Video: Hawaiian Election Official Appears on TV Affirming Obama’s non-Hawaiian Birth

Video: Hawaiian Election Official Appears on TV Affirming Obama’s non-Hawaiian Birth

June 21st, 2010

Tim Adams, the former Hawaiian Election official that revealed last week that Obama was not born in Hawaii, spoke in a television interview that has appeared on YouTube. In the video, Adams affirms that Obama was not born in the U.S.. Adams continues on with his own interpretation on why Obama is still eligible, namely that Adams believes that Democratic National Committee said he was eligible, so he must be eligible.

Personally, I don’t think we can  leave this question up to the Democratic National Committee. I suspect they may be slightly biased. Just guessing here. But however shaky Adam’s conclusions may be, his statement that Obama was not born in Hawaii still stands. And Adams has stated previously that he is willing to testify to that effect. This story may be one of the most important on the issue of Obama’s eligibility. While the rest of the media may be covering up this story, we will not let it be hidden from the light.

Honolulu Senior Elections Clerk Says Barack Obama was Not Born in Hawaii

Also, watch the YouTube video that explains the Hawaiian Election Official story as it broke in full.

Obama’s Thuggery Is Useless in Fighting Spill

Obama’s Thuggery Is Useless in Fighting Spill

June 21st, 2010

By Michael Barone, National Review Online

The Obamos The Obama Administration reacts to spill using Thuggery

Thuggery is unattractive, ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Pres. Barack Obama and his administration to BP’s gulf oil spill.

Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s remark that he would keep his “boot on the neck” of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell’s definition of totalitarianism as “a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” Except that Salazar’s boot hasn’t gotten much in the way of results yet.

Or consider Obama’s undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts “so I know whose ass to kick.” Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you’re in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the gulf, is an attractive target. But you don’t always win arguments that way: The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations, but turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney’s stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama’s.

Read More

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

 

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06:13 PM ET

 

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country’s wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard’s restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.”

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP’s money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?

A new Dr. Seuss book…

A new Dr. Seuss book…

I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,

I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker Nan ,

I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN’.do not like this spending spree,

I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free, 

I do not like your smug replies, when I complain about your lies. 

I do not like this kind of hope. 

I do not like it you BIG Dope. 

I do not like it NOPE NOPE NOPE! 

 

 

relationship with Israel and the USA and it is not pretty: From a recent email

I have just received this: from my friend in Israel,who moves in high circles in Israel

Tonight Clive and I heard very disturbing information – we heard itfrom a consultant to the United States who meets once a month with the President in the White house. He is in the know. This is what actually has happened with the relationship with Israel and the USA and it is not pretty:

1. Israel during the Bush and Clinton Administrations – had landing rights in Turkey,and in the USA bases in the middle east and more recently under George Bush, in Iraq. This was in case they were invaded by Iran, or Saudi or any other Arab country. Obama has withdrawn those landing rights. Israel now has nowhere to refuel in the middle east.
2.Netanyahu was instructed to come to the white house for a meeting. He was brought in through a servants entrance – the only head of state ever in US history to be given that disgraceful treatment. He was not offered even a cup of tea – but was lectured to by Obama who told him that he is not permitted to attack Iran and that he has to withdraw all forces from the West bank and may not build any more settlements ( neighborhoods) in East Jerusalem .
3.Israel found out that there were four terrorists meeting in Dubai. As they have done for the past 62 years, they informed the US of that and said that these terrorists had to be dealt with. Obama said under no circumstances. Israel decided to go ahead. They killed the one terrorist who showed up. However the CIA was sent there to film the entire event by Obama – and then a concerted PR campaign was waged by the White house to discredit Israel and what they did – this kind of action has taken place with US support for the past 62 years since we have common enemies.
4.Obama has refused to oppose Syria’s re-arming of Hezbollah and Hamas – Israel now sits in imminent danger from the amounts of missiles that can be sent into her territory.
5.Israel will never tell the US again of its plans – since they cannot trust us.
6.Israel intends to attack Iran – there are over 30 installations of which 4 have underground bunkers that contain nuclear weapons. Israel cannot wait any longer. The US is no longer supporting Israel ’s self defense.
7.This is the same man that gave the White House a full file on the 9.11 attack – his warnings and proof were laughed at.
8.He believes that the next attacks in the USA will be mass transportation – subways and malls – especially the largest malls where the most people can be killed – and that Vegas and wherever there are conventions of employees will be a huge target. We are not prepared and are naïve in our lack thereof.
9.Once Israel attacks Iran, every Jew and Jewish institution will be at risk – temples, religious schools etc. We must be prepared.
10.This kept a room of 200 people spellbound. It is not fiction. It is fact.

What can be done?
It is essential that everyone who doesn’t know yet, now understands that the protection and survival of Israel is not on Obama’s list – and he is now taking ACTUAL steps to move all protections away – no more landing rights, negotiating with Iran and Syria, making nice to the Moslem World in the face of allies of long standing and he is no friend of the Jewish people and Israel.

We must be sure that we elect politicians who protect Israel as well as the USA – our interests are intertwined. Please forward to everyone you know.

Chaplain brings Muslim perspective to Camp Pendleton ???????? Balderdash

Chaplain brings Muslim perspective to Camp Pendleton

By MARK WALKER – mlwalker@nctimes.com

Balderdash. He either doesn’t understand the history and fundamental nature of the religion he purports to revere and follow, or he’s useful idiot contributing to the ‘soft Jihad.’ Either way, if the global caliphate scheme were ever to succeed, this guy would be among thousands of expendables who helped bring it about.

 | Posted: June 19, 2010 5:34 pm | (15) 

   

Camp Pendleton’s Asif Balbale is one of only four Muslum chaplains in the U.S. Navy. He says part of his job is to instruct troops in Islamic traditions. (Photo by Bill Wechter – Staff photographer)

The newest pastor at Camp Pendleton drives a small sedan with a piece of scripture emblazoned on the rear window: “If you see something good, may God bless it and keep it from evil eyes.”

The words are written in Arabic, a clue that Asif Balbale is no ordinary chaplain.

The slight-framed Murrieta resident is the only Muslim chaplain among 60 members of the clergy at the sprawling Marine Corps base and one of only four Muslims in the U.S. Navy chaplain corps, which numbers more than 680.

As the only imam on the West Coast, Balbale’s role goes beyond typical pastoral care.

“Part of my job is to educate people on what it means to be a Muslim,” the 30-year-old said during an interview at his office at the base’s Amphibious Assault Schools Battalion.
 

“There have been a lot of stereotypes and negativity, and it is essential to build bridges. Part of that is teaching my faith,” he said.
 

The instruction includes teaching Marines some of the religion’s basics. That includes the five pillars of Islam —- declaration of faith, prayer, charity, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, the holiest site in Islamic life.

“These are among the kinds of things I tell people when they are going to Iraq or Afghanistan,” he said. “Part of how we are fighting these wars is an effort to win hearts and minds, and that is where I play a role in teaching what the culture is like and how to respect the people.”

He tells the troops that Islam does not condone suicide bombing, putting women and children at risk or forbidding girls from attending school —- all acts carried out by the Taliban and its supporters.

“None of that is in line with Islam,” said Balbale, a father of one child with another on the way.
 

The troops he’s encountered since arriving at Camp Pendleton in April have been a little curious about his faith, but very welcoming, he said.

“It’s a new experience for them, but all most Marines care about is whether I am going to help them,” Balbale said.
 

9/11 a defining moment

An Indian by birth, Balbale grew up in southern Kuwait, where his parents moved for jobs and where they still live.

The family was forced to flee that country during the first Gulf War, eventually arriving at a refugee camp in Jordan before going to India.

They stayed there until returning to Kuwait in 1993, two years after the war ended.
 

Devout while growing up, Balbale was nonetheless on course to become a petroleum engineer, leaving Kuwait in 2000 for the University of Idaho.
 

He later transferred to Montana Tech, and was in Butte when al-Qaida terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
 

He and his Muslim friends were “shellshocked,” Balbale said.

“We were worried about what it was going to look like for us, what was it going to mean to be a Muslim in this country?” he said. “For me, it was like, ‘OK, what can I do to help this nation?'”
 

He ultimately decided to join the military as a demonstration of his commitment to his adopted homeland, and his first stop was an Army recruiting office in September 2004.

“But I was underweight —- I was 96 pounds soaking wet,” he said.

That was more than 10 pounds under the Army’s minimum weight standard. “So I went to see a Navy recruiter, and he said, ‘We only need 94 pounds.'”

Through his military service, Balbale was able to expedite the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, gaining that status in 1995.

He would go on to spend three years as a machinist’s mate, and during a deployment aboard the San Diego-based USS Boxer he began his turn toward the chaplaincy.

Balbale, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and has filled out to about 124 pounds, was intending to apply for officer candidate school when he mistakenly sent an e-mail to a chaplain recruiter.

That led to an extended conversation with the recruiter, and a subsequent meeting in Okinawa with a Muslim chaplain.

He came to believe that heart-to-heart talks with shipmates were readying him for the ministry.

“I was just being a friend, but I later realized it was God preparing me,” Balbale said.

In 2007, he entered the chaplain candidate program and eventually became a lieutenant.

He completed his religious training by earning a master’s degree in spiritual care and pastoral counseling at the Claremont School of Theology in Los Angeles County.

Balbale isn’t the only unique religious leader at the base.

Camp Pendleton also is home to the Navy’s only Buddhist chaplain, Jeanette Shin, who is in Afghanistan with the 1st Marine Logistics Group.

Country, God and religion

Much like Shin, Balbale adds a more worldly view to the base ministry, said Navy Capt. Ollis Mozon, commanding base chaplain.

“Instead of us Protestant or Catholic chaplains telling people what we think we know about Islam, he gives us the true perspective,” Mozon said.

Aside from a gold crescent attached to his lapel, Balbale’s religion is identifiable by his cap —- a white knitted kufi worn by many Muslims.

Balbale will spend the next three years at Camp Pendleton. Although he’s assigned to a training battalion that does not deploy, he eventually could be part of a combat unit and sent overseas.
 

In the meantime, he’s reaching out to the estimated 200 Muslim troops at Camp Pendleton to let them know he is there and will soon launch a weekly service at a base chapel.
 

He turns aside teasing by friends who remind him he could have left the Navy and earned a healthy income as a petroleum engineer.

“God has put me in the place where he wants me to be,” he said. “I can’t think of any job like this one where I can serve my country, my God and my religion all at once.”

Call staff writer Mark Walker at 760-740-3529.

Understanding Muslims’ Mindset Take time to read this carefully — email it to everyone

Understanding Muslims’ Mindset Print
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims’ mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.The Muslims’ perennial complaint is that the imperialist West—all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America—have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of the Muslim nation by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes by installing in its midst its illegitimate stepchild of Israel—a huge thorn in their side, so they complain. “A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable,” is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their claims against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims which bears heavily on the hostility toward the West—a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.
* Patriarchy and authoritarianism: The Muslim’s mind is imprinted with authoritarianism which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. This authoritarian mentality encompasses all aspects of life for the Muslim. The king and his dominion as the viceroy of God, the Emir and his despotic ways, the Khan and his unchallenged rule over the tribe, the village headsman and his extensive power, and finally the father and his iron grip at home over the women and children. All these authority figures are male.

The authoritarian type poses numerous problems and presents many ramifications—ramifications much too important and complex to be comprehensively treated here. For now, it is important to understand that a person with the authoritarian personality is an extremist. He can be docility itself under certain circumstances and a maniacal murdering brute under others. He is the type who would just as happily kill or die, when he is directed to do so. He would, for instance, gladly strap on an explosive vest, in obedience to a superior’s order, and detonate it in a crowd of innocent civilians without the slightest hesitation.

* Blind obedience: A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

Studies have shown that the authoritarian personality type can be found among all people, including Americans. The important difference is in the degree and prevalence of the condition. Islam breeds vast numbers of extremists, while in America, for instance, the prevalence is significantly lower and less severe.

* Focus on goal: To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah—never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That’s a “family dispute” that they will resolve by their usual favorite method—brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers. There are countless instances that substantiate Muslims’ “End justifies the means” guiding principle. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa—rulings—that become directives and laws to the faithful.

Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic state, for one, made extensive use of the fatwa. Widely-known in the west is Khomeini’s fatwa condemning Selman Rushdie to death for his book. A less known fatwa of Khomeini during the last Iran-Iraq war led to the slaughter of thousands of Iranian children. Children, nearly all under 15 years of age, were given plastic keys to paradise as they were commanded by the fatwa of the imam to rush forward to clear minefields for the tanks to follow. The Islamic murderers, in obedience to the fatwa of a bloodthirsty man of Allah, had no problem in deceiving the clueless lads clinching made – in – China plastic keys to paradise.

Such is the existentialistic threat of Islam. It is a rigid stone-age authoritarian system with a stranglehold over many of the nearly one and a half billion people under its command.

* Fatalism: One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim’s mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional—conditional on the will of Allah. “I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing,” “You will make it home, Allah willing,” “Things will work out, Allah willing,” and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job—on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. “Allah’s hand is above all other hands,” adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands—a telling point about the Muslim’s fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah’s will. If it doesn’t, it is Allah’s will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the “take charge” and “can do” mentality characteristic of Americans and others.

* Psychological uniqueness
:  People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm—whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic “diet,” whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients—some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

Providing a comprehensive inventory of the psychological profile of the Muslims is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, there is no question that the psychological makeup of a Muslim, depending on the extent of his Muslim-ness, is different from that of non-Muslims. This difference, often irreconcilable as things stand presently, is at the core of the clash of Islam with the West.

* Conclusion. Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature the Islamic lacks—it allows for liberty with all its attendants— good, bad, or indifferent. Those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up—particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.

Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one’s coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race.

Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both.

Obama’s Proud Muslim Moment

Obama’s Proud Muslim Moment
Allen Hunt
Monday, June 21, 2010

Despite an ever-spewing undersea oil well, another increase in weekly jobless claims, and a nation ablaze with immigration concerns, President Obama has finally received good news. His approval ratings are declining dramatically in the Muslim world. He should trumpet that plummet from sea to shining sea. The last thing America needs is a president that the Muslim world “approves.” Likability and niceness are overrated; a healthy fear and respect are much to be preferred.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric about President Obama’s re-booting our image in the Muslim world, and all the fanfare that accompanied his much bally-hooed Cairo speech, Obama’s biggest decline in popularity over the last year has come in Muslim countries. In the recent Pew Global Attitudes Project, a majority of the population in five of the six Muslim nations surveyed lack confidence in the president. For example, after a year in office, Mr. Obama has just 17 percent of Egyptians approving of his actual policies – a drop of 21 points from last year. In Jordan, just 15 percent approve of the president – down 12 points over the past year. The lone exception is Indonesia, where Obama lived as a child. A majority there approve of Obama, but even there Obama’s popularity has slipped in the past twelve months.

This is great news. Perhaps President Obama, albeit unwittingly, has established respect rather than approval as his dominant image in the Muslim world. This would be a remarkable, and unintentional, achievement for a man whose own team refuses to use the terms “radical Islam,” “jihad,” and “terror.” How the Muslim world has come to approve less of Obama, who prefers playing a game of semantics to having a real national security policy, is beyond me. Nevertheless, it is news worth celebrating.

The reasons for Obama’s decline in popularity in the Muslim world could find their origins in any number of perceptions. Perhaps he lost approbation with his orders for more troops in Afghanistan and the ongoing American military presence in the land of the Taliban.

It is also possible that Obama is seen by Muslims as weak and ineffective, even untrustworthy given his failure to close Guantanamo Bay in spite of his vociferous promises to do so.

Furthermore, given that nothing substantive has changed in America’s dealings with Iran or with Israel, Obama again looks ineffective to those who believed the hype about his providing new relations with the Middle East.

However, a recent news story should give Americans hope that the Muslim world may well have a new reason not to like President Obama. As a regular sentry regarding the threat that the Islamic worldview poses to the core Western values of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I am grateful.

Tarek Hamdi seeks naturalization as an American citizen after having lived in the U.S. for several decades. He has raised his children and family here. Hamdi has worked as an attorney. And he has also donated money to the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), a group designated as a financier of terrorism by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2002. Significantly, Hamdi’s application for citizenship has been denied.

Remarkably, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit demanding citizenship for Hamdi. They claim, alongside their client, that the federal government has discriminated against Hamdi because he is Muslim. Too bad. Our immigration and naturalization officials have done exactly what they are supposed to do – deny a place to those who aid and abet our Islamic terror enemies. Freedom does not include the right to commit treason. Sorry, Mr. Hamdi. Naturalized citizenship is a gift not a right. A privilege not a demand. Feed the monster that attacks us, and we will invite you to leave. We will not kill you; neither will we welcome you. Good-bye.

The time has long since come for America to take control of its naturalization process, given the recent terror arrests of naturalized citizens, like Faisal Shahzad and Mohammed Wali Zazi, who hail from Muslim lands. Whether Obama is aware or not, he can continue his decline in Muslim approval ratings by creating a few more of these stories like Tarek Hamdi. And America will be better off. The president might even inch up a point or two in his American approval ratings as word spreads that federal bureaucrats are beginning to take seriously whether it is appropriate to add to the Muslim presence in America.

So, for today, I salute President Obama for a job well done, whether he knows it or not. When the Muslim world ceases to love our president, that news is worth celebrating.

A Surreal Presidency Obama revives the theatre of the absurd….

A Surreal Presidency

 

Posted By David Solway On June 21, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 24 Comments

 In thinking of Barack Obama’s presidency, I can’t help recalling the Comte de Lautréamont [1]’s definition of Surrealism as the quintessence of the Absurd: “the encounter of an umbrella and a sewing-machine on a dissection table.” For this is certainly the most surreal presidency since Jimmy Carter’s, or even Andrew Jackson’s—or, more likely, the most implausible and Absurd administration in the entirety of American history.

Let us see how Lautréamont applies. It is raining debt and joblessness on the United States, but Obama and his crew are protected by an umbrella so vast it resembles Muammar Gaddafi’s tent. Obama enjoys the top job in the country and avails himself lavishly of all its perks, posting as well an annual income in the millions of dollars [2], over five million [3] in 2009 alone. His cohorts and backers are doing quite proudly too, not to mention Democratic godfather George Soros, one of the world’s richest men. Home foreclosures and job terminations are not an issue for these people, who are good at theoretical empathy and not much else, apart from making the situation even worse than it already is. As for the sewing-machine, it is busy at work stitching a fabric of lies and subterfuges, from global warming to Green energy to cap-and-trade to socialized medicine. And on the dissection table an entire nation is being cut to shreds to the jubilant disbelief of America’s dedicated enemies. The borders are porous, military spending is being reduced, terrorists are Mirandized, geopolitical adversaries are regarded as aggrieved friends-in-waiting and real friends are given the cold shoulder. On the domestic front, genuine popular movements seeking beneficial change are slandered as an army of thugs and seditionists. All this is Surrealism with a vengeance.

Carter and Jackson serve as theatrical analogies. Jimmy Carter, as we all know, was (and is) the archetypal wimp who never met a theocrat he didn’t like and gave us the Iran we know today while eventually selling out to the Saudis, the principal funders of his misnamed Peace Center. Carter was conceivably the worst president in POTUS history until the present incumbent appeared to bring the highest office in the land into turmoil and disrepute. Andrew Jackson, according to his biographer James Parton [4], was a bundle of contradictions: “A democratic aristocrat. An urbane savage. An atrocious saint.” Founder of the Democratic Party, Jackson was one of the most interesting and selectively dynamic in the almanac of presidential characters, but also one of the most problematic, especially with respect to the institution of slavery. Both Carter and Jackson, each in his own unique way, were spectacles that almost defied credence. Both were made for the Theatre of the Absurd, one a grovelling clown without an iota of reason to his credit and the other a blustering commander who dominated the political proscenium with his personal eccentricities.

They have now been pre-empted by Barack Obama, aided and abetted by an apostolic media that refused to examine his tainted past [5] and divinized him as someone rather more than merely human. One remembers that old joke about the media’s relation to George W. Bush. If he had walked on water, the headlines would have read: “Bush can’t swim.” But with Obama it’s exactly the other way round. If he went for a swim, the headlines would read: “Obama too modest to reveal messianic powers.”

What many have failed to recognize until recently is that Obama is no wonder-worker, no farsighted statesman, no honest broker, no competent chief executive, no bipartisan healer—and in point of fact, he is simply not presidential material at all. Obama has absolutely no idea of how to go about running a country. But it would be a mistake to assume that he is nothing more than an untalented bungler, for he is blessed with thespian aptitudes that none of his predecessors could have mustered. Obama is a man with a résumé so thin it would look sideways head-on, but he is unexcelled as a performer.

Obama is essentially an actor in a kind of Brechtian drama promoting a neo-Marxist ideology, say, The Caucasian Chalk Circle [6], mixed with robust elements of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot [7]. As with Brecht, Obama believes in the redistribution of income as the central program of the welfare state—although Brecht, who wrote in the service of the East German regime, deposited [8] his substantial profits in West German banks, a rather salient item in the current context. At the same time, there is a sense in which Obama resembles Beckett’s elusive Godot who is eagerly awaited but never actually arrives. He intends to show up later in the day, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, but the promise is never realized. Similarly, Obama doesn’t “show up” in any meaningful acceptation of the phrase, as his tardy response to the BP oil spill makes pretty obvious. But it’s more than that: he just doesn’t seem “there” to meet the major challenges of the time with insight, knowledge, intelligence and courage. Obama also mirrors the character Estragon whose trousers fall to his ankles without him noticing it, a fitting end to the play in which the character’s naked ineffectualness and perpetual dithering is finally exposed.

America is now living under the simulated presidency of an impressive actor for whom all the world’s a stage and all the people in it merely suckers. Displaying the quirkiness and ostentation of the inveterate ham, he soliloquizes in Cairo, postures in Copenhagen, preens in Oslo, orates in Washington, warbles “Hey Jude” [9] with a merry singalong gang in the White House, awarding Paul McCartney the Library of Congress Gershwin Award for Popular Song “on behalf of a grateful nation” while the real, neglected nation groans, looks fetchingly troubled when examining oil slick on the Gulf coast, relishes photo-ops and relies on a teleprompter the way actors depend on the souffleur beneath the planks. As president, he manifests on the one hand the futility and ineptitude of Jimmy Carter taken to the nth degree, in particular with regard to the Iranian threat, and on the other the idiosyncratic behavior of Andrew Jackson—though it must be acknowledged, without Jackson’s native gumption and profoundly held convictions.

Indeed, Obama is a weird bird. To be fair, he does bring a parcel of convictions with him, albeit of a distinctly socialist stamp, which he seems determined to impose on a once-largely unsuspecting public. These convictions, however, seem like a kind of ideological stuffing without which he would fold, buckle and collapse on himself. It is as if he needs to have something controversial, something startling to say in order to convince himself, as well as others, that he exists, and requires a platform on which to exercise his repertoire of roles. An utter prima donna, he is so consumed with his own histrionic self, and his ability to adopt whatever pose the situation demands, that he seems nothing so much as an absence made concrete, a flamboyant nullity inadequate to the problems he confronts, adept only at speeches, monologues and striking gestures. As a result, the time inevitably comes when he begins to look inauthentic and faintly ridiculous, and ultimately as unreal as a typical character in an Absurdist play who faces alarmingly incomprehensible predicaments before which he remains helpless and unbuttoned. Such, of course, is the nature of the genre, as it is of this presidency.

The long and the short of it is that Obama’s tenure in the White House will be remembered as a national aberration, a piece of avant-garde theatre and a surreal installment in the far more serious drama of unforgiving realpolitik. Meanwhile, the umbrella is open wide, the sewing machine keeps humming away and a country is laid out flat on the dissection table.

Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

By Raymond Richman

As former counsel and trainer in political tactics for ACORN, President Obama used a well-known ACORN tactic, the shakedown, in getting BP to create the $20-billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how and how much those injured materially by the oil spill (and whom among them) will be paid. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, well-respected and well-known for heading the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, was appointed by the president to administer the escrow fund. BP will pay $5 billion into the fund for four years, starting in 2010.
BP announced early after the spill that it would pay all justifiable claims resulting from the disastrous oil spill. It opened 25 claims offices. As of June 15, BP approved initial payments that amounted to $63 million, expected to rise to $85 million by the end of the week, to businesses claiming $5,000 or more in damages. Why did the president insist that his own personal organization take over the job of paying claims? After all, supervising reparations is a judicial function, not an executive function. BP created its own fund, appointed its administrator, and determined how it will be staffed with a view to ensuring only qualified persons, businesses, and governments would be reimbursed for its losses. Now those decisions will be made politically.  

It is obvious that BP’s CEO agreed to create this fund and allow the president to administer it to prevent President Obama from bankrupting their company. After all, the president was on record saying that he would “kick BP’s ass,” and a cabinet members declared he would “put his boot on BP’s neck.” The president, when announcing the creation of the fund, stated that the terms of the fund would keep BP viable. He cannot know this. BP’s liability is not affected by the fund except to the extent claims are voluntarily settled. Those refusing to settle and their lawyers are not bound by it, nor are juries that will hear their lawsuits.

The president has no legal authority to create the escrow fund and no authority to compel BP to contribute to the fund. Forcing BP to agree to the terms of the escrow is ultra vires (i.e., illegal), beyond the powers of his office. Rep. Barton (R-TX) accurately described the slush fund as a “shakedown” (i.e., blackmail), a felony. If so, Pres. Obama has committed an impeachable offense. Congress itself does not have the authority to create the escrow fund retroactively. Congress will have no voice at all except to vilify any Republican who raises questions about it. All the ACORN employees who lost their jobs when the banks stopped paying “blackmail” to ACORN may be getting better-paying new jobs processing claims.
No doubt the media, which show pictures of the spill and pelicans covered with oil 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will hail the president’s tough dealing with BP. But BP’s oil spill deserves the strongest action under the law, not above the law. A few miles away, there are pelicans flying “free as a bird” with no oil on them. Not a single photo of them. And more than 10,000 barrels of the spilled oil are being recovered by BP daily with no photos at all; vessels are skimming oil near the spill, and no photos. And the federal government has yet to grant exception to the Jones Act that is preventing foreign vessels ready to skim oil from getting closer to shore to prevent more serious damage which would, incidentally, help save a lot of pelicans. No wonder BP believed it had to surrender to the president.
You don’t have to be paranoid to suspect the president (and many in the media) of ulterior motives, a hidden agenda. If you can get enough people to hate the oil companies, you might get the cap-and-trade bill passed. By the time they regret such hasty action, it will be too late to undo the damage. Cap-and-trade was given no chance for passage before the spill. The president pacified the environmental extremists by banning drilling in the Gulf for six months, adding to the rolls of the unemployed and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. To make the hidden agenda more believable, the president overreached by getting BP to agree to pay the lost wages incurred by workers who lost their jobs as the result of the president’s six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. The hidden agenda obviously includes getting cap-and-trade passed. It looks like “cap-and-trade, cap-and-trade, cap-and-trade” has displaced “jobs, jobs, jobs.”
The president employed a similar tactic when he nationalized GM, violating the bankruptcy laws by denying bondholders their rightful control of the future of those enterprises, and he gave the bondholders’ interest in GM to the unions instead, literally. He gave Chrysler to Fiat. The bondholders of both gave their consent, being afraid of having their asses kicked or having a boot on their necks.  
When an executive uses threats to secure the “cooperation” of private businesses, we have a name for it: fascism. It is the kind of act we expect from Venezuela’s Chávez, not from a president who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers. I believe the President’s behavior is ultra vires and that he has committed an impeachable offense.
Raymond L. Richman, J.D., Ph.D., is a member of the Illinois Bar and has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. He and his son and grandson maintain a blog at www.idealtaxes.com and co-authored the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association.