that trip? Wanna bet? Did they ever even MEET their “grandmother”? How about Aunt Maya watching her?

      I wonder if this magazine is going to put out another series like this for 2012? If so, they’ll probably just recycle the Obama part. What’s also interesting is that when you get to the “spiritual advisor” page, Barry’s info is suddenly at the bottom and McCain’s at the top. Every other page has Barry on top. But not this one!

      I found this story on their sidebar and it’s a perfect example of what I was saying earlier. How they try to coopt the language of Obama’s opponents, anticipate what will be said about HIM, and then try to use the words against Romney first, to take the “sting” out of them. Look at the title of the story:

      Romney’s Radical Theory of Fairness http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/romneys-radical-theory-of-fairness.html

      It’s not Barry who’s out of touch and radical, it’s ROMNEY.

      Romney’s formulation makes no allowance for the role of government in alleviating unfairness created by the marketplace. To be sure, he is just making a campaign speech, but every speech by Obama invariably has passages lauding the marketplace and wealth. Here’s Obama yesterday:

      ‘In America, we admire success. We aspire to it. I want everybody here to do great, be rich, go out and start a business. That’s wonderful.’

      Now, campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric, but in this case it reflects an underlying reality. Obama wants the government to do a bit more to reduce inequality, but he is not proposing to change the United States’ place as the most unequal advanced economy on Earth. His opponent has adopted the position that any interference with the natural level of inequality created by the market is illegitimate. He may not want to take that philosophy to its absolute limit, but he is running on a program that would go very far toward implementing it.

      The desire by Democrats to center the campaign on this basic philosophical choice is not a distraction, nor is it an attack on wealth. It’s an attempt to highlight what the election is actually about.”

      You see how they turn everything inside out and upside down? It’s ROMNEY who’s radically trying to fundamentally change America. And Obama doesn’t HATE capitalism, the rich, and the free market. He just wants to use government to HELP get rid of “inequality” caused by the free market.

      First, though, one must accept his premise (the writer’s) that the free market inevitably creates inequality–that even with equal opportunity, some “folks” just won’t be able to succeed and that will be because of the free market and NOT because of their own inability or lack of desire to take advantage of equal opportunity via hard work.

      Second, one must accept his premise that America is the MOST UNEQUAL ADVANCED ECONOMY ON EARTH. IF that’s true, it’s only because all the other “advanced” economies are SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST. How do they DEFINE inequality? If everybody is equally miserable, such as in Russia, and equally poor, such as in Cuba, then people are equal. But are they happy? The writer damns with faint praise–(unfortunately in his opinion) Barry’s NOT planning to fundamentally change America from the most unequal “advanced” country in the world. He should, in this writer’s opinion, but not to worry. He assures us that Barry’s going to keep this unequal nasty economy as is but “help” others “a bit.” So the writer himself is an America hater, just like Barry.

      Barry is on record as basically saying that so long as every one is equally miserable, then the fundamental FAIRNESS of that is what counts. Even IF raising taxes on the RICH brings in LESS revenue for the government to spend on social services, he still would raise taxes on them because it’s “fair”.

      So think about what his goal is? To fund government so it can help the less fortunate OR to punish the rich in the name of fairness?

      Consider, too, our “poor” compared to TRULY poor people, like in Kenya. What has the free market done for our poor and what has tyranny done for Kenya?

      These are the Obama Journolist storm troopers. Sent out there to put a “kinder, friendlier” face on COMMUNISM, MARXISM, and SOCIALISM.

      It’s a “philosophical choice,” for sure; but they deliberately misrepresent the philosophies we must choose between.

      But it’s also a SURVIVAL CHOICE. They’re not going to tell Americans that.

      • I don’t know why I do these things but seem to be driven. So I look up the writer of that article that calls Romney a radical and here’s what I find:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Chait

        “Jonathan Chait (pronounced /ˈtʃeɪt/; born 1972) is a writer for New York magazine. He was previously a senior editor at The New Republic and a former assistant editor of The American Prospect. He also writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times.

        Chait, a doctor’s son, grew up in the suburbs of Detroit and is a graduate of the University of Michigan. There he wrote for The Michigan Daily and co-founded The Michigan Independent. He lives in Washington DC and is married to Robin Chait, an education-policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. [THINK PODESTA and SOROS.]

        On Sept. 12, 2007, his book, THE BIG CON: The true story of how Washington got hoodwinked and hijacked by crackpot economics, was published by Houghton-Mifflin.

        On March 16, 2009, Chait appeared on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report to refute conservative arguments that the New Deal was a failure. The impetus for that appearance was an article he wrote for The New Republic called “Wasting Away in Hooverville”. … Chait usually writes about domestic politics and policy. Many of his writings are critiques of what he perceives to be illogical positions taken by conservatives. A self-described liberal hawk, drew considerable attention with his “Case for Bush Hatred”, in which he defended his dislike not only of Bush’s policies but also his personality and mannerisms.”

        Oh, I feel a parody coming on. :)

  25. Miri…thanks…4 your help… the OBL takedown photo from above….
    Is O~bummer’s head… really that small? no wonder nothin’…. fits in it!

    • Zenway, you’re welcome. Yes, his head looks way too tiny. Back when this first came out, we speculated that he never did get back off the golf course that day and so they photoshopped him into the picture. I believe others thought and reported about that same possibility. It’s a while ago, but we tore that photo apart, too. I’m convinced they morphed him into it. That he wasn’t even there.

  26. Since nothing in the Obamanation is EVER as it appears, there must be much more to this Secret Service scandal than meets the eye. Did you know…

    That the nightclub where Hillary was partying is the same nightclub where the agents met the prostitutes? http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/colombian-night-club-set-stage-for-secret-service-scandal/article_21db49b6-aeb7-5b8f-92ad-4ec8bff2b17d.html

    “In the early hours of April 12, the booze flowed and a thumping techno rumba shook the walls at Tu Candela, a popular nightclub whose dance floor recalls the narrow confines of a wine cellar.

    Dozens of couples gyrated to the pulsing sounds emanating from flat video screens throughout the club, which is in Cartagena’s walled-in colonial section. When the party ended about 4 a.m., two couples headed for the Hotel Caribe, an imposing castle-like structure facing the Caribbean, two miles from the club.

    The couples’ encounter at one of Cartagena’s hottest nightspots set the stage for the still-unfolding prostitution scandal that’s snared 12 U.S. Secret Service agents and a dozen members of the U.S. armed forces.

    The Colombia scandal erupted when Dania Suarez, 24, who was one of the two women dancing at Tu Candela, began knocking on hotel room doors, complaining that her date had refused to pay after having sex with her.

    Most of the agents were white men, but drivers saw at least one woman with short blond hair and a few Hispanic and black men. Most wore shorts and sport shirts. …

    What agents did at the end of the workday is unclear, but many foreign visitors gravitate to restaurants and bars in the colonial section, where buildings are elegantly lit at night. Tu Candela is one of the major spots there along with Cafe Havana, where Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was spotted dancing during the summit.

    Young Colombian women also flock to the area — many to eat, drink, dance or to find dates, and some to sell sex.

    One of the most popular spots is Tu Candela at 32-25 Portal of Sweets, a street in the Coaches Plaza where slaves were sold during colonial times.

    While Suarez is now in hiding and her lawyer declined to comment, Pena said the women told him they met the agents at Tu Candela. Pena didn’t know whether the meeting was prearranged or a chance encounter.”

    So many scenarios to ponder.

    Who saw Hillary? How did she learn about that nightclub? Was one of the agents partying with Hillary that blond female agent?

    What did the agents see and what did they know? Is something seen or known the reason certain persons who saw and know had to be removed?

    Does the fact that MOST of the agents are white have anything to do with a perceived need to have a big turnover, opening up spots for persons of other colors? Can a potus choose to remove those agents close to him on a whim or do civil service rules apply such that something like this is necessary for a wholesale repopulating of the potus krewe, so to speak?

    Was it a set up? Was Hillary set up again? Did the photos of her come out as a warning–don’t get ideas about 2012?

    This happened in El Salvador LAST year. Why wasn’t it a scandal THEN but is a scandal NOW? http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/secret-service-will-expand-prostitution-investigation/article_00749b27-f5d3-5ab7-9a82-62c95da2ce14.html

    “Secret Service employees received sexual favors from strippers at a club in San Salvador and took prostitutes to their hotel rooms ahead of Obama’s visit to the city in March 2011. Prostitution is legal in both Colombia and El Salvador.

    Separately, The Washington Post this week cited unnamed “confidants” of the Secret Service officers implicated in Colombia saying senior managers had tolerated similar behavior during previous official trips. The Post described a visit to Buenos Aires in 2009 by former President Bill Clinton, whose protective detail it said included agents and uniformed officers. During that trip, the Post said, members of the detail went out for a late night of partying at strip clubs.”

    It happened in 2009 with agents protecting BILL CLINTON. In 2011, with agents protecting Obama. Did Hillary go to San Salvador in 2011? And now, again, in 2012. So, known to Obama, surely. Were these agents set up in a ploy to have an excuse to get rid of them on account of their race?

  27. A week ago some man high-up on the radio said when Kennedy ?
    got killed the SS/protecters had been hugover from the prior evening.
    ….if I got it right.

  28. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/secret-toughens-rules-conduct-colombia-prostitution-scandal-221648691.html

    “Here is the list of the new rules, which Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary provided to Yahoo News:The following enhanced standards of conduct are effective immediately.

    1. Standards of conduct briefings will be conducted for all protective visits, events and NSSEs, as well as prior to foreign car plane departures.

    2. The U.S. Department of State Regional Security Officer will work with the USSS advance team to provide intensified country-specific briefings upon arrival in a foreign country. The briefings will update personnel on safety issues, off-limit zones and off-limit establishments for USSS personnel, and any country-specific rules imposed by the Ambassador.

    3. Foreign nationals, excluding hotel staff and official counterparts, are prohibited in your hotel room. [One would think this would already be the rule!]

    4. Patronization of non-reputable establishments is prohibited.

    5. Alcohol may only be consumed in moderate amounts while off-duty on a TDY assignment and alcohol use is prohibited within 10 hours of reporting for duty. [Again, one would think …]

    6. Alcohol may not be consumed at the protectee hotel once the protective visit has begun.

    The following measures relating to foreign car plane staffing are effective immediately.

    1. Car planes will be staffed with two GS-15 supervisors — one from the Office of Professional Responsibility and one from the field.

    2. The car plane supervisors will be responsible for briefing the standards of conduct expectations prior to departure to the destination country, as well as for enforcing these standards while in the foreign country.

    3. All personnel traveling will have to have completed relevant LMS-based ethics training in order to be eligible for protective travel.

    4. The Security Clearance Division will intensify country-specific briefings covering all pertinent topics prior to departure for the destination country.

    5. Laws of the United States shall apply to Secret Service personnel while abroad.” [Guess they mean prostitution, but it’s legal in Nevada, so that must mean it’s okay, huh?]

  29. A map of the scandals:

    http://www.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=201645180959880549419.0004bea9f6a4110e0063a&ie=UTF8&ll=19.846898,-25.782422&spn=71.827655,126.813987&t=m&source=embed

    Happened in 2000 with BILL CLINTON in Russia:
    “In 2000, ahead of a visit by President Bill Clinton, Secret Service agents are said to have enjoyed a wild night at Moscow’s Hungry Duck night club. In the club’s storied history, as many as 920 women supposedly engaged in a mass striptease at the club.”

    • http://news.yahoo.com/secret-probes-el-salvador-prostitution-claims-222843815.html

      “The White House was mum on the allegations.

      “I simply don’t have anything for you on that from here,” Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

      Asked whether the president previously knew of the claims, he said:

      “I don’t know that any of us were aware of it until we read newspaper reports.” [That clinches it! They KNEW. It’s a set up.]

      While the Pentagon is investigating 12 military personnel allegedly involved in the Colombia events, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said “there’s no investigation ongoing” regarding the El Salvador accusations. [And why not?]

      Two days earlier, he said three US Marines and an embassy staffer in Brazil “were severely punished” and sent home over an incident involving a prostitute, another potential black eye in the broadening scandal.”

  30. MUST WATCH: Boehner Slams Obama, Democrats For Politicizing ‘Everything’ In Passionate Speech
    April 27, 2012

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/27/MUST-WATCH-Boehner-SlamsDemocrats-For-Politicizng-Everything-In-Passionate-Speech

  31. Fluke’s ploy didn’t work – I guess she got fluked!

    Georgetown Rejects Fluke-Led Effort on Contraception
    April 27, 2012

    Sandra Fluke, the militant feminist activist-cum-Georgetown Law School student, has fallen short in her effort to force Georgetown to pay for her birth control. Today, Georgetown University President John J. DeGoia released the following letter, in which he explained that the university would not cave to pressure from Fluke or President Obama:….

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/27/Georgetown-Rejects-Sandra-Fluke

  32. Ah ha..the war in terror is over except in every Middle Eastern country and then some. They are now congregating in Yemen…what kind of bull are they trying to pass off to the public? Would some soldiers like to chime in and let us know! It this report before or after we sent more billions to those countries? Is this to appease the democratic base and let them know that the Great Obama has ended the wars? So have those bombs in Libya that disappeared been found yet? Who is ruling Libya? What fine radicals did we help? Weren’t those Al Qaida? Are they redefining the word gone?

    US officials: Core al-Qaida ‘essentially gone’

    By KIMBERLY DOZIER | Ass Press – 14 hrs ago

    ASHINGTON (AP) — A year after the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks is essentially gone but its affiliates remain a threat to America, U.S. counterterrorist officials say.

    Core al-Qaida’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, still aspires to attack the U.S., but his Pakistan-based group is scrambling to survive, under fire from CIA drone strikes and lying low for fear of another U.S. raid. That has lessened the threat of another complex attack like a nuclear dirty bomb or a biological weapon, the officials say.

    Al-Qaida’s loyal offshoots are still dangerous, especially Yemen’s al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. While not yet able to carry out complex attacks inside the U.S., such groups are capable of hitting Western targets overseas and are building armies and expertise while plotting violence, according to senior U.S. counterterrorist officials who briefed reporters Friday.

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-core-al-qaida-essentially-gone-201726824.html

  33. Thank you, leslie johnson, wherever you are. We try, don’t we? We try, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. :) Thanks for reading.

    • http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/vacation-backlash-blue-collar-dems-jealous-angry-obamas/538141 Thu, 2012-04-26 12:39

      Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing “staycations” because they can’t afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family’s 17 lavish vacations around the world and don’t want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas’ holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.

      “They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” said pollster John McLaughlin. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he’s not sharing in that struggle and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars,” added the GOP pollster.

      He and several other top-tier Republican pollsters, organized by Resurgent Republic, traveled to 11 battleground states to host focus groups of independent and swing voters, mostly Democrats, who voted for President Obama in 2008 but who are now on the fence.

      McLaughlin handled blue collar and Catholic voters in Pittsburgh on April 3 and Cleveland on March 20. He found that they are very depressed about the economy and feel that their tax dollars are being sucked up by both the rich and those living on government assistance.

      During the focus group discussions about debt and spending cuts, many in his group volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as something that should be cut. [Shades of Larry Connors, who told the potus that people are angry at his family jetting around the world on the taxpayers’ dime!] Among the lines McLaughlin wrote down was one from a Democratic woman who said, “Michelle Obama spends $1 million to take the kids to Hawaii,” and another who said, “President Obama was the only president to take so many trips.”

      The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters.

      He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working, but the voters were also lumping in the president’s vacation spending with the General Services Administration’s Las Vegas scandal and federal spending for those who aren’t looking for work.

      “There really wasn’t a real dislike for Romney. It was just that he is too rich. But on the other hand there is a start of resentment of the government,” he said. “What surprised me is that these were Democrats back biting on their own president,” added McLaughlin.”

  34. ‘TREASON? Barack Hussein Obama Sends $192 Million to Islamist Terrorism-Supporting ‘Palestinian National Authority”
    April 28, 2012

    The Barack Hussein Obama Regime has gone over the head of Congress, and has unilaterally approved a $192 Million taxpayer-funded gift to the Islamist Terrorist-supporting ‘Palestinian National Authority,’ which is the governing shell currently inhabited by Mahmood Abbas and other members & supporters of anti-Israeli Islamist terrorist organizations, who support anti-Israeli terrorist operations.

    In other words, Obama bypassed Congress in order to get away with sending $192 million in stolen taxpayer income to Jew-slaughtering Islamist terrorists in Judea & Samaria (Hamas currently rules Gaza independent of the Palestinian National Authority).

    These people support Islamist terrorists who teach children to desire to commit terrorist attacks, killing as many Jews as possible. The people who refuse to recognize Israel, much less their right to exist, and to defend itself, who believe that ‘killing Jews is a duty,’ who tweet about killing Jews. In fact, some of those people who say and tweet that sort of terrorist propaganda will have their salaries paid by American taxpayers.

    How much longer will Americans remain asleep, while the Communist-In-Chief engages in pro-terrorist corruption? How much longer will the American people put up with a lying Communist in the White House, using YOUR TAX DOLLARS to pay for Islamist terrorist organizations?

    http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A2566408&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

    • President Obama Overrides Congress to Send $192M to Palestinian Authority: ‘Important to the Security Interests of the United States’
      April 28, 2012 by Erica Ritz

      President Obama has overridden Congress to lift the U.S. ban on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, saying it is “important to the security interests of the United States.”

      The lifting of the ban means, among other things, that a $192 million aid package that was frozen after the Palestinian Authority tried to circumvent the United States and achieve statehood through the UN will now be delivered.

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-overrides-congress-to-send-192m-to-palestinian-authority-important-to-the-security-intersts-of-the-united-states/

      • He doesn’t have the authority to “override Congress” on money matters. Congress alone has the power of the purse.

        • Monday, February 25, 2008

          Lebanese Nader Calls Obama Pro-“Palestinian”

          Imagine ….even Nader calls out Obama’s “Pro-Palestinian” Past (and Nader is Lebanese. His parents, Nathra and Rose Nader, were Lebanese immigrants. Rose and Nathra Nader’s native language is Arabic)

          Washington, D.C. (February 25, 2008) — After remarks made by Ralph Nader yesterday on “Meet the Press,” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “Ralph Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama’s views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues.”

          During his interview on “Meet the Press,” Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama’s “better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself” and that Sen. Obama was “pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate” and “during the state Senate.”

          Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians.” Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

          http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/lebanese-nader.html

          Ralph Nader should be one to know more about Obama than most people. Obama worked for Nader under PIRG. PIRG was Created by Ralph Nader in the 1970s.

          • April 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.

            Obama Funds the Egyptian Government

            A Muslim Brotherhood–controlled government gets $1.5 billion.

            In October 2010, on the eve of the Islamic revolution that the media fancies as “the Arab Spring,” the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood called for jihad against the United States.

            You might think that this all but unnoticed bombshell would be of some importance to policymakers in Washington. It was not. It is not. This week, the Obama administration quietly released $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian government, now dominated by a Brotherhood-led coalition in parliament — soon to be joined by an Ikhwan (i.e., Brotherhood) luminary as president.
            ~~~~
            Obama has overlooked the MB’s intimate ties to Hamas, which self-identifies as the Ikhwan’s Palestinian branch and is formally designated a terrorist organization under American law. Administration officials have absurdly portrayed the Brothers as “secular” and “moderate,” although the organization, from its founding in the 1920s, has never retreated an inch from its professed mission to establish Islam’s global hegemony.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295501/obama-funds-egyptian-government-andrew-c-mccarthy

          • This shows you how willfully blind these people remain are (that story is from 2008). His “better instincts?” They seriously believe that Barry was EVER for the Israelis and not TOTALLY for the Palestian MUSLIMS? Did you know that part of that money he “restored” (as my newspaper called it in a TINY blurb in the back pages) was for the Palestinian-version of Sesame Street? That would be the RACIST ANTI-SEMITIC TV program that indoctrinated children to be jihadists against Jews. I wonder what Ros-Lehtinen has to say about this? It was her actions that put a hold on that money. Congress alone has the power of the purse. This is deliberate violation of the separation of powers and the Constitution by Barry. But what’s new?

  35. Since this thread is open topic, I am puttingnin a link to a site that is discussing the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. It seems that the PR firm working with the Martin side also was the PR firm for Pigford. Interesting.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/28/damage-control-ryan-julison-of-julison-communications-the-media-image-firm-hired-by-benjamin-crump-and-natalie-jackson-responds/#more-38420

    • Since when do criminal cases need PR firms? Who is paying them? Do we think that the Martin side really has enough money to hire a firm? Did OJ have one or the Goldman’s? It’s not enough to have all of the ABC network anchors on their side? They aren’ getting enough publicity – or isn’t it the right kind of publicity?

      Let’s give some publicity to the prosecutor who didn’t present all of the evidence in her photo-op and who judged Zimmerman guilty by not sending all of the information to a Grand Jury as Larry Klayman said should have been done.

      It was a well written piece, and it is interesting that the PR firm declares – “I also happen to often volunteer my efforts to help give the ‘little guy’ a voice. I am not making a dime on the Trayvon story.”
      Not making a dime, except for all the publicity of racism leads back to them along with the race baiters.

      Pigford – when the black farmers, who weren’t farmers, signed affidavits to the effect they “wanted to be” black farmers or their ancestors wanted to be, received millions in taxpayer dollars without any oversight by Congress. Who was represented by this firm? I can’t imagine it was the people who were wanting the cash. This story should not end without somebody being held accountable for giving reparations to thousands of people illegally.

    • Well, that would make sense. That’s a GREAT POST, btw. I highly recommend it. Amazing information about how a PR firm deliberately created that false image of the innocent 12-year-old shot in cold blood by a racist white man. Now that the firm arguably has blood on its hands because of the violent actions in retribution for a FALSE NARRATIVE created by these PR men, they’re trying to backtrack. I hope all the victims of their lies sue and win HUGE amounts of damages. I loved this line from Julison’s self defense: “It saddens me that this story has been so politicized.” IF it weren’t so sad, THAT would be funny.

      • http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/29/preview-and-updates/#more-38461

        This link is to a blog doing really good research connecting the CBC to the Zimmerman case. Since you all are the best at research, perhaps you could help. It might be a way to take Holder down, and that would lead to taking Obama down!

        • They seek to “help understand how quickly the CBC called up congressional hearings to support the efforts of Crump, Parks and Julison….. and the Rose Garden proclamation by President Obama on behalf of Trayvon Martin.

          In addition we will provide further information into the deep connections between Ryan Julison, and contacts within news agencies who specifically advanced a racist narrative on behalf of Crump, as stimulated by Ryan Julison. The connections include ABC’s Matt Gutman, and now fired NBC producer Jeff Burnside… The regional offices of CBS, ABC and NBC played out the Julison narrative and sold it upstream to New York.”

          They are doing excellent work. I doubt that they need our help. If they do, they are free to ask; but they seem to do fine on their own. Excellent work; I look forward to reading their findings. Good luck with getting them publicized, though. Or with bringing down Holder. Why is he even AG after Mark Rich?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s