Archive for January, 2009
The Day of the Joker: January 20, 2009
Honorable James David Manning, PhD officially declares Tuesday, 20 January 2009 as the Day of the Joker. This message was given on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 on The Manning Report. Click ‘Read More’ to see video.
Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Viddler video.
US Taxpayers To Fund Abortion Worldwide
In the most outrageous political move any human being could make B. Obama put his signature for all eternity to allow the United States taxpayers to fund abortion internationally. This is a stamp of evil and eternal death for a man who has sworn allegiance to countless number of sins against righteousness. {ray}
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday quietly ended the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option. Liberal groups welcomed the decision, while abortion rights foes criticized the president.
Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Obama signed an executive order on the ban, without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. That was in contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week.
Obama’s action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. The rule also had prohibited federal funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton visited the U.S. Agency for International Development on Friday but made no mention of the step.
Obama has spent his first days in office aggressively signing executive orders reversing Bush administration policies on issues ranging from foreign policy to government operations. TV cameras were invited in for Wednesday’s announcements on ethics rules and for Thursday’s signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Obama also is expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), probably in the next budget. Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law.
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Organizations that had pressed Obama to make the abortion-ban change were jubilant.
"Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning," said Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International, an advocacy group.
Anti-abortion groups criticized the move.
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Obama also is expected at some point to lift or ease restrictions on federal money for stem cell research, an issue that divides people along similar battle lines, but there was no word about any action on that Friday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expressed interest in pressing legislation on stem cells in the first 100 days of the new Congress if the new administration doesn’t act.
Some scientists want broader use of embryonic stem cells than is currently allowed, hoping for new treatments for many diseases. Obtaining stem cells from four- or five-day-old embryos kills the embryos, and many opponents see that as taking life.
High court says no to protecting minors from porn
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to revive the Child Online Protection Act, designed to protect child ren from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.
Pat Trueman, who was a pornography prosecutor in the Ronald Reagan administration, is now special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund . He objects to the decision by the nation’s highest court on Wednesday not to revive the federal law that would have barred websites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.
"Why is it that the Constitution allows adults to give pornography to children?" he asks. "Point me in the direction of that provision in the Constitution. It does not exist."
Trueman believes the decision means America has a crisis on its hands. "At least two generations of children getting hardcore pornography on the Internet, and the Supreme Court looks the other way," he points out. "I think this is a travesty of justice – and the First Amendment certainly does not require this result."
He notes the Justice Department will continue to prosecute producers and adult consumers. "Isn’t that an odd thing? You can prohibit an adult from buying it, but you can’t prohibit an adult from giving it to a child," he concludes.
The case is Mukasey v. ACLU .
Obama Eligibility battle rages on 3 fronts
Posted: January 18, 2009 12:05 am Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.
WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, and several of those have reached the U.S. Supreme Court already. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue.
"If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,’" said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.
Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama’s inaugural on Tuesday.
Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.
In one of the latest developments, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation petitioned Occidental College with a demand for its records concerning Obama.
"The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the Untied States Constitution," he wrote. "The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof."
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!
College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice, but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from their hands because of the team of lawyers Obama has engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.
"Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to object to this production, should he so desire," the affidavit from Kreep said.
"Good cause exists for this production under Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained through the witness named herein, and there is no other process available to secure said testimony," he wrote.
The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.
There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
The lawsuit on which USJF is working was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
On his ObamaCrimes.com website, Berg sent his message directly to the U.S. Congress.
He’s asking in an open letter to members of Congress for congressional hearings "to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama…"
"As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution," he wrote.
He noted the failure by Congress to challenge Obama’s eligibility during the process through which the Electoral College vote was adopted.
"Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as president," he said.
He cited the document published on the Internet by Obama’s campaign, the "Certification of Live Birth," as no more than an effort to "quash" questions. Other critics have noted the state of Hawaii granted such certifications to parents of children not born in the state at the time.
"Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured," he wrote.
Taitz took a different route, submitting to the U.S. Supreme Court a motion "to declare that by default, the president elect respondent Barack Obama has failed to qualify under [the] U.S. Constitution."
"Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/president elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR does the [Constitution] place the burden of proof on the president-elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the president elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?"
Not only has the respondent, Obama, "failed to submit proofs … for any of the qualifications," she wrote. "Respondent has hindered discovery."
She argued that having Obama declared ineligible until he would provide documentation would "cause far less political trauma" than allowing his inauguration because it would uphold the constitution.
She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama’s records.
"Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form ‘vault’ birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted," she said. "Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School."
Her letter included a warning, too.
"Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections," she said. "Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for president to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny."
WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.
The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
True Cost of Barack Obama’s “HANGOVER INAUGURATION”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WHY ARE U. S. MEDIA AFRAID TO TELL AMERICANS THE TRUE COST OF BARACK OBAMA’S "HANGOVER INAUGURATION" ON JANUARY 20TH?
"LET THEM EAT CAKE," SHOULD BE BARACK OBAMA’S NEW MANTRA, SAYS ANDY.
(NEW YORK)(January 16, 2009) If you learned that your neighbors were planning to borrow $15,000, from you, to stage a birthday party, after they lost their jobs and their car needed fixing, you would be justifiably offended by your neighbor’s contempt for reality. Would you lend them the money for a party?
Over the next few days, the United States is going to borrow $150 million to "inaugurate" Barry Obama as "president" of the United States. Our great national hangover is now beginning; we just don’t yet realize it.
Long ago, I started out liking Barack and Michelle Obama. Then she did her "Obama means less" routine and showed her arrogant, obnoxious and racist side. I don’t care much for Michelle any more. For a long time I thought her husband Barry, was a sweet and decent person, even if I thought he was a total space cadet when it came to pubic policy. I called Obama the "world’s greatest entertainer." John McCain took my phrase and turned it into the "word’s greatest celebrity." We were both right.
I now find both Obamas rude, vulgar, nouveau riche and the wrong people for the times. They have lost touch with the zeitgeist.
Obama surfed into the White House in 2008 just as the world was slowly beginning to confront the reality of 2009: in the long run, borrowing money from your neighbors to stage a party creates ridicule, not admiration.
Barry says he is a "Lincoln president." Well, as Senator Lloyd Bentsen would have said, "I knew Abe Lincoln and you’re no Abe Lincoln. You’re an African-American Bernie Madoff, a sweet and likeable con man that is likely to leave the nation with a historic hangover."
Why am I so negative when the mainstream media are drugging the world with Obama propaganda? Because the media is using Obama the same way he is using them.
But someone ultimately has to pay the bills. That someone is you.
If I asked you to vote on whether we should borrow $150 million from China to "inaugurate" Obama, how many people would vote yes? How any Americans would be disgusted? But that’s what we are doing. We’re borrowing money from China to inaugurate Obama and no one even realizes the connection.
Why are U. S. media afraid to tell Americans the true cost of Barack Obama’s "hangover inauguration" on January 20th?
A couple of weeks ago a somewhat gauche Republican created a media kerfluffle when he distributed copies of a parody of Barack Obama as the "Magic Negro." As often happens when someone missteps, the point was lost, on both the goofy Republican and on the media. The "Magic Negro" of Hollywood invention was actually a flattering term. A hero. A "savior." Obama is none of those. Barack Obama is no savior.
Actually, before long, people will be attaching another less flattering racial epithet to Obama, and it will fit perfectly. Barack Obama’s causal attitude toward our money, and the way he is borrowing from the Chinese to feed his hunger for personal spectacle harkens back to a more biting racial stereotype. I won’t go there, but you know what I mean.
As someone who joined the civil rights movement in 1963, and whose college roommate was African-American at a time when that was unusual, I should be giddy with joy this weekend. I wish I were. I’m not. Why?
When the history of this era is written, America will be seen as living in the past, and electing a man for the past when we needed someone to lead us into an uncertain future.
What sticks in my craw is that this country is engaging in "business as usual" at a time when we need a leader-an Abraham Lincoln, really-that knows "business as usual" is over. Business as usual in 2008, before the collapse on Wall Street, before trillion-dollar deficits, before the challenges of the shaky future, is dead and gone. Clearly, Obama does not realize that fact. Yet. And the media won’t tell us. Yet.
Americans may have thought they were voting for the Huxtables. Wrong.
Obama had perfect pitch for 2008. He surfed into leadership. The problem is, he’s still surfing in the same direction while the rest of the world has reversed course.
You can argue with me if you wish, and I invite your reactions if you will, but here’s my take on 2009, and why I believe that the Obama family will prove to be the most vulgar family ever to occupy the White House. Obama’s parvenu ways will lead this nation to ridicule, embarrassment and even further world decline.
The logic of my views is not always apparent at the time, but I get paid to present a "contrarian" view. And that’s exactly how I feel right now, watching Obama’s excesses, the media’s concealment and the wolf at the door.
This year, we could approach a $2 TRILLION dollar deficit if current trends continue. We are borrowing money from abroad to support our profligate national lifestyle. The Chinese piano player downstairs in the lounge is saving his paycheck so we can borrow his money to have a party upstairs with the girls in the rooms that rent by the hour. How long can this go on?
So what kind of a president do we need? Lincoln? Yes.
Lincoln was a sparse, simple man. He brought a sense of dignitary and restraint, and even a touch of melancholy, to the White House at a time when the nation was sundered. There was no time for partying.
The vulgar Obamas are so out of touch they can’t even make up their minds which "designer dog" to bring into their household. Please.
"The people have no bread," Empress Marie Antoinette was told. "Why don’t they eat cake," she replied. At a time when most people are finding it difficult to feed their dogs, and abandoning their pets to animal shelters, a family that can’t even make up its mind over when costly pooch to purchase is very much out of sync with the radically altered zeitgeist of 2009.
Back to borrowing money to stage a party.
You need to go to the London newspapers to find out how much Obama’s binge next week is costing taxpayers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost/print
United States media are afraid to put a total tab on Obama’ excesses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011301583.html?hpid=topnews
What kind of an example does a leader set when he borrows $150 million from foreign countries (who are, after all, financing our deficit) to stage a party for himself? Chinese leaders must be laughing. At us. Barack Obama? Or Idi Amin?
In October I was excoriated by the hard left media from the New York Times on down for saying on Sean Hannity’s America, "If you love Hugo Chavez, you’ll love Barry Obama." I was more accurate in my prediction than perhaps even I realized. Chavez is spending Venezuela into poverty; Obama is next in line to become a Chavista.
What we needed for 2009 was a president who said simply and truthfully, "At a time of economic distress, when Americans are suffering, and when current indications are the economy will get worse before it gets better (Obama’s own words), we need to cut spending, starting with the White House, and starting with my own inauguration.
"I have asked President Bush to cut back on plans to spend large sums for my inauguration. We will scale down the security and pull in our perimeter. I have asked my friends and supporters to plan for a modest celebration. January 20th should be a day of prayer and supplication, not crass celebration and contempt for financial reality.
"We will begin out austerity program at the White House, where Michele and I will carefully scrutinize every expense and seek to reduce the cost of the presidency. We will use Air Force One less often, and cut back on lavish entertaining and unnecessary pomp."
Obama isn’t making that speech. He is, sadly, going in the direction of the African-American stereotype that acts "enriched" by nonexistent and illusory wealth. At a time when we need modesty and restraint, he is pulling out all the stops. For himself.
Last month Obama went to Hawaii and stayed-at someone’s expense, not his own-in a $3000 a day rental complex. He was too "big" to buy his own airplane ticket for his own "vacation." Someone had to pay for a private jet. When he "had" to move to Washington few days earlier for his daughters’ sake, he took the entire floor of a luxury hotel, again at someone else’s expense, instead of more modest lodgings.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new expression, and a new challenge, for "Barry O," our zoot-suited leader at a time when we need a country pastor: "What Would Lincoln Do?"
I worked for a U. S. Senator who lived in a modest home in Northwest Washington. I still remember the address and the phone number: 2909 Davenport street, NW.
I knew the late Senator Paul Simon when, to use Obama’s Bill Ayers phrase, Obama was only four years old. Paul Simon was a Lincoln scholar and a very modest man.
Lincoln? Would Lincoln have borrowed $150 million from China to stage his inauguration? Come on. Lincoln is turning in his grave every time Obama misuses and abuses Lincoln’s memory with more falsification and fabrication.
There is something drastically wrong with us. No one will stand up (except maybe my own lonely voice) and say "How can we justify spending $150 million on an "inauguration" at a time when we are borrowing $2 trillion to pay our daily bills? How? Have we lost all sense of shame? Have we abandoned any connection with reality?
Do we still secretly think we are the world’s only "superpower?" Are we addicts to our own illusions who have contempt for the reality of the rest of the world? It appears so.
No sensible family would borrow money to stage a party at a time when neighbors know the same people are borrowing money to pay for their groceries. We are borrowing money, and Barack Obama plans to borrow more money, to pass out groceries to people he says don’t have enough to eat. We are selling "bonds" to pay the gas and light bill. And Obama is borrowing $150 million to throw a party for himself at a time when we are unofficially stealing from our grandchildren by saddling them with an immeasurable debt that will catapult this great nation into perpetual poverty.
Yes, we needed a "change" in 2008, only we didn’t yet know what kind of change. We didn’t yet know the markets were going to change; we didn’t yet know our retirement plans were going to change. We didn’t yet know banks would fail and more and more people would lose their jobs. We didn’t yet know we would be asking foreign governments to finance our daily expenses, and our daily excesses.
There was a hint of what lay ahead, but not enough of a big, bad picture to scare us into rethinking our November 5th priorities. We needed a leader. We didn’t get one. We got a freeloader.
We got Barry Obama.
And we got what we deserved: the most vulgar, uncouth and arrogant family ever to occupy the White House.
We got what we deserved because of our contempt for humanity, in borrowing money for years. We were spending money we didn’t have to finance national and international binges in order to satisfy our egotistical sense of overweening nationality. Now we have Michelle and Barack, who are saying "let them eat cake" when they spend $150 million to stage a party for themselves.
In the 1980’s, real estate speculator Gerald Gutterman rented the Queen Elizabeth II ocean liner to stage a bar mitzvah for his children. His excesses drew ridicule and heralded the end of that era of excess. Likewise several "big macher" hedge fund operators have recently enjoyed lavish million-dollar-plus birthday parties. Their excesses proved to be the end of their own era.
Sam Zell, he of Chicago, recently staged a vulgar birthday party for himself after buying the Chicago Tribune, and promptly filed for bankruptcy. From birthday excesses to bankruptcy? Sammy? We hardly knew ye. Sam, of course, was also spending other peoples’ money, the retirement savings of his employees.
Obama clearly has many good role models for vulgarity and corruption in Chicago. "Screw the People" should be engraved on City Hall, the County Building and the State Capitol.
In time, Obama’s $150 million inauguration will be seen in the same light: out of touch with reality, vulgar, overextended and contemptuous of the American people.
The Obama era will not end well. The disaster begins on January 20th.
As for myself, I am going out and buying a cake. Michelle has already warned us. We won’t have cake around much longer. For us anyway. By the time Obama is through with us, this nation will be impoverished. Cake will be a luxury most of us can no longer afford.
We will probably realize that fact too late. Too late to change from vulgarity to reality. Too late to get rid of Obama. I’m just a little "too early" right now. I’m out of step with Obama’s parade.
I know what Lincoln would say about my fears and concerns.
"Thank God somebody stood up and told the truth."
The Obamas? They think they’re "rich." Only they’re spending your retirement dollars, your hard-earned tax dollars to throw a party for themselves. They are spending other-peoples-money. Yours.
Have a party. The long national hangover begins on January 21st.
P. S. Bernie Madoff is still living in a $7 million dollar New York penthouse, "on bail." Courtesy of his victims. After admitting to stealing $50 billion dollars. America. It’s a great country. Madoff and Obama. Perfect together.
———————————————————————————
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama’s unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
———————————————
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama.
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com.
Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
"The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
———————————————
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in on the East Coast promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, see www.Amazon.com or www.OrangeStatePress.com.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor, ContrarianCommentary.com
"Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct"
Military Deaths Nearly Half Under Bush Compared To Clinton Years
The Far Left was enraged today with Dick Cheney.
The Vice President declared that the Iraq War was worth it.
He also announced that most of our objectives had been reached .
The Bush-bashers still feign outrage that the US lost 4,226 heroes liberating Iraq.
Of course, they weren’t too upset about military losses when the Clinton’s were in charge.
Numbers from Iraq Coalition Casualties and CRS report to Congress (pdf)
The Iraq War historically has been a great success.
The Telegraph reported today:
The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.
Vice President Cheney talked more about the success in Iraq with Jim Lehrer today on the "News Hour":
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We now find ourselves in the situation where we’re five years later; we’ve achieved most of the objectives that you would have set out in the spring of ‘03 when we launched into Iraq. We’ve got the violence level down to its lowest level since ‘03. We’ve had three national elections, a constitution written, a new government stood up, new army recruited and trained, the Iraqis increasingly able to take on responsibility for themselves. And we’ve now entered into a strategic framework agreement with the new Iraqi government that will provide for the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces.
You could not have asked for much more than that in terms of the policies that we started on in ‘03.
Q But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think so.
Q Why?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Because I believed at the time what Saddam Hussein represented was, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, was a terror-sponsoring state so designated by the State Department. He was making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He provided a safe haven and sanctuary for Abu Nidal and other terrorist operations. He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. He’d had a nuclear program in the past. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. And he did have a relationship with al Qaeda.
We’ve had this debate that keeps people trying to conflate those arguments. That’s not to say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It is to say as George Tenet, the CIA Director, testified in open session in the Senate, that there was a relationship there that went back 10 years. This was a terror-sponsoring state with access to weapons of mass destruction. And that’s the greatest threat we faced in the aftermath of 9/11, that the next time we found terrorists in the middle of one of our cities, it wouldn’t be 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters, it would be terrorists armed with a biological agent, or maybe even a nuclear device.
And so I think given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today.
It’s too bad that Cheney wasn’t out giving that same talk each week.
It is also too bad that the media continues to keep this information from the American public.
Today there is a democracy in the Middle East where there was once a brutal regime.
Was it worth it?
Here is the Vice President discussing the War in Iraq and amazing progress that has occurred since the Bush Surge in 2007:
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear case
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ01.07.09.
Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: "Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama’s immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all." This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Democrat Meltdown Begins- Burris Rejected by Senate
Burris denied seat in U.S. Senate to succeed Obama
WASHINGTON - Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris announced his rejection for Barack Obama’s Senate seat Tuesday in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.
Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted." (View video report )
He said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Speaking just an hour before the convening of the 111th Congress Tuesday, Burris said he was looking at a host of options for getting the seat.
Democrat Governors Want A Trillion-Dollar Bailout
Right Soup Posted: 03 Jan 2009 02:02 PM CST
Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts. “Money In Motion”, people. Watch it, and it’s ever-present buddy corruption, as the cash grab continues. These guys have decided to try to score more bucks than even Barry’s been pushing for. The gypsies are definitely in the palace now.
The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team as well as congressional leaders. They said that they need this much federal aid to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and in D. C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says will be $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone. The Center pegs the total 2010 and 2011 shortfall at $350 billion.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors’ ideas. “That’s not to say they’ve told us this is what they’ll do or they’re with us all the way,” Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation’s governors. Obama’s aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.
Over two years, $1 trillion is equal to more than 3 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy’s total output. A package of that size will hopefully draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.
We MUST let our voices be heard in Washington on this. The madness has to stop! Like we’ve said so many times before, we can NOT deficit-spend our way out of this mess. The bailouts are only making the global economic situation worse.
In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid. The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.
“We aren’t crying wolf,” Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. “These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing.” L.O. effin’ L. I have a bridge to sell anyone who buys this crap. It is all an attempt to quickly line pockets with ill-thought-out plans, just like the ORIGINAL bailout was. The banks skated with that cash, and we will NEVER see it again, nor will they ever have to tell us what they did with it. That might be “disruptive” to some banks, according to Treasury Secretary Paulson.
Here’s the fear the Gov’s are schlepping: Ohio’s budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said. New York Gov. David Paterson said his state faces a $15.4 billion deficit. Wisconsin’s budget is expected to be $5.4 billion short by mid-2011. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said he had just left a meeting with state legislative leaders where he proposed $2.1 billion in cuts on top of $600 million that’s already been cut from the budget. Yada, yada, yada.
Strickland said the federal stimulus is needed to help bridge the gap from the current recession to when there’s a rebound. (Which will be delayed by all of the spending, brainiacs.) Even with the money, states will have to make deep cuts, he said. “We are not, any of us, talking about federal money to expand spending, expand programs, to do new things,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said.
Can we get that in writing?!
Loading ...