Tag Archives: Democratic Party

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban goes down in defeat

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN WON’T BE IN DEMS‘ GUN BILL

I Love it when a plan comes together.    ~ Steve~ —————-


feinstein

ugly_dogs_01
BY ALAN FRAM
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won’t be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.
Instead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she will be able to offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, but she faces solid Republican opposition and likely defections from some moderate Democrats.
“I very much regret it,” Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid’s decision. “I tried my best.”
Asked about the decision, Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting.
He said that “using the most optimistic numbers,” there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein’s ban. That is far less than the 60 votes needed to begin considering legislation, and an indication that Reid feared that including the assault weapons ban in the main guns bill would risk getting the votes needed to begin debate.
“I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring to something to the floor and it dies there,” Reid said.
Feinstein, an author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired after a decade, said that Reid told her of the decision on Monday.
There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them.
An assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that revived gun control as a top issue in Washington. Banning those firearms was among the proposals President Barack Obama made in January in response to those slayings.
The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could therefore amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation.
Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.
Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama’s proposals.
Feinstein said Reid told her there will be two votes.
One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips.
Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved four gun control measures this month, including Feinstein’s barring assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The others would expand required federal background checks for firearms buyers, increase federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking and boost school safety money.
© 2013 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.
 H/T Drudge
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

True Racism

Remember all the gloating and exhalting Planned Parenthood Prima Donas who Headlined Obama’s 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte last August?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5wmTx7c_zY
Here’s a  quote from Margaret Sanger, the founding mother of Planned Parenthood:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities (Sounds like a description of Barack Obama). The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”[Source: Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976]Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
“I think you must agree … that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims (sounds like ‘final solution’) of eugenics… Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.”
“As an advocate of birth control I wish… to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.”
“On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”[Source: Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5]
From the pro-Sanger website, Margaret Sanger Papers Project:
…. My interests have expanded from local conditions and needs, to a world horizon, where peace on earth may be achieved when children are wanted before they are conceived. A new conciousness will take place, a new race will be born to bring peace on earth. This belief has withstood the crucible of my life’s joyous struggle. It remains my basic belief today.
This I believe–at the end, as at the beginning of my long crusade for the future of the human race.
And finally, from her 1919 article “Birth Control and Racial Betterment” published in The Birth Control Review:
While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Did You Know Republican Party in the Post-Civil War South Was Founded by Freed Slaves?

This video documents the political formation of the Ku Klux Klan as a terorist  arm of the Democratic Party to regain political power after the Civil War. 

Democrats founded the KKK, fought the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, instituted Jim Crow Laws, fought the 1965 Civil Rights Act and continue to keep racism alive and blacks on their liberal plantation. This is an excerpt from the award-winning documentary Emancipation Revelation Revolution.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95aQshvaAII]


After The Civil Rights Act was passed Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.

The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

Albert Gore, Sr., a Democrat, played a key roll in the 74-day filibuster that delayed and intended to undermine The Civil Rights Act.

Albert Gore, Sr. voted against The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Bill Clinton’s political mentor, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas also a Democrat, voted against The Civil Rights Act.

A search on The Clinton Presidential Center Web Site yielded 102 matches when searching for Fulbright.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Full  90 minute film, Emancipation Revelation Revolution here.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Umm, seems like Uncle Jesse has been busy…..again!!

Where the hell does he find time to protest? Affairs, Illegitimate children. Hmm
————————————–  ~Steve~  ——————————————–
Media Pundit Named in Jesse Jackson Lawsuit
Cliff Kincaid — May 16, 2012Tamara Holder, a Fox News contributor, is accused of having an affair with Jesse Jackson, Sr. in a lawsuit that alleges the illegal use of a gay Jackson employee to facilitate the relationship.
The accuser, Tommy R. Bennett, was Jackson’s personal travel assistant and ran the legal clinic at Jackson’s organization, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He says he was eventually fired for protesting his treatment by Jackson and other PUSH employees and is seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
 

Et Tu Tamara?

Et Tu Tamara?


Holder has not responded to repeated requests for comment from Accuracy in Media, but Jackson’s press representative, Lauren Love, says the allegations are false and will be proven so.
Bennett attorney Thomas V. Leverso says that Jackson and PUSH have been stonewalling a legal response for many months but that investigations and the case are moving forward. Leverso tells Accuracy in Media that witnesses have come forward to verify the allegations against Jackson.
Jackson, a minister and Democratic politician who served as an aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., suffered a major embarrassment in 2010 when he admitted to an extramarital affair that produced an illegitimate child.
For the rest of the details of this man of Honor, Justice and Integrity. Oh wait that was the post on George Washington.  OK the rest on Slime Ball HERE!!
Ya just can’t make this up folks.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Former Carter-Clinton Pollsters Urge Obama to Quit

It's the end of the road for you, Barry Soetoro (BKeyser design)


In today’s Wall Street Journal, two former Dem pollsters are urging Obama to abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Michael Catalini of the National Journal reports, Nov. 21, 2011, that Patrick H. Caddell (former pollster for President Jimmy Carter) and Douglas E. Schoen (former pollster for President Bill Clinton) argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same. The two former Dem pollsters argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.
Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Hillary Clinton campaign. In their words:
“He [Obama] should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. In November 2010, they wrote in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”
In today’s op/ed, the two reiterate what they had written a year ago:
“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.”
+++
Alas, I do not believe Obama the Narcissist is listening to anyone….
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

62% of Americans Flunk US Citizenship Test

We all know what happens to sheep....


In his letter to Edward Carrington, 1787, Thomas Jefferson warned: “If once they [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.”
In other words, self-government is and can be only as good as the people. If the people choose to be uninformed and, worse still, ignorant of the founding principles and highest law of their country — the Constitution — then democracy is in jeopardy. 
That is exactly what Newsweek found: as much as 70% of Americans do not know what the Constitution is; 6% don’t even know when Independence Day falls.
As reported by Racehl Quigley of the UK’s Daily Mail, “How ignorant are Americans? An alarming number of U.S. citizens don’t know basic facts about their own country,” March 21, 2011:

Newsweek recently gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. Citizenship test and found that their knowledge of the history and running of their own country was seriously lacking. 
In the U.S. citizenship test, only 38 per cent of Americans passed and some didn’t know answers to basic questions like who is the vice president? Although the majority passed, more than a third – 38 per cent – failed, and some of the basic questions surrounding citizenship were answered incorrectly.
The U.S. citizenship test is administered to all immigrants applying for citizenship. It is comprised of 100 questions across five categories – American government, systems of government, rights and responsibilities, American history and integrated civics.
Newsweek found that there were huge discrepancies in the kinds of civic knowledge Americans collectively possess.
A mark of 60 per cent was needed to pass.
The questions that Americans could not answer went from the more challenging – how many justices are in the Supreme Court? (63 per cent did not know) To the most basic – who is the Vice President of America? (29 per cent did not know)

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Q. What happened at the Constitutional Convention?
A. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
Q. Who did the United States fight in World War II?
A. Japan, Germany and Italy.
Q. What did Martin Luther King Jnr do?
A. Fought for civil rights and equality for all Americans.
Q. Circle Independence Day on the map.
A. July 4.

An alarming number of Americans did not know basic information about the Constitution, namely that it was the supreme law of the land, that it was set up at the Constitutional Convention and that the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.
Newsweek reported that civil ignorance is nothing new. Americans have been misunderstanding checks and balances and misidentifying their senators for as long as they have existed.
And their ignorance is only highlighted by the knowledge of their European peers. In March 2009, the European Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs.
Europe came out on top. Around three quarters of British, Finnish and Danish people could, for example, identify the Taliban but just over a half of Americans could, despite the fact they led the charge in Afghanistan.
Many blame it on the complexity of the U.S. political system. Michael Schudson, author of The Good Citizen, said: ‘Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote. You know you’re going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more.’
Others blame it on economic inequality in the U.S. as the top 400 households have more money than the bottom 60 per cent combined. NYU socioloist Dalton Conley told Newsweek: ‘It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Denmark, we have a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population that doesn’t even speak English.’

So sociologist Conley blames American people’s know-nothingness on “a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population.” Whose fault is that?
Every child in America, rich or poor, native-born or alien, has access to a free education. Why aren’t schools held accountable for graduating students who can’t read and write? Why are our schools teaching students about “Mary has two mothers, and Johnnie has two dads,” instead of the Constitution of the United States? Why do incompetent teachers have lifetime tenure? Which political party is supported by teachers’ union dues? The Democrats!
Who are those who have consistently and persistently ignored the opinions and wishes of the American people by persistently and consistently refusing to do something about the millions of illegal “immigrants” who strain our socioeconomic infrastructure? The bipartisan Political Ruling Class!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Surprise! 89% of NPR Political Contributions Go to the Left

National Public Radio (and its twin PBS) — as well as public government employee unions, like teachers’ unions and SEIU — are merely entities that act as conduits to send TAXPAYER dollars to the Demonrat Party, Demonrat candidates, and liberal-Progressive-socialist-commie causes and interests. 
It’s a giant shell game.
By allowing our hardearned dollars to support these entities, Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents are actually financing those with interests and objectives directly opposed to ours — and America’s. How stupid is that.
~Eowyn

From “NPR Boardmembers and Fundraisers Give Overwhelmingly to Democrats,” by Danielle Kurtzleben, US News, March 15, 2011:
Conservatives have long complained that the public broadcaster has a liberal bias, a charge NPR’s defenders have denied. In at least one regard, however, NPR’s board and fundraisers have, as a whole, shown a marked lean to the left in recent years: political contributions. A review of campaign finance data found that NPR board members’ campaign contributions have sharply favored Democrats. Since 2004, members of the boards of NPR and the NPR Foundation, the public broadcaster’s fundraising arm, have contributed nearly $2.2 million to federal candidates, parties, and PACs, of which $1.95 million, or 89 percent, has gone to Democratic candidates and liberal-leaning political action committees. [See where members of Congress get their campaign contributions.]
Officers and trustees of the NPR Foundation, which has no control over the organization’s programming, have given substantially to national political campaigns in recent years. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, this group’s members (as listed on NPR’s most recent available annual report, from fiscal year 2008) have given almost $2.1 million to political campaigns in the last eight years. Fully 89 percent of this giving was to Democrats and progressive organizations. These figures include all federal contributions since the 2004 election cycle, the first in which “soft money” contributions were banned. “Soft money” refers to money given to a party for non-campaign activities, which until being banned in 2002 were unlimited and largely unregulated.
A majority of contributions from members of NPR’s Board of Directors have likewise gone to Democrats. This board comprises 10 NPR station managers, the NPR president, the NPR Foundation president, and five prominent members of the public, selected by the board and confirmed by member stations. Political contributions by these station managers have been virtually nonexistent, and there are also no recorded political contributions from either Ron Schiller or Vivian Schiller. Of the five public board members, however, giving has been far more Democratic than Republican, with nearly 95 percent of the group’s $106,000 in contributions going to Democrats or progressive committees. Three of these members have given exclusively to Democrats since the start of 2003, though in amounts less than $5,000 each. One member, Carol Cartwright, has given $4,100 to Republicans and $700 to Democrats. But the biggest giver, John A. Herrmann, Jr., has given $82,500 to candidates and committees since 2003, 98 percent of it to Democrats. [See editorial cartoons about the Democratic Party.]
NPR spokeswoman Anna Christopher says political giving does not impact NPR’s news coverage. [Hahahahaha. Good joke! ~Eowyn] She points out that the foundation is primarily responsible for fundraising and is not involved in programming, and that NPR’s board “is not involved in day to day [operations]” and does not make recommendations about news coverage. “Past political contributions of members of a foundation or board–I would hesitate drawing a line between that and our news coverage,” she adds.
The tendency toward Democratic giving does not extend across all areas of public broadcasting. For example, five of the six members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding to local public radio and television across the country, were appointed by President George W. Bush. The board members’ cumulative giving since 2003 totals over $100,000, nearly three-quarters of which has gone to Republicans.
See which members of Congress get the most in campaign contributions from the TV, movies, and music industry.
H/t Canada Free Press.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

He Tried to Warn Us 120 Years Ago

Below are three pictures of an 1890 gravestone in a cemetery in Attica, Kansas. All three are of the same gravestone.
Scroll down through the three pictures. The last one is amazing. 



. . . and this guy died over a hundred years ago!
A big h/t to beloved fellow f (formerly fs)  😉
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama Eligibility Is Now a Conspiracy


A conspiracy is a secret agreement by two or more persons to perform an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Somehow, conspiracy theories have become synonymous with kooky nutcases, sneered at by the MSM. But there are real conspiracies, for example, the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Dreyfus Affair, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and the Iran-Contra Affair.
It is now incontrovertible that there is a massive conspiracy about Obama’s eligibility. Every branch and institution of our government is covering up for Obama.
First, it was the Democratic Party at both the state and national levels who looked the other way in 2008, choosing not to vett Obama’s birth documents to ensure he indeed is constitutionally eligible for the presidency. This was followed by the McCain campaign and the Republican Party acting like the eunuchs that they are in not questioning Obama’s eligibility.
Then, it was Congress that failed to screen his eligibility, using the lame excuse that no law requires them to do so, conveniently forgetting that the Constitution itself is the highest law of the land.

Next, the courts failed us. Beginning in 2008 even before Obama was elected president, American citizens brought one lawsuit after another challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility. But judge after judge in state after state refused to even grant a hearing to the lawsuits, using the lame excuse that the litigants “lacked standing” and in so doing, effectively said that the constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States is not a matter of concern or interest for We the People.
Last Monday, November 29, 2010, the judicial branch of the American government completed its surrender to Obama when the Supreme Court denied the Kerchner v Obama’s petition for a writ of certiorari (translated into ordinary English: SCOTUS refused to review/hear the case). Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., the lead plaintiff, is a retired Commander of the US Naval Reserve.
Then there’s the United States Army. It, too, capitulated to the Mighty Obama when the top military brass decided to court martial decorated (Bronze Star) Army surgeon Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who defied his deployment orders on the grounds of the dubious constitutional eligibility and authority of the top of the command chain — his Commander In Chief. To complete the Army’s self-castration, the military judge in Lakin’s court martial, Denise Lind, refused to grant the defense’s discovery request of Obama’s concealed documents (original long-form birth certificate, kindergarten and college records…), thereby making impossible Lakin’s defense.
The latest government agency to join the Conspiracy of Silence and Coverup is the Social Security Administration.
Last May, private investigators discovered that not only are multiple social security numbers associated with Barack Obama (when we are all supposed to have only one number each), the social security number that Obama is presently using is one that’s set aside for residents of the state of Connecticut — a state in which Obama has never lived and with which he has no association. As I explained in my post of May 13, 2010, Obama Uses Dead Connecticuter’s Social Security Number“:

The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. (See Q. 18 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.) Connecticut’s SS numbers begin with 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, or 049. Obama’s SS number begins with 042.
The most plausible explanation is that Obama’s Connecticut SS number once belonged to a Connecticuter, born in 1890, who is now diseased. This means that Obama is using that number illicitly because the SS administration says a SS number is never re-issued or re-used. (See Q. 20 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.)
Furthermore, since Obama’s first job was in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii, when he was 14 or 15, he would have obtained a SS number then as a Hawaii resident. Hawaii’s SS numbers begin with the prefix 575 or 576. This means that he has used at least TWO different SS numbers, which is against the law, because the law says a person can have only one SS number in a lifetime.

Now, the Social Security Administration is introducing a new policy in an attempt to conceal, obfuscate, and evade Obama’s curious Connecticut social security number. Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily reports on November 30, 2010: 

Without addressing questions regarding the apparent assignment of a Connecticut-based Social Security number to President Barack Obama, who reportedly spent his growing-up years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the federal agency now is moving quickly to make certain such questions never come up again about political figures.
The administration is starting down a path that is intended to randomize all future Social Security numbers – a move critics allege is designed to make it impossible to tell where any future Social Security number is issued.
In a notice currently published on the Social Security Administration website, the SSA announces Social Security numbers issued in the future will be randomized starting on or about June 25, 2011.
A spokeswoman in the Social Security press office confirmed to WND the plan is moving forward.
“In an effort to increase the number of Social Security numbers (SSNs) available for use by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and in order to help reduce identity theft, SSA plans to change the methodology by which SSNs are issued. In June 2011, we will begin to issue SSNs randomly, regardless of the address on the application. As a result, we will have the ability to continue to issue SSNs in all areas of the country for many more years without having to make additional changes,” said Trish Nicasio….
Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels says the government policy change is an attempt to cover up in retrospect the controversy over Obama’s Social Security number by making it impossible in the future to trace where a Social Security applicant lived at the time the person applied for a Social Security number.
“Now all the Social Security Administration has to say is that they have been experimenting with randomized numbers for some time,” Daniels said. “How would anybody prove differently?”
She continued, “With Obama, there is obviously a case of fraud going on here. In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

The White House has refused to answer queries about Obama’s social security number.
If Diogenes were alive today, he’d be consigned to an eternal and fruitless wandering in his search for just one honest man in the U.S. government. Sadly, there is none.
H/t beloved fellows Tina & FS.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

White House Insider on the Birth Certificate

Billboard in Bethel, Pennsylvania


Here’s the latest leak from the unnamed “White House insider” (DT2 or DeepThroat2) who’s been talking to NewsFlavor blogger, Ulsterman. The following excerpts are from White House Insider: Clintons, Scandals, and the Birth Certificate,” by Ulsterman, NewsFlavor.com, November 9, 2010: 
The Democratic Party remains in a state of crisis:
“…the party is still in crisis, and there is going to be much more to come…what’s that saying?  First comes denial, then anger, and finally acceptance.  Maybe I’m at the acceptance stage now.  People in the party are talking, things are forming, I see a new and stronger direction for 2012 and beyond.  Unless of course, Nancy Pelosi somehow manages to keep her leadership role within the party.  That would be…incredibly stupid of us.  But you never know what Democrats are capable of right?  If Pelosi retains her position, there will be more staff leaving the White House because that will signal the party has truly lost its political compass and the White House will have been proven powerless in correcting it.  Nobody wants to work for a loser.  The poor bastards who were around for Carter – it took them years to recover their careers, and some never really did. She [Pelosi] is out. I just cannot see it happening – her being allowed to be minority leader.  No way.  Yeah, it could happen – it’s possible, but very unlikely.  And if it does happen…well, you can throw all of my hope for 2012 out the window.  Pelosi is too mixed up in what is coming at us in the coming months.”
On the forthcoming White House big scandal(s):
“This thing is percolating just under the surface right now.  Sooner – not later, the pot is gonna start boiling.  Yeah, someone is about to test the waters with this thing.  I’ve heard that.  Then again, I’ve heard that for a while now, so who knows, huh?  I’d watch yourself though – told you that before.  Be very careful who you are talking to on this.  These people don’t play nice.
[DT2 refuses to name names or give specifics on the nature of the scandal because] “I don’t have the protection.  Read the [New York] Times.  Somebody there has sniffed it out.  And a guy over at the Post.  If the Post starts to get on it, the Times will probably go ahead and break it open, loyalty to the White House be damned.  I told you before, parts of the story have already been given out publicly here and there.  One part will lead to another and then another.  It’s underway right now.  Every week a little bit more shows itself.
About Obama’s birth certificate:

Best way to discredit skeptics is to portray them as crazy “birthers”:

Hey, almost every great government scandal began as a silly conspiracy right?  It’s how one side effectively discredits the other – just call them crazy.  I have done it many times.  Not so much because I enjoy it but because it works.

If Obama is not eligible to be president, there’d be chaos:

“Hell if I know – and I’m not sure I want to know.  Do you realize the mess that would create if it was true?  There would be violence of the kind this country has not seen in our lifetimes – or at least your lifetime.  I forget sometimes how old I really am.

Even DT2 wonders about whether Obama was born in America:

“Look, I will say this- people seem to have spent a considerable amount of time and money keeping others from finding out.  I don’t know why more than to say this president has been very protective of almost everything in his past.  From college transcripts to medical records to writings…he’s clearly very concerned with his privacy.  I don’t necessarily fault him for that, but it does make you wonder – I understand that.  If you are asking me if Obama is an American I say yes.  I have no doubt about that.  If you are asking me if Obama was born in America… Yeah…that one is a little tougher to say.  I sure as hell hope so, because if he wasn’t, and somebody is able to prove it – holy hell we got problems.

It’s not so much I don’t think he was born in America, it’s more that I am open to the possibility of that.  Or I’m at least sympathetic to people who wonder about it themselves.  But I don’t want to go there – it’s irrelevant to me.  It’s too dangerous to consider.  And it’s Obama’s own fault.  He has covered up his past.  Beyond his books, which frankly from what I have seen of him firsthand I don’t think he wrote entirely himself, there really is very little we know about the guy.  The one most responsible for all of these conspiracy stories is Barack Obama.  When you have White House staff – people who were involved in the day to day decisions coming out of the West Wing saying they have no clue who Obama really is, that shows an environment that is going to create a lot of this conspiracy stuff surrounding the president.” 

The brewing scandal is not about Obama’s birth certificate:
No [it’s not about the birth certificate] – not to my knowledge, no.  Good lord, no.  Don’t tie me up to that subject matter! 
To read the interview for yourself:  https://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-clintons-scandals-and-the-birth-certificate/
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0