Thursday, July 5, 2012


Barack Obama’s falsified Social Security number

By Frosty Wooldridge

First the “birthers” announced that Barack Obama could not be eligible for the office of president of the United States because of his questionable birth certificate. Writer Jerome Corsi wrote a defining book about Obama’s lack of a valid birth certificate in Where’s the birth certificate?

Since reaching the White House, all of Obama’s personal information have remained under seal by order of the court via Obama's lawyers. He cannot be scrutinized by any exploratory media personnel. However, his unequivocally falsified Social Security number may prove his undoing as a presidential candidate within the next five months.

With “042” as the prefix numbers for his SS#, Obama should have been a resident of Connecticut. He never lived in that state, which is the only way he could have gained that number on his Social Security card, but his grandmother worked at a Social Security office and the growing evidence shows that she “borrowed” a dad man’s SS# because her grandson Barack also known as Barry Soetoro could not produce a valid birth certificate from the United States.

Recently Dr. Jack Cashill, an Emmy-award winning writer and producer wrote a book: Deconstructing Obama. He finds many trouble aspects to the identity of Barack Obama.

Cashill said, “If Barack Obama has an immediate eligibility problem, it is more likely to derive from the Social Security Number he has been using for the last 25 years than from his birth certificate. Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels has seen to that. On Monday, July 2, she filed suit in Geauga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court demanding that Jon Husted, Ohio secretary of state, remove Obama’s name from the ballot until Obama can prove the validity of his Social Security Number. Daniels has done her homework. In her filing, she thoroughly documents her contention “that Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent, misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.”

At no time in American history has one man so blatantly distorted himself with a false social security number. It’s not his, it’s not legal, it’s not original and it’s not valid. Yet the main stream media chooses to ignore it. Most of the American public remains oblivious as to their own president’s lack of eligibility for the office of president of the United States.

Since 2009, Daniels has questioned the “042” prefix in that it could not possibly belong to Obama because it belonged to a dead man. The fact remains that only a person living in Connecticut could register and be given that particular prefix from that state.

“When Daniels ran the numbers immediately flanking Obama’s, she came to the firm conviction that Obama’s number was issued in March 1977 in Connecticut,” said Cashill. “By all accounts, as Daniels thoroughly documents, Obama was then a 15 year old living in Hawaii. There is no record of him even visiting Connecticut in or near this time frame. To have gotten a Social Security card at this time Obama would have had to show up for a “mandatory in-person interview.””

What concerns me stems from the fact that the mainstream media refuses to follow up on Obama’s lack of eligibility to serve as a US president. No other person in the 21st century could escape such scrutiny.

Daniels has filed suit to gain access to more records.

“Defendant Husted, through this filing,” she argues, “has been made aware that the Democratic Candidate has been using a fraudulent Social Security Number, which would render Barack Obama ineligible under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions.”

Whether or not some of the big wigs like George Will, Thomas Friedman, Kathleen Parker or Cal Thomas will follow up on this very hot trail remains to be seen. In this age of obfuscation, lies and deceit, Obama leads the pack with things to hide, things he did and things contrary to the foundation of this constitutional republic.

Out in Colorado, talk show host Peter Boyles, , has taken several top experts to task as to Obama’s Social Security card. I have listened with a growing sense of disgust that many at the top know the truth, but most at the top continue to cover up this national predicament.

This journalist hopes that more financially able writers and investigators cover this issue like a Colorado wildfire to get to the bottom of this national calamity of forgery. That’s what it is: outright fraud by a sitting president.


Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as eight times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. His latest book is: How to Live a Life of Adventure: The Art of Exploring the World by Frosty Wooldridge, copies at 1 888 280 7715/ Motivational program: How to Live a Life of Adventure: The Art of Exploring the World by Frosty Wooldridge, click:


Obama's 'American story' faces fresh scrutiny

Published July 05, 2012



When he first took the national stage, with his electrifying keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004, Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, briefly summarized his unusual life story, with its biracial themes and trans-continental setting. "I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story," he said, adding: "In no other country on earth is my story even possible."

That story, of course, would become even more astonishing, and profoundly American, four years later, when its teller would be elected president of the United States. But the first time Obama related his life story -- and in the greatest detail -- was with the publication of his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

The book, which won wide critical acclaim and rose to No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list, recounted the complex tale that is by now familiar to most Americans: the young Obama's racial confusion as the son of a white mother from Kansas and a dark-skinned, absentee father from Kenya; his mother's remarriage to, and eventual split from, the boy's Indonesian stepfather, with a spell in a Muslim school in Jakarta; the boy's rearing by white grandparents in Hawaii, who sent him to a private school there; his journeys through Occidental College and Columbia University, marked by a shifting intellectual worldview and numerous romances, some of them inter-racial; his path-breaking stint as the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review; and his exploits as a community organizer and Chicago lawyer with a deepening interest in politics.

In the introduction, Obama openly admitted changing some people's names and compressing both characters and chronology, mostly for the sake of narrative flow. Over the years, the president’s biographers have made inroads piecing together which characters were based on which real-life individuals, and which events were compressed or conflated.

That process has now reached a kind of zenith, with the publication last month of Barack Obama: The Story, a deeply researched, 600-page study of the president's ancestry and early life by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Washington Post editor David Maraniss. The result reflects the hyper-scrutiny that attaches to our chief executives. It also offers a window into how much of the life story of this self-made man may have been made up.

By some counts, The Story presents more than three-dozen instances of material discrepancy where Dreams fails to align with the facts as Maraniss reports them. Case in point: Maraniss confirmed that Mr. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, left his father, Barack Obama, Sr., a volatile bigamist, and not the other way around, as related in Dreams.

Dreams also related the tale of Obama's paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango, who was said to have been detained and tortured in a prison outside Nairobi for six months because of his brave defiance of British colonialists. But after a half-dozen interviews and other research, Maraniss deemed the tale "unlikely."

Maraniss did not respond to several calls requesting an interview, but Fox News caught up with him outside a Washington book signing. "I think there's a difference between a memoir and the serious, rigorous factual history of a biography," he said. "Some of what he did was the result of mythologies that were passed along from his family, and some were for the purposes of advancing themes in his book which had more to do with finding his racial identity."

In an Oval Office interview prior to the publication of The Story, Maraniss handed the president a copy of Maraniss's introduction, which conveyed the degree to which The Story would be challenging various scenes in Obama's memoir. The president confirmed Maraniss's research and offered sometimes guarded explanations for those instances when he had chosen to employ an approach in Dreams that was less than strictly factual.

Still, Maraniss never accuses the president of having fabricated anything or of having lied to his readers. "I consider his book very valuable in terms of understanding his interior dialogue, his struggle that he went through," the author told Fox News.

Gerald Early, a noted professor of English literature and African-American studies at Washington University in St. Louis, agreed. "It really doesn't matter if he made up stuff," Early told Fox News. "I mean, after all, it's like you going to a psychiatrist and you make up stuff, and the psychiatrist can still psychoanalyze you because they're your lies."

David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker magazine and author of a previous biography, The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, published in 2010, judged Dreams to be "a mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention, and artful shaping." Remnick concluded that Author Obama wanted his life story to fit into a long tradition of African-American literature: a "narrative of ascent" discernible in early slave memoirs right up through contemporary classics like Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (1952) and The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965).

But Obama's early life, while sad in many respects, was too marked by privilege -- recreational drug use, a Hawaii upbringing with financially comfortable white parents, enrollment in elite private schools and universities -- to mesh neatly with the aggrieved black literature in which the young author was so well read and conversant. "Obama seems to sense this problem and, at the very start of his book, darkens his canvas as well as he can," Remnick wrote.

Maraniss confirmed this. For example, the back story offered for a composite character in Dreams known as "Regina," another black student at Occidental who helped the young Obama embrace his African heritage, Maraniss found to have been based in large part on Michelle Obama. The future president would not meet Mrs. Obama until eight years after he had left Occidental for Columbia.

And where Dreams related the story of Obama quarreling with a white girlfriend after the two attended a black theatre production in Manhattan -- a searing experience that left the author feeling more acutely estranged from white people at the time -- Maraniss found that the incident actually happened with a different girlfriend, in Chicago.

The false portrayal of the incident as having happened with Obama's white girlfriend in New York was startling to Australian native Genevieve Cook, who confirmed to Maraniss that she was that girlfriend. Cook, who provided to Maraniss the love letters she and the future president exchanged, also told Maraniss that Obama had "greatly exaggerated" in Dreams the details of another encounter between them.

Henry Ferris, the editor who helped Obama shape his rough and overly long manuscript nearly two decades ago, told Fox News he does not remember discussing with the author his use of literary license. "I was immediately struck by how talented the writer was and what an unusual story it was," said Ferris, now a vice president and executive editor at the New York publisher William Morrow. As for the departures from the facts, Ferris cautioned that it is "not uncommon" for memoirists. "I think there's the very good possibility...that what he intended to do is to protect the privacy of these people he writes about in his book."

"Autobiographies are not really good sources if you're looking for absolute complete factual accounts of someone's life," agreed Professor Early. "Autobiographies serve another kind of purpose for the person writing the book. I don't think it much matters whether Barack Obama has told the absolute truth in Dreams From My Father. What's important is how he wanted to construct his life."

IBD Editorials

The Tragic Illusion Of Obama's Fine Mind

 06/27/2012 06:26 PM ET

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: As it becomes clear our "brilliant" president has failed to turn the economy around, a poll shows half of Americans want to know how he did in college.

 Forty-nine percent of respondents to an exclusive IBD/TIPP survey say they agree that Obama "should release his academic records" before November. Only 28% strongly disagree. Seven percent answered "not sure."

Voters got a look at the college coursework and grades of President Bush, as well as Democratic challengers Al Gore and John Kerry. Obama, however, refuses to release his transcripts, despite media requests.

It's natural voters would now wonder about his academic performance. Other polls show they're increasingly unhappy with his job performance.

With signs the economy may be slipping back into recession, and the president's economic policies looking woefully ineffective, many voters are waking up to the notion he may not be nearly as smart as he's made out to be.

 Obama's storied intellect simply isn't measuring up to the hype created by media sycophants like MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who's called him "very smart," or historians like Michael Beschloss, who said he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president."

 Coming into office on the heels of a tongue-tied predecessor, the well-spoken Obama was supposed to have all the answers. But it turns out he doesn't know any better. His bright ideas, from energy policy to health care and jobs, haven't worked.

 Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

When it comes to economics, Obama is tragically lost. Yet he insists he knows best. He thinks with his own superior intelligence he can solve any problem.

When he ran for the U.S. Senate, Obama bragged about how relatively well-read and cosmopolitan he was. "There is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background," he sniffed in a 2004 interview with

 He seems to look down on ordinary Americans, views them as rubes. He griped in the same interview that the American people "get confused sometimes, watch Fox News or listen to talk radio. That's dangerous."

 No, what's dangerous is his intellectual elitism. Besides clouding his judgment, it fools others into thinking his judgment is beyond reproach.

Worse, his smugness may be unearned. Obama's brainy reputation is based almost entirely on his ability to string together sentences. But most of his thoughts are scripted. Unlike George Bush, Obama needs a teleprompter just to talk to elementary school kids.

While Obama may come across as an erudite professor, he is actually quite sloppy in his scholarship. His misattributing a quote to MLK in the rug he had custom-made for the Oval Office is one example. Another is his absurd statement to French TV that based on America's "7 million" Muslim population, we'd be one of the largest Muslim nations. The actual size is a third that figure.

Bush was ridiculed for not reading enough books. Yet he was at least familiar enough with the word "corps" — as in Navy "corpsman" — not to confuse it with a dead body like Obama did at a prayer breakfast. At a recent summit, Obama the "polyglot" world traveler mangled the Argentine term Malvinas as "Maldives."

Defenders say the fact Obama wrote two books alone proves his intellectual firepower. But there are doubts he actually penned his first memoir. His subversive pal Bill Ayers recently claimed authorship. Much of the book's prose, in fact, resembles Ayers' writing style.

Regardless, both Obama autobiographies are riddled with howling factual errors. He even got several key dates wrong in his family history.

We have a lot of evidence Obama is not a genius, and little proof that he is. The empirical proof remains sealed at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University.

 (We would add the University of Chicago, where he once lectured, because as far as we can tell, he never wrote a scholarly article or joined intellectual debates while employed there.)

 There's at least anecdotal evidence that Obama was a terrible student in high school and college, where he routinely got high on pot and cocaine, skipped class and turned assignments in late. Yet somehow — somehow — he got into Ivy League schools.

 Even Obama confessed in 2007 that he was "a goof-off in high school . . . There was a whole stretch of time where I didn't apply myself." That stretch runs at least through his entry into Columbia in the fall of 1981, as a member of one of the worst transfer classes in the school's history. found it had the worst SAT scores in recent memory.

 In fact, Obama may have had a lower score than C-student Bush, whom the media have maligned as the dumbest president.

 Perhaps this is why Columbia professors haven't come forward to exalt Obama as a standout. In fact, Obama had to beg Northwestern University professor John McKnight, who worked with him as a street organizer in Chicago, for a letter of recommendation to Harvard. Apparently other professors balked.

 There are a lot of unanswered questions about this president. Now, many Americans are wondering, with good reason, if his superior intellect is a myth.

 Seeing a first term marked by callowness and incompetence, some are wondering if he conned his way to the top, or got into Ivy League schools not on academic merit but through racial preferences.

 His academic records would help voters determine whether they've been sold a bill of goods. They have a right to see all of them before the election.



"Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said during an interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. "If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major — sponsored a major health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."

Scarborough asked: "Are you saying that Barack Obama is a sellout to corporate interests?"

Bonior replied: "He was four years ago in Illinois. All you have to do is look at the legislation I'm referring to."

Bonior was referring to health care legislation that Obama was instrumental in passing when he was an Illinois state senator five years ago, in part because he worked with insurance companies to make additions to the bill that would ensure their approval of the measure.

All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.


Krauthammer: The decline of Obama

By Charles Krauthammer

Posted: 09/04/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by

All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership.


But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chavista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?

But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress.

Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal.

This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent.

Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.

Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt.

Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.

Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington.

Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob - misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist.

All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest - from drug companies to auto unions to doctors - in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us.

If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.

Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president - trust.

You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits - and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.

After a disastrous summer - mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing - Obama is in trouble.

Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.

But what has occurred - irreversibly - is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.

For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others.

And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform - and his own standing - with yet another prime-time speech.

But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises - mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.




Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses


Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.


Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.

Praise for Obamanomics

“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guideto American History


· Hardcover: 256 pages

· Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30, 2009)

· Language: English

· ISBN-10: 1596986123

· ISBN-13: 978-1596986121




“That's the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.”




The economy, like everything else adverse, is someone else's fault. But if only we borrowed and spent a trillion dollars, unemployment would stay beneath 8%, Obama promised. It soared far above. It's still above. No apology. No acknowledgment. Now, he hails any dip as proof of progress when, in fact, it comes because so many just give up seeking work.

Who is this guy pretending to be president?

Posted 04/13/2012 08:18 AM ET

Has anyone seen Barack Obama recently? WHAT WOULD HE LOOK LIKE IF WE DID?

You know, the optimistic hopeful fellow with the charming smile who promised so many positive things four and five years ago, how he was going to change the harsh, partisan tone of our nation's capital and bring the country together as its first African American president.

Even allowing for political hyperbole, his empty resume and the invisible witnesses from the past, Obama was such a Real Good Talker that even some who didn't vote for him still had hope that he could change some things for the better in what seemed a sadly-splintered society.

WTH did that Obama go? Have you listened recently to this Chicago Doppelganger who's replaced him? This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official.

He tries to intimidate the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, when its thinking might stray from his. He distorts history, and if no one calls him, then it's true. If he's caught, this Obama says you obviously mis-heard. Because, as everyone knows, he could never mis-speak.

The economy, like everything else adverse, is someone else's fault. But if only we borrowed and spent a trillion dollars, unemployment would stay beneath 8%, Obama promised. It soared far above. It's still above. No apology. No acknowledgment. Now, he hails any dip as proof of progress when, in fact, it comes because so many just give up seeking work.

He chastises House Republicans for their draconian budget when his Senate Democrats haven't written a single one in three years; so, the fiscal drift abides. And wait till he exaggerates the frightening things the GOP wants to do, instead of presenting his own ideas.

Obama claims credit for the bottom half of a pipeline he had nothing to do with, when he killed the top half. He brags that domestic oil drilling is up when the part he's responsible for is down.

He says no one should ever go to Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime. Then his wife, daughters and entourage do just that.

This year's Obama talks of the importance of windmills, algae and green energy, but he takes a 17-SUV motorcade to a photo op with an electric car. He lambasts oil companies for getting the same legal tax incentives (he calls them "subsidies") that other companies receive, hoping to aim anger at them so voters won't notice that gas prices have doubled since his inauguration with Honest Abe's Bible.

Take this Tuesday. The 2012 Obama flew to Florida for an official presidential speech on the economy, then three fundraisers. That way his campaign only pays a fraction of Air Force One's $182,000 per flight hour cost. All presidents do that, though none have done near as many.

But read the four speeches. You can't tell which is official and which is political. They're all political. He can't be a real president for one lousy speech? Why the phony presidential fig leaf? To chintz the United States of America out of a few thousand bucks when he plans to raise a billion?

The Buffet Rule? Americans have always admired the successful. The only thing wrong with rich people is we're not one of them -- yet. But now he's pitting most of us against rich folks, which is him, come to think of it. The only way he's bringing us together now is to resent their paying a smaller legal rate because theirs is a different kind of income.

And speaking of taxes, which are due Tuesday, how can the president of the United States allow 36 of his own White House aides to fall $833,000 behind in their tax payments?

How is that what the first Obama offered, making him an example of American success? (Hint: His GOP opponent is far richer than Obama and earned it the old-fashioned way through work, not fronting books.)

OK, Obama wants political skirmishes all over on any petty thing so people won't notice the absence of any conceivably positive record to run on. Risky when Americans start paying attention. But if that's his only card. It's all the Republicans' fault, of course. That's the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.

But whatever happened to the president part? The leader. The principled man who through his personal story, skills and charm was going to inspire, convince, cajole Americans as diverse as himself to work together for a common national success? That official part has merged with the political, like the four Florida speeches. Now, he's just trying to fool everybody about everything.

In a way, this could be good news for Republicans. The duplicate Ernst Blofeld makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Rogers.

But without real presidential leadership, Obama's hand-picked harpie atop the Democratic National Committee feels empowered to assign a hired gun to dismiss his opponent's wife, the cancer-surviving mother of five sons, as someone who's never worked a day in her life. Are they that scared already?

Seriously? We're going to pit now one kind of working woman against another? The guy who talks about having so many women in his life isn't going to fire the women responsible for that? He thinks American women will buy this stuff?

OK, Obama was raised by grandparents because he didn't always have a stay-at-home mom or dad. But this is a nation, not a dysfunctional family or a windy city party where factions are left to their own wards and Solyndras.

Obama is the guy who said his own wife was off limits politically, the guy whose mother-in-law has resided since Day One in the White House at taxpayer expense as a live-in nanny so the first lady can campaign for money and healthy foods? But a woman who stays at home with her kids at no public expense can be trashed because of her party?

We were never exactly fond of the Original Obama. But we'd take him any day over the twilight character that inhabits the Oval Office now.

Why is Obama so rattled?


“What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?”

“He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.”


Whose Country Is This?

Pat Buchanan
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security.

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States.

Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he?




Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.

Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" -- i.e., amnesty -- that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.


Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government -- Bush and Obama both -- issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people?

Whose country is this, anyway?

America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.

Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.

This is not an option. It is an obligation.

Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?


The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.

By Ira Mehlman
Published on 12/07/2009

The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.

Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”

Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.

“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”

If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.

The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.

While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.

In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.

As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.

As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”


Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.


Here is the Department of Homeland Security's Hotline for reporting suspected illegal employees and employers: 866-347-2423 (YOU MAY BE WASTING YOUR TIME HERE. HISPANDERING OBAMA SELECTED LA RAZA JANET NAPOLITANO TO HEAD “HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP” FOR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS)


Shaping up to be the most corrupt
administration in American history:

  • Obama’s team: Not the “best of the Washington insiders,” as the liberal media style them, but rather, a dysfunctional and dangerous conglomerate of business-as-usual cronies and hacks
  • In the first two weeks alone of his infant administration, Obama had made no fewer than 17 exceptions to his “no-lobbyist” rule
  • Why the fact that the massive infusion of union dues into his campaign treasury didn’t trouble him in the least reveals Obama’s credibility as a reformer
  • The lack of unprecedented pace of withdrawals and botched appointments -- and how getting through the confirmation process was no guarantee of ethical cleanliness or competence, even as Obama’s cheerleaders were glorifying the Greatest Transition in World History
  • Inconsistency: How Obama, erstwhile critic of the campaign finance practice known as “bundling,” happily accepted more than $350,000 in bundled contributions from billionaire hedge-fund managers
  • How Obama broke his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law -- helping make hostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s cabinet
  • Michelle Obama: Beneath the cultured pearls, sleeveless designer dresses, and eyelashes applied by her full-time makeup artist, is a hardball Chicago politico
  • Joe Biden: It’s not just that he lies, it’s that he lies so well that you think he really believes the stuff he makes up
  • Treasury Secretary Geithner: His ineptness and epic blundering -- including how he nearly caused the collapse of the dollar in international trade with a single remark
  • The appalling story of Technology Czar Vivek Kundra, the convicted shoplifter in charge of the entire federal government’s information security infrastructure
  • Obama’s “Porker of the Month” Transportation Secretary, Roy LaHood: An earmark-addicted influence peddler born and raised on the politics of pay-to-play
  • SEIU: Responsible for installing a cabal of hand-chosen officers who exploited their cash-infused fiefdoms for personal gain and presided over rigged elections -- in the process, becoming all that they had professed to stand against as representatives of the downtrodden worker
  • How Obama lied on his “Fight the Smears” campaign website when he claimed that he “never organized with ACORN”
  • ACORN: How the profound threat the group poses is not merely ideological or economic -- it’s electoral
  • ACORN’s own internal review of shady money transfers among its web of affiliates: How it underscores concerns that conservatives have long raised about the organization
  • Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: How Hillary Clinton has already trampled upon her promise not to let her husband’s financial dealings sway her decisions as Secretary of State
  • How even a few principled progressives are finally beginning to question the cult of Obama -- even as Obama sycophants in the mainstream media continue to celebrate his “hipness” and “swagga”




Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies

by Michelle Malkin

Editorial Reviews

In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and abuses of power throughout his administration.

From the Inside Flap

The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six months in office to kill it.

Never has an administration taken office with more inflated expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of Corruption, Malkin reveals:

* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their relatives have benefited mightily

* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide

* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry, unaccountable "czars" than any other administration

* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons

* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand their power

* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the liberal media would rather keep hidden.

           Publisher: Regnery Publishing (July 27, 2009)

           Language: English

           ISBN-10: 1596981091

           ISBN-13: 978-1596981096



Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).




July 1st 2008

Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama. Zurga/Bloomberg

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.

"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

It's a haul that is already raising concerns that, as the nation's faltering economy has become issue No. 1, the two candidates may have a hard time playing tough on issues like market regulation or corporate-tax loopholes.

"No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The News.