Thursday, November 1, 2012

Obama's Plan For Re-Election Botched!

You probably don't remember this headline:
State Department Refuses to Address Report on Internal Discussion About Custody of ‘Blind Sheikh’
The U.S. State Department is refusing to answer questions about internal discussions on Egypt’s demands to release the so-called “Blind Sheikh,” the radical Islamist cleric who Egypt’s new leader wants turned over to his country’s custody.
After a report by TheBlaze citing a source close to the Obama Administration saying there have been conversations within the State Department about whether to consider a change in custody of Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the “Blind Sheikh,” a group of Congressional leaders released a copy of a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder calling it “extremely disconcerting” that his release might be considered.
Rahman is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison after being convicted following the World Trade Center attack in 1993 on charges of plotting a campaign of assassinations and bombings. Egypt’s newly elected President Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has publicly promised to work for Rahman’s release.
After initially deferring inquiries to the Justice Department, today State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland officially denied plans to release Rahman. ...blah, blah, the full story here
Because most of you get your news from the main stream media you wouldn't have a clue what was going on elsewhere.  What do I mean by this? 
The news about a potential release of the blind Muslim cleric who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack was obviously (and intentionally) leaked to soften Obama's future plans that, if successful, would have guaranteed his re-election.  But he didn't plan on a former Navy Seal willing to fight back.  So now we have a bombshell bit of news that should guarantee that Obama will never get re-elected...I said, "should guarantee", but because the main stream media won't report this, his chances for re-election will not be affected much.  The following story comes to us from The Western Center For Journalism.  ~  Norman E. Hooben
see additional video at bottom of this page
Then there's this story out of Las Vegas
Las Vegas Review-Journal Destroys Obama
In one of the most blistering denunciations of Barack Obama ever penned, the Las Vegas Review Journal published an editorial today that excoriated Obama not only for his ineptitude in the Benghazi attack, but also his duplicity afterward and the cooperation of a supine press:
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election … The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.
The RJ also charged Obama with impotence as he flew off to Las Vegas instead of dealing with the attack.
Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?
The RJ pulled no punches about the Obama Administration‘s efforts to destroy our economy and accused Obama of continually flat-out lying to the American people.
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies.
The RJ concluded:

To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous. Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.
The fiery wrath of proud Americans is back.

Time to charge Obama for murder...but we have a bunch of sissies in Congress.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama's Winning Strategy: You've heard of the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, the undecided, the Liberals, the Conservatives...But have you heard about the Pirates?

Are Somali Pirates Voting in Ohio?
Jeannie DeAngelis @ American Thinker

Finally, the billy club-toting New Black Panther Party may have some backup in ensuring that Barack Obama wins a second term. Why? Because it looks like a few Somali pirates may have managed to sneak past Janet Napolitano and are now in Ohio to assist the Democrats in moving America "Forward."
Allegedly, volunteer poll workers in the Buckeye state reported seeing "van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia" being ferried in to vote early. Once at the polls, in lieu of Republican translators and UN poll watchers, the Democrats themselves were providing Somali/Arabic translation. Seems the Obama campaign is getting out the vote by teaching Somali immigrants the ins and outs of the voting process.
Witnesses at the Columbus, Ohio Morse Road polling center reported Somalis arriving in buses, being handed a slate card, and being told by helpful Democrats to vote "brown," for Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), all the way down the card.
On Ohio's website, the Somali Community Association lists the following facts: 45,000 Somalis live in Ohio; 99.9 percent are Muslim; 40 percent have become U.S. citizens; and 57 percent are eligible to become U.S. citizens, emphasis on the "eligible" part.
Ohio law does require voters to provide proof of citizenship by presenting a utility bill or writing down a Social Security or driver's license number and then checking a box. However, other than those three items, there is no other way to verify that the person doing the voting is a bona fide citizen of the United States. Moreover, most poll workers tend to just take voters at their word.
Matt McClellan, press secretary for Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, explained, "There is a process to challenge a voter's eligibility." One problem - "the point in time for a challenge to be brought ended mid October" - too late! According to Mr. McClellan, up until mid October "a poll worker could challenge a voter if they had questions as to whether or not they were registered or eligible to vote." However, if Democrats choose to forego raising the eligibility issue with, let's say, busloads of Somali voters, then any illegal Somali votes will still be counted on Election Day.
Nonetheless, being a global citizen and all, regardless of the ensuing crisis Barack Obama has consistently attempted to maintain a spirit of camaraderie with the Muslim world, and that world includes Somalia.
For example, just a few months after Barack Obama's momentous inauguration, Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden commandeered the American merchant ship Maersk Alabama, taking Captain Richard Phillips hostage at gunpoint. Yet, during that crisis, President Obama acted sort of like a blasé Democrat poll worker.
In the midst of the crisis, while meeting with beleaguered homeowners at the White House seeking help from Obama to refinance their mortgages, a reporter asked the President if he was concerned about the ongoing piracy situation. Declining to comment publicly, Obama admonished reporters when he said, "Guys, we're talking about housing right now."
Ultimately, Phillips was rescued when U.S. Navy SEALs peeled off two shots from 75 feet away, killing two AK-47-toting thugs.
Then, a couple of years after the 2009 Somali pirate incident, four American Christian missionaries, peacefully sailing the world distributing Bibles, were hijacked and held hostage off the coast of Somalia and were later killed by their pirate captors. That tragedy incited a firefight with U.S. Navy warships, which was one of many that followed.
Speaking of the U.S. Navy, in 1993 Navy SEALs were in Somalia for the Battle of Mogadishu. Seventy-three members of the U.S. military were wounded and 18 died. That was when "Masked gunmen dragged slain soldiers through the streets of Somalia's capital ... then set the bodies on fire as jeering crowds threw rocks and kicked the dead after a fierce battle in a neighborhood loyal to Islamic insurgents."
Who would have thought that almost 20 years later some of the Somalis who may have jeered as the American soldiers' burnt and desecrated bodies were being dragged naked through the streets of Mogadishu could be among those voting in the swing state of Ohio?
And so it seems that with nary a whisper of apprehension concerning potential election fraud from the Obama White House, Ohio Democrats have decided to emulate Somali pirates and attempt to hijack the election.
Lacking only motorboats, loaded AK-47's and colorful headscarves, Democrat poll pirates right there in Columbus, Ohio attempted to seize and take hostage a Mitt Romney campaign bus carrying Republicans arriving to vote. That's right, at the same polling site where busloads of Somalis voted Brown all the way to the bottom of the card, when a Mitt Romney bus pulled up "30 Democrats who were outside handing out the slate cards rushed over to the bus... yelled ... and swarmed around its door when anyone attempted to exit the bus."
Just wait - in the end, if the race in Ohio remains this close and voter piracy is exposed, when asked to comment about droves of Somali immigrants being bussed in to vote, Barack Obama will likely say something very similar to what he said during another Somali crisis: "Guys, we're talking about Big Bird right now."

We got the law (Eric Holder) on our side now.
You understand cracker!
Bonus video...!  (un-related to the above) 

Bonus commentary... (Coming to America. Guaranteed by Barack Husein Obama!)
Something’s Rotten in Denmark Schools
One day around the beginning of October, a sixth-grade class in Ejerlykkeskolen, a school in Odense, Denmark, was supposed to watch a film. But five or six students made some kind of a disturbance. The details are unclear; the point is that, in one way or another, they disrupted the class and made it impossible for their classmates to view the film. Their teacher tried to control them, but without success. Finally she gave up and sent them down to the principal, a woman named Birgitte Sonsby.
Now, Sonsby, by all indications, is no ordinary school principal. According to Poul Erik Anderson – upon whose intensive coverage of this story, beginning with an October 18 article in Den Korte Avis, the present account is largely based – Sonsby has been named the best school principal in all of Denmark. She is the head of the Odense principals’ organization. She was recently selected over 353 other nominees for a leadership award presented by the city of Odense. And she has been officially commended for running a school in which students and teachers alike feel welcome. But on that day when those five or six kids were sent to her office to be disciplined, she was unable to do anything with them. When she tried to talk to them, they laughed in her face. Eventually she lost her temper. And she said something that she shouldn’t have: “I’m so damn tired of you Muslims destroying education!”
Before we proceed, a note on translation. The expletive Sonsby used, skide, can be translated in any number of ways, some of them a good deal stronger than others. I’ve chosen “damn,” but the level of intensity may be better captured by a more emphatic word, such as “goddamn,” “bloody,” or even (and this is, in fact, probably the closest equivalent) “fucking.” And the word I’ve translated as “destroying” was ødelægger – which could also be rendered as “ruining” or “spoiling,” or, somewhat more mildly, as “damaging.”
In any event, Sonsby apologized. But that wasn’t enough for the father of one of the disruptive boys, twelve-year-old Raacan Mansoor. The dad, Shaib Mansoor, reported Sonsby to the police for racism – a charge which, if sustained, could lose her her job. (Never mind that Islam isn’t a race: that ship has long since sailed.) Mansoor later withdrew his police complaint, but made it clear that he still wanted Sonsby fired.
After Mansoor’s accusation was reported, some people close to the situation defended Sonsby, testifying to her good qualities while acknowledging that she’d crossed a line. Others were quick to label her a racist and call for her head. Yet when you get right down to it, the only thing she’s guilty of, aside from using what may or may not be considered profanity, is voicing a forbidden truth.
The facts are these. For many years, the number of Muslim students in Danish schools has been steadily rising – and, as it has risen, the quality of everyday school life in Denmark has steadily eroded. In some schools, such as Ejerlykkeskolen, students with foreign backgrounds (the great majority of them Muslim) now outnumber native Danes – and the consequence of this has been a far higher level of disorder. Everyone in Denmark knows this.
Danish parents have pulled their kids out of certain public schools – and placed them in other public schools or in private schools – precisely because they don’t want to put them through what is increasingly becoming a nightmare. Andersen notes that when the municipality of Copenhagen redrew some of its school districts recently in order to place more kids from well-off Danish families in Blågård Skole, which is two-thirds non-Danish, the parents of no fewer than 45 percent of those kids pulled them out of the public school system and put them in private schools.
In short, to suggest that Muslims have destroyed – or ruined, or damaged – education in many Danish schools is only to state a fact.
On October 24, Andersen reported that in the wake of the charges against Sonsby, the head of her school board, Peter Julius, had written an op-ed for a local paper in which he spoke out against what he called the “tyranny of silence” surrounding the terrorizing of teachers and students in many schools by “maladjusted and ill-mannered bilingual students.” (“Bilingual students,” by the way, has become the Danish euphemism of choice for “Muslim students.”) These kids, Julius wrote, lack “the norms and values needed to succeed in a regular Danish school.” They call their teachers “whores” (ludere), harass and threaten them, and make routine accusations of racism (when, for example, a teacher tells them “to take their feet down from a sofa or a table”). Every day, it gets worse, inch by inch. “At some point the other children start to view them as role models.” And “every day our staff struggles to make room for good education.”
Andersen, to his credit, has not let go of the Sonsby story. On October 29, he reported that she isn’t the only one who’s “damn tired” of Muslim kids destroying education. So, it turns out, are the parents of many other students at Ejerslykkeskolen, whose anger over the “sabotaging” of their kids’ education predates the incident in the principal’s office. Indeed, in response to complaints by many of those parents, and threats by them to take their kids elsewhere, the school board, at a meeting on September 25 – days before Sonsby lost it – discussed the possibility of placing Danish and non-Danish students in separate classrooms. On October 12, the school board asked the city’s Board of Education for permission to do just that. That’s just how bad things have gotten.
Danish schools have been sliding down this slope, of course, for a long time. Andersen cites a report from 1992 – twenty years ago! – warning about the rise of precisely these problems in Danish schools. Frank in a way that European government reports about such matters can rarely afford to be nowadays, the report took immigrant-group parents to task for their “ignorance, indifference, and laziness,” and lamented their habit of “using/misusing Islam as the law over Danish law,” noting that Islam was “a constant obstacle to reasonable integration/assimilation.” Yes, Denmark has been a model for other European countries when it comes to reforming disastrous immigration and integration policies. But the current situation in Danish schools provides a helpful reminder that all these things are relative. Even the star of the class, in this case, is less than impressive. For all Denmark’s reforms, that country’s schools have deteriorated in exactly the ways that that 1992 report warned about. Today, to acknowledge out loud the state of affairs so bluntly outlined in that report twenty years ago is grounds for dismissal from a teaching job.
To read Sonsby’s story is to feel extraordinary empathy for her. She’s done a magnificent job in the face of challenges that most of the bureaucrats above her have tried to ignore for years – and the moment she slipped up, in the slightest of ways, some of them were quick to throw her to the wolves. But to read this story is also to reflect on that troublemaking kid’s father, Shaib Mansoor. Not only was he quick to run to the police screaming “racism.” On Friday, Danish state TV reported new complaints by Mansoor, who revealed that in a meeting with him after the Sonsby incident, a school official said that Muslim students do cause problems – Mansoor’s reaction to which is to complain “that schools distinguish between Muslim and Danish students” and that the problem in the schools (which Mansoor identifies not with kids like his son but with people like Sonsby) goes even higher up than the principal level. Mansoor pointed a finger at municipal officials.
Plainly, Masoor has learned to play Danish society like a maestro. His ranting obscures the fact that, as Andersen points out, the kind of behavior that pushed Sonsby over the line would never be tolerated for an instant in most schools in the Muslim world. In such schools, respect is all, and an unruly kid risks corporal punishment. If a typical Muslim father in a Muslim society were to find out that his son acted up in class and received a good beating for it, he would, in all likelihood, accept it, probably even approve. Respect must be enforced.
But Denmark is another story. Danish values, Danish culture, Danish law, the Danish educational system: in the eyes of many a Muslim in Denmark, these things deserve no respect whatsoever. They’re simply there to be exploited, as effectively as possible, for whatever personal gain one can wring out of them. Those Muslim kids who dared to laugh in Sonsby’s face have been taught from infancy that someone like her – an infidel, a woman – is their inferior, deserving of nothing but contempt and abuse. “Some of these boys,” a teacher told Ekstrabladet the other day, “are brought up like little kings, and no woman – aside from their mother – is supposed to tell them anything.” Certainly that’s the take-away from the behavior of Raacan Mansoor and his friends, and that of Shaib Mansoor, too – whose first instinct, instead of getting Raacan in line and showing some respect for the brat’s teachers, was to try to destroy Birgitte Sonsby’s life.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Sharia Law is coming to Taunton, Fall River, Cape Cod & The Islands, Boston & vicinity...and you too, California! [Sharia, Islam...there is no difference, its just a name.]

"We believe that Allah is the legislator.  Allah makes the laws.  He is the one that tells us what's allowed and what's forbidden."

“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty,...”  see narrative below
Guess who U.S. Muslims are voting for
Poll finds what they really think about Constitution, Shariah
Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.
The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.
The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.
And the big winner among Muslim-Americans in the presidential election is Barack Obama, the poll found. More than 72 percent said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney.
Nearly 55 percent of the American Muslim voters say the U.S. is on the right track, and another 13 percent are uncertain. Virtually all of the respondents (98 percent) are American citizens and 97 percent are registered to vote.
“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.
“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,”  ...Story conntinues here

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Obama's Birth Certificate ...the issue is not dead and Bill O'Reilly needs some help

Are Obama's 1961 Birth Announcements Fake?
By Shawn Glasco @ The American Thinker
What a long, strange journey it has been for the records of Barack Obama's birth.
Couldn't the Obama camp just "release a copy of his birth certificate"?
So asked Jim Geraghty of the National Reviewon June 9, 2008. Geraghty posed this question in response to an item in Politifact, the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking service, which seemed to dispel internet rumors that Obama's full name was in fact "Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama."
Politifact researchers could find no public record of Obama's with the name "Muhammed" in it. But that was not all they failed to find. They also proved unable "to obtain a copy of Obama's birth certificate," finally conceding that Obama's "campaign would not release it and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public."
On June 12, 2008, just three days after Geraghty's inquiry, a simple-looking Obama birth certificate mysteriously appeared on the website Daily Kos. The website's founder Markos Moulitsas, author of the Saul Alinsky-inspired Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era, emphatically stated, "[H]ere is Obama's birth certificate."
Moulitsas noted that the edges of the scan were trimmed, so any attempts to "debunk" the birth certificate based on its dimensions would be futile, and the precise date and time of Obama's birth was an added "bonus" with which "astrologers" could work their calculations. Moulitsas boldly concluded that "the latest batch of crazy internet rumors" are now "debunked."
On the same day of the Daily Kos posting, PolitiFact received in their e-mail a copy of the same birth certificate from the previously unhelpful Obama campaign. Any and all pesky "Muhammed" middle name rumors were officially squelched.
On June 28, 2008, Honolulu resident Thelma Lefforge Young passed away. Mrs. Lefforge's address of 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy would soon appear on the web in a August 13, 1961 Honolulu Sunday Advertiser birth announcement: 'Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, August 4.'
Best evidence (hat tip: Butterdezillion) is that an image of the August 13 Honolulu Sunday Advertiser (with twenty-five birth listings) was first posted on the web sometime around July 23, 2008 by a documentary filmmaker named Lori Starfelt on a TexasDarlin blog. Starfelt's heroes include Malcolm X, and her political writings include "More Americans Killed By Right Wing Terrorists In The 90s Than Foreign Terrorists." Starfelt claimed that while working on a film titled The Audacity of Democracy, she received her copy from a nameless research librarian at the Hawaii State Library. Starfelt's film was eventually released in 2009 to little or no fanfare.
In addition, Starfelt said she "talked" to Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser. She learned that in 1961, hospitals would take their birth records to Vital Records, which would post a sheet at the end of the week for the Honolulu Advertiser to pick up. The Advertiser would then "routinely" print this information in their Sunday edition.
Starfelt calculated that since Obama was born on Friday, August 4, 1961, and since hospitals didn't take birth certificate information for the first few days after a birth, Obama's birth records would then be taken to Vital Records on the following Friday (August 11, 1961). Hence, Obama's birth announcement appeared in the 8/13 Honolulu Sunday Advertiser.
In fact, however, a ten-day sample of birth lists from the August 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, collected by blogger "Ladyforest," shows that births were posted not just on Sunday, but throughout the week.
8/8 Tuesday - 50 births
8/9 Wednesday - 76 births
8/10 Thursday - 82 births
8/11 Friday - 0 births
8/12 Saturday - 0 births
8/13 Sunday - 25 births - Obama's birth announcement
8/14 Monday - 49 births
8/15 Tuesday - 0 (?) births
8/16 Wednesday - 67 births
8/17 Thursday - 203 births

Starfelt's credibility, and thus the credibility of the Advertiser birth announcement, immediately comes into question. Did Starfelt make up the story about births being posted at the end of the week by the Advertiser, or was she misinformed by the Advertiser, the Hawaii Department of Vital Records, or both? There is another confusing detail. The Nordyke twins were born on Saturday, August 5, 1961, in the same hospital Obama was reported to be born in, but their birth announcement appears in the Wednesday, August 16 Advertiser.
Starfelt unfortunately passed away on March 16, 2011, just when the Donald Trump/birth certificate debate was beginning to heat up. Starfelt's memorial service was held in May 2011 at The Unitarian Universalist Church in Studio City, California. Coincidently, Obama's grandparents, Madeline and Stanley Dunham, were members of the Unitarian Universalist Churchin Seattle and Madeline Payne-Dunham's memorial service was held in 2008 at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Hawaii.
At about the same time as Starfelt's July 2008 posting, a blogger named "Infidel Granny" posted the same birth announcement image on an AtlasShrugs blog. Infidel Granny claimed to have received her copy in an e-mail from the same nameless research librarian who helped Starfelt from the Hawaii State Library. Infidel Granny briefly resurfaced in 2009 in an AtlasShrugs blog, where she opined, "I sure hope you don't think I had anything to do with a forgery."
The origin of the second birth announcement is even more murky. The best evidence (hat tip: Butterdezillion) is that sometime around August 13, 2008, a Honolulu resident named "Koa" posted the August 14, 1961 HonoluluStar-Bulletin birth announcement on TexasDarlin apparently after she found it herself in the Hawaii State Library. The first twenty-five births in the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin announcements match exactly in the same order as the twenty-five births from the August 13 Advertiser.
Were identical birth lists between the two papers common? Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo confirmed, in fact, that both 1961 newspapers received vital statistics from the Health Department, who in turn had received its "information directly from hospitals."
A ten-day sample collected from blogger "Ladyforest" from the August 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulletin shows births posted with no apparent connection to the ten-day sample from August 1961 Honolulu Advertiser shown above. Hence, spokeswoman Okubo is discredited.
8/8 Tuesday - 56 births
8/9 Wednesday - 4 births
8/10 Thursday - 0 births
8/11 Friday - 0 births
8/12 Saturday - 17 births
8/13 Sunday - 21 births
8/14 Monday - 58 births - Obama's birth announcement
8/15 Tuesday - 0(?) births
8/16 Wednesday - 18 births
8/17 Thursday - 129 births

The Honolulu Advertiser added that "birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn's name, weight and time of birth."
Where "elsewhere" is located is a mystery. No samples collected of the August 1961 newspapers show the newborn's name, weight, or time of birth.
PolitiFact's Robert Farley added that a reporter named Will Hoover checked with newspaper officials and "confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health," with Hoover explaining, "That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'" Farley then pondered, "Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers -- on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."
Just how independent were the two newspapers? On June 1, 1962, less than a year after Obama's birth, joint operations began between the two newspapers under a company called the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, and then, after occupying the same building for almost fifty years, on June 6, 2010, both newspapers merged into one newspaper called the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Farley should take a second and question the "complicity" of the Hawaii Health Department and two vaguely independent newspapers to "phony up" August 1961 microfilms in the summer of 2008.
Samples from the two, at the time, "independent" Hawaii newspapers in August 1961 show that most births announcements fell in an eight-day range about a week behind the date of the papers publication. For example, the Monday, August 7 Honolulu Star-Bulletin births range from July 24 to July 31, August 14 Star-Bulletin births range from July 31 to August 7, and August 16 Advertiser births range from August 3 to 10.
All seventy-four births from the August 13 and 14 Honolulu Advertiser can be found in the seventy-five births from the August 12 and 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and vice versa, in an unbelievably confusing and mishmash manner. For no apparent reason, the identical birth lists were broken up into smaller blocks ranging from two to twenty-five names, and then these smaller blocks of names were randomly jumbled together with the birth names within the smaller blocks, without exception, remaining in the same order:
1. The August 13 Honolulu Advertiser contains 25 births (#22 Obama) matching exactly in order the first 25 births (out of 58) in the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
2. The August 14 Honolulu Advertiser contains 49 births, which can be separated into seven blocks found in the August 12 and August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin:
(1) 1-19 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 3 (35-54)
(2) 20-21 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 4 (16-17)
(3) 22-26 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 3 (11-15)
(4) 27-29 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 1 (1-3)
(5) 30-33 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 4 (55-58)
(6) 34-42 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 2 (26-34)
(7) 43-49 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 2 (4-10)

3. Conversely, the August 12 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains seventeen births which can be separated into four blocks found in the August 14 Advertiser:
(1) 1-3 match August 14 Advertiser # 4 (27-29)
(2) 4-10 match August 14 Advertiser # 7 (43-49)
(3) 11-15 match August 14 Advertiser # 3 (22-26)
(4) 16-17 match August 14 Advertiser # 2 (20-21)

4. The August 13 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains twenty-one births with no matches to either the August 13 or August 14 Honolulu Advertiser and, curiously, no birth dates after July 31. At least three of the birth announcements can be found in the August 17 Honolulu Advertiser.
5. The August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains 58 births (#22 Obama) which can be separated into 4 blocks found in the August 13 and 14 Advertiser:
(1) 1-25 match August 13 Advertiser # 1 (1-25)
(2) 26-34 match August 14 Advertiser # 6 (34-42)
(3) 35-53 match August 14 Advertiser # 1 (1-19)
(4) 54-58 match August 14 Advertiser # 5 (30-33)

A few questions need to be asked. Why were blocks of identical names between the two newspapers jumbled together in a hodgepodge manner when identical birth lists were given to the newspapers by Hawaii Vital Records? Did someone from the Hawaii Newspaper Agency in the summer of 2008 intentionally cut and paste blocks in a random fashion in order to sow confusion into "phonied up" August 12, 13, 14, 1961 microfilms?
In the August 14 Advertiser (#22 Obama), birth announcements #56 and #57 repeat for "Mr. and Mrs. Robert K. Kamalu Jr., 3427-A McCorriston Street, son. August 6."
A few more questions need to be asked. Why is there a repeating birth announcement? Why does the birth announcement repeat in only one of the birth lists when, once again, identical birth lists were given to the newspapers by Hawaii Vital Records?
As noted, the twenty-five births from the August 13 Advertiser match exactly in the same order the first twenty-five births of the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
In the August 13 Advertiser, the announcements seem to be listed randomly until the thirteenth posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Edward Walker, daughter, Aug 7." From there, the births clump together in descending order by date of birth, all August: 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4. The pattern continues through the twenty-second posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, son, Aug 4" -- and ends with the twenty-fifth and final listing, "Mr. and Mrs. Harry Wong, son, Aug 4."
The August 14 Star-Bulletin (#22 Obama) birth list likewise begins randomly with the descending pattern starting with the thirteenth posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Edward Walker, daughter, Aug 7" -- but then runs longer to the thirty-fourth posting, "Mr. and Mr. Raymond, son born on Aug 3" -- i.e., August 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. After #34, the births appear to be randomly listed with a tendency to sometimes be clumped together by date of birth.
Even more questions need to be asked. Why does a descending pattern suddenly appear in a birth list otherwise randomly ordered in both papers? Why does the same descending pattern found in the August 13 Advertiser birth list run from entry #13 to entry # 25 and then from #13 to #34 (out of 58) in the August 14 Star-Bulletin birth list? What are the odds that an orderly descending pattern involving twenty-two names would naturally emerge in an otherwise random list?
Assuming an eight-day range (August 1-8) and a pattern beginning on August 7, the only two dates which continue a descending pattern are 7 and 6. The chances that a 7 or 6 would be picked from the dates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) is 2/8, or 1/4. If a 6 was picked, then the chances that a 6 or 5 would be picked, continuing the descending pattern, are 2/8, or 1/4, and so on. The odds, then, that a continuous pattern starting on August 7 would run for twelve more dates is (1/4)^12 = 1 in 16,777,216. The odds the pattern would run for another nine dates (for a total of twenty-one) in the second birth announcement is (1/4)^12 x (1/4)^9 = (1/4)^21 = 1 in 4,400,000,000,000.
A comparison of the August 1961 Sunday Advertiser and the corresponding next Monday's Advertiser and Star-Bulletin (i.e., August 6 and 7, August 20 and 21, August 27 and 28) would show if it was a normal occurrence for birth lists (1) to incorporate a jumbled mishmash of blocks of identical names, (2) to contain repeating names, and (3) to contain orderly descending patterns.
A partial list of thirty-nine births from the Monday August 7 Star-Bulletin microfilm contains no repeating names and no continuous descending patterns longer than two births.
Despite the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the two newspaper birth announcements, FOX news anchor Bill O'Reilly stated that although he is "very busy," he has in fact himself "looked into the birth certificate" and "found out there were two separate birth announcements made in Honolulu newspapers on the day Barack Obama was born." Huh?
O'Reilly then estimated off the top of his head the "odds" that someone was "conspiritorializing" the birth of a "little mixed-race baby" and "planted" two newspaper birth announcements in 1961 are about "29 gazillion to one." Someday, when O'Reilly isn't too busy, he might try calculating the odds that, during the summer of 2008, a fake birth certificate was planted on a Saul Alinsky-inspired website, and two fake 1961 newspaper birth announcements were planted on the web by a complicit Hawaii Health Department, two "independent" newspapers, two anonymous bloggers, and by an unknown filmmaker who believed that more Americans were killed in the 1990s by right-wing terrorists than by foreign terrorists.

Obama-Panetta Crush Rescue Attempt Allowing Ambassador Stevens To Fend For Himself

Source: Pat Dollard
Did Obama Fire General Ham Of Africom For Attempting To Buck His Order And Rescue Stevens?

General Carter Ham
The latest hot rumor flying around the internet is that General Ham of Africon, whose departure was announced last week, was actually fired for attempting to buck Obama’s order not to rescue Ambassador Stevens. He’s not exactly leaving early for his type of command, plus, he’s still in command, I have to assume, since his replacement still has to be confirmed by the Senate. Here’s the text most-often seen in emails, message boards and blog posts:
I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africon.
I found this story when I got home after hearing this story.
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
And here’s an article about him leaving his command last week:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.  Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.  He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.
In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.  “Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Last week, Panetta announced that Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford will succeed Gen. John Allen as the top commander in Afghanistan. Thursday, he said Paxton will step into Dunford’s current position.  Paxton is the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Force Command, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Fleet Marine Force Atlantic. Panetta called Paxton “an exceptionally capable leader” who will join the “growing cadre of senior military leaders who have deployed to combat theaters… throughout their careers.”