Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Orly Taitz gets first SCOTUS conference hearing (+Videos)

By James H. Hyde, Editor-in-Chief / Conservative Nexus

This story has been kicking around the web for a week, but I got this “Breaking News” email confirmation yesterday from Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.: “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts scheduled a case by attorney Orly Taitz dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s use of forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court. The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.”

In addition, according to blog, “[The] TRO request was filed pursuant to sworn affidavits of Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio, Investigator Mike Zullo, senior Deportation Officer with the department of Homeland Security John Sampson, Licensed investigator Susan Daniels, typesetting and Printing expert Paul Irey, Printing expert Douglas Vogt, Printing Expert Jonathan Poland, information Technology Expert Felicito Papa witness Linda Jordan and others attesting to the fact that Barack Obama’s short form birth certificate, long form birth certificate and Selective Service certificate represent computer generated forgeries and his social [sic] Security number is a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was issued in and around March 28, 1977 to an elderly resident of Connecticut born in 1890, who is presumed to be deceased, whose death was not reported to the SSA and whose number was unlawfully assumed by Barack (Barry) Soetero /Soebarkah/Obama in around 1980.”

Also, according to the ObamaHustle site, “Complaint also contains a sworn affidavit of an assistant clerk of the Registrar for the City of Hawaii [sic Honolulu] and county of Hawaii [sic], attesting to the fact that there is no birth certificate for Barack Obama in any hospital in Hawaii.”

Tim Adams, who served as an elections official for the city and county of Honolulu stated in 2008 that he searched the system and could not find a long-form hospital birth certificate for Obama in the Hawaiian archives (see video below).

The “missing” birth certificate has been a thorn in Obama’s side for a long time, but this admission in a sworn affidavit that no Obama birth certificate is in the Hawaiian archives is new and highly problematic.

Heretofore, Hawaii has always claimed the documents were there.

In fact, fed up with Birther claims and anxious to take this problem off Obama’s back, Governor Neil Abercrombie, when first elected, promised that he would go through the archives himself, find the long-form birth certificate from the hospital and prove the “Birthers” wrong. That was back in 2010-2011, and so far, Governor Abercrombie vaguely admits he can find only “notations” about Obama’s birth, but has not provided any documents to prove that any notation exists (see video below).

If there is no hospital birth certificate found in Hawaii’s archives, then the Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the White House website is fraudulent. It’s going to be hard for any court involved in this to rule against Taitz, and people will have to seriously consider whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, as one of his publisher’s printed in a promotional pamphlets and other materials clearly state he was.

Roberts, who may be feeling guilty about his Obamacare decision—as well he should—is still only giving Taitz a fifty-fifty chance. But that he is taking it to conference at all is significant. That could have consequences if the preponderance of her evidence checks out with the SCOTUS and in the lower courts as the case proceeds.

While all of the evidence listed above would make a conspiracy theorist drool, there’s some very curious additional evidence that appeared in Kerchner v Obama, a case filed on January 20, 2009, according to The case was not filed by Taitz, but rather by Mario Apuzzo. A New Jersey-based federal district court claimed that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against Obama, an oft repeated ruling in cases challenging his eligibility.

Regardless,  the evidence in question is troubling. After the 2008 conventions, the respective chairmen of the parties’ National Conventions had to file Certificates of Nomination forms with all the states. The forms certify who the candidates for president and vice president are and that they are eligible to be president according to the provisions of the Constitution. The GOP sent one form to all 50 states certifying eligibility, but Nancy Pelosi did not. She filed two separate forms, one to Hawaii, where Obama is alleged to have been born, and another to the other forty-nine states without the eligibility clause.

To Hawaii, the verbiage included the following on the form: “…the following were duly nominated candidates of said party respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: [Obama and Biden are named].” [Emphasis mine].

To the other forty-nine states, she deleted the “are legally qualified” line. She wrote. “…the following were duly nominated candidates of said party respectively: [Obama and Biden are named].”

Why the discrepancy? alludes to a possible answer: “Did Hawaii demand extra CYA protection from the DNC and Nancy Pelosi before they would put Obama on the ballot in Hawaii because people in Hawaii knew things about Obama the other 49 states did not know? It is the responsibility of the political parties to certify a candidate is eligible for the office they are running for. In Obama’s case, the DNC and Nancy Pelosi did not certify that Obama was eligible under the Constitution in 49 of the 50 states.”

This sets Pelosi up for possible fraud and conspiracy indictments herself because she had to have known that he was not eligible or else why did she send out two differing certifications, one with the assurance of constitutional eligibility and forty-nine without that assurance?

That aside, if you’re a Taitz fan or a Birther, don’t break out the bubbly just yet. It’s way too soon to celebrate Obama’s possible ouster for being ineligible to serve as president. It’s important to understand what a SCOTUS “conference” is. First, it is not a full hearing of an appeal of an adverse ruling handed down by a lower federal court at the conclusion of a civil trial. Heretofore, Dr. Taitz has been left at the SCOTUS alter at least five times. That means she’s petitioned for appeals and they’ve been flatly turned down each time. But acceptance for conference truly is what makes this different.

It’s in conference that the Supreme Court reviews the merits of an appeal, and if four of the justices vote to hear it, the appeal is scheduled for oral arguments. The vast majority of such appeals fail to get the four votes. Second, Taitz is not appealing a ruling against the plaintiffs she represents after going through a complete civil trial. She is appealing the California federal court’s ruling against her request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the certification of the 2012 vote by Congress.

The lower court first denied Dr. Taitz a TRO to keep the California vote uncertified. She filed an appeal of that denial to SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he rejected it. Her appeal here involves the denial of a TRO to keep Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote, and this time she filed with Chief Justice John Roberts, who agreed to have what she provides considered in conference to see if the SCOTUS will hear her appeal. In the mean time, the lower court case alleging Obama to be ineligible will proceed. So this is not a situation where Taitz lost the case and is seeking to appeal the decision. This involves but one part of that case.

Taitz, known to the left in the pejorative as the “Birther queen,” has compiled an impressive list of evidence, including an Indonesian school enrollment document, photographed by Tatan Syuflana of the Associated Press (which can be downloaded here). It lists Obama’s name as Barry Soetero, which we know was his name when he was living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, Lolo Soetero, who is alleged to have adopted him. That would make Barry Soetero his legal name. If he did not go to court to have his name changed back to Barack Hussein Obama, then using that name is fraudulent. The document in question clearly indicates Soetero’s citizenship as “Indonesian” and his religion as “Muslim.” If that’s the case, did he renounce his U.S. citizenship when his mother moved to Indonesia and then fail to get it reinstated before running for president?

That’s what Donald Trump wants to know and why he wants to see Obama’s college records, because they would indicate if he was a foreign exchange student (as a citizen of Indonesia). But not even a Trump offer of $5 million to Obama’s favorite charity would compel Obama to even consider unsealing those documents.

That’s because it’s estimated that he’s paid lawyers $2 million plus to keep them and other records that indicate his true legal name and citizenship in ultra dark places.

Questions about the status of his citizenship are legion, but that even the AP gives a modicum of credence to his being a citizen of Indonesia is troubling. And it may well be backed up by the illegal Social Security number he’s allegedly using.

In the YouTube Video below, it’s explained that the Social Security number Taitz alleges Obama is using does comes up with his name, but denies him the ability to work because it was not a Social Security number actually assigned to him.

Needless to say, for Dr. Taitz, this is a huge deal; a fait accompli after tilting at windmills since 2009. I’ve been following her and her efforts to have Obama escorted from the Oval Office since she began her quest when she first claimed that Obama was born in Kenya and that he has forged and in other ways misrepresented the truth about his identity and citizenship. If any of her allegations are proven true and the SCOTUS agrees, it would cost him his incumbency and he’d be slapped with numerous fraud indictments.

Taitz’s problem has been getting a federal court (or any court) to take her and her evidence seriously.

Even if she prevails here and gets her TRO, the conference is not scheduled until February 15, 2013, well after Obama’s second inauguration, and if the court grants certiorari (permission to bring her appeal before the SCOTUS), she will be heard, but only about the TRO.  To get the court to grant certiorari to decide on Obama’s eligibility is different, although if the high court grants her TRO after reviewing the evidence she’s presented for her current appeal, it is a de facto confirmation by the high court that what she contends and the proof she provides is true, relevant and compelling.

If it should later be proven that Obama is ineligible to be president, it leaves the court with the unenviable task of trying to untangle a mess nothing less than a horrendously snarled fishing reel.

That’s where the “ifs” begin. If Obama is proven ineligible, does that mean that Biden becomes president?

Most likely yes. The Constitution does provide that if the man or woman  elected president is deemed unable to serve between the election and the inauguration and beyond, the vice president can take his or her place until he is able to serve. But some may argue that if the top of the ticket was a fraud, the whole ticket is irreversibly stained, and therein lies the rub. Does Romney win by default? Not likely.

But the burdens the country and the courts will face will be arduous. Everyone Obama nominated to the Supreme Court, his Cabinet and all in the Executive Branch subject to Senate consent will lose their jobs. If he was never legally president, then he could not legally nominate them for their positions, even though they were approved by the Senate. They would most likely have to be renominated and the Senate would have to approve of each (or not) again under it’s advice and consent mandate.

Everything ordered or signed by Obama has no force or effect. All legislation signed into law by him may have to go through the legislative process again or be signed by Biden if he is president. All of Obama’s executive orders would be without effect. All regulations written by, say, the EPA, HHS and other Executive Branch agencies and departments would have to be rescinded because those who are Senate approved are not legally in office.

That makes it abundantly clear why the federal courts have turned a deaf eye to all prior attempt to prove Obama ineligible. It would cause a very gnarly constitutional crisis that would impact our economy,
credibility, global status and make us look like a nation of fools, far too trusting of what those involved in this told us. Obviously, it would create complete mayhem in the Executive Branch and a serious hiccup in foreign policy. In fact, we’d be vulnerable to attacks possibly verbal and military.

Given all of the evidence, even without Pelosi’s mysterious certifications not on Taitz’s evidence list, maybe this time, Orly Taitz will break through to the other side, and if she winds up winning, Obama could well be shown the door. But again, the courts seem loathe to be responsible for a constitutional crisis that will shake this nation to its core for decades to come.

SCOTUS’s agreement to consider her TRO in conference is a small victory for now. Regardless, if Obama is ultimately found ineligible and a constitutional crises ensues, we cannot have an impostor in the White House, so the courts had best weigh the evidence clearly and fairly and truthfully. We’ll recover from a major crisis like this just as we did from Watergate and the like of the Teapot Dome Scandal. It’s just another mess in American politics and we will rise above it.

For more information about how Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president, see The Biggest Coverup in U.S. History.



Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today issued the following statement reiterating his support for the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, in light of President Obama’s announcement regarding gun policy in America:

“As the father of four young children, I was deeply saddened by the murder of innocent kids at Sandy Hook. In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, I expressed my hope that President Obama and our elected leaders would take a sober look at how we can prevent such heinous murders in the future. Doing so would require addressing the underlying causes of these evil acts, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and without curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Nothing the President is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence. Rolling back responsible citizens’ rights is not the proper response to these types of tragedies. Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress. President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.

“Guns are not the problem; criminals with evil in their hearts and people prone to violence are. Rather than sweeping measures that make it harder for responsible, law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms, we should focus on the root causes of gun violence.  “As a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment, I will oppose the President’s attempts to undermine Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.”

7 Reasons Conservatives Don't Trust the Republican Establishment

7 Reasons Conservatives Don't Trust the Republican Establishment
Just as moderates are completely unrepresented in a Democratic Party that's dominated by liberals, movement conservatives often don't feel represented by the Republican Party. At first glance, this seems rather odd since most Republicans in Congress are conservative. However, it's a natural reaction to the Republican establishment that has its hands welded to many of the GOP's levers of power. The Republican Party may be mostly conservative, but there are a multitude of reasons that you can't trust the establishment Republicans as far as you can throw them.
1) They have supreme confidence without supreme competence. Conservative talk show hosts, columnists, bloggers and Tea Partiers don't always get it right. We make our mistakes. But, we recognize that. The problem with the establishment Republicans is that they make just as many mistakes, if not more, without ever being humbled by the experience. Karl Rove is a truly brilliant man and he's done a great service for conservatism by raising so much money to help Republican candidates (although he's now promising to torpedo conservative candidates in GOP primaries), but his strategic decision-making also turned Bush's second term into a Hindenburg style disaster that the GOP hasn't recovered from yet. How did the "Super-Committee" the GOP establishment championed in 2011 work out? Not so well. How about Harriet Miers? The comprehensive immigration reform battle in Bush's second term? John McCain? Mitt Romney? It's fine to think you're the smartest guy in the room, but if you can't back it up, don't expect everyone to ignore the dunce cap you're wearing and pretend that you're Einstein.
2) They always prefer moderates to conservatives. It should tell you something when the GOP establishment always, always, ALWAYS prefers the least conservative candidate. It backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz, Bob Bennett over Mike Lee, Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. Our two top "leaders" in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, both endorsed Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, a guy who is now being touted as one of the frontrunners for the presidency in 2016. When the best and brightest of the GOP in the Senate were almost universally opposed by the GOP establishment, what message does it send to the base? It sure as hell ain't "You can trust us" or "We're on your side." The real message is, "We're so frightened by our own base that we'd rather back future Democrats like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter than movement conservatives."
3) They stick with the same failed leaders. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have been in charge in Congress since 2006. What do we have to show for their "leadership?" Three bad election cycles out of four. John Boehner seems to mean well, but neither he nor McConnell can message their way out of a wet paper bag. In addition, McConnell has been outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Harry Reid at every turn and is polling so poorly that he's pulling a Todd Akin by running for his seat when he should be stepping aside for a more electable candidate. Reince Priebus did an excellent job of raising money at the RNC last cycle, but did nothing else well during a lousy cycle that his failure as RNC Chairman contributed to mightily. Everyone agrees that the GOP did poorly in the Senate in 2012; yet the head of the NRSC John Cornyn failed upwards to become the new Minority Whip in the Senate. William Buckley once said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard." Well, the GOP would be better led by randomly elected Republicans than the crew that's running the show.
4) They're incessantly looking for excuses to jettison conservative principles. When Democrats run for office, they lie about being moderates to get elected and then move to the Left. When Republicans run for office, they lie about being conservative and then move to the middle. So, when Barack Obama lies, it's a lie about pretending to oppose gay marriage. On the other hand, when Republicans like Marco Rubio lie, it's a lie about opposing amnesty for illegals. What that means is that there is never a time when conservatives can trust Republicans in Congress to just do the right thing. Every time gun control, immigration or spending comes up, we have to ramp the pressure all the way up just to get the Republicans in Congress to do the jobs they were sent to Congress to do in the first place. If you hired a waiter at your restaurant and you had to yell at him every day to get him to talk to customers or hand his orders in to the kitchen, you'd fire him in a heartbeat. We'd love to do the same thing to Republicans in Congress and the only reason we don't is that it would mean hiring Democrats who'd pocket all the tips, loot the cash register, and picket the restaurant for not having a bathroom for transsexuals.
5) The Republican establishment doesn't produce results. With Obama in power, the Democrats slammed through Obamacare and are pushing for gay marriage and gun control. On the other hand, when Republicans were in power, they implemented Medicare Part D and wanted comprehensive immigration reform. What's supposed to excite conservatives about that? Additionally, no matter who's in charge, government gets bigger and spending increases. The establishment also managed to clear the way for both John McCain and Mitt Romney because they were both moderates who ran from social issues, which made them so "electable." As it turns out, they were both so "electable" that they lost. Isn't it funny how often the GOP establishment gets its way, loses, then declares that no one could have done better and we need even more of the same next time? Show us the great victories achieved for the conservative movement by the establishment Republicans who've had their way with the party since Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution spluttered to a stop? If the establishment Republicans don’t have anything to offer but defeat, painful compromises that never seem to bear any political fruit, and complaints about the people whose first priority is the good of the country instead of fattening their own wallets, what good are they?
6) Where's the urgency? Where's the fight? Did you ever notice that both John McCain and Mitt Romney ran far nastier and more vicious campaigns against their Republican primary opponents than they did against Barack Obama? Conservatives, the establishment Republicans will fight tooth and nail, but when they're up against Democrats, they turn into pussycats. Democrats don't have any qualms about trying to eviscerate Republicans, but the GOP establishment keeps acting like it’s going to win some kind of sportsmanship award for putting out forgettable lines of attack that pass through the mind like prunes pass through the body. Meanwhile, outside of the Beltway, guns, gold and survival seeds are flying off the shelves and many Americans are convinced for good reason that this country is headed toward an economic collapse driven by our unsustainable debt within the next decade or two. While that's happening, Barack Obama is talking about overruling Congress with executive orders and minting trillion dollar platinum coins. Yet, if you listen to the Republican establishment, you'd think all is well and it is just business as usual. We don't need screaming or rants about Hitler, but it would be nice to get the idea that the establishment Republicans aren’t content to sit on the deck of the sinking Titanic, watching the ship go down while they ask people running by if they'd like to play a game of shuffleboard while they’re waiting.
7) They don't represent the values of conservatives in key areas. Ronald Reagan is the patron saint of the conservative movement, but if you look at his time in office, you'll discover that Reagan actually compromised quite a bit with the Democrats. So, why do conservatives today revere Reagan, but not trust the establishment Republicans when they want to compromise? Simple; conservatives knew Ronald Reagan was one of us and had our best interests at heart. The same can't be said of Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, John Boehner, David Frum, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt, Joe Scarborough, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, David Brooks, Megan McCain, Bob Dole, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. They're not bad people (Well, Frum and Megan McCain may be) and we would likely agree on a lot of things, but they're not movement conservatives. Their agenda is not our agenda, their goals are not our goals, and that means that ultimately, we can never trust them the way liberals can trust politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. At the end of the day, if you're going to ask someone to act as your agent in a hostage negotiation, you have to be confident that he wants the hostage back with all his fingers and toes intact just as much as you do.
Are Guns the Problem?

Are Guns the Problem?

By: Walter E. Williams / Townhall Columnist
When I attended primary and secondary school -- during the 1940s and '50s -- one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. 
People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped.

Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives -- along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts -- have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex.

Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.
Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest.

Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

Barack Hussein Obama says, “Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t know what’s good for Israel”

20120912.121730_reuters_netanyahu-300x195But that’s not all! The Muslim-in-Chief, who sees the Israeli leader as a ‘political coward’ adds, “building new housing units for Jews in the Jewish state poses more of a threat to Israel’s existence than Iran’s nuclear program.” WOW! Sounds like the real threat is coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

UK Telegraph (h/t Annie F)  The damning assessment of the Israeli prime minister, relayed by senior White House officials to an American journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, is the most graphic sign yet of the toxic relationship between the two men, who have clashed continually over the stalled Middle East peace process.


Writing on the Bloomberg website, Goldberg quoted Mr Obama as repeatedly saying, “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are” in response to a spate of recent announcements for thousands of new Jewish settler homes in east Jerusalem and the West Bank on land the Palestinians want for a future state.

Mr Obama did not even bother getting angry after hearing of Israel’s decision to build in a highly-sensitive West Bank area called E1 – previously considered off-limits in deference to American pressure. (That was when Israel considered the U.S. an ally. No more)




Instead, he told aides it was the kind of self-defeating behaviour he had come to expect from Mr Netanyahu, according to Goldberg, who is renowned for having close ties to both leaders.

The (Jew-hating) president believes each new construction announcement is driving Israel towards a “near total” international isolation that presents a greater long-term threat to its survival than Iran’s nuclear program, which American and Israeli officials believe is aimed at producing a bomb.

2800182360“If Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah – one that alienates even the affections of the US, its last steadfast friend – it won’t survive,” Goldberg writes, paraphrasing Mr Obama’s words. “Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behaviour poses a long-term one.”

Mr Obama also believes the Israeli prime minister is a political coward who is incapable of making concessions to the Palestinians (You mean after Israel made hundreds of concessions and the Palestinians made none?) because he has “become captive of the settler Jewish citizens of the Jewish state lobby.”


His faith in tolerance for Mr Netanyahu has sunk so low that he is unwilling to spend more time on pursuing fresh peace initiatives, despite the enthusiasm of the presumptive new US secretary of state, John Kerry, for new talks.

“What Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement new construction policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy,” Goldberg wrote. (But it doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t, especially the Arabs whose only solution is the destruction of Israel)


Disclosure of Mr Obama’s reported views comes a week before an Israeli general election, on January 22, which Mr Netanyahu’s Likud Beiteinu bloc is expected to win. (And rumored to be ready to make his administration much more far right leaning).

A spokesman for Mr Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the latest report. (Gee, I wonder why?)


Here it is...the photo-op that it's all about...a rainbow coalition of children used and a bloviating traitor...

And little children all lined up in a row...
By: Diane Sori

How convenient is this...the day before Obama is to announce his new gun control plan, lo and behold two school shootings happen, this time in St. Louis, Missouri and Hazard, Kentucky. The shooter in St. Louis, while wounded by a self-inflicted gunshot, is alive and in police custody, while two have turned themselves in to police in Kentucky after killing two and wounding one.

The timing with this is just a little too close for comfort if you ask me, especially in light of Obama's newest publicity stunt where at tomorrow's press conference he will surround himself with schoolchildren from across the country when he unveils his 'concrete package' of gun control proposals. Claiming these children sent him letters begging for gun control measures so they could feel safe at school, this is a set-up if ever there was in trot out the children for a major gun grab.

Using kids as a human shield, according to Rush Limbaugh.

Yeah, a shield of sweet faces to try and shame Congress into going along with everything Obama wants...and all a lead-in to his so-wanted repeal of the Second Amendment and disarming of the American citizenry.

Playing on the public's empathy for the 20 children slaughtered in Newtown, and of course his NOT letting a so-called 'good crisis' go to waste, Obama will be using these children as props to push his gun control agenda. While we know this man has NO shame, what I don't understand is how these children's parents can allow them to be used for Obama's political fodder to dismantle the Constitution. NO matter if these parents are pro gun control, allowing your child to be arranged on a stage like a background prop, to showcase a president who is unabashedly using them for the ultimate photo-op, is beyond me.

But then again these parents are probably part of the 47%, liberals all, whose votes he bought and paid for...and that would explain a lot. And there's always the 'I rubbed your back now you rub mine'...or else...scenario too.

As we all expect, Obama will most assuredly propose a stronger version of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines, increased database tracking for weapons sales, a tightening of measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those with severe mental illness, and a strengthening of federal background checks of people attempting to buy firearms, including those firearms that change hands in private sales...the infamous supposed 'loopholes' of gun-show sales.

Saying, “There may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed to through legislation,” Obama plans to immediately implement some components of his proposal by executive action but there are limits to what can be done through executive action alone.  However, Uncle Joe 'Bite-Me' Biden and crew have identified 19 different options Obama could choose to implement with executive action, including more aggressively enforcing existing gun laws, beefing up national research on guns, ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, ordering tougher penalties for gun-trafficking offenses, and ordering federal agencies to make data on gun crimes more readily available. 

Thankfully for we gun owners, the wide-range proposals he really wants requires legislation from Congress, and the House majority Republicans, as well as the blue-dog Democrats, are NOT likely to give him what he wants.

And the powerful NRA will be there every step of the way to make sure they don't.

So today, on the backs of the Newtown tragedy and sweet, 'used for sympathy' schoolchildren, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will present his gun control agenda that he claims will reduce the possibility that something like Newtown will ever happen again...and if you believe that's all he has in mind I've got some swampland you might be interested in.

Oh, and just a thought...after Obama uses these children for his anti-gun photo-op, maybe he could devote a bit of his time to explain to them the financial burdens he's saddled them I said, just a thought.