The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

The American Dream
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don’t seem to mind at all.  The flag, which contains the phrase “there is no God but Allah” with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi.  The courthouse in Benghazi is where the “rebels” established their provisional government, and it is where the “media center” for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi.  So it isn’t as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building.  But this should be no surprise.  It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of “the rebels” and among the leadership of “the rebels”.  Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population.
You can see more pictures of the al-Qaeda flag flying over Libya on the website of the Telegraph and on the website of the Daily Mail.
The following is video of the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi….
So where is the uproar about this in the U.S. media?
The silence has been deafening.
I guess it would be hard to explain to the American people why they should be sacrificing their sons and daughters to fight al-Qaeda when we just spent billions of dollars helping them take over Libya.
Sadly, the flag of al-Qaeda is not just being flown at the Benghazi courthouse.  According to eyewitnesses, it is now being displayed all over Benghazi.  The following is an account from an eyewitness that has seen the flag flying over the Benghazi courthouse for himself….

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media center from which to tell foreign journalists about their “fight for freedom.”
But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.
According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, “Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,” a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

So what in the world are we supposed to think about all this?
We were told that we had to invade Afghanistan because they were harboring “al-Qaeda” leaders.
We were told that it was necessary for us to stay in Iraq for so long so that “al-Qaeda” would not take over.
But now we have helped al-Qaeda take over Libya.
It isn’t as if the governments of the western world did not know what was going on in Libya.
According to the Telegraph, the leader of the Libyan rebels was very open about the fact that his “troops” included significant numbers of al-Qaeda fighters that were firing bullets at U.S. soldiers in Iraq….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

According to a recent article by Kurt Nimmo for Infowars.com, al-Qaeda rebels had established an “Islamic emirate” in eastern Libya as early as February….

In February, it was reported that al-Qaeda had set-up an Islamic emirate in Derna, in eastern Libya, headed by a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi.

Now that they have won the war, the “rebels” have announced that they will be imposing strict Sharia law all over Libya.
The head of the National Transitional Council in Libya, Moustafa Abdeljalil, has already made this very clear.  Just consider the following statements….
-”Sharia law is the source of all our laws.”
-”We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government”
-”The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion”
Shouldn’t the people of Libya have a say in all of this?
Sadly, one kind of tyranny has just been replaced with another.
In fact, some elements of Sharia law have already been implemented.
According to a recent article posted on the Telegraph, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has already announced that the law banning polygamy has been repealed because it is not compliant with Sharia law….

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

The American people were told that the system of government established by the Taliban in Afghanistan was so repressive that it needed to be overthrown, but now we are helping essentially the exact same system of government be set up in Libya.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Not only that, we have greatly destabilized the region and there will almost certainly be very bloody internal conflicts within Libya for many years to come.
The following comes from a recent report posted by The New American….

Gadhafi and the remnants of his regime are thought to have distributed vast stockpiles of weapons and wealth so anti-revolutionary forces could wage what the despot promised would be a long-lasting insurgency. Many of those fighters fled to the desert and are staging surprise attacks on roaming bands of militiamen.
The ongoing battles have sparked widespread speculation that the bloody conflicts will continue to rage far into the future.

In addition, as The New American notes, as a result of this conflict huge amounts of very dangerous weapons have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists….

Advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft missiles has also fallen into the hands of known terrorist organizations. The deadly stockpiles are turning up all over the region, but it remains unclear how much firepower has been smuggled out of the country so far.

But does the Obama administration seem alarmed by any of this?
No, they just want us all to praise them for a “job well done” in Libya.
Hopefully the American people will see right through this nonsense.
The flag of al-Qaeda has been flying over the headquarters of the provisional government in Libya, and yet the American people are the ones that are being treated as potential terrorists.
Our borders are wide open and anyone that wants to can sneak into this country, and yet we are told that we must have our private parts examined before we are allowed to get on to an airplane.
Something is very, very wrong.  Somehow the focus of national security has gone from protecting the American people to spying on the American people.
As I wrote about yesterday, the government has become absolutely obsessed with watching us, listening to us, tracking us, recording us, compiling information on all of us and getting us all to spy on one another.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been spending billions of dollars to help al-Qaeda take power in Libya and is helping them enslave the entire Libyan population to a brutal form of Sharia law.
Can anyone explain how this makes any sense at all?

Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement

n November 5, 2011 by The Godfather

These are Obama’s Riots!

We’ve seen social revolution before, but this is the first time a sitting president, his advisers, union supporters, and a supporting media have endorsed it with such vigor. Rudy Giuliani said it best: Obama owns Occupy Wall Street.” Here are his extended remarks:

“This is a very dangerous movement, and it’s ironic it’s happening under a president who promised to unify us. Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement, it would not have happened but for his class warfare. . . . Barack Obama praised it, sympathizes with it. As it gets worse and worse, I believe this will be the millstone around Barack Obama’s neck that will take his presidency down.”

Irony has nothing to do with it. Obama’s goal has always been social disruption, class warfare, and institutionalized envy. The late 1960s and the early 1970s protestors hoped to bring down the government of the United States using the War in Vietnam as a catalyst. Obama and his supporters are using social and economic discontent to do the same thing.
The timeline and tactics are not new. They begin with the youngest members of society who have little to lose because they don’t any economic skin in the game. In the 1960s, Columbia University and other major universities were marked by student sit-ins. The catalyst for student rebellion that swept the nation in the tumultuous decade was the Berkeley “Free Speech Movement” (FSM). The FSM was decidedly anti-establishment, painting university personnel as “repressive autocrats lurking behind a benign mask of liberalism.”[1] Authority was questioned at every opportunity. The police were described as “pigs,” accomplices of the establishment rather than enforcers of the law that was supposed to apply to everyone without distinction.
The counter culture decade of the 1960s was described as the “decade of anger and rebellion.” While most channeled their anger in constructive ways, some went off the deep end and turned to violent measures. Sit-ins led to explosions when anti-war activists planted a fertilizer and fuel oil bomb at Sterling Hall, home of the University of Wisconsin’s Physics Department and the Army Math Research Center. The explosion killed a graduate student. Violence begat violence when four students were killed by National Guardsmen on the campus of Kent State University on May 4, 1970. Student protesters had set fire to an ROTC building and thrown bottles at police.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a resurgence of left-wing radicalism that led to further violence. On May 7, 1967, just weeks before the Newark riot, Greg Calvert, a member of Students for a Democratic Society, described its members as “post-communist revolutionaries” who “are working to build a guerrilla force in an urban environment. We are actively organizing sedition.”[2] The SDS was a growing radical movement made up of college students. The rhetoric of the SDS was at its core anti-government. “SDS organizers denounced ‘oppressors,’ ‘exploiters,’ and ‘the Al Capones who run this country.’ The university was depicted as a ‘colony’ of ‘the military-industrial complex’ and a ‘midwife to murder.’ ‘Imperialism’ was offered as a convenient scapegoat for every frustration and failure.”[3] A keynote speech at a 1962 SDS convention praised the freedom riders, not for furthering civil rights but for their “radicalizing” potential, their “clear-cut demonstration for the sterility of legalism.” The speaker continued:It is not by . . . “learning the rules of the legislative game” that we will succeed in creating the kind of militant alliances that our struggle requires. We shall succeed through force—through the exertion of such pressure as will force our reluctant allies to accommodate to us, in their own interest.[4]

Tom Hayden, a former SDS organizer and strategist, member of the California General Assembly, and one-time husband of Jane Fonda, intoned the following in 1967: “Perhaps the only forms of action appropriate to the angry people are violent. Perhaps a small minority, by setting ablaze New York and Washington, could damage this country forever in the court of world opinion. Urban guerrillas are the only realistic alternative at this time to electoral politics or mass armed resistance.”[5]
Tom Hayden’s anti-government, revolutionary rhetoric bordered on the fringes of sedition and treason. His speech inflamed so many radical extremists that some blame him for agitating fragile race relations in Newark, New Jersey, causing nearly a week of rioting in the summer of 1967. While Hayden was not directly involved, he seemed to approve of using violence as a way of “shattering the status quo.” The August 24, 1967, issue of The New York Review of Books includes an article in which Hayden wrote:

The role of organized violence is now being carefully considered. During a riot, for instance, a conscious guerrilla can participate in pulling police away from the path of people engaged in attacking stores. He can create disorder in new areas the police think are secure. He can carry the torch, if not all the people, to white neighborhoods and downtown business districts. If necessary, he can successfully shoot to kill.

The guerrilla can employ violence effectively during times of apparent “peace,” too. He can attack, in the suburbs or slums, with paint or bullets, symbols of racial oppression.

These tactics of disorder will be defined by the authorities as criminal anarchy. But it may be that disruption will create possibilities of meaningful change. . . . Violence can contribute to shattering the status quo, but only politics and organization can transform it.[6]
Civil unrest and purposeful destruction of the nation’s infrastructure and authority institutions was the order of the day in the late 1960s. “On September 3, 1968, The New York Times reported that the city of Berkeley was declared to be in a state of civil disaster; the city authorities invoked emergency police powers, and the campus of the university was placed under curfew rules.[7]
Obama is hoping for social unrest. He and his Leftist cronies want more control of the economy. They want to bleed it for some larger purpose. I believe Obama is deliberately sabotaging the economy. He knows that tax cuts work and deficit spending is a fiscal drag on the economy. It’s hard for some to fathom, but I believe that Barack Obama has a long-held grudge against American ideals that he inherited from his anti-American parents and his radical friends who groomed him for the Senate and the presidency. The 1960s have been reborn in Barack Obama.
Notes:

1. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 18. [↩]
2. New York Times (May 7, 1967). Quoted in Eugene H. Methvin, The Rise of Radicalism: The Social Psychology of Messianic Extremism (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973), 497 and The  Riot Makers: The Technology of Social Demolition (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1970), 27. [↩]
3. Methvin, Rise of Radicalism, 504. [↩]
4. Thomas Kahn, “The Political Significance of the Freedom Riders,” in Mitchell Cohen and Dennis Hale, eds., The New Student Left (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1966), 59, 63. Quoted in Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism, 13. [↩]
5. Quoted in Methvin, Rise of Radicalism, 505. [↩]
6. Quoted in Riot Makers, 51. [↩]
7. Feuer, The Conflict of Generations, 479

Read more: These are Obama’s Riots! | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1882/these-are-obama%e2%80%99s-riots/#ixzz1cvsI1dYW

succeed in enacting real reforms.

Reject a Super Committee Tax Hike

Willem,
The so-called "super committee" was created to solve our nation's dire fiscal problems.  One look at Europe and the stakes are clear: massive unemployment, social unrest and waning influence throughout the world.  We cannot allow that to be America's future, which is why conservatives should want the "super committee" to succeed in enacting real reforms.
Unfortunately, the "super committee" is veering off course and the odds are growing that massive tax hikes will be part of a final deal.  Even worse, not all Republicans are willing to take massive tax hikes off the table. According to news reports, more than 100 House members – Republicans and Democrats alike – sent a letter to the "super committee" urging a "big, grand bargain – taking nothing off the table." In Washington, that is code for a tax increase.
>> Weigh in on our site: discuss how conservatives can reject tax hikes.
Here are the criteria conservatives should use to judge whether the "super committee" is serious:
     · Real spending cuts, to both discretionary and mandatory spending
     · No tax increases, period
>> Learn more: Find out what else is at stake with the Super Committee.
Together, conservatives can fight to save the American Dream from the Washington Establishment and big government special interests, which are entrenched on both sides of the partisan aisle.
Sincerely,

Michael A. Needham
Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action for America

Redistributing the wealth is not charity

written on November 4, 2011 by da Tagliare

Obama’s Spiritual Adviser is a Marxist

94

President Obama’s spiritual adviser is Rev. Jim Wallis, who also heads Sojourners, a leftist religious group that calls for wealth redistribution. Obama received so much flack with his first spiritual adviser, the outspoken Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright that he felt compelled to find another Marxist that wasn’t so vocal about his radical views.
Rev. Wallis was attending the National Press Club in Washington DC this week along with Dr Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. They were there for a discussion on the role of religion in the 2012 election.
During the meetings, Wallis and Land got into a discussion about the Tea Party. Making it clear that he is not a member of the Tea Party, Dr Land went on to blame Washington DC for the current state of matters.  He also defended the Tea Party by stating, “The tea party is overwhelmingly socially conservative.  They are in the 85 percent range in terms of people that are pro-life. The libertarian wing of the tea party is very small. They are by and large previously unactivated parts of social conservatives in America — Catholic and Evangelical.”
Rev Wallis, who has been publicly supportive of Occupy Wall Street, placed the blame on Wall Street, responding to Dr Land’s comments with, “I distrust a movement that lifts up a philandering Russian atheist who said she hated Jesus — Ayn Rand — as their philosophical guide. I think extreme libertarian politics may be, in my mind, the least Christian option out there. ‘Just leave me alone I don’t care about anybody else,’ is not a Christian way of life.  We are our brother’s keeper and that is how we are. I am sympathetic, however, with the people who feel like they have been left out and left behind, unrepresented.”
Dr. Land replied to Rev. Wallis’s statement with, “I would say that the tea party’s aims are better than the Wall Street occupiers because the biggest problem was Washington — the biggest problem is Washington — the biggest concentration of economic power is in Washington, and it was Washington policies that first pressured banks to give loans to people who could not afford them, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, and given a steroid shot by Bill Clinton in 1997.”
I find it interesting that Rev. Wallis would make so much about the Tea Party’s use of a Ayn Rand statement when Wallis himself regularly uses Marxist philosophies and try to pass them off as Christ’s teachings. Rev. Wallis credits the Gospels with teaching the redistribution of wealth and the economic leveling of society.
According to the good Rev. Wallis, he points out the extreme poverty levels throughout different parts of the world and then tells everyone that Scripture teaches us to redistribute all of our wealth both here at home and abroad to help bring these people out of the poverty conditions.  He uses the name of Christ to promote his perversion of the Bible.When Jesus spoke about taking care of the poor, He was speaking about charity.  Charity is the FREE giving by one to another, who in most circumstances has less than the giver.  The Bible emphasizes that the responsibility to help the poor is an individual thing not a national thing to do.  Redistributing the wealth is not charity, it is forced giving or perhaps more accurately described as stealing from the wealthy and then giving it to the poor.  This is Marxist philosophy to the core which also teaches that the state is responsible for all charity, not the individual or the church.
Scripture warns about those that are lazy and don’t provide for themselves or their family.  It talks about how diligent the ant is who works all day and stores up supplies for hard times.  It also warns about the sluggard and what happens when they fail to work and do not store up supplies for when times get rough.  The Fourth Commandment says that you shall labor for six days and rest for one day, not the other way around.
But Rev. Wallis believes and advocates that is everyone else’s obligation to provide for those who only work one day and rest for six and those who do not labor and store up for hard times.  Again, Rev. Wallis’s views and teachings are pure Marxist, not biblical.
Before Rev Wallis cast stones and accusations at others, he needs to look at the glass house he built around himself.  And please remember that this is the man that the president identifies as his personal spiritual adviser.
The only thing biblical about the Rev Wallis is the way Scripture describes him in Titus 1:10-16:

“For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.  They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.  One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”  This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.  To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”

Read more: Obama’s Spiritual Adviser is a Marxist | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1856/obamas-spiritual-adviser-is-a-marxist/#ixzz1clQIs5l7

high crimes and misdemeanors

KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

-

The Washington Times

Thursday, July 22, 2010

President Barack Obama arrives in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Friday, April 9, 2010, to speak about the retirement of Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens and the West Virginia mine tragedy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.
He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.
Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.
Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.
To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama’s decision on this case is treasonous.
As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department’s behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?
This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama’s fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of “The Kuhner Show” on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC

Set us free.

Billy Graham's Prayer For Our Nation
THIS MAN SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY!

Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable... We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics.. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from sin and Set us free. Amen!'
>>>>> With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we once again can be called 'One nation under God!'

The Left spews hatred at black conservatives

Dear Friend,

They're at it again.

Herman Cain is winning the Republican race for President. So the left-wing media has swung into action.

Clarence Thomas called it a "high tech lynching" 20 years ago. That's exactly what they're doing to Herman Cain today. This is nothing but an attempt to smear Cain's reputation and character.

This from the same group of liberals who have spent the last 20 years defending John Edwards and his love child, Jesse Jackson & his illegitimate child, or Bill Clinton and his string of affairs.

As the leading pro-Herman Cain committee, we are fighting back with every resource we can bring to bear. Will you join us? We're getting ready to make a million calls into Iowa defending Herman Cain against these smears and identifying Cain supporters we can turn out for the Iowa Caucuses on January 3rd.

The last black conservative to rise this high was Clarence Thomas, and we know what the Left did to him. What happened on the floor of the Senate in 1991 was one of the most disgusting displays this country has ever seen.

Let's send a clear message this time: "Never again." Let's stand up the liberal noise machine and their efforts to destroy any black conservative who stands up for conservative values.

This is what the Left always does. They hated Clarence Thomas. They hated Allen West when he ran in 2010. And now they hate Herman Cain. The Left spews such hatred at black conservatives because they know that if the GOP ever breaks the Democrat stranglehold on the black vote, they are DONE as a party.

We're simply not going to let the Left do this again. We're going to fight back and make sure Herman Cain wins the nomination. That means everything from TV ads, voter mail, and advocacy phones identifying Herman's supporters and getting them out to vote.

But we're not going to let the Left destroy Herman Cain. We're going to make sure the voters know the real truth. But we can't do it without your help.

Will you help us? Will you help us and send a message that you are not going to let the Radical Left destroy another black conservative?

For America,

Jordan Gehrke
Campaign Director
AmericansforHermanCain.com

President Obama's extremist ties

Red Army: Obama the Tip of a Radical Network We Must Defeat to Save America

by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott

10/28/2011

218
Comments

Editor's note: The following was adapted from the introduction to the new book, Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America.

When Sen. Barack Obama​, a few days before his inauguration as our 44th President, promised an adoring crowd “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America,” few realized that he was not speaking merely of himself or of his own role as the country’s incoming chief executive.  Behind the avatar of “hope and change” lay a left-wing “progressive” movement waiting to come to power.

At first, we knew very little about this clandestine "Red Army," whose goal is the transformation of America into a socialist system.  As a matter of strategy, the "progressives" had quietly and patiently perfected the art of creating innocuous-sounding front groups, and the promotion of its policies in the guise of moderation and in the rhetoric of modest-sounding social ideals.  Before the candidacy of Obama—whose entire political career has been spent under the tutelage of the progressives, including some of its leading figures—this radical network had already succeeded over the decades in infiltrating major institutions of American power.  But with his election to the presidency, it reached the highest levels of our government.

Along the way, the progressives hijacked an entire spectrum of important social causes, from feminism and race relations to environmental and antiwar activism, each of which became subordinated to an agenda having very little to do with the actual cause at hand and everything to do with the underlying agenda of the radical reconstruction of our society.

This Red Army has taken over not merely the largest worker unions, but also the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  It has deeply penetrated the United States Congress, forming one of the most powerful caucuses on Capitol Hill​.  Key legislation, including President Obama’s health care and stimulus bills, was crafted by the network’s various branches—operating both inside and outside the government.  The same network is now pushing other major measures, including defense, economic and immigration policies.

Like a conventional army, the progressive Red Army is an organized network consisting of numerous branches and divisions, deploying an appropriate battalion for a specific goal or battle at hand.  Many of these activists are openly hateful of America, or at least of the American capitalist system, including its basic document and compact, the United States Constitution.  Many others, to be fair, genuinely love this country, while believing that socialism would pave the road to a better society.  Still others are merely along for the ride, and pursue personal power and profit in the service of a new order.

While this radical network played a major part in the nomination and election of Barack Obama, it runs far deeper than the slew of “czars” in the Obama administration or the extremist personalities demonstrably tied to our President.  It is much larger than Obama himself, and will far outlast however many months of the Obama presidency yet remain.  Indeed, it is already planning how to advance its agenda following the 2012 elections, regardless of which candidate is victorious.

This Red Army shows no signs of relenting.  With the dramatic erosion of his poll numbers and the ascension of Republicans in the 112th Congress, Obama’s mandate for change may have for the time being run thin.  But these radical groups demonstrate an uncanny ability to wait patiently, like sleeper cells, for years or even decades, for the next opportunity to push their nefarious agenda while updating and perfecting the details of their well-planned, multilayered assault.

My co-author, Brenda J. Elliott, and I, in our previous book, The Manchurian President, documented President Obama's extremist ties.  Our first book-length effort focused on unmasking Barack Obama and his radical associations.  But even before its publication, as we continued to delve into Obama’s administration, it became clear that we were uncovering a larger world of radical organizations, which are not only the force behind Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” but are also now so well-entrenched in the institutions of American power that their influence can hardly be overstated.  In other words, in peeling off the layers of the onion that is the radical network, Brenda and I have unearthed something much larger and far more disturbing than even we, as seasoned political observers, could have anticipated.

We must take up the extremely loaded question of conspiracy.  Conspiracy is a very serious offense in the U.S. legal system, and of course this applies to conspiracy to commit a crime.  Yet the Red Army of which we write employs mostly legal means to pursue its radical agenda.  In fact, the largest part of its nefarious genius lies precisely in its employment of legal and quasi-legal stratagems to “fundamentally transform,” and even overthrow, the American system.

There is a conspiracy—albeit a mostly legal one—behind Obama’s promised “fundamental transformation of America.”  It is the radical socialist network behind the President that relentlessly pushes this agenda.  What we call the Red Army has devised the means to seize enormous instruments of political, economic and cultural power in our country, from the very presidency itself on down.

To be sure, the American people have begun awakening from their slumber, rousing from their acquiescence, and seem eager to reclaim their great, free and prosperous nation from this clutch of radical operatives.  But in order to prevail, in order to save our nation from the designs of these operatives, we must first comprehend—and then defeat—the radical network that has seized the reins of American power.

---

Aaron Klein is a NY Times bestselling author, senior reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and host on New York's WABC Radio.

rights come from God

Jefferson misquote doesn't go unnoticed

Becky Yeh - OneNewsNow California correspondent - 11/1/2011 3:40:00 AM

According to a Christian apologist, a billboard put up by a California atheist group as an attack against Christianity has no historical basis.

Backyard Skeptics recently unveiled a billboard in Orange County that reads, "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology" -- a quote they claim is by Thomas Jefferson. But experts at the Jefferson Library Collection in Monticello tell The Orange County Register that no evidence shows that the principal author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence ever made the statement. In response, the atheist group's director, Bruce Gleason, says he does not know where the quote came from, and he admits that he should have done more research before the billboard went up.

"[This] atheist says, "Well, Thomas Jefferson said this.' Well, Thomas Jefferson also said, 'All our rights come from a Creator,'" notes Neil Mammen, a Christian author and apologist and founder of NoBlindFaith.com.

The Register says the quote is an abridged version of a line from the book, Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, which notes that the quote was in a letter from Jefferson to a Dr. Woods. But the Jefferson Library points out that no evidence shows that Jefferson ever wrote a letter to a Dr. Woods. Further, Mammen contends that Jefferson obviously did "find some redeeming qualities" in Christianity, because the entire Declaration of Independence was penned by a man who was greatly influenced by the sermons he read and heard.

"Inside the United States and outside the United States, you will find the very same concept being preached over and over again in churches [and] from pulpits that rights come from God, not from government, and government's role is to protect the rights that God has given us," the apologist concludes.

ethics blindness" in the Obama administration

You pay ... Obama reaps the royalties

Russ Jones and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 11/1/2011 4:10:00 AM

Federal purchasing records show taxpayer dollars have been used that profit President Barack Obama. A DC-based watchdog group is calling into question the ethics of the recent findings.

The U.S. State Department has used more than $70,000 in federal funds to purchase copies of Dreams from My Father, written by President Obama. The book, released more than a decade ago, has been used as Christmas gifts and sent to various embassies around the world and to stock "key libraries."

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, describes the purchase and distribution of those books as "yet another example of ethics blindness" in the Obama administration.

"It is absolutely amazing to me that anybody in the State Department or at an embassy would've thought that there was no conflict of interest or other kind of ethical problem in buying thousands of copies of the president's book and distributing them," Bauer states. "It's definitely the kind of thing that I think is driving people around the country nuts about the ethical standards of Washington, DC, compared to how most people have to live their lives."

A member of Congress also takes issue with the purchase and distribution of the president's book. In a letter to the White House yesterday, Congressman David Schweikert (R-Arizona) asked that the purchases be stopped.

"At a time of record deficits and a heightened need to cut government spending, it is clear that spending taxpayer money in this manner is inappropriate," states the congressman's letter. "Furthermore ... receiving royalties from government purchases of your book is exactly the type of out-of-touch Washington behavior that the American people are weary of and will no longer tolerate." Obama is said to profit roughly $6,000 in royalties from the purchases.

According to the White House, the books were handed out to "help broker talks on important foreign-policy matters" -- to which Schweikert responded on Fox News this morning that it would make more sense to distribute literature on the "greatness of America" instead of something with a "left-wing" slant.

The Washington Times reports State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters the decision to buy the books did not come from anyone in Washington.

sense of proportion

"I don't care what the worst that's been alleged about Cain is, it doesn't compare to what we know factually happened with Bill Clinton and a number of women!  So the very holier-than-thou reporters on the left who are acting shocked and outraged? Their lack of fairness is quite obvious to anyone." -Rush

 

 

"Let's take the worst that coulda happened here with Herman Cain. We're talking about a gesture that, by the woman's own admission, there was 'nothing overtly sexual,' about, right? So whatever the worst thing is, it pales when you compare it to anything done by Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy.  You people in media love to talk about the 'sense of proportion.'  Where is it in this story?" -Rush

Read the Tao Te Ching

Original Chinese and notes

Both believe that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete

Common threads between Islam and Mormonism

Dr. Michael Youssef - Guest Columnist - 10/31/2011 11:55:00 AM

A number of years ago, I was on Larry King Live and was asked point blank if I had a problem with the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito (both are Roman Catholics). My answer was very clear that I did not, as long as they shared my own conviction of upholding the Constitution -- not trying to rewrite it -- and as long as they were committed to the biblical values of the Founding Fathers. I was certain that both men were.

Many people today are quoting a statement reputedly made by Martin Luther, the great reformer, that he "would rather be ruled by a competent Turk (a Muslim) than an incompetent Christian." First of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin Luther ever said these words. But even if he did say them, it would have been a gross exaggeration used to make a point. He never lived under a Muslim ruler and did not know what that would be like. But I did. And I can tell you, there is no such thing as choosing between Muslim and non-Muslim leaders under Islam.

In America, we have the great privilege of choosing candidates based on our core values, rather than how they identify with our theological point of view.

In looking at some of the candidates for the 2012 election, one cannot help but notice the controversies that have arisen regarding the Mormon religion. As I considered Luther's quote and the concerns regarding electing a Mormon president, I noticed some peculiar similarities between the Mormon faith and Islam as they relate to orthodox Christianity.

It's hard to believe that two religions that are worlds apart geographically have so many things in common. Here are some examples:

1. Both believe that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until their respective founders came on the scene. For Islam, it was Muhammad; for Mormons, it was Joseph Smith.

2. They both have their own book of "sacred scripture." While both tip their hats to the Bible, each see God's Word as insufficient by itself. Both Islam and Mormonism use many biblical themes, narratives and personalities. But the Qur'an draws heavily from the apocryphal books rather than the authoritative cannon of the Bible.

3. In both cases, Islam and Mormonism see their religion as complete within itself. Above all, both repudiate biblical Christianity and identify orthodox Christianity as a false faith.

4. Both religions reject the doctrine of the Trinity. The Mormon's concept of god includes many gods, not just one. Muslims view god as one, but as an aloof, remote god who could never become a man or relate to humanity. Allah can have mercy if he wants to, but he is also a cunning god.

5. Both religions reject the Bible as the sole and sufficient authority of faith. For Mormons, the Book of Mormon and other writings of the Latter-day Saints represent God's final revelation. For Muslims, the Qur'an and the Sunna (traditions of Muhammad) constitute God's final authoritative word.

6. They both reject the biblical teaching of original sin. Muslims believe Adam did not become completely depraved after disobeying God; he merely slipped but quickly recovered. Therefore to Muslims, humanity does not need redemption. Salvation in Islam is very uncertain, even when keeping the Five Tenants of Islam; although some teach that jihad will help in that quest for salvation. Mormons believe that they are not condemned by what many call "original sin." In other words, they are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden.

Here are two questions Christians must ask when considering political candidates:

First, has the candidate been consistent in his/her political and moral values, or is he/she pandering? Second, has the candidate upheld their philosophical convictions throughout their public and private life, or did they change their political convictions to suit their audience?

All believers need to be good stewards and spend time in deep prayer before exercising their right to vote. God will give us wisdom so that we will not be persuaded by the slickest and the cleverest. We can trust Him to help us choose those who have proven core values.

make restitution for a property crime

Written on November 1, 2011 by The Godfather

A Simple Way to Reduce the Prison Population

An article by Kevin Johnson that appeared on the front page of USA Today reports that “More than half a dozen states are reclassifying a range of property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, a change that could spare prison terms for minor offenses and save states jail and prosecution costs.”[1] The article does not say if the thieves have to pay their victims back for the theft or damage done to their property.
Many of this nation’s earliest settlers paid for their passage as indentured servants. A thief who was unable to make restitution for a property crime could be sold into servitude for his theft (Ex. 22:3b). Property crimes are best paid for by restitution, and when this is not possible, working off a debt is the next best thing. Chuck Colon, president of Prison Fellowship who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for attempting to defame Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in the federal Maxwell Prison in Alabama, offers an interesting perspective on the topic of restitution:

Recently I addressed the Texas legislature. . . . I told them that the only answer to the crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison crowding problem.

The amazing thing was that afterwards they came up to me one after another and said things like, “That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?” I had the privilege of saying to them, “Read Exodus 22. It is only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.”[2]

The Bible requires restitution for most property crimes (Ex. 21:33–34; 22:3, 5, 6; 22:12). Restitution assures that only the thief pays. Those not associated with the crime are not taxed to punish the thief through an expensive prison system. If a person is not able to pay restitution, then indentured servitude is a lawful option.
Even after the abolition of slavery, indentured servitude was retained by the Constitution as a legitimate form of punishment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” (Amendment XIII, Section 1).
Biblical restitution includes compensating a person for stolen or damaged property or physical harm done to someone. Restitution laws cover a variety of circumstances: assault (Exodus 21:18–19); bodily injury (21:26–27); liability (21:33–36); theft (22:1–4); property damage (22:5–6); irresponsibility (22:7–13); and the loss of or damage to borrowed items (22:14–15).Voluntary restitution required the return of the item plus “one-fifth more” (Lev. 6:1–7). In most cases double restitution is required (Exodus 22:4, 7–9). Some crimes required payment of four (22:1; 2 Sam. 12:6) or five (22:1) times the loss or injury. Multiple restitution was mandated for items that had extended value. Sheep reproduce at a high rate and their wool can be made into clothing. To steal a sheep is to rob its owner of present and future productivity. An ox has similar value plus the added ability to pull plows and carts, essential functions in an agrarian society.
In all cases, biblical laws of restitution placed a limit on revenge and a burden on the lawbreaker. Roger Campbell writes in his book Justice Through Restitution, that in each of the biblical cases, the “result was that the victim was restored to a better position than before his loss and the lawbreaker was punished by having to make right his wrongs in a manner that cost more than his potential gain.”
Many Christians believe that laws governing restitution are relics of Old Testament law that no longer apply. The New Testament tells a different story. Zaccheus promised to make four-fold restitution because of his abuse of power as a “chief tax-gatherer” and being an oppressor of the poor (Luke 19:8). While restitution did not save him, it was evidence that he had truly repented in the way he abused his power. For this Jesus could say, “Today salvation has come to this house” (19:9). The Apostle Paul instructs the thief to “steal no longer; but rather . . . to labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need” (Eph. 4:28).
Laws of restitution have been abandoned by the courts largely because crimes are perceived as ultimately against the State. Campbell points out that “As the power of government increased, crimes were considered not so much as injury to the victim but as violations of the king’s peace. Laws were enacted that made it a misdemeanor for a victim to settle with an offender without bringing him to court. Instead of restoring the injured party to his condition before being wronged, fines now went into the government coffers and the attention of society turned to ingenious punishments for lawbreakers.”
Contrary to the humanistic theory of punishment, laws of restitution remind the criminal that ultimately he is responsible to God for his actions (Ps. 51:4), and his victims, created in God’s image, must be compensated in the manner prescribed by the “Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25).
Notes:

1. Kevin Johnson, “Property Crimes Given a 2^nd Look,” USA Today (October 31, 2011). [↩]
2. Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” James M. Boice, ed. Transforming Our World: A Call to Action (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), 154–155. [↩]

Read more: A Simple Way to Reduce the Prison Population | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1800/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-prison-population/#ixzz1cTcMLReA

Eric Holder: threat to our freedom.

Video shows threat to your freedom

 

Dear Patriot Crimes were committed in the name of advancing an anti-gun agenda. The longer these crimes go unanswered... the longer Attorney General Eric Holder stonewalls Congress... the greater the threat to our freedom. Please watch the video I've attached for you. Holder's actions prove he can't be trusted with the sanctity of our freedoms, the powers of his office, or the lives of our law enforcement officers. Help me send a message to President Obama. It's time to fire Eric Holder. Please make a donation of $10, $15, $20 or more to help us broadcast this video across America. And please, help spread the word and forward this video to friends and fellow gun owners. Thank you. Sincerely, Chris W. Cox Executive Director

National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action * 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030 Please do not reply to this email. If you no longer want to receive future Chris Cox notifications, please click here, and you will be removed immediately! Thank you!

Reply to: Reply to Chris W. Cox

Send

Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot

CERTIFIGATE

Sheriff Joe's posse delivers promised Obama surprise

Panel probing eligibility for 2012 ballot wants to see original birth certificate

---

Posted: October 31, 2011
8:38 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.
Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.
The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.
The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.
Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore
Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.
"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."
Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.
Corsi affirmed that the posse's conclusion it needs to see the Obama birth certificate microfilm is part of the "shock" that Arpaio warned would be forthcoming, when he spoke last week to the Surprise Tea Party group meeting in Surprise, Ariz.




The focus on the microfilm records of Obama's birth arose after Arpaio's investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966.
WND reported in July 2009 that Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke made public the copies in an article by the Honolulu Advertiser.

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

WND also has reported that the Obama birth certificate's number appears to be out of sequence with the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.
The Nordyke twins were born Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama, and their birth certificates were registered Aug. 11, 1961, three days later than Obama. Yet their birth certificates have lower numbers.
Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, has certificate number 10637, and her sister Gretchen has certificate number 10638. Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961, and registered Aug. 8, 1961, has certificate number 10641.
"In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity," Corsi commented. "If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama's birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time."
Corsi also indicated that the Arizona posse has interviewed court-certified forensic examiners who have advised that they can only issue an expert opinion on whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery if they can examine the original ink-and-paper records.
Corsi told WND the Arpaio investigation is far-reaching in scope.
In addition to examining whether or not the long-form birth certificate is a forgery, the Cold Case Posse is examining evidence that Obama may have a fraudulent Social Security Number. The posse also is looking at records pertaining to Obama's birth narrative that suggest Barack Obama Sr. may not be the biological father.
"In total, the Cold Case Posse has assembled some 2,000 pages of evidence in the case," Corsi explained, "and is now preparing to conduct interviews to examine a wide range of questions, including that Obama may not be qualified to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution because he was a dual citizen at birth, given that his father was listed as a citizen of Kenya when the future president was born."
Corsi said the Cold Case Posse is currently in the process of briefing various Arizona state officials about the progress of the investigation.
"Sheriff Arpaio said this would be a thorough and diligent investigation," Corsi said, "and that is exactly what the investigation has become. Sheriff Arpaio once again has proven to be a man of his word."

Carry a concealed weapon

Sheriff: Time For Citizens To Arm Themselves

The Spartanburg County Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn’t hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her.
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, “Our form of justice is not making it.”
He said, “Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it.”