Why is Obama hiding his school records from Columbia?‏

Former libertatrian vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root (above) has written a smashing article detailing the evasion of Obama and his handlers about releasing his college records from when he (allegedly) attended Columbia University. Below are some juicy excerpts to pique your interest...

"If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up...

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?"

Indeed, why not release them? I must admit that when I first heard of recent clamorings from the Obama camp that Romny release more tax records than he already has, it was the biggest display of chutzpah I had ever seem. Obama has an entire laundry list of records he refuses to release. I figured, 'Why not challenge Obama to let independent documents experts examine the original of the obviously fake long form birth certificate he touts as genuine and Romney should offer to release more tax information then and only then'. Wayne Allyn Root might be onto something here people.

Sowell on Obama: Textbook Fascist

Columnist Thomas Sowell delivers yet another succinct analogy in his latest article in which he delves into the finer points as to whether President Obama, utilizing standard definitions, quilifies as a socialist or a fascist. His answer may suprise you.

"It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time...

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."

I recall Goldberg mentioning that the great author George Orwell once remarked that the meaning of the term fascism had been so hijacked by others and over used and inaccurately applied that "'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable" But if one accepts the definition of fascism in it's historical context as a political system, them Obama certainly fits the bill.

Is Bill Clinton Thowing Obama Under The Bus?

Is it at all possible for the president who largely got where he is by expediently throwing people 'under the bus' who become a liability for him or are no longer useful, himself feeling what it's like to be so thoroughly discarded and betrayed? (Make no mistake, that list of who has gotten thrown under the bus by Obama esta largisimo.) Link

I first started considering the possibility that Obama was being thrown under the bus by Clinton a couple of days ago when Bubba said the following in an interview on CNN when asked abou republican candidate Mitt Romney...

"I think he (Romney) had a good business career. If you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them. Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. When you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

I was a bit amazed by this coming from Clinton, but then I heard former Clinton advisor Dick Morris state the following last night...

"...I’ve spoken to several good friends who are staunch conservatives who have had exchanges with Bill Clinton in private,’ Morris told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, ‘and at one point one of them quotes him as saying, “You have six months to save the country”…"

I really don't think Morris is lying here. What would he have to gain (personally) by doing so? Perhaps Clinton is actually seeing Obama for the complete disaster he is for religious freedom, free speech, representative democracy, race relations, the economy and the treatment of women that he actually is.

The Obama Administration's Neverending War on Women‏

The Obama administration's glaringly obvious disdain for women was again highlighted last week as Obama refused to support sex-selective abortions that are disproportionately killing girls...

"Why would Obama oppose legislation that doesn't ban abortion, but bans sex selective abortion? Two reasons. 1) He actually supports the idea of aborting a child based on gender preference, after all, who would want to be "punished with a baby" (insert boy or girl here). Not to mention, President Obama is a supporter of leaving babies who survive abortions to die. 2) He's pandering to his Planned Parenthood base. Both are disgusting and the fact that he is willing to stand against a bill that would help to protect both girls and boys from discrimination in the womb shows once again Obama isn't really that "likeable" or overall "good guy." As usual, the White House communications team has made sure it looks as though Obama doesn't stand for sex discrimination, but Obama's actions speak louder than words. Notice how the White House doesn't make any effort to hit back against gendercide, rather, President Obama opposes a bill that would help end it. Where is the White House solution to ending gendercide?"

It appears that Obama is merely attempting to be consistent in his worldview given that he has never voted to support life at any point, whether from conception, birth, even all the way to natural end.

If one desires even more evidence of Obama's disdain for women, simply check out this article from Time magazine detailing the 'boy's club' mentality inside the White House...

"Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard. At a 2010 symposium on women in finance, Christina Romer, then the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, talked about the difficulty she had getting the floor in policy discussions. Suskind relates the story of how Obama reacted angrily to one suggestion by Romer, and yet calmly heard out the same point from Larry Summers a few days later. Other senior women have complained that their arguments seemed to disappear into the ether at meetings, unacknowledged by Obama. Ellen Moran, Obama’s first communications director, was the first member of his team to leave the White House, resigning just 92 days into the term...


Even at the dinner pushed for by top female staffers so they could air their grievances directly with Obama, his reaction–as told by Suskind–amounted to an apologetic shrug. The men who cut their female colleagues out of meetings and decision-making were his friends and closest advisers. He needed them, and didn’t seem inclined to rein them in. The unspoken message: toughen up and deal with it."

When one couples this latest decision not to stick up for females not yet born with the fact that Obama pays women employees about 18% less than male workers, hundreds of thousands of women losing jobs under Obama's watch and his chief campaign strategist defending Bill Maher's characterization of former governor Sarah Palin as a 'c***', (could you imagine the furor if Bush's chief campaign strategist had done so?), it's not very hard at all to apply the tag to Most Misogynistic President Ever to this complete amatuer who is obviously in WAY over his head.

Vindication for so-called 'birthers'

Jack Cashill has an even-handed article that gives his take on the newly uncovered evidence that the Serenghetti Saviour was still described as Kenyan-born as late as 2007.

"Despite the claims made in the 1991 sales brochure produced by literary agent Jane Dystel, I do not believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

But I do believe that Obama said he was. The agency’s alleged fact-checking error is pure bull. I have written eight books myself, and I got to review every piece of promotional literature sent out about me or about my books. All authors get to do this.

The question that must be asked is why would Obama say he was born in Kenya if he was not. Well, from early on no doubt, Barack Obama learned that it paid to be exotic. Foreign birth gave him a romantic allure and also allowed him to distance himself from the bitter clingers of the country he barely deigned to inhabit.

“I chose my friends carefully,” he writes in “Dreams,” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” These were the people with whom he felt comfortable.

Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead."

I have said all along that I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that Obama was born in Hawaii. However one cannot say that this has conclusively been shown given that not a single document expert has ever examined O's long-form birth certificate. One would have to blame the Mainstream Media in this case for doing nothing but run intereference for the guy, squashing any examinination of this charlatan's past while covering his butt at every opportunity.

At least the Arizona Secreary of State is showing an ounce of backbone in this matter by asking hawaii officials to verify O's paperwork.

The Obama Administration's War on Working Women

Nothing say "I'm a clueless idiot simply parroting a left-wing talking point" like repeating the current fad in Lying To The Public concerning the manufactured 'Republican War on Women'.

Obama's numbers weren't too hot among women voters so strategists had to formulate this cockamamie scheme to boost their poll numbers.

Now Mitt Romney is weighing in with the pertinent fact concerning the current regime's antagonism towards working women...

"The former Massachusetts governor said 92.3 percent of job losses during Obama’s presidency were experienced by women.

“The other day there’s been some talk about a war on women. The real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s failure on the economy. Do you know what percent of the job losses in the Obama years have been casualties of women losing jobs as opposed to men?” Romney said during a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del.

“Do you know how many women – what percent of the job losses were women? 92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years has been women who’ve lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy,” he said."

In fairness, I have heard there might possibly be a bit of overlap in the statistics cited by Romney between the Bush presidency and the current regime. But nothing this clown can say will change the fact that these numbers have only been exacerbated under his presidency.

The 98 Percent of Catholic Women Used Contraception Myth

"According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception" Source: whitehouse.gov, Link

While the White House and their unthinking synchophants are uncritically parroting the line that "98 percent" of Catholic women have used contraception, there is a rising chorus of questions being raised about the methodology utilized in the cited study that the regime is using to buttress their propaganda...

"During the recent debate over the Obama administration's birth control mandate, White House officials and many reporters have repeatedly said that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control at some time in their life. This claim is being disputed.

The statistics come from an April 2011 study on women and contraceptive use published by the Guttmacher Institute. Reporter Mollie Hemingway stated bluntly on GetReligion.org, "Guttmacher erred in what it claimed were the results of its own study."

The study used a survey of 7,356 females aged 15 to 44 conducted between June 2006 and December 2008 by the National Center for Health Statistics. The sample did not include Catholic women older than 44...

..the sample itself is narrower than even Catholic females aged 15 to 44. A footnote under the chart states, "restricted to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant." (The study defines "sexually active" as those who reported having sex in the previous three months.)"

In sum, the study finds that 87 percent of Catholic females between the ages of 15 and 44 who are having sex, not pregnant, not recently pregnant and trying to not get pregnant have used some form of birth control – a statistic far removed from saying that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control."

Are there any other groups being left out of the (now we're down to) 87 percent? I guess we'll never know being that the last thing that the White House is interested in is finding out the truth in these numbers. This regime, through hook or crook, will manipulate it's way utilizing any method possible into pushing the pro-abort agenda.

Obamacare little more than thinly disguised Social Engineering

If you have a moment and this sort of thing interests you, check out George Neumayr's latest offering which pulls no punches in describing the disasterous notion of Obamacare. Here's a snippet...

"On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism...

Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it.

But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right."

Three cheers for Neumayr for calling out Obama and his mind-numbed minions on this deliberate coup on the constitution and the American people.

Obama muzzles Catholic chaplains

As Obama's poll numbers plummet, it seems that in the waning days of his soon to be one-term presidency that there is a greater urgency to implement his ideals for a leftist utopia. Why worry about violating Freedom of Religion and Free Speech rights when you have a shot at remaking society?

"The Obama administration has been accused of telling Catholic military chaplains what they can and cannot say from their pulpits after the Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop.

The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

The letter called on Catholics to resist the policy the Obama Administration’s policy that would force institutions affiliated with religious groups to provide coverage for birth control, sterilization and “abortifacients.” The Catholic Church believes the mandate represents an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Fox News Sunday the Army violated its chaplains’ constitutional rights by barring them from reading the letter – calling for resistance to the contraceptive coverage mandate.

“The Army and the Obama administration said they couldn’t even issue the letter to complain about the Obama administration’s plan on this policy,” Santorum said, calling it a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“This is the problem when government tells you they can give you things,” said Santorum, a Catholic. “They can take it away but even worse they can tell you how they are going to exercise this new right consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in the Constitution.”

For a better idea of what of Archbishop Broglio's letter contained, just click here. The increasingly authoritarian stance of this administration imposing it's will on Americans is troubling and its no wonder that Americans fear the reelection of Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.

Thank You Georgia!

Finally a state has the cahones to stand up to the legal bullies utilized by Obama...

"In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a U.S. citizen, which precludes him from being a “natural-born citizen,” a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.

Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.”

In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, “you do so at your own peril.”

The judge is expected to rule in the case shortly. However, he has little choice but to issue a default judgment in favor of the challenge – potentially removing Obama from the ballot in Georgia in November.

That would be an astonishing development to the major media in this country that have collectively scoffed at and caricatured the notion that there is any doubt as to Obama’s eligibility."

Already the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether the excuse of health or family will be offered up for Obama's soon-to-be abrupt exit from presidential politics. I find it particularly hilarious that the supposed 'scientific evidence based' left competely accepted on face value the Obama nativity account without ever asking for solid evidence on the matter. It's particularly side-splitting because they made John McCain jump through hoops to demonstrate his eligibility.

12 Nurses stand up to Obama

Cathy Ruse reports that one hospital in New Jersey is getting more flak than they bargained for when they decided to compel healthcare workers to participate in abortion procedures, "their personal religious or moral objections" be damned...

"Under a new hospital policy, nurses in the “same-day surgery unit” at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey must participate in elective abortion cases even against their personal religious or moral objections. If ever there was a violation of conscience rights, this is it.

Myriad federal laws exist to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals, denoting their right not to have to “assist in the performance” of abortions or, indeed, to perform any religiously or morally objectionable procedure. The laws prevent the federal government, and state and local governments receiving federal funds, and even federally funded health entities, from discriminating against nurses or other providers who object to performing or assisting in the performance of abortion.

Yet the hospital is fighting back, asserting that as long as it does not compel their “direct” involvement in an abortion, the policy is beyond legal reproach.

It is easy to imagine a spirited debate over where the line should be drawn: If the nurses do not wield the instruments that actually kill the child, are they really participating? What if they hand them to someone else? What about sterilizing them? What if they are required to do prep work, such as assisting with anesthesia, or post-op and cleanup?"

The article mentions that the nursing field is considered more of a calling or vocation than a job. I cannot understand why the hospital is so inclined to trample on people's personal beliefs. That Obama is an extremist supporter of abortion, even to the point of infanticide, is beyond a doubt, and for what? A few measly votes from the farthest Left fringe? To say that this administration supports personal freedom is a joke.

Leftist Intolerance of Freedom of Religion

"If you look at the history from the mid-1960s, we've gone from a request for toleration to an imposition of intolerance. We've gone from a quest to understand others to a determination to close down those who hold traditional values." Newt Gingrich (above)

Timothy P. Carney's article from today highlights how the secularist Left is steadfastly against religious freedom. No matter how much they bandy about such terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', the end result shows that it is quite Orwellian for them to do so....

"Social liberals claim they promote tolerance, preventing oppressive Christian conservatives from "imposing their morality" on everyone. But the state of the culture war in America today is almost exactly the opposite: The secular Left is using the might of government to make it harder for religious people to live their own lives according to their faith.

Nancy Pelosi, who regularly and loudly declares herself a faithful Catholic, last week belittled Catholic hospitals: "They have this conscience thing," she sneered about the hospitals that want to be free not to abort unborn babies. How ironic that Pelosi and like-minded liberals call themselves "pro-choice."...

Obamacare gives us the latest case study. The bill gave the secretary of Health & Human Services unprecedented power to regulate insurance plans, while also forcing individuals and employers to buy health insurance. Department Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule outlawing any new insurance plan that doesn't fully cover the cost of all contraception, including "morning-after" pills that can also cause abortions.

The rule included a conscience exemption for "religious employers," but it defined "religious" so narrowly that it applies to virtually no one. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote that "not even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would qualify as 'religious'" because they served and preached to non-Christians.

Belmont Abbey College is a Catholic college in North Carolina that was founded by Benedictine monks. In all likelihood, the "religious employer" exemption won't protect Belmont Abbey, and the school will be forced to buy contraceptives for its students, in violation of the Church's teaching.

College President Bill Thierfelder wrote in a memo, "As a college, we find our center in Jesus Christ. Not only in our teaching, but also in our actions. Our policies must mirror our beliefs -- we simply cannot do what we believe is morally wrong."

He added, "We are not imposing our beliefs upon anyone else. We respect the constitutional right of all faiths to freely exercise their religion. We simply want that constitutional right given to us as well."

I wish Belmont Abbey College all the best in their fight against anti-Christian bigotry. I would suggest to them that if they wished the blessings of the Obama administration while in holding on to religious values, then perhaps they should support Sharia as this seems to be the cause celebre when this administration mulls over who the winners and losers are going to be when it comes to support in matters of faith.

On Obama, race, and Fast and Furious

Obama begins playing the race card and the primaries haven't even heated up yet...

"At a forum on American Latino Heritage, President Obama goes through a litany of ideas that he is for, including his new stimulus, and ends with "none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate." One of those ideas is believing America is "a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed."

Click here for a transcript of Obama's remarks.


On a related note, if anyone is still under the delusion that the election of Obama would help bring about a post-racial society, then Thomas Sowell's latest article is a great read and a real eye-opener for the selectively myopic. Sowell mentions the release of the blockbuster, new novel titled Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams. He concludes the article by stating...

"The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud.


Even in counties where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of people legally entitled to vote, Eric Holder's Justice Department sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- if the end result is the election of black Democrats. It has become the mirror image of the old Jim Crow South.


This is an enormously eye-opening book which makes painfully clear that, where racial issues are concerned, the Department of Justice has become the Department of Payback. A post-racial society is the last thing that Holder and Obama are pursuing."

If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, I think Attorney General Holder can expect to have the opportunity to closely examine the undercarraige of a large bus very soon if Obama's words are being interpreted correctly...

"Maybe no one noticed, but he actually threw Eric Holder under the bus on the “Fast and Furious” gunrunner program saying he had confidence in Holder; this remark was a set up. He knows that Holder is on his way out and he pitched a curve to Holder when he said, “both he and Holder would be “very unhappy” if guns were allowed to pass through to Mexico in a way that could have been prevented.”


Obama is pretty confident his backside is covered in the “Fast and Furious” gunrunner program and he definitely knows that he just dealt Holder a losing hand."

EDIT: Townhall.com is wondering aloud as to whether or not Obama knew about "Fast and Furious" even before Holder did.

Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg

As the entire Solyndra Energy Scandal is beginning to unravel, it seems that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is admitting that he allowed government money to flow to a financially shaky solar panel firm after it had defaulted on it's loans...

"Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency.

Chu spokesman Damien La­Vera said in a statement that the secretary approved the restructuring agreement for Solyndra because it gave the company “the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan.”

Also Thursday, a law enforcement official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe."

I wish I could say that this is where it ends, but apparently it that isn't the case here. The more one examines the current regime, the more corrupt it appears. Now the Daily Caller is showcasing just how corrupt this regime actually is...

"A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.

And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting The Daily Caller’s questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.

Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded to TheDC with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”

These clowns make Watergate look like peanuts in comparison. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?

""The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized more than $1 billion in loan guarantees for two separate solar energy projects." That's the news we had about 50 minutes left in the show. "DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs."

That works out to $16.3 million per permanent job. If you roll in the ancillary jobs, like the construction jobs, that's how you get each job costing $200,000. But the actual permanent jobs in the solar industry will cost between 16 and 23 million dollars each. And I'll tell you what's happening out there. Who was the first person that you can recall characterizing the stimulus bill and all of these things as Obama's slush fund? That's right. It was I, your host, El Rushbo. And now, depending on where you go in the blogosphere, in the media, you will see other people now concluding that all this is is a giant Obama slush fund. This is federal taxpayer dollars being sent to Obama campaign bundlers, donors, and contributors. And then the money comes back, a portion of it comes back to Obama as campaign donations again." Rush Limbaugh September 29th, 2011 Link

Are Fellow Democrats Throwing Obama 'under the bus' for 2012?

That the Lizard Queen should replace Chairman Zero at the top of the democratic ticket for 2012 is an idea that has been out there for awhile. Are we now seeing the first, substantive steps by democrat operatives in throwing Barry under the bus by allowing the Trotskyite in Chief an outlet, reason or excuse in which he can gracefully bow out?

"We hear the New York Times is looking into whether it's all starting to get to him—like, clinically.

We're told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T.

Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course, absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself, it's really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like "Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression" can be easily downgraded to "Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama." So the story in question, if it ever comes out, may not end up supporting the depression thesis. But rest assured: There are people at the Times who, based on the paper's reporting, believe Obama is depressed—the kind of depression where, if he weren't the president of the United States, he wouldn't be getting out of bed in the morning."

One blogger going by the moniker 'Ulsterman' (Yes, I thought you'd get a kick out of that B.O.O.) claims to have a source who has first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Obama White House and relates the following...

"...it’s been a while since I was last at the White House, but I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse.

Case in point – just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows?"

I have read that Vox Day has stated that Obama being replaced is a distinct possibility. Yesterday while on the air, Rush Limbaugh predicted that at the end of the day after all the talking is done, Obama will remain at the top of the ticket. But if he steps aside anytime soon, tell'em where you heard it first.

The Obama Administration's Ongoing Antagonism Towards Israel‏

"They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph that should tell us a lot about Barack Obama shows him on the phone, talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera.

In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows.

This photograph was no accident. Photographers cannot roam around White House, willy-nilly, taking snapshots of the President of the United States as he talks to leaders of foreign nations.

It was a photograph with a message. No one would have known who was on the other end of the line, unless Obama wanted them to know -- and wanted to demonstrate his disdain." Thomas Sowell, May 31st, 2011 Link

I've blogged before concerning the Obama administration's apparent disdain for the state of Israel. I believe that the relationship is only getting worse after reading this article from Rick Richman.

I first got wind that the administration trying to uncouple the fundamental idea that the city of Jerusalem is located in Israel in Richman's earlier article from August 4th. Since then, it seems that the administration is only 'escalating' the situation...

"The White House, in an escalation of a closely-watched case the Supreme Court is preparing to hear on whether Congress or the President gets to decide American policy in respect of passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem, has quietly altered its website to remove the references to Jerusalem being in “Israel.”

The references to Jersualem had appeared in the cutlines of photographs on the White House Web site illustrating an account of the vice president’s trip to Jerusalem last year. The references to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ were first disclosed in The New York Sun’s dispatch last week on Zivotofsky v. Clinton. The case asks the high court to rule on the constitutionality of the 2002 law that gives American citizens born in Jerusalem the right to have “Israel” entered on their passports as their place of birth.

The Sun’s report was titled “Jerusalem Case at Supreme Court May Pit White House Web Site Against the President,” and noted that the pictures might be pivotal evidence contradicting the administration’s claim that the 2002 law impermissibly infringes the President’s power to “recognize foreign sovereigns.” Since the White House had effectively acknowledged on its own website that Jerusalem is in Israel, as have other executive branch agencies, the report suggested there might not really be a constitutional issue in giving Zivotofsky a statutory right to have that fact noted on his passport.

Yesterday afternoon Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard posted one of the pictures, noting the reference to “Jerusalem, Israel” and contrasting it with the State Department press release issued earlier in the day stating the current administration policy to prohibit U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem from having “Israel” designated in their passports. The Halper posting went up at at 3:22 p.m. Less than three hours later, at 5:36 p.m. Halper noted that, at some time after he posted the picture, the White House had “apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel, including the pictures of Biden there last year.”

The sheer level of dirision aimed at the only true democracy in that entire region is beyond the pale. Is there anyone out there who would like to convice me that Obama is even remotely trying to treat Israel with anything resembling respect, never mind support, in the court of public opinion?

Say it can't happen here

Following government raiding party initiatives on private pension plans in Poland, Hungary, France and Bulgaria, it appears now that Ireland is going to start subtracting from future pension earners now...

"The Irish government plans to institute a tax on private pensions to drive jobs growth, according to its jobs program strategy, delivered today.

Without the ability sell debt due to soaring interest rates, and with severe spending rules in place due to its EU-IMF bailout, Ireland has few ways of spending to stimulate the economy. Today's jobs program includes specific tax increases, including the tax on pensions, aimed at keeping government jobs spending from adding to the national debt."

Is anyone so naive as to think that it can't happen over here? While under GWB we saw $3.2 trillion added to the national debt, Obama has addded over $4.4 trillion over the course of only three years. Someone is going to have to pay the piper and unfortunately, it looks like it's going to have to be the average working person. This in spite of attempts to foment class envy to momentarily divert the attention of the American public whose average attention span is that of a week old puppy.

Osama Bin Laden; Man of the Left

While ethicists seem to be in agreement that the killing of Osama Bin Laden by American Forces earlier in the week is justice served, columnist Mona Charen points out the many similarities in ideology between OBL and those on the American left...

"The rest of us wondered [post 9/11] how Muslims could be so fired with hatred of Americans considering that the last three wars we had fought had been on behalf of suffering Muslims: in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The usual suspects blamed Muslim hatred of the U.S. on our support for Israel (though that issue ranked below "infidel" troops on Saudi soil on bin Laden's list of grievances)...


By allowing ourselves to be too distracted by the turbans and the pietistic language, we may have missed that -- and in the process overestimated the role of Islam in Islamism.

In 2007, in his longest videotaped message to the world, bin Laden mouthed some of the familiar invocations of "Allah, the most high," but much of his message to the American people could have come straight from the pages of the Nation.

He decried global warming, the "greed of major corporations and their representatives," "globalization," and "capitalism." Here's his explanation of the war in Vietnam:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers.

“And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation. And so Kennedy was killed ... those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."

Oliver Stone couldn't have said it better.

Yes, the late Osama bin Laden was a religious fanatic. But if religious zeal were his only motivation, he might have turned his hatred toward China -- a consistent persecutor of Muslims (and others) or India (which some Islamists have attacked -- though without justification).

But bin Laden's garrulous videos reveal someone who had drunk deeply from the well of hatred for America that nourishes everyone from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin. It's a well with springs that originate right here."

I fully agree that the list of Bin Laden's greivances against the US are basically leftist talking points except for his complaint against globalism, which, in my experience, seems to be basically a conservative gripe. One point that Charen left out that would more firmly place Bin Laden in the camp of the left would be his wholehearted support of John Kerry in the 2004 elections. I guess thats one endorsement Obama won't be sweating this upcoming election cycle.

Thoughts on the Birth Certificate

While Barack Obama has released his birth certificate, there still seems to be unanswered questions. Jerome Corsi (the man who added the verb "swiftboated" to the American lexicon) shares his thoughts the day after the release of this document.

"A key problem for Obama is that birth certificates issued to twin girls born one day later at Kapi'olani hospital, the Nordykes, are the Rosetta Stone of deciphering both Obama's previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.

As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.

Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.

Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961."

An anomaly for sure. I'm sure there is likely a valid explanation for this, I am also sure that there will be no explanation forthcoming from the president or his supporters.

Now that we presumably know who Mr. Soebarkah's Soetoro's Obama's parents are, the debate can now begin as to whether he truly is qualified to be president of the US as defined by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which reads...

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

And how is the term "natural born citizen defined"? Under the circumstances of Obama's account, it doesnt look good for the guy.

"Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . ."

It will be interesting to see if enough people in this country are sufficiently interested in pressing the issue. Maybe, or maybe not. We'll see.

I would only like to add that in my opinion, it wasn't really so much Donald Trump that forced Obama's hand in this situation as it was the Oklahoma legislature and Jerome Corsi's upcoming book set to be released in a couple of weeks.

I would like to throw out a question for discussion? Why didnt Obama release this document any sooner? If I had to venture a guess I would say elitism and a sense of entitlement. What are your thoughts?

Second State Looking to Pass Proof of Citizenship Requirement

It would appear that a second state, Oklahoma, is set to pass a bill already being considered in Arizona that would require Obama to release his long-form birth certificate (example above). In fact, there are a total of 10 states currently considering such legislation. While it may not dawn on Kool Aid drinking Obama supporters to even question why he won't release a simple document and clear up this entire contraversy and instead state legislators are meeting to force his hand to do so, writer Jack Cashill is weighing in on the decision by billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump to make the birth certificate question an ever present nightmare for the Obama team...

"Word to Donald Trump: Nothing scares our Lilliputian media like facts. Each fact you present makes them rethink their petty little mission to whittle you down to size. When asked why you don't take President Obama's word that he was born in America, simply reply, "Why should I? The story he has been telling America about the first two years of his life is provably and profoundly untrue."

This will sting. The Lilliputians have invested great emotional equity in what Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick calls his "signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal." From the beginning, Team Obama has worked hard to protect the investment. This has meant shielding the world from all salient documentation about Obama's life, his long-form birth certificate included. In the last few years, Obama's nativity story has been told almost as often as Jesus' but with nowhere near the accuracy."

If even one state passes such legislation, Obama is through. If the original long form certificate exposes his entire nativity story as a sham, then he should have admitted so long ago. The American people are largely forgiving and a slick, Madison Avenue approach might have even been able to garner some sympathy for him. But I think we're past that point now and this is going to just get uglier for Obama.