Monday, May 6, 2013

Sen. Ted Cruz slams Internet sales tax bill

The Washington Times ^ | May 6, 2013 | Seth McLaughlin

Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, emerging as a leading voice of Capitol Hill conservatives, said Monday that it is “incomprehensible” that the Senate is close to passing a bill that would require booming Internet retailers to collect state sales taxes, warning that the move will kill jobs and hurt the economy.
Mr. Cruz, a Texas Republican and tea party favorite, called the Internet a “thriving ecosystem” that has allowed new businesses to “compete in the national marketplace in ways that would have been impossible 15 years ago, and it empowers consumer choice.”
“But tax-hungry politicians view the Internet as yet another source of revenue to bail out their big-spending governments,” Mr. Cruz wrote in an op-ed article for Real Clear Politics. “The misleadingly titled ‘Marketplace Fairness Act’ is a job-killing tax hike, plain and simple. It is, in effect, a national Internet sales tax, which would hammer the little guy and benefit giant corporations.”
Mr. Cruz also released a new Web spot that warns that the proposal would force businesses to collect taxes for 9,600 jurisdictions and politicians in jurisdictions headed by the likes of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, California Gov. Jerry Brown and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
“Even if they don’t represent you,” the ad says. “You will collect their taxes!”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Global Warming Will Force More Women into Prostitution!

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 3 May 2013 | John Semmens

Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif) warns that global warming will lead to an increase in sex-for-pay. As Lees sees it, higher temperatures will force women to wear skimpier clothing in an effort to endure the heat. More scantily clad women will induce more men to approach them with indecent propositions. The persistence of horny men and the lure of easy cash will be irresistible.
Lee admitted that she wasn’t sure what could be done to avert this calamity, but thought that “we ought to be looking at possible options. Do we enforce a stricter dress code like some religions do? Do we make it illegal for men to approach women who are strangers to them? Do we invest in giant cooling fans for areas with heavy pedestrian traffic? I don’t know. What I do know is that we can’t sit by and do nothing.”
Former President Bill Clinton urged that “we not go off half-cocked. The implications of warmer temperatures aren’t all bad. There are real material savings to be had if we could all dress more lightly. I don’t know if there is anything we can really do to significantly affect global climate. Maybe we should just try to acclimate ourselves to a warmer Earth. Perhaps we could decriminalize prostitution. Is there any good reason why paying for sexual services should be illegal anyway? It’s a voluntary transaction, a so-called crime, but one without a real victim.”

'Gang of 8' Breaks the Bank: Mass Amnesty Would Add At Least $6.3 TRILLION to U.S. Debt!

Heritage Foundation and Fox News via Stand With Arizona Blog ^ | 05-06-2013 | John Hill

America's financial future? Destroyed by mass amnesty for 20+ million illegal aliens.Mexico's Oligarchs say "Gracias, Gringo!"
by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
The widely-anticipated Heritage Foundation estimate on the cost of the 'Gang of Eight' illegal alien amnesty bill was released this morning, and it is a unmitigated disaster.
The 'comprehensive immigration' overhaul being taken up in the Senate this week would add at least $6.3 trillion to the national debt if 11 million illegal aliens are granted legal status, according to the conservative think tank. And that amount assumes the low-ball figure of "11 million" - which most serious experts say is a gross underestimate.
The cost would arise from illegal aliens tapping into the government's vast network of benefits and services, many of which are currently unavailable to them. This includes everything from standard benefits like Social Security and Medicare to dozens of welfare programs ranging from housing assistance to food stamps.
"No matter how you slice it, amnesty will add a tremendous amount of pressure on America's already strained public purse," Robert Rector, the Heritage scholar who prepared the report, said in a statement.
"There's no way you can look at this and say that it's good for the American taxpayer," Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint said.
This study should be a deal-breaker for any Republicans who were even flirting with supporting it, as it would absolutely devastate U.S. taxpayers - who are already paying $113 billion per year for the costs of illegal aliens.
In the course of their lifetime, the report estimates that each amnestied illegal alien would receive on average $592,000 MORE in government benefits than they would pay in taxes.
The $6.3 trillion figure is based on what illegal aliens would cost the government over the course of their lifetime. It factors in the expected $3.1 trillion in taxes they'd pay to the government.
Remarkably, Heritage claims its $6.3 trillion is a "conservative estimate". Annd of course since it uses the absurd "11 million" baseline figure for the number of illegals, the actual amount of debt amnestied illegal would add may be more than double the Heritage estimate. Far more credible estimates peg the actual number of illegals between 20 and 30 million.
You can read the full Heritage Foundation report here.
Supporters of immigration amnesty have been skeptical of efforts to assign a cost to the immigration bill. Proponents argue that the value of bringing millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and presumably into the taxpaying workforce is immeasurable.
Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said that despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.
Sen. Marco Rubio, (R-FL), a key co-author of the legislation, repeated his claim that illegal aliens applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years, said Rubio.
But Rubio is ignoring what Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) revealed last week - that given lax state rules for illegal and government benefits - millions of illegals would begin to receive benefits immediately. That's because State laws often provide benefits for anyone “lawfully present.” And thus many illegal aliens granted legal standing, known as registered provisional immigrant status, could immediately become eligible for public benefits.
And of course Rubio and his gangmembers completely ignore the simple fact that, due to the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, when an illegal has anchor babies - children border on U.S. soil - they instantly qualify for food stamps, WIC, Medicaid and other benefits on their children's behalf.
"Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century," the Heritage report said.

ACTION ALERT: IMMEDIATELY FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR SENATOR. Tell them in addition to the other numerous reasons to oppose mass amnesty for 20+ million illegal aliens, the Heritage "conservative estimate" of an added $6.3 TRILLION to our already skyrocketing debt is insanity.
Find Your Rep's Contact info HERE.

NRA Surges to Record 5 Million Members!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | May 4, 2013 | Ken Klukowski

At the National Rifle Association's convention in Houston, TX, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced that the NRA has now grown to an unprecedented 5 million active members. He concluded his speech with the theme of all the NRA officers, vowing, “From liberty’s defense, we will never back down. We will never surrender. We will always stand. We will always fight.”
Well over 70,000 members of the NRA are assembled in Houston, Texas for its 142nd Annual Meeting—projected to break the all-time record for the nation’s oldest and largest Constitutional rights organization. The convention houses over 300,000 square feet of exhibits (mostly firearms and accessories), seminars on various topics including women’s and children’s safety, and formal speeches from national political leaders and the NRA’s leadership. The central focus on the annual convention—as always—is protecting the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The speeches focused on the recent gun-control fight in Congress, where the national media and political pundits were shocked to see the NRA inflict a crushing defeat to a newly-reelected President Barack Obama, who put his political capital and all the weight of the White House behind gun-control legislation.
Outgoing NRA President David Keene gave his valedictory address, noting the challenges of responding to recent tragedies: “We’ve all been under attack… by those who would exploit the victims of a madman to advance their own anti-Second Amendment agenda.”
Keene then exulted in the fact that despite incredible money from leftists and a mainstream media that opposes gun rights, that nonetheless over 58,000 Americans joined the NRA in one day after Obama gave his initial gun-control speech....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five things to know about Obama and Guantanamo

Maclean's ^ | May 1, 2013 | Luiza Ch. Savage

Obama said at a press conference on Tuesday that he is recommitting to his failed promise to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. There has been much confusion over who is responsible for his failure to do so — the president or Congress? The Pentagon has asked for $200 million to build permanent structures to replace deteriorating facilities there, suggesting that while the politicians debate, the once-temporary facility could be made permanent.

Here are five things to know about what is happening:

1. Detainees are on hunger strike
Obama renewed his call to close the prison amid a detainee hunger strike. The specific spark that set it off in February is disputed, but both detainee lawyers and U.S. military officials agree on its underlying cause: growing desperation and hopelessness among the detainees – many of whom have been held for over 11 years without trials, and over half of whom have been designated for transfer for more than three years – that they will never be allowed to go home.
2. Most can never get trials
The most difficult problem is what to do with those detainees who are deemed to dangerous to release but not feasible to prosecute. It is not possible to give the vast majority of the detainees trials. They are being held essentially as Prisoners of War because the government believes they were simply part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and the U.S. continues to be at war with those organizations. But most of them are not linked to any specific terrorist attack – i.e. a crime for which they could be prosecuted. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, vaguer charges like providing material support for terrorism do not apply to most of them.
3. Some detainees were designated for release in 2009 but are still there
Most of the focus right now is on 86 of the 166 Guantanamo prisoners. This is the group that has been designated for transfer to other countries if certain security conditions can be met. They are not “cleared” – unlike some other former Guantanamo prisoners, they did not win a court order finding that they were not part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban at all and so must be released. Rather, a group of U.S. government national security agencies unanimously found in 2009 that they were low level enough that they could potentially transferred away if the receiving country could provide credible security assurances that it would keep an eye on them and prevent them from “returning to terrorism.” The outward trickle of this group stopped after January 2011 when Congress restricted transfers to countries with troubled security.
4. Obama’s plan would bring them to the U.S. for more indefinite detention without trial
Defenders of the Obama administration blame Congress for the failure to shut down Guantanamo because Congress blocked the president’s plan. But Obama’s plan for emptying the prison was not to release all the detainees who could not receive trials. Instead, he wanted to bring all the remaining detainees to a “Supermax” prison inside the U.S., where they would continue to be held indefinitely without trial as wartime detainees. Congress forbid the transfer of any more detainees onto U.S. soil. But even if Obama persuaded them to lift that restriction, the underlying issues of perpetual confinement without trial that are driving the current hunger strike would still persist.
5. Obama has been sitting on his hands
Obama could have been doing more to winnow the population at Guantanamo than he has been. Although Congress essentially halted all transfers of low-level detainees to countries with troubled security throughout 2011, since January 2012 lawmakers gave the Pentagon the power to waive most of the security restrictions on a case-by-case basis and transfer detainees anyway. The Obama administration has not used that authority. Obama himself banned any further repatriations to Yemen – where 56 of the 86 low-level detainees designated for transfer are from – even before Congress imposed its restrictions. Earlier this year, the administration reassigned and did not replace, the high level diplomat whose job had been to negotiate detainee transfers. Essentially the administration has had a stated policy that it wants to close Guantanamo but has for some time not been doing anything to implement that policy. Yesterday, Obama said he would “review” what could be done administratively and try again to persuade Congress to facilitate closing the prison.
Below are the president’s remarks:
Q: Mr. President, as you’re probably aware, there’s a growing hunger strike on Guantanamo Bay among prisoners there. Is it any surprise really that they would prefer death rather than have no end in sight to their confinement?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is not a surprise to me that we've got problems in Guantanamo, which is why when I was campaigning in 2007 and 2008, and when I was elected in 2008, I said we need to close Guantanamo. I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo.
Well, I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.
Now, Congress determined that they would not let us close it — and despite the fact that there are a number of the folks who are currently in Guantanamo who the courts have said could be returned to their country of origin or potentially a third country.
I’m going to go back at this. I've asked my team to review everything that’s currently being done in Guantanamo, everything that we can do administratively. And I’m going to reengage with Congress to try to make the case that this is not something that’s in the best interest of the American people. And it’s not sustainable.
The notion that we’re going to continue to keep over a hundred individuals in a no-man’s land in perpetuity, even at a time when we've wound down the war in Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’re having success defeating al Qaeda core, we've kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist networks, when we've transferred detention authority in Afghanistan — the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.
Now, it’s a hard case to make because I think for a lot of Americans the notion is out of sight, out of mind. And it’s easy to demagogue the issue. That’s what happened the first time this came up. I’m going to go back at it because I think it’s important.

Q: Meanwhile we continue to force-feed these folks...

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want these individuals to die. Obviously, the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this? Why are we doing this? We've got a whole bunch of individuals who have been tried who are currently in maximum security prisons around the country. Nothing has happened to them. Justice has been served. It’s been done in a way that’s consistent with our Constitution, consistent with due process, consistent with rule of law, consistent with our traditions.
The individual who attempted to bomb Times Square — in prison, serving a life sentence. The individual who tried to bomb a plane in Detroit — in prison, serving a life sentence. A Somali who was part of Al-Shabaab, who we captured — in prison. So we can handle this.
And I understand that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with the traumas that had taken place, why, for a lot of Americans, the notion was somehow that we had to create a special facility like Guantanamo and we couldn't handle this in a normal, conventional fashion. I understand that reaction. But we’re now over a decade out. We should be wiser. We should have more experience in how we prosecute terrorists.
And this is a lingering problem that is not going to get better. It’s going to get worse. It’s going to fester. And so I’m going to, as I said before, examine every option that we have administratively to try to deal with this issue, but ultimately we’re also going to need some help from Congress, and I’m going to ask some folks over there who care about fighting terrorism but also care about who we are as a people to step up and help me on it.

Obama Rolls Back $5 Billion In Sequester Cuts (State Dept, NASA, Homeland Security, Pentagon)

Andrew Breitbarts Big Government ^ | 5 May 2013, 11:45

The White House budget office is using an obscure budget rule to restore $5 billion in sequester-related cuts.
The recalculation trick will mean the State Department will no longer have to furlough employees, will spare the Pentagon $4 billion in cuts to the rate of spending growth, and will replenish $1 billion to the budgets of agencies including the Homeland Security Department and NASA.
The Obama Administration’s move to roll back the sequester cuts reduces the original $85 billion sequestration to $80 billion.
According to the Associated Press, “Republicans atop the budget committees declined to criticize the move. Republicans like Sen. John McCain of Arizona have sought to reverse cuts to the Pentagon-- and it benefits the most from the new math.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Clinton’s People Covered Up Al Qaeda Role in Benghazi to Avoid Blame!

Front Page Magazine ^ | 5-5-2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Accountability is not a word that the Clinton clan believes in; as the Weekly Standard documents how the CIA talking points were reduced to mush and blame was redirected away from Hillary Clinton and toward a guy who uploaded a YouTube trailer.
After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman…
This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
The talking points were full of facts. Troubling facts.
The obvious question here was who was to blame for not foreseeing attacks this inevitable. Not to mention the whole Jihad and Sharia thing was bound to upset Muslims.
So the snipping began…
Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
Shouldn’t the State Department be critiqued for not paying attention to those warnings? Maybe, but the CIA was headed up by a guy purged for an affair while State was headed up by the future Democratic presidential nominee who would be instrumental to Obama 2012.
So the cover up had to begin.
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.”
Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
And the cover up moved all the way up to the White House, which also worried about the buck stopping too close to the Oval Office.
If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.
More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.
Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.
A man was locked up to provide a cover story for Hillary Clinton. An Islamic terrorist attack was used to go after “Islamophobes”.
Four Americans died. A political prisoner was added to the rolls. The truth about a terrorist attack was covered up. All in support of Obama’s 2012 campaign and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Must See Video: MSNBC Claims Birther Bombshell; Natural-Born Citizen Issue Not Settled! ^ | May 4, 2013 | Alex Wagner panel discussion

(video at link)transcript: Alex Wagner: Ambition aside there remains a question of constitutionality. Cruz was born in Calgary. That's in Canada to a mother who is an American citizen, so does he pass the natural born citizen qualification for president? Panelist Ben: Well the funny thing is the Obama Campaign last year did not want to make the case. You know, even if he was born in Kenya, we're fine (laughter) so this didn't really come up. But this is totally unsettled. George Romney, Mitt's father was born in Mexico...I think the general theory among lawyers is that if this came up the courts would fine a way to not rule on it. They would say that no one had standing to bring a lawsuit. Who would sue and say they had been harmed by this? What court would want to come anywhere near this? The theory is anybody the American people elect, they'll be fine. The courts will work around the natural born citizen thing, so all this craziness last year...forget it!

Double Down

The Buck Stops?


An Obama Voter

The Fix?


Poopie Head


Laurel & Hardy

Laurel & Hardy 2013




Pack up!



Hold It!

Understanding Americans

Carville's Panicked Dog Whistle to the Left: STOP Ted Cruz WHILE YOU STILL CAN... ^ | 06 May 2013 | Reaganite Republican

Commence w/ the Palin treatment, evilmonkeys!

Some people might be startled to hear Democratic strategist James Carville out there on ABC's This Week (with fellow Clinton alum Stephanopouos)
-the 'progressive' home field- praising conservative rising-star Ted Cruz up-and-down like this- yet it appears that's precisely the reaction he was looking for:

'I think he is the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the
last 30 years.

I further think that he’s going to run for president and he is going to create something.

... I’ve listened to excerpts of his speech in South Carolina.

He touches every button, and this guy has no fear. He just keeps plowing ahead. And he is going to be something to watch... if there's one thing this guy ain't, it's squishy.'
Obviously JC's not trying to drive interest in -or money towards- Sen Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by pointing out the guy who did so much to kill Obama's gun bill is gifted-
and sure to be moving-on to bigger and better things as opportunity presents itself. We can all see that.

What Carville's doing is sounding an alarm to the left's MSM/new media attack machine: IT'S TIME to rip into Cruz just as fast as you can concoct a disingenuous narrative to do it with. Then wash, rinse, repeat until November 2016... same way you tore Palin to shreds in most leftists', many Republicans', and 99% of uninformed idiots' eyes over the last four years.

As might be expected, Demo-socialists in the most dire career situation are usually the most loyal left-wing attack dogs in such character assassination campaigns, happy to help nuke a good person's honor in a craven attempt to keep themselves relevant/employed another week.

In this case, corrupt, perverted former NM Governor Bill Richardson promptly spewed these gems: Cruz is 'uncivil' and 'rude', and 'sort of the Republicans' latest flavor'. But the cherry on the sundae has got to be 'I don't think he should be defined as a Hispanic, he's a politician... from a conservative state'

But your name is Richardson- and you ARE 'Hispanic enough'?

Just like Allen West shouldn't be defined as 'black'- seems his mind just ain't right, IS IT you racist slob?

British National Archives Show A Son Was Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!

GOP The Daily Dose ^ | May 4, 2013 | Dr. Eowyn

British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya Posted on 4 May, 2013 by Amy
by Dr. Eowyn |
The [British] National Archives (BNA) is an executive agency of the government of the United Kingdom. Based in Kew in southwest London, the BNA is the UK government’s official archive, containing 1,000 years of history from Domesday Book to the present, with records from parchment and paper scrolls to digital files and archived websites, including Foreign Office and Colonial Office correspondence and files. The collections held by the BNA can be searched using their online catalogue. Entrance to the Archives is free.
On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya. Reporters at the UK’s The Guardian were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found that the name of Barack Obama (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States.
But it’s not just UK journalists who can access the British National Archives; anyone can. In May 2012, someone conducted a search of the Archives using the search term “Obama” and found that an unnamed son of Obama Sr. was born in Kenya in 1961. Since the POS in the White House is the only known son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before 1963 when Kenya became officially independent from the UK, it is reasonable for us to conclude that the POS is that unnamed son of Obama Sr. born in Kenya in 1961. And in fact, the claimed birth date of the POS is August 4, 1961.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (l); Stanley Ann Dunham (r). For a couple who supposedly married and had a child together, it is odd to say the least that there is not a single photo of Obama and Dunham together. Below are excerpts from Dan Crosby’s on-site report from Kew for The Daily Pen, “Obama’s Kenya Birth Records Discovered in British National Archives,” July 18, 2012:
Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives. [...]
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidentally paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent high school graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama [Sr.] are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama [Sr.] is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama [Sr.]’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama [Sr.] birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.
However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clinton’s arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name his newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.
[...], in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. [...] Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
[...] If Obama [Sr.] is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.
[...] Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama [Sr.] ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child. A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama [Sr.] had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.
[...] Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of presidentwhen he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.
[...] Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.
[...] Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. [...] The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. [...]
According to Dan Crosby, the specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files (Courtesy: British National Archives):
General Register Office SERIES RG36 Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia Legal status: Public Record(s) Language: English Creator names: General Register Office, 1836-1970 Covering Birth Registration dates: 1895-1965 Physical description: 15 volume(s) Access conditions: Available in microform only Held by: The National Archives, Kew Scope and content: Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates. Publication note: Geoffrey Yeo ‘The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom’, London, 2nd edn, 1988. Related material: Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general. Place: Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 – 1963 Subjects: Birth: registration