Archive for August, 2009

A Russian Warns Americans Against a Communist Takeover

America at the crossroads of history

 By Jeff Head
God, Family, and Country

A Warning For Obama: President Hoover’s Fealty to Unions Worsened Great Depression

 By Warner Todd Huston
Democrats do not learn from history

A Russian Warns Americans Against a Communist Takeover

 By Alan Caruba
Obama
and his panoply of “czars” have only a few months in which to
manufacture a "crisis" as a pretext to transfer all power to the White
House

Leave a comment

It’s Time to Expose Scientific Nonsense, Speculative and Theoretical Nonsense

 

83 Percent of All Statistics are Made Up on the Spot

 By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, August 31, 2009

Saki (H.H Munro) said, “A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
Today we have tons of inaccuracy and very little explanation. Most
inaccuracies come from claims based on non-existent or inadequate
historical data, extremely crude estimates, computer model projections,
or are simply incorrect. It’s prevalent in environmental issues but
particularly bad with climate and animal extinctions. The reason is
because they’re the most politicized, which automatically takes them
further from the truth. As Henry Adams said, “Practical politics consists of ignoring the truth.”

Speculative and Theoretical Nonsense

A good example is a 2008 report that claimed, “Human
activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on
Earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday
.” What
absolute rubbish. They can’t possibly substantiate these claims. We
don’t know how many species there are. We are finding new species all
the time. We don’t have even crude estimates of populations. We don’t
know how much population numbers vary. What do they mean by “every
other”? They should name all the species that comprise their claims? 

Numbers in the 2008 Report are part of the ridiculous, completely
unscientific, claims made originally by E.O. Wilson about species
extinction.  Self-proclaimed Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki
traveled across the country a few years ago claiming the demise of 2
species an hour. He wouldn’t name any of them because it’s a false
claim. It undoubtedly originated with E.O Wilson, who is listed as an
honorary Board member of the Suzuki Foundation in the 2003 Annual Report.

Wilson introduced his idea of extinction based on mathematical estimates and false assumptions. “A
good proxy for the rate of extinction is the rate of growth in energy
used by the human population. In other words, extinction rates are
increasing in step with the product of population growth times the growth in affluence
.”

He produced a ludicrous graph whose shape is reminiscent of the infamous “hockey Stick graph and as falsely derived.
               
    Source:

Wilson’s actual extinction claim was 27,000 per year. He also
predicted 22 percent of all species will be extinct by 2022. It’s time
the media provided a daily obituary column with names of the 48 species
provided by the Suzuki Foundation. It won’t happen because they don’t
exist, but that won’t stop others making false claims.

Claims of declining numbers work because we’re emotionally
vulnerable to charges we’re negatively impacting animal populations.
They work because people believe populations don’t change much
naturally therefore large or sudden changes are due to humans.

They works because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a statement in their 2007 Impact Report that “Global-scale
assessment of observed changes shows that it is likely that
anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible
influence on many physical and biological systems.

This is out of context and unsupportable. The word “likely” is
defined as a 66 to 90% probability, which undercuts the certainty of
the statement. It’s out of context because you can’t determine the
human effect without knowing or understanding natural change. This is
the major problem with the IPCC Science Report on climate so it is not
surprising to see it repeated in the Impact Report.

Reality

Several situations can cause distortion. Most measures are snapshots
taken at a single point of numbers that have naturally wide variation.
They vary because of actual change in the total or because the species
moves to another area. For example, a July 4, 2009 letter to the
English magazine The Spectator
complained about the disappearance of swifts in London. (Common swift
of Europe; forked tail; nests on city buildings.) A week later a letter
said, “I think they may have come to north-east London. This year the skies above Hackney have been filled with them as never before.” None of this would surprise Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) fur traders.

Moses Norton’s journal for January 14, 1771 reads, “Ever since I knew the country I never experienced so great a scarcity of partridge.” On January 1, 1810 William Cook wrote in his journal, “Indians complain of scarcity of food.” Then on the12th he notes, “Scarcity of partridge and rabbits.” A year later he writes, “Thus
are we receiving supplies from one party and witnessing the most abject
poverty in another but it is perfectly consistent with the nature of
the country that it being not at all uncommon for one set of Indians to
be absolutely starving while another party at the distance of 40 miles
are living in the utmost profusion.

HBC records provided data for among the first research on natural fluctuation of populations by Charles Elton.
His publication with Nicholson in 1942 shows variations in Lynx numbers
in a very long record. My current research (unpublished) plots this
graph against the 11-year sunspot cycle and shows a high correlation.

The day I read the second letter I was involved in a radio phone-in program about the decline in salmon along the west coast of Canada.

A general theme of callers was that humans were to blame, whether it
was sea lice from fish farm salmon, forestry or global warming due to
humans. Unfortunately few knew or even considered natural variability
even though it was reported in some research. “Shifts
in climate in 1977 and 1989 resulted in significant changes in
production for a number of marine fish species including Pacific salmon.

You can claim these are recent and still due to human causes.  How
then do you explain comments of the fur traders or the oral tradition
of the west coast people that speak of failures of the salmon runs with
descriptions that indicate they’re related to weather changes?

Historical Examples of False Accusations

Many examples exist of groups blamed for decline in numbers when the
cause was natural. In the late 1980s farmers, especially on the
Prairies of western Canada, were blamed for a significant drop in
numbers of migrating waterfowl. They were accused of draining the
wetlands, cutting the trees and using chemicals. The actual cause was
drought and accompanying wind pattern changes, especially in 1988 and
1989. Significantly increased numbers were reported to the east and
west as the birds adjusted and followed their usually practice of
flying 88% of the time with a tail wind to areas were water was
available. When the rains returned the birds returned and bird counts
were the highest in over 70 years. Of course, no reports in the media
and no apologies to the farmers.

Over 30 years ago Roger Pocklington approached me about weather
conditions in eastern arctic Canada. Roger was an oceanographer
studying water temperatures from Newfoundland to Bermuda. He reported
they were falling. He was welcome at conferences because it fit the
consensus of the day, global cooling. Temperatures in eastern arctic
Canada had declined for over thirty years and resulted in a cooler
Labrador Current. Colder denser water was pushing farther south. We
determined this would impact the cod fisheries of the Grand Banks, but
nobody would listen. Roger was also ignored because he continued to
record and report cooler temperatures but the politics of climate
change had switched to global warming.

Cod numbers declined and as usual humans were blamed. This is not to
say over fishing was not part of the problem. If you assume numbers are
relatively constant then a natural decline will make the fishing
harmful at a certain level. The problem is we don’t know how much the
numbers vary. The Canadian government effectively banned cod fishing in
1992. This was akin to banning corn production in Iowa. After 17 years
the numbers haven’t recovered. Where did the cod go? In to warmer
international waters where Europeans fished them and shallow warmer
inshore waters where they were off limit to Canadian fishermen. In 1996
I stood on the dock at Fortune Harbour in northern Newfoundland with an
84-year-old fisherman. He said cod were more plentiful and larger than
he could recall in the bay, but he was banned from catching even two to
feed his family. The great irony of the story is that oil drilling at
Hibernia on the Grand Banks saved the Newfoundland economy.

It’s Time to Expose Scientific Nonsense

Animal populations and distributions vary considerably over time.
Every report of decline or discovery in a new location is now
attributed to human induced climate change or other human activity.
Perhaps the most outrageous is the claim of humans hunting Ice Age
species to extinction. All ignore natural variability, but that is the
pattern of anti-humanity environmental hysteria. As Lord Dunsany said, “It is very seldom that the same man knows much of science, and about the things that were known before science came.” His comment is even truer if the science is perverted to political ends.

 

(1) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columns

Copyright © 2009 CFP
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14275

Leave a comment

Terrorists in America

 

Al-Qa’ida, Al-Shabaab, HAMAS, Hizballah, Jama’at al-Tabligh,
Jama’at ul Fuqra, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, and the Muslim Brotherhood” are in
America

By Marinka Peschmann, Special to Canada Free Press   Monday, August 31, 2009

With Attorney General Holder’s investigation of CIA operatives who
utilized enhanced-interrogation techniques on detainees, including 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the Obama administration’s downgrade
of the War on Terror to “overseas contingency operations,” and the
administration’s release of terrorists captured by heroic U.S. military
personnel, what should be a preposterous question to ask the President
of the United States, now needs to be asked. In the interest of
America’s national security, how will President Obama treat the
terrorist in America?

According to a previously disclosed 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat
Assessment, prepared by Virginia’s Fusion Center, “Al-Qa’ida,
Al-Shabaab, HAMAS, Hizballah, Jama’at al-Tabligh, Jama’at ul Fuqra,
Lashkar-e Tayyiba, and the Muslim Brotherhood” are in America. “While
most of these groups are known to have individuals that currently live,
work, or frequently travel through Virginia, some groups were included…
based on world events.”

The 215-page report found, “the most frequently encountered groups”
in Virginia “were al-Qa’ida, HAMAS, and Hizballah. Occasionally
encountered groups and movements included Sunni Extremists, Jama’at
Tabligh, Palestinian Islamic Jihadb , Islamic Jihad Unionc, Muslim
Brotherhood, and the Taliban.”

The report says: “While there is no intelligence that indicates
terrorists are currently planning attacks… the presence of extremists,
evidence of trends linked to terrorism, and the abundance of potential
targets, suggests that the potential for Virginia to be targeted
remains significant. Although international terrorist groups routinely
espouse their intent to launch large-scale attacks within the U.S., the
majority of activities… comes from criminal activities that raise funds(italics
CFP) for attacks overseas. It is important to note, however, that the
presence of supporters of such groups could be leveraged to support
operatives preparing for an attack within the U.S…  Also of concern is…
the possibility of money raised at rallies or other demonstrations of
solidarity could be diverted to benefit terrorist entities.”

Read report here. (PDF)

Bush Administration froze assets of large U.S. Muslim charities, including the Holy Land Foundation


Recall, in an effort to clamp down on the financing of terrorist
organizations, the Bush Administration froze assets of large U.S.
Muslim charities, including the Holy Land Foundation. Last November,
the “Holy Land Foundation and five of its former organizers were found
guilty of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian
terrorist group Hamas.” Story here. In contrast, President Obama provided what might be a clue to his approach to combat this threat during his speech
in Cairo, when he said: “… in the United States, rules on charitable
giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious
[charitable] obligation. That is why I am committed to working with
American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.” The Muslim
obligation of zakat has been compared to the Christian tradition of
tithing but as evidenced above some Muslim “charities” have used
charitable donations to fund terrorists. What we also know regarding
President Obama’s charitable donation policies thus far, is he proposed
to “cut the tax deductions that wealthy Americans can claim for their charitable donations.”

The Virginia Terror Threat Assessment also confirms CFP’s previous reporting regarding crime and corruption at the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services. See here and here.
The report states: “Although the vast majority of refugees and
immigrants who enter Virginia do so legally… Virginia has received
reporting of potential instances of fraudulent entry that might be
linked to international terror groups.” Inquires to the White House
regarding the treatment of terrorists in America have so far gone
unanswered.

Obama Administration Releases Terrorists

Turning now to a snap shot of President Obama’s treatment of
terrorists since taking office, to use as a potential indicator, as
Andrew McCarthy meticulously documented, “Obama released a terrorist
responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in Iraq in
exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages.” Story here.

Also free under the Obama Administration is Mohammed Jawad, a terror
suspect charged with “attempted murder for allegedly throwing a grenade
at two U.S. soldiers in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2002,” who was
returned to Afghanistan. Story here.

Then there was the controversial “humanitarian” release of
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted on 270 counts of murder of
mostly Americans in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. al-Megrahi was released
by the Scottish government to a hero’s welcome in Libya. The Scottish
government claims al-Megrahi’s release was made in consultation with
the U.S. Story here.

It is worth noting that al-Megranhi’s hero’s welcome was chillingly
reminiscent to the scantily reported hero’s welcome five Iranians
received after their July 12 release and return to Iran where members
of one man’s family reportedly in celebration chanted “Death to
America.” The men, Iran calls “diplomats,” were detained in 2007 by
U.S. authorities in Arbil, Iraq. According to the U.S., at the time,
they were members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ elite Qods
force, accused of arming and training terrorists in Iraq. Story here.

That’s not all. President Obama released four Uighurs from
Guantanamo and transferred them to Bermuda. “All four admitted during
their combatant status review tribunals (CSRTs)… that they received
training in the Taliban’s Afghanistan. And all four of them received
this training at an ETIM/TIP terrorist training facility in Tora Bora,
a key area once controlled by the Taliban and al Qaeda.” Story here.

And this is a partial list. President Obama’s decision to release
terrorists abroad tells us a lot. The 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat
Assessment tells us that terrorists are in America.

Last April, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the
Terror Threat Assessment, essentially saying it exaggerated the threat
of terrorists in America. See
here.

(0) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Marinka Peschmann, Special to Canada Free Press Most recent columns

Copyright © Canada Free Press
Marinka Peschmann, marinkapeschmann.com is a freelance writer. She’s collaborated and contributed on books ranging from showbiz to true crime and politics.
She may be reached at: Marinkapm@aol.com or letters@canadafreepress.com


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14273

Leave a comment

Bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid

Enough is enough, Harry Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We’ve
seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the
construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized
gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We
survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several
recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number
of two-bit politicians who couldn’t stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We’re still here doing what we do
for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we
weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of
Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas
Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber’s board members
for a meet-‘n’-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the
Review-Journal’s director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working
Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to
do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet,
as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have
been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go
out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he
wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to
continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered
inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid’s remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But
to fully capture the magnitude of Reid’s remark (and to stop him from
doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was — a
full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was
elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he’s shaking them
down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S.
senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority
leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would
expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate
for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state’s largest
newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in
retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics,
I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who
don’t have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of
all who live and work in Nevada, we can’t let this bully behavior pass
without calling out Sen. Reid. If he’ll try it with the Review-Journal,
you can bet that he’s tried it with others. So today, we serve notice
on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won’t allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That’s a promise, not a threat.

And it’s a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Leave a comment

Obama: The Worst is Yet to Come

Obama’s planned and now-revised Cybersecurity Act of 2009

 By Sher Zieve  Sunday, August 30, 2009

If it wasn’t before, the ultimate purpose of Dictator Barack Hussein
Obama should now be clear to even his most die-hard fans.  With Obama’s
planned and now-revised Cybersecurity Act of 2009, his inordinately
broad and sweeping powers to take control of the Internet AND private
networks is making its way through the Senate.

The bill gives Obama’s Executive Branch the power to shut down the
Internet for any reason he considers to be a “Cybersecurity
emergency.“  That, of course, is anything Obama decides to declare an
emergency.  Those who have been living in a cave for the last several
years might ask “What’s the reason for this suspension if not
dissolution of liberty?” 
The answers are: 
I. Because Obama can;
2. To shut down ALL opposition to his totalitarian programs and regime;
3. To stop any and all warnings going out en masse when Obama’s initial troops begin arriving in our towns and cities. 

Don’t think so?  Nothing else make any sense, folks. 

Note: The only good news is that many former Obama
supporters are now—finally—beginning to see and feel the dictator’s
relentlessly encroaching darkness.  Even they don’t like it and are
beginning to feel the fear move up their reinserted spines.

Obama is also now actively working to demoralize—if not completely
shut down—the CIA.  Does anyone else think it was even mildly
coincidental that Obama already has his personal ’replacement’
interrogation team in place?  Will Obama’s new and personal “security
team” soon replace the entire CIA or will there still be a skeleton
crew left for show purposes?  Placing the now former USA (see reference
video below) in jeopardy of another major attack doesn’t bother Obama
in the least.  Does anyone else wonder whose side Obama is on?  Bye-bye
CIA.

The tyrant is already going against the will of the American people
with both his ObamaCare and Cap and Trade.  Both of these bills are
designed to further gut the country of its wealth and liberties (is
there still no one who has checked the bank accounts of the
ObamaFavored?) and its ability to survive.  And in order to partially
fund the ObamaCare multi-Trillion-dollar package (per the Congressional
Budget Office), Obama plans to further raze Medicare.  Bye-bye
Seniors. 

Note: In his column “The Ugly Truth of Obamacare” John
Stossel writes:  “As the government’s health care budget becomes
strained, as it must—and, as Obama admits, already is under
Medicare—the government will have to cut back on what it lets people
have.”  But, after admitting that he will cut back on Medicare benefits
(called ‘rationing“), Obama continues to say he won’t ration health
care to Seniors.  Suffice it to say, Obama has become a Master of
speaking out of both sides of his mouth—and remarkably at the same
time!  Obama is a classic example of the “double-minded man—unstable in
all his ways” (James 1:8).  Bye-bye common or any other kind of (except
non) sense.

Since his usurping of the US presidency (have you heard the latest
Obama birth certificate rumor that it was burned up in a fire?), Obama
has instituted one assault after another against the American people. 
Note:  No one in his or her sane mind would be doing theses things
except out of hatred for the victims.  Even before his “election” he
spoke about his disdain for the US Constitution.

Yet, more and more people are asking “With everything going to Hell
in a hand basket, why is Obama still smiling broadly?”  There are
actually at least two answers:  1. Because he’s setting up a White
House Imperium—with all necessary private police and enhanced voter
fraud units—so that he will never be forced, let alone voted, out of
office; 2. Because the destruction of the USA and its “transformation”
into ObamaLand was his plan all along.     

Senate Bill to Give Obama Control of Internet:
The Ugly Truth of ObamaCare:
School Security Officer ’It Ain’t America no more!”:

(2) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator,
and staff writer for The New Media Alliance. Zieve’s op-ed columns are
widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also
writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald,
Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in
international news publications, and on multiple university websites.
Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: “The Liberal’s Guide To Conservatives.”  Sher can be reached at Sher_Zieve@yahoo.com


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14262

Leave a comment

Who Is Behind Quashing the Birth Certificate Issue? George Soros, yes indeed. FCC?



George Soros,
yes indeed. FCC? Now, that’s even more interesting. One may wish to
read this two or three times, plus click some links.


by Joan Swirsky

Back
in October of 2008, when the subject of Obama’s Constitutional
eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the
radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then- 92-year-old mother’s birth certificate.

Frankly,
I didn’t think finding my mother’s birth certificate was possible,
given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT,
along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn’t speak
English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the
care [in a nursing home} that she desperately needed, I set about to
find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable
record-keeping of 1913. When I called the third number, I explained to
the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something
impossible." I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last
name. Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" When I expressed my
amazement, the woman said: "That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to
find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"
Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse
birth certificate: 10 minutes!

Obama was born not in 1913, like my mother, but in 1961 — or perhaps in 1957, according to his MySpace page, which would make him 52, born supposedly in Hawaii before
it became a state in 1959. So it was quite curious that not one
cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original
vault copy birth certificate. I’m not talking about the faux version
Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by
FactCheck.org, a "truth"-detecting site that is sponsored by the
Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his
terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a
research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!

Even
more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama’s missing
birth certificate worth even casual mention. Their thinking seemed to
be: If we’re not going to check on his eligibility to be president,
then why question why the other crucial documents were — and continue
to be — sealed? For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high
school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective
service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois
attorney’s license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client
list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a
community organizer in Chicago; and medical records. I’m also curious
about why Michelle Obama’s law license was suspended in 1993 by the
Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn’t running for president.

Instead,
the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away
from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid
reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the
bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was
eligible — according to the U.S. Constitution — to become President of
the United States!

NOW WE KNOW WHY

In an explosive
interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on
August 7th, Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press
— the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue
was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of
the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations
but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!

According
to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and
documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but
before he was inaugurated:

  • A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.
  • FCC
    officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up
    conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine "look
    mild" in comparison to other consequences.

  • In at least
    one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air
    employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other
    specific subjects like Obama’s Illinois lawyer’s license, his college
    records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.

During the interview, Hagmann and McLeod — who never mentioned a
particular network by name — alluded to e-mails and other evidence in
their possession, copies of which, they said, were secreted in several
locations. But they did tantalize listeners with descriptions of
meeting with "sources" outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York
City, a high-placed contact looking nervously over his shoulder,
references to directives and warnings given by "those at the top," and
the undisguised threat of one executive to his underlings: "This is
serious, and so will the consequences be if anyone chooses not to be a
team player with this."

This comes as no surprise to Fox
watchers who have noticed that the Stalinist-style censorship of the
Obama regime is already here. This couldn’t possibly be because of the
healthy shares of stock the Saudis bought in Fox, could it? If so, why
would the Saudis care so much about quashing potentially damning
revelations about Obama? Have they also bought shares in Obama?

Come
to think of it, who exactly paid the tuition for Obama’s stint at
Harvard Law School? What role did Obama’s long-time friend, Khalid
al-Mansour, a key advisor to a Saudi billionaire, play? Writer Kenneth
Timmerman describes al-Mansour as "well known within the black
community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an
author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken
enemy of Israel." This is not to omit that al-Mansour was originally
contacted to intervene with Harvard on Obama’s behalf by Percy Sutton,
former Manhattan Borough President and the lawyer of Malcolm X.
Ah…the tangled web of it all!

Then there is the question of
what role was played by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the nephew of King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? You remember Prince Alwaleed, who offered
then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani $10 million after September 11 if he would
only blame America for the terrorist attacks of which 15 of 19
perpetrators were Saudi Arabian — a "gift" the mayor promptly and with
appropriate contempt rejected!

In short, what influence have the
Saudis exerted on Fox to muzzle the issue of Obama’s birth certificate?
I don’t ask this about the network TV channels or cable channels like
CNN and MSNBC, which are still issuing daily hagiographies of Obama.

TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Just
who has been sending "the message"? And how did it permeate not only
the media, but also the once-respected U.S. Congress and the courts of
our land, including the once-incorruptible Supreme Court? And what
menacing forces made the once-courageous conservative media abandon
their mission to expose rank corruption and collusion?

Two words: Money Talks!

If
you’re a media mogul and you get word from the FCC that your license
will be pulled immediately and irrevocably if you mention only three
words — Obama’s birth certificate — poof! You send that word to your
employees and tell them that their mega-salaries — in fact, their
employment — are on the line.

If you’re a conservative talk-show
host and you get your boss’s directive not to dare to mention only
three words — Obama’s birth certificate — poof! Lips sealed; curiosity
zero!

If the money thing doesn’t work, there’s always the threat
thing, i.e., "going public" about tax records, health status, or family
secrets. Or be audited by the IRS. Or be investigated by any number of
regulatory agencies.

And if the money thing and the threat thing don’t work, how about being reminded
of all those "accidents" and "unfortunate incidents" — broken kneecaps,
missing children, "falls" from buildings, punctured tires — that
resulted not in joblessness or embarrassment but in death?

We
know that’s how the Mafia works. It’s also how political machines work.
It’s also how community organizers work. Wasn’t it Obama himself who in
2008 said ”If They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun” and in 2009 advised his followers to "Get in Their Faces!"?

So
determined are Obama’s handlers to keep the facts of his parentage and
place of birth out of the public domain that, as writer Chelsea
Schilling has scrupulously documented,
"the Federal Election Commission shows Obama’s campaign has made
regular payments to Perkins Coie since Jan. 1, 2007 — the month he
formed a presidential exploratory committee and only weeks before he
formally announced his candidacy for president — [and up to the
present] — has paid Perkins Coie, a single law firm, $2.3 million…to
crush eligibility lawsuits."

But paying lawyers to quash the
dozens of lawsuits that have challenged Obama’s eligibility still
doesn’t answer the question of who exactly is behind the blanket
blackout of the media, Congress and courts when it comes to Obama’s
origins, parentage, credentials, indeed identity.

We certainly
can’t attribute this massive power play to Obama himself. After all,
while "owning" the Congress and the media, he is failing miserably to
gain support for his two signature pieces of legislation, cap & tax
and healthcare "reform." No one that ineffectual — or, as Jonah
Goldberg says, "astoundingly incompetent" — could possibly mute the
media, castrate the Congress, and cow the courts.

And we can’t
attribute the blackout to Obama’s union and community organizing
buddies. While the former are quite expert at threatening members to
fall in line…or else, and the latter have mastered standing outside
polling places with glowering facial expressions and menacing Billy
clubs, neither has the heft to have compelled the media to roll over,
the Congress to say they "know nothing," or the courts to load one side
of the scales of justice with rocks and the other side with feathers.

A COUP D’ÉTAT?

Scholars
and historians have documented exhaustively the Left’s obsession with
(1) the acquisition of power, and (2) transforming America from a
free-market, Constitution-respecting, freedom-loving, God-embracing
society into a Socialist-cum-Communist "share the wealth" collective
that echoes the beliefs and "values" of their heroes Marx and Engels.

But
it takes money to bring about the kind of poverty both Socialism and
Communism deliver to their masses. The kind of money only a few at the
top enjoy while they’d like the rest of us to wait on food lines and
appear before death panels of impersonal state functionaries who decide
if we’re worthy of antibiotics or surgery and, if not, convenient
"go-to-sleep" pills.

The kind of money that "talks" — that can
buy people off, finance revolutions, launder money, pay to rig voting
machines, manipulate allies into positions of power (czars, anyone?),
conveniently crash markets (as George Soros did in England in 1992,
Asia in 1997, and, I believe, the U.S. in September 2008), make people
disappear, make birth certificates and other vital records disappear
and then make sure that an entire media, Congress and court system is
terrified of "going there."

We all know of the many
multimillionaires and billionaires — including Soros, the Saudi royal
family, et al — who contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign and
continue to fund his leftist agenda, all of them with an ideological,
religious, or personal stake in his remaining in power. And all of them
part of a larger, more ubiquitous conspiracy — yes, conspiracy! — to
conceal Obama’s origins and true parentage.

Among them, as JB Williams has documented, are "international socialists working through CPUSASPUSA and DSAUSA, funded by literally hundreds of leftist front-groups operating as special interest 527 organizations. Here’s a short list of the BIGGEST leftist front groups: America Coming TogetherJoint Victory Campaign 2004Media FundService Employees International UnionAmerican Federation of State, County, and Municipal EmployeesMoveOn.orgNew Democrat NetworkSierra ClubEMILY’s ListAFL-CIOLeague of Conservation Voters."

Further, Williams asks: "Who spends an obscene $1-billion dollars to win a lousy $400,000-per-year job, and why?"

Richard Poe, award-winning journalist and New York Times-bestselling
author, has written extensively on Soros and makes a good case that the
Hungarian-born Jew and self-admitted Nazi collaborator is the primary
brains and money behind Obama — and, I believe, his healthcare
travesty. When President Bush was in office, Poe wrote that Soros
talked openly of a "regime change" in the United States.

"What
about our country offends Soros so deeply," Poe asked, "that he would
tell the BBC — during a time of war — that he means to use all of his
power to ‘puncture the bubble of American supremacy’? Poe explained
that Soros’s Open Society Foundation, founded in 1984, "has spent
millions promoting a radical agenda that includes abortion, feminism,
gun control, abolition of capital punishment, voting rights for felons,
drug legalization, euthanasia and gay marriage rights…the Soros cult
preaches secularism, the godless faith of a world without nations,
families, loyalty or tradition, a world in which the very words
‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ will be
bleached of meaning forever."

Soros, Poe continued, "is one of
the world’s leading promoters of euthanasia, or ‘mercy killing.’ Not
only does he advocate ‘physician-assisted suicide’ for patients who
choose death voluntarily, he also lobbies for the right of family
members or court-appointed guardians to authorize the killing of
patients whose wishes are not known." Sounds a lot like the Death
Panels Sarah Palin warned about, doesn’t it? Soros also founded the
Project on Death in America [which] promotes suicide and euthanasia and
urges doctors to warehouse terminally ill patients in hospices and give
them ‘palliative’ care …rather than wasting time, energy and money
actually trying to cure them."

Of course, all of these beliefs
are eerily echoed in Obama’s healthcare legislation, almost as if Soros
had dictated the terms. Maybe he did! Maybe that was the price he
exacted for financing a large part of Obama’s presidential campaign and
facilitating the cover-up of Obama’s birth certificate and other
documents. And maybe that’s why Obama is still paying Soros back by
recently announcing that he will invest $2 billion (or more) in
drilling for oil off the shores of Brazil, where none other than George
Soros owns $5.8 million of the Brazilian oil company’s U.S.-traded
preferred shares of stock!

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

While
Soros may top the list of conspirators who have been trying to topple
big bad capitalist America for decades, others figure prominently as
well, including but not limited to: Noam Chomsky, Louis Farrakhan,,Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, Cornel West, Ted Turner, former National Security Advisor to Pres. Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski,
The Rockefeller family, The Carnegie family, and, I might add, Fidel
Castro and the cozy cabal of America-loathing Marxist revolutionaries
he met with at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem.

Then there are: The Congressional Progressive Caucus (their members here)
aka the Democratic Socialists of America, formed by partners from the
Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA (Founder: Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-VA); The Congressional Black Caucus (their members here),
originally established and controlled by the Communist Party USA
(Founder: Cong. John Conyers (D-VT), and now controlled by ACORN and
The Democratic Socialists of America; The ACLU, founded in 1917 by
Communist Roger Baldwin; The Southern Poverty Law Center — a mini ACLU;
The FORD Foundation; The Annenberg Foundation; The NAACP; The Council
on Foreign Relations; The Trilateral Commission; numerous labor unions,
and of course the mega-rich sheiks of Araby.

While all of the
above and many others have worked assiduously to dismantle America,
there are probably only a relative handful of aiders and abettors who
ushered the modern-day Trojan Horse Barack Obama into America’s body
politic and were sophisticated and connected and rich and arch enough
to have facilitated his path to the U.S. Senate, sealed all of his
records both home and abroad, assembled the massive organization for
his run for the presidency, and delivered in only seven months the most
radical leftwing — actually more Communist than Socialist — agenda in
the history of the United States.

WHO’S NOT CAVING ON THE BC ISSUE?

McLeod
and Hagmann have come very close to explaining a major piece of the
conspiracy puzzle, specifically how some in the media were either
bribed or threatened into silence vis-à-vis Obama’s birth certificate.
But the American people have a peculiar resistance to and revulsion for
these thuggish tactics. In fact, the birth certificate issue has gained
momentum. Why is it not going away but instead gathering steam?

  1. The huge amount of money Obama has spent on this cover-up is, to most Americans, fishy.
  2. Obama’s
    serial apologies for America as he travels the world have offended
    Americans and convinced them that no genuine American could or would
    ever behave in such a way.

  3. Last month, when Army
    Reserve Major Stefan Frederick Cook sued Obama claiming he was not
    legally qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief and therefore
    was unqualified to give him orders to deploy to Afghanistan, the
    government rescinded his orders, thereby negating the "standing" Cook
    no doubt would have had to sue. District Judge Richard Lazzara of Tampa
    denied Cook’s motions as "frivolous and wholly without merit" and then
    — guess what? — sealed the records! This should have disqualified the
    judge. In fact, it raised the eyebrows of millions of Americans.

  4. To
    the public, rescinding Cook’s orders was a de facto admission that
    Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, and it gives rise to the
    possibility that untold numbers of military enlistees, in the U.S. and
    around the world, will follow suit. According to one source, as many as
    100 lawyers are preparing to file such litigation and even class-action
    suits are being considered.

As Obama’s poll numbers
continue to plunge, more and more people are waking up to his unique
lack of qualifications and inability to lead the greatest nation in the
world. As Kyle-Ann Shiver has written,
"It’s as though [in 2008] 59 million Americans joined hands and shouted
at the top of their little lungs, ‘Yes, We Can March off This Cliff.’"

Writer James Lewis asks: "How do we fight Obama and his psychopathic lust for power?"…and answers: "You fight evil by exposing it.""

Indeed,
the American electorate has never been so energized, with millions upon
millions of ordinary citizens — many of them seniors with vested
interests in avoiding Obama’s death panels — attending Tea Parties,
Town Hall meetings, and writing and calling their representatives in
massive numbers. In addition, people are now speaking openly about the
man without a birth certificate. Who is this guy? What is he hiding?
Why are media people studiously avoiding this issue? And why are those
who "dare" raise it — like Lou Dobbs at CNN — being targeted by
far-left groups, many of them funded by George Soros?

Yet in
spite of their efforts to conceal the truth about Obama’s birth place
and parentage, increasing numbers of articles, radio hosts and their
callers and regular Americans have lost their amazingly forbearing
patience and are now asking and will continue to ask until the question
is answered: WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

© Joan Swirsky

Leave a comment

The highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for Obama, Rasmussen reports

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for
Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the
way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two
percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s he Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for
Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the
way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two
percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong
Disapproval yet recorded for this President and it gives Obama a
Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Also, check out our home page to keep up to date with the latest current events polling. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number
who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is
updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the
President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet
measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

(More Below)

Support for the health care reform package proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has stopped falling, but most voters are still opposed.

Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval
ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base
their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s
numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather
than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most
enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn
out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

(More Below)

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results
for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed
Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result,
Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased that our data was the least
volatile of all the tracking polls. Our daily tracking showed Obama
with a stable lead and more than 50% of the vote every single day for
the last six weeks of the campaign.

In 2004 George W. Bush
received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen
Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within
half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to
48.5%.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500
likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average
basis. The margin
of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3
percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also
compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology).
Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party
affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan
affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair
number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or
independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats
in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has
decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide
completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000
interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline
targets for the adult population are 38.4% Democrats, 32.7%
Republicans, and 28.9% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically
show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

for this President and it gives Obama a
Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Also, check out our home page to keep up to date with the latest current events polling. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number
who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is
updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the
President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet
measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

(More Below)

Support for the health care reform package proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has stopped falling, but most voters are still opposed.

Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval
ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base
their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s
numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather
than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most
enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn
out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

(More Below)

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results
for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed
Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result,
Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased that our data was the least
volatile of all the tracking polls. Our daily tracking showed Obama
with a stable lead and more than 50% of the vote every single day for
the last six weeks of the campaign.

In 2004 George W. Bush
received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen
Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within
half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to
48.5%.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500
likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average
basis. The margin
of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3
percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also
compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology).
Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party
affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan
affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair
number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or
independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats
in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has
decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide
completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000
interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline
targets for the adult population are 38.4% Democrats, 32.7%
Republicans, and 28.9% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically
show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Leave a comment