Saturday, June 22, 2013

Uh-oh! Yahoo reports Obama born someplace else

News agency scrambles to revert story back to Hawaii

By: Drew Zahn / WND
130622obamasurprisedz
In an article published online Friday, Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo! News lamented that President Obama’s upcoming trip to Africa would not include a stop in Kenya, “the country of his birth.

Whoa. What?

The mainstream media for years has been lockstep behind the president in affirming his birth in Hawaii, even derisively labeling those who question the official story as “birthers.”

And in fact, Talking Points Memo reports that within 90 minutes of the story’s publication, Yahoo! News added the following: “Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the president’s birthplace.”

The wording of the story was then changed from referencing Kenya as “the country of his birth” to “his ancestral homeland.”

A screenshot of the original article (emphasis added) can be seen below:



A screenshot of the amended article can also be seen below:



Hartman’s article spoke of the Obama family’s upcoming visit to Africa, which is expected to take place from June 26-July 3, and planned stops in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania.

Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, however, told reporters Kenya wasn’t on the itinerary.

So was Hartman’s reporting that Obama was born in Kenya a slip-up or a sign of something more?

The answer may be impossible to discover. A spokesperson for Yahoo! News told the Washington Post there would be no comments available beyond the correction.

Social media monitor Twitchy, however, noted that many users of Twitter were quick to assume Hartman a “birther” and blasted her as racist while demanding she be fired.

Curiously, before Obama was elected, it was fairly common to find references in the media that referred to the former Illinois senator as born in Kenya.

The Kenyan government, as well, in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in Kenya to “honour the birthplace of President Obama.”

Even Obama’s own literary agency billed him as “born in Kenya” as late as 2007 to promote the sale of his book, “Dreams from My Father.”

And while the White House released a purported copy of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate April 27, 2011, the president’s refusal to release his childhood and college records, coupled with charges that the birth certificate is a forgery, as well as Barack Obama Sr.’s status as a foreign national, have led many so-called “birthers” to continue to question Obama’s birthplace and/or eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to serve as president.

Discover the most extensive archive of news reports on Obama’s eligibility anywhere!

As WND has reported, a special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was even assembled to look into the question at the request of Arpaio’s constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 election ballot.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Cold Case Posse Chief Mike Zullo outlined their findings.

In an affidavit, since filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, Zullo explained, “At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp.

This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine.”

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.

“Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States,” he said.

Hamas-linked CAIR demands that University of South Florida investigate professor for telling truths about Islam


From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


Matusitz is plain-spoken, if this report is accurate, but everything he says can be substantiated. This demonstrates yet again that there is no one who opposes jihad terror who is acceptable to Hamas-linked CAIR and its allies. When Hamas-linked CAIR targets so-called "Islamophobes" and details all their alleged enormities, some on the Right think that they can avoid this demonization and defamation by highlighting the work of "moderate Muslims" (Zuhdi Jasser, call your office) and talking about how the true Islam is peaceful. But the recent CAIR attack on Congressman Mike Pompeo shows that even they will not be spared.

In its "Islamophobia" report a few years back, Hamas-linked CAIR affirmed that there was acceptable and legitimate criticism of Islam and jihad. But the report offered no examples, and Hamas-linked CAIR has never offered any such examples. In reality, anyone and everyone who dares to oppose jihad and Islamic supremacism will become a target for a Hamas-linked CAIR smear campaign. CAIR's real agenda is not to distinguish legitimate resistance to jihad from bigotry and hatred, but to stigmatize all resistance to jihad as bigotry and hatred, and clear away all obstacles to the advance of that jihad. Professor Matusitz is just the latest to be in its sights.

"Islamic group says UCF professor promotes anti-Muslim hate," by Denise-Marie Ordway for the Orlando Sentinel, June 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations is accusing a UCF professor of teaching anti-Muslim bigotry. 
Officials with the group sent a complaint to the University of Central Florida asking it to review the content of professor Jonathan Matusitz's courses.
Matusitz, 36, has taught several communication classes at UCF, including one called Terrorism and Communication and another on intercultural communication. He wrote a book titled "Terrorism & Communication: A Critical Introduction" that was published last year.
The council points to a YouTube video of Matusitz as an example of his sharing "Islamophobic" views with students that it says are inaccurate, biased and over-generalized. UCF says that video, which appears to have been taped in a classroom, actually features an "outside-of-the-classroom presentation" that took place in January.
UCF spokesman Grant Heston said the school has received no complaints from students or Matusitz's colleagues about his work.
In the video, Matusitz stresses the link between terrorism and Islamic culture. He also suggests countries should resist the global spread of Islam.
"Why do so many Muslims, relative to other religions, want to kill us?" he asks in the video. "The answer is easy, very easy. It is seven letters: culture."
He also explains that Islam cannot be changed.
"How can you change a movement in which you have 1.5 billion members? It's impossible," he says. "We just have to resist it and just elect people who are willing just to resist it and just be true American. That's the only answer. We're not going to change Islam."
Heston said Matusitz was not speaking on behalf of UCF, which does not endorse his views.
At this point, the university is not reviewing the professor's lessons or work at UCF.
"Dr. Matusitz expressed his opinion, which is his right," Heston said.
Matusitz, who was given an award by UCF last year for outstanding performance, could not be reached for comment for this article.
But Thursday, he appeared on a South Florida radio show to talk about being "disinvited" to speak at a Republican Party event in Pinellas County earlier this month. He said his speech, which was to focus on the Islamic threat to America, was canceled partly because party members considered the topic too "sensitive."
Matusitz said on the show that he refuses to be "politically correct just to please everybody."
"I think that in academia, I'm sure a lot of people don't share my views," he said. "But I also think that a lot of people share my views, but they're not as open as I am."
The state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations worries that UCF students are being led to believe that all Islamic societies are violent and create terrorists.
"His blatant disregard for distinguishing between terrorists and the Muslim population as a whole is disturbing," the group wrote in the letter it sent to UCF.
The letter is signed by two other organizations: EMERGE-USA, an advocacy group for underrepresented communities such as Muslims, and I Am Choice, an equal-rights advocacy group.
In another YouTube video, Matusitz shares his negative opinion of Islam during a recent panel discussion on U.S. national security.
He cites a statistic that indicates the vast majority of victims of terrorism were victims of Islamic terrorism.
"So when my colleagues tell me that Islam is a religion of peace, I tell them that Islam is a religion of pieces: piece of body here, piece of body there," he says in that video.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the national Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he does not understand how a publicly funded university such as UCF could allow a professor to promote such hateful views.
The group also takes issue with Matusitz's connection to a national group called ACT! for America, which promotes anti-Islamic views.
Note that the Orlando Sentinel doesn't bother to mention that CAIR is a Hamas front, but does go out of its way to assert that ACT! for America "promotes anti-Islamic views."

Obama sending U.S. soldiers to Egypt to put down anti-Muslim Brotherhood riots

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there have now been three large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support – and those three exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.

The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered – in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.

In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes. For whatever complex of personal affinity and political calculation, he has steered the United States, in the words of the Egyptian newspaper Rose el-Youssef, “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Maybe he thinks, as Daniel Greenfield has posited, that he can end jihad terror against the West by allowing Muslim states to achieve their heart's desire: reestablishment of the caliphate. In any case, in one of the most shameful episodes of his entire shameful tenure, now American troops will be deployed in service of the Muslim Brotherhood, to put down pro-democracy protestors in Egypt.

"Riot Control Training," from KCENTV.com, June 20 (thanks to Maxwell):
(KCEN) -- A group of soldiers are preparing for their deployment to Egypt with riot training on post. 
They're planning ahead for violent protests or riots and the possibility of protecting the country's border with Israel.
Soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and other dangerous items in the training.
Lt. Matthew Wilkinson says, "Just what I've seen over the course of the past week than we were a week ago."
PFC Perez Alexander says, "We want to be as professional as possible... Know what we're doing."
They wrap up training today before preparing to ship out in the near future.


The “Help Wanted” sign is out again in America.

But it’s not what you think.

A report from the newswire Reuters says that massive hiring is in effect for Obamacare with state and federal agencies hiring both directly and issuing grants to community organizations to act as kind of insurance agents, signing up as many people to Obamacare as possible under the law.

“State offices that will run insurance exchanges are hiring tens of thousands,” reports Reuters, “either on staff or through outsourcing firms. Federal agencies that are key to implementing the law, such as the Internal Revenue Service, plan to hire thousands more, and private non-profit groups backed by the White House are dispatching thousands of newly hired staffers and volunteers into the field.”

Reuters believes that the hiring could “produce a modest, if temporary, boost to employment across several industries.”

Ha! It’s about time Obamacare did something, after costing the country so many jobs, so much lost work time, so much in taxes- even before implementation.

So that “Help Wanted” sign hanging around American necks isn’t really a sign indicating jobs for real people, like you and me.

Rather it’s an S.O.S. from an economy that can’t produce jobs in sufficient numbers to make up for the liberal job sloth produced by Obamacare.

You can’t just whack out millions of full time jobs though massive, wasteful, and misunderstood legislation and expect the economy to remain completely silent.

Help! Please! Help!

Indeed, as our own Mike Shedlock reported last month, year over year “those ‘not’ in the labor force rose by 1,604,000” while “the number of people employed rose by 1,645,000.”

That’s a net gain of only 41,000 jobs, even as unemployment stats went steadily downward.

Remember all the talky-talk about the job scene getting better?

Riiiight.

Even worse, “voluntary plus involuntary part-time employment rose by a whopping 441,000 jobs. Take away part-time jobs and there is not all that much to brag about. Indeed, full-time employment fell once again, this month by 148,000.”

The culprit, most likely, in this job-killing spree is Obamacare.

Companies are rewarded for cutting hours, cutting jobs and going to temporary workers.

“Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff,” reported the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book in March.

On cue, mass-layoffs, while not matching numbers seen in 2009-2011, are trending back up even as the Federal Reserve continues its stimulus measures.

Thank goodness the clever administration has figured out a way around the pesky mass-layoff problem with true Obama flair.

This week the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced:

On March 1, 2013, President Obama ordered into effect the across-the-board spending cuts (commonly referred to as sequestration) required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended. Under the order, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) must cut its current budget by more than $30 million, 5 percent of the current 2013 appropriation, by September 30, 2013. In order to help achieve these savings and protect core programs, the BLS will eliminate two programs, including Mass Layoff Statistics, and all "measuring green jobs" products. This news release is the final publication of monthly mass layoff survey data.

Ok, I get how measuring mass layoffs might cost some bucks; but really? Green jobs? Couldn’t a blind guy with one hand and a broken solar calculator do that job for $24,000 per year?

Not under Obamacare they couldn’t.

While Obama gets to play reality T.V. star, rewriting the script to suit himself, the rest of us on the other side of the glass in TVLand have to play by the rules of reality, physics, economics and the law.

A recent Gallup poll found that 48 percent of small business owners think that Obamacare will hurt profitability, while 41 percent have quit hiring because of it. 1 in 5 small business owners have already reduced their workforce to accommodate the healthcare law according to the same poll.

“In addition to restricting hiring or cutting jobs,” reports CNBC, “small companies are considering other ways to mitigate the expected financial fallout. Twenty-four percent are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage, while 18 percent have ‘reduced the hours of employees to part-time’ in anticipation of [Obamacare’s] effects.”

But it’s not just small business that getting the shaft.

Last month I wrote about Obama’s former chief of staff- and Chicago’s newest mayor-for-life- Rahm Emanuel, who decided that the city was through with paying for healthcare benefits on behalf of about 30,000 retired government workers.

“Once the phaseout is complete,” reported the Chicago Tribune, “those retired workers would have to pay for their own health insurance or get subsidies under the [Obamacare.] The city-subsidized coverage is particularly important to retired workers who aren't yet eligible for Medicare, as opposed to those 65 or older who use the subsidies for Medicare supplemental insurance.”

The 30,000 retired workers will either pay for their health insurance individually, says the city, or they can move their healthcare over to Obamacare and receive a federal government subsidy along the way, in addition to paying an out of pocket premium. The proposal will save Chicago $109 million next year.

The bill to the federal government for the move to Obamacare will be $110 million.

Which is really the point right?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, to make up for the money Chicago saved by passing along twice the healthcare costs to retirees and the federal government, had to mass layoff the Mass-Layoff Statistics guys in order to be able to afford Obamacare.

Thus the circle is complete.

So, as I said in the beginning: Help is wanted.

Send help.

Please.

The Never-Ending Story of Government Cost Overruns

By: Daniel J. Mitchell / Townhall Finance 
 
Why is it that virtually everything the government does cost more than we’re initially told?
In 2009, for instance, I warned that Obamacare would be much more costlythan advertised, so I certainly wasn’t surprised several years later when the numbers began to climb.
Heck, I narrated an entire video warning that this would happen.
There are probably an infinite number of reasons why government programs wind up being needlessly expensive, but I think most of them fall into these four broad categories.
1. Government is inherently inefficient and wasteful (obvious to anyone who’s ever been stuck in a motor vehicles department).
2. Government doesn’t solve problems, and its failures are used as an excuse to increase budgets (a version of Mitchell’s Law).
3. Bureaucrats who produce cost estimates fail to incorporate behavioral effects (people acting in ways to take advantage of government largesse).
4. Politicians deliberately understate costs in hopes of tricking taxpayers into supporting their schemes (yes, we’re shocked that they lie).
These are some of the thoughts that went through my mind when I looked at this chart on estimated disability expenditures over time. As you can see, the government routinely underestimates the cost of the programs.
SSDI Projections
It goes without saying, of course, that the 2010 projection will be wildly inaccurate. The disability rolls have exploded during the Obama years.
But at least we’re not Greece, where you can actually get disability handouts for being a pedophile. In the United States, you have to do something far less offensive (like being a 30-year old who likes wearing diapers) to scam the program.


Op-ed:
Massive government waste aids our enemies
By: Diane Sori


Barack HUSSEIN Obama has told the enemy we will be leaving the Afghan theater by the end of 2014 after having already told and followed through on his announced exit date for Iraq. Our military presence in both countries will finally be over…our troops will be coming home as the Iraqi and Afghan's own military and security forces will be the ones defending their respective countries.

It’s long been clear they don’t want us there…probably NEVER did…but the question is what happens to all the expensive weapons, vehicles, tanks, etc. that we and they used while fighting…equipment paid for with our taxpayer dollars…the answer will surprise you…or maybe with this president it won’t.

It appears that some of the NOT so bright Obama loyal so-called ‘military planners’ have decided that a whopping 20% of all the military equipment we currently have in Afghanistan will NOT be shipped back to the US, because they claim the equipment is NO longer needed, too expensive to ship home, and would be a logistical nightmare to retrieve from the field. So the options were to leave the equipment, destroy it, move it to other military locations, or transfer it to another country. And of course they decided to leave it behind claiming it would cost around $5.7 billion to move or transfer the equipment, and they were NOT willing to spend the money or take the time involved to do either.

Of course it NEVER occurred to this Obama bunch to just ‘give’ the equipment to geographically close by Israel. It would be a fraction of the cost to transfer the equipment to Israel compared to shipping it back to the US. And it would help counter the F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks Obama just ‘gave’ the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egyptian government…NEVER occurred to them at all…but then again we all know why.

So out of the roughly 750,000 pieces of major military equipment used in Afghanistan…equipment worth an estimated $36+ billion…it’s been decided that we can afford to just leave behind 20% of it…equipment that amounts to seven billion…B as in BILLION…dollars…military equipment that includes high tech, state-of-the art tanks, aircraft, trucks, armored vehicles, and the much needed Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, with all either being destroyed at best or left to fall into enemy hands at worst…and ‘We the People’ are the losers for a large amount of our hard earned tax dollars will have just been thrown away.

And the equipment left behind will be crushed and melted down and sold for pennies per pound on the Afghan scrap market. In fact, the US military has already destroyed 170+ million pounds of vehicles and other military equipment as it rushes to meet Obama’s goal of leaving Afghanistan by the end of 2014. And if that doesn’t infuriate you how about this…according to the military planners, if we brought back the scheduled to be left behind 20%, transporting it back to the US would cost almost $3 billion and repairing it would cost upwards of $9 billion…but isn’t our equipment serviced while in use…of course it is so this ‘supposed’ repair bill is pure fabrication in its amount. Sure some equipment will need servicing, after all its been used in war, but $9 billion dollars worth of repairs…NO…I don’t think so.

And by the way Britain will also be leaving military equipment behind…equipment worth more than £2billion (2.44 billion US dollars)…equipment that will also be scrapped, sold, or given away by the Ministry of Defense (to whom I wonder) when they withdraw from Afghanistan.

Now some numbers for Iraq…in the months leading up to us going into Iraq, the US Transportation Command delivered over 1 million tons of cargo, making at least 150 round trips by ships to do so. That translates into major numbers of needed equipment to stock the 505 US military bases and outposts in operation at the height of the war…equipment that included tanks, armored vehicles, anti-aircraft missiles and such, let alone the equipment needed to actually construct said bases themselves…bases constructed at a cost of more than $2.4 billion. All done with construction equipment our taxpayer dollars paid for and most of it being left behind.

And to add insult to injury, in the year 2011 alone, we gave the Iraqis military equipment with a fair market value of $247 million on top of the $157 million worth of military equipment we already had transferred to them before the Obama announced withdrawal officially started…translating into over 2.4 million pieces of actual military equipment ‘given’ away…as in NOTHING was paid for by the Iraqis to us.

And while the Iraq numbers are NOT as great as the Afghan numbers there’s a simple reason why we didn’t leave as much behind in Iraq, and it's because we had a port to ship the equipment home from. Afghanistan is landlocked making it harder but NOT impossible to bring equipment out, and with us still fighting there the equipment is still needed right up until the deadline for the Obama announced withdrawal. And this fact alone proves where this man’s loyalties lie for he knows the equipment is needed and deliberately set his timetable so we could NOT bring it home…knowing it will indeed eventually fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, for the Afghan forces are weak and ineffective at best.

And here’s an interesting fact…large numbers of weapons and military equipment was also left behind when the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, and while some of that equipment was sold on the black market or through weapons merchants a lot of it ended up in the hands of terrorists…terrorists like al-Qaeda…and those weapons in turn were used against our troops. And the same thing will happen when we leave our equipment behind only this time al-Qaeda will NOT only use it against us but against any civilians who oppose them, and the weak Afghan military will not be able to stop them.

But the bottom line remains that we spent enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars to purchase this needed equipment, and to just leave it behind says our tax dollars and ‘We the People’ be damned. This equipment must be shipped home for the next war…and rest assured there will be a next war…there always is (war is big business after all) with the next war probably in Syria....and what happens when we need this equipment and it won't be there...is this Obama's plan...just something to think about...