Saturday, November 16, 2013


  OUTRAGEOUS Obamacare Lies



About 50,000 people have signed up in the federal Obamacare exchanges and another 50,000 signed up in the state exchanges but 5 million have lost their health insurance so far. In January, people will start to get thrown off canceled employer-sponsored plans and that will continue each month.
The following are some of the Outrageous Obamacare lies you must know an we will update them as we go along. I’m certain it will change by day to day. This is an evolving scandal with the White House brain trust continually looking for ways to deceive and distract the public and with at least one more government hotshot, CMS honcho, Henry Chao, claiming he didn’t know a thing.

The numbers of Obamacare enrollees will include those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not paid, according to The Washington Post..
It’s called padding. They are padding the numbers.
The Wall Street Journal reported the enrollment numbers will come in at about 50,000 this Friday but with this padding, the numbers could be 70 times higher. WaPo gives one example of DC which has 5 enrollees but 321 sitting with a plan in their online basket. Oregon has no one enrolled but the government, in their deceit, will likely come up with numbers.
The 14 states running their own insurance marketplace have enrolled about 49,000 and many thousands more in Medicaid. We probably won’t get the Medicaid numbers because that won’t help the narrative.

Forbes had an article yesterday about the new HHS regulations put out on Friday. [HHS is actually legislating with almost each rule and regulation]
Steep prices, fraud and canceled insurance policies aren’t enough for the Obama Administration. On Friday, HHS passed new regulations mandating health insurers cover mental and behavioral health to the same extent they cover physical health. We know that substance abusers, who will fit into this category, will not be charged higher premiums and that can be an endless cycle of expenses with few rewards.
Mental health is amorphous and unprovable. It is a playground for fraudsters and we will get to pay for that too. The mentally ill must have coverage, that’s not the question, the question is how this blanket, no-limits coverage will play out.
Putting this out now is another effort by the Obama Administration to distract from the mess that is Obamacare.
Obamacare has been driving up the cost of policies for many Americans by 50% to 100% and now with the new mental health rules, the coverage will be even more expensive. This will also cause millions more health insurance policies to be canceled because that many more do not cover mental health and substance abuse issues.
So, even while they claim they didn’t know millions would be thrown off their policies, they are working it out so millions more will be thrown off their policies.

Fox News reports that ‘Henry Chao, the Deputy Chief Information Officer and Deputy Director of the Office of Information Services at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said in an interview with the House Oversight and Reform Committee Nov. 1 that he was never given a Sept. 3, 2013 memo that detailed six security problems, including two designated as “open high findings.”’
In other words, no one bothered to mention to him that the website was filled with security flaws. The information was released this past Monday. He said that CMS Chief Information Officer Tony Trenkle never gave him the memo and allowed him to give the go-ahead to CMS Director Marilyn Tavvener.
HE KNOWS NOTHING! A familiar refrain in this administration. What are we paying Mr. Chao for if he didn’t know anything?
Of course we don’t know how much of this is true but he was under oath. It seems Trenkle is the fall guy or the guilty party.
They will likely not tell us how many are healthy enrollees and how many are sick and elderly. Another lie by omission.

The website is still giving out false Obamacare premium and subsidy information. The Hill reports that due to an Obamacare exchange ‘glitch’ in Washington State, 8,000 people were promised higher subsidies than they will actually receive. The 8,000 picked out plans they might not be able to afford but will have to go through the entire application process again to find something cheaper if they can.

Branco cartoon, navigator felons, via legal insurrection
What you can’t do by lying, you can do with fraud. Project Veritas is finding navigators promoting fraud. That is to be expected since the federal government doesn’t even do background checks on them. Navigators can be felons as we know.

Another idea being kicked around within the insurance industry, in order to help out the government, is to have  ’HHS approve a method to estimate subsidies and give preliminary tax credits based on those estimates—with the accurate amount determined later, once the system works better.’ This is according to Forbes.
The insurance industry would expect to be compensated, however. So who do you think will pay for the added subsidies people are not entitled to? The taxpayer?
Henry Chao said, ’Let’s Just Make Sure It’s Not a Third-World Experience’.
Too late, it already is.

The president and the CMS officials promised a healthy by November 30th which is only believable to the non-computer savvy. They are now walking that back.  CMS announced last Friday,  “It’s a critical date, without question,” said one. “But don’t think of it as an unveiling date. The goal is to make significant improvements that day.”

David Cutler, Harvard Economics Profession and one of the two architects of Obamacare, wrote a memo to Larry Summers in May 11, 2010 in which he said the government did not have the ability to carry out Mr. Obama’s vision for healthcare.
Larry Summers has since moved on to bigger and better things, shortly after that memo in fact.
Cutler, a supporter of Obamacare, wrote in the memo that “the early implementation efforts are far short of what it will take to implement reform successfully.” Cutler continued: “For health reform to be successful, the relevant people need a vision about health system transformation and the managerial ability to carry out that vision. The President has sketched out such a vision. However, I do not believe the relevant members of the Administration understand the President’s vision or have the capability to carry it out.”
The Washington Examiner posted the following excerpt from the memo:
Cutler laid out a set of problems: 1) poor leadership at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a key organization in creating Obamacare; 2) clueless management at the Department of Health and Human Services on the subject of setting up exchanges; 3) an ineffective effort to work with insurers in implementing reform; and 4) general incompetence. “The overall head of implementation inside HHS, Jeanne Lambrew, is known for her knowledge of Congress, her commitment to the poor, and her mistrust of insurance companies,” Cutler wrote. “She is not known for operational ability, knowledge of delivery systems, or facilitating widespread change.”
However, Cutler, during an interview with Megyn Kelly last evening, fell back on the administration talking points.
He believes that we will save money a couple years from now. Did Obama say we’d say money eventually, down the road?

Cutler said that they believed enrollees would be fleeing their current plans for the Obamacare plans. In a twist of words, he is saying what the administration is saying, It’s not that they were dropped, the plans were inferior and didn’t meet the government criteria, and the government expected people to be thrilled to jump over to the Obamacare exchanges. It’s merely a ‘transition.’
In other words, it’s not really the same as dropping people if they want to go. They knew they’d be dropped but they thought they’d be happy.

When asked if he thought his warnings went unheeded, he said it’s not what anyone wanted and he didn’t know what went on:

canceled policies senators
The chart above lists the Democratic Senators who cast the decisive vote for Obamcare. Remember their names.
In the end, the lies will continue every day. Obamacare was never about care or health, it was about more power for DC. Otherwise, they would not have moved ahead with a website that didn’t work and healthcare plans with exorbitant premiums. It’s about big government and control over the people in an area that is the most critical to us – our health.

Sunday, October 27, 2013


Top Fourteen Signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe..

Alleged to be Stanley Ann Dunham Note the tell tale neck covering. Photo:NY Times
Below is a compilation of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s, many variations of her signature.   Like anything else having to do with this fabricated family,  there are just too many inconsistencies in provided information to say any of them are biologically  related to each other or that they even exist.   The felonious crimes of the cabal involved in these crimes are getting too numerous to mention. The apparent forgeries of many documents are being examined by experts in various fields, and the exposure of these fraudulent documents and the crimes of those involved are beginning to reach a fevered pitch.
It is unfathomable to me how so many documents for this family that were completed for the government can raise so many questions,  i.e., social security cards, social security applications, passport applications, petitions, written notes, letters, marriage licenses, birth certificates, school records,  alien documents, and photographs.
Applications are incomplete, blank spaces occur where questions were supposed to be answered, dates referring to specific events are different in various documents, forms are used that were never in use by the government, and form numbers or revisions are erroneous.
Applications contain writing that is noticeably written by different hands on the same page and within the same file of documents.  Handwriting signatures aren’t identical when compared to other examples supposedly written by the same person.  Signatures occurring on the same page for the same day don’t match either.
As you will see below in examples of Ann Dunham’s signatures, the slant of the writing is either to the left, right or straight up and down.  The cursive signature varies in the amount of pressure applied to the paper; it is heavy to extremely light.  When the signature is written it is exactly on the baseline or way above it.  The written letters are either angular or rounded and vary.  Her signature is clear or sloppily written. As her name changes from Dunham to Obama to Soetoro, her first name is written either as Stanley, S., or Ann. Along with her name changes, her cursive handwriting style also changes.  The discrepancies are quite obvious when they are laid out together and seen.
How can these abnormalities be explained away?  The obvious answer is they can’t.  Someone has forged these government documents.  It has been done by those who have conspired to cover-up the usurper and his less than illustrious family. They try, but their deceit has gone too far.  Their forged documents and the information presented are being dissected and examined page by page.
As your eyes can see, Ann’s name as well as her signature varies from document to document.  Which, if any, is the real signature of Stanley Ann Dunham?  In reality, is there a real Ann Dunham that is the mother of Barack Obama or is she a fabrication?  I added the legal term of Doe to indicate another name she may have used but is unknown.
Let’s compare and contrast Ann’s signatures. These are arranged from the earliest dates to the latest. If you have other examples that are missing from this list, please let us know the source and they will be added.
Will a handwriting expert please weigh in!

Signature Variations of

      Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe


Stanley Signature from High School Photo


Stanley Ann Signature from Application for Social Security Number from SSA


Stanley Ann Dunham Obama as written on BHO's LFCOLB in 1961. Recently presented to the US by the White House on April 27, 2011


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature from Petition for Lolo, page 70


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Passport File Page 5


S. Ann Soetoro Nov. 30, 1965 Affidavit, Lolo Petition File, page 117


Stanley Ann Dunham Passport File, Page 3, August 13, 1968


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Page 6 Passport File


S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, Passport Application, January 4, 1972


Mrs. S. Ann Soetoro May 1, 1974 Letter, Lolo Petition File Pg 165


S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, June 197? Passport Application, Page 11


Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Signature from Marriage Certificate - Lolo Soetoro Page 73


Stanley Ann Dunham Signature April 9, 1986 - Note Trip to Philippines Delayed


S. Ann Dunham Passport Application Signature April 27, 1987?
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Passport Application – Strunk v Dept of State.
White House Long Form COLB for Barack Obama on April 27, 2011
Lolo Soetoro Petition , Obama Sr. – Ken Allen FOIA Release – Department of Homeland Security
Documents Related to Stanley Ann Dunham – FOIA requests 12/10/2010


We start with the known facts: that (1) the "birth certificate" is fake, and (2) the president has said it's his birth certificate.  It is up to researchers to work backward from the known facts to establish why the president was unable or unwilling to release a genuine one.

On May 22, the Hawaii Department of Health sent a "Verification of Birth" for Barack Obama to Ken Bennett, Arizona secretary of state (shown in Figure VB), with sufficient information to allow the president's name to be placed on the November 2012 ballot in Arizona.  It provided enough additional information, I thought, to allow me to hone in on what might be on the genuine birth certificate that the public is not allowed to see.
In addition to confirming not-previously-verified information for specific categories, the Verification of Birth also carries the following statement: "Additionally, I [Alvin T. Onaka] verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your [Bennett's] request [meaning, the White-House-issued birth-certificate forgery, as this would have been the only Obama 'Certificate of Live Birth' available to Mr. Bennett] matches the original record in our files."
Note that this carefully worded statement does not say that the Bennett copy is identical in appearance to the original record.  Nor does it even say that the information in the Bennett copy is identical to the information on the original record.  It says "information ... matches."  This could mean matching in a generic sense, where the meaning is the same but the wording is not.  Or it could indicate that the information on the Bennett copy (the forgery) is a subset of what's on the original record (the forgery has less data), or a superset (the forgery has additional data).

Figure VB.  Verification of Birth sent by Hawaii to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
To help sort out what is known and what is unknown, I decided to break out the data on the birth certificate line by line for analysis, as detailed below.  The abbreviations state where the information appears: SF for (short-form) Certification of Live Birth, the document released by the Obama campaign in 2008; LFF for the long-form PDF forgery released by the White House on April 27, 2011; and VB for the Verification of Birth dated May 22, 2012.
Certificate number (DOH File #): 151 61 10641 (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 1 (a,b,c) Child's name: Barack Hussein Obama, II (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 2 Sex: Male (SF, LFF)
Line 3 This Birth: Single (checkbox) (LFF)
Line 4 (not used)
Line 5a Birth Date: August 4, 1961 (SF, LFF)
Line 5b Hour: 7:24 P.M. (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 6a Place of Birth: Honolulu (SF, LFF, VB)
Line 6b Island: Oahu (SF, LFF, defined by 6a)
Line 6c Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (LFF, VB)
Line 6d Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town limits? YES (checkbox) (LFF, defined by 6c)
Lines 7a and 7b Usual Residence of Mother: Honolulu, Oahu (LFF)
Line 7c County and State: Honolulu, Hawaii (SF, LFF)
Line 7d Street Address: 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (LFF)
Line 7e Is Residence Inside City? YES (checkbox) (LFF, defined by 7c and 7d)
Line 7f  (not used)
Line 7g Farm or Plantation? NO (checkbox) (LFF)
Line 8 Full Name of Father: Barack Hussein Obama (SF, LFF)
Line 9 Race of Father: African (SF, LFF)
Line 10 Age of Father: 25 (LFF, VB)
Line 11 Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa (LFF, VB)
Line 12a Usual Occupation: Student (LFF)
Line 12b Kind of Business: University (LFF)
Line 13 Full Maiden Name of Mother: Stanley Ann Dunham (SF, LFF)
Line 14 Race of Mother: Caucasian (SF, LFF)
Line 15 Age of Mother: 18 (LFF, VB)
Line 16 Birthplace: Wichita, Kansas (LFF, VB)
Line 17a Type of Occupation: None (LFF)
Line 17b (not used)
Line 18a Signature of Parent: (signed) (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama (Parent box checked) (LFF)
Line 18b Date of Signature: 8-7-61 (LFF, VB)
Line 19a Signature of Attendant: (signed) David A Sinclair (MD box checked) (LFF)
Line 19b Date of Signature: 8-8-61 (LFF, VB)
Line 20 Date Accepted by Local Reg: Aug -8 1961 (LFF, VB)
Line 21 Signature of Local Registrar: (signed) U K L Lee (LFF)
Line 22 Date Accepted by Reg. General: Aug -8 1961 (SF, LFF)
Line 23 (not used)
By examining this data, we hope to answer two questions: (1) What information was known by the forger before the real birth certificate was shipped to the White House from Hawaii, and what was not (and needed to be retrieved from the real certificate to complete the forgery)?  And (2) what on the real birth certificate is so complicated that a digital scan of that certificate could not be easily fudged before release to the public, with a complete forgery instead having to be constructed in advance, waiting perhaps for only a few last-minute details?
Of course, the forger would know all of the information which appeared on the short form, given in Lines 1, 2, 5a and 5b, 6a and 6b, 7c, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 22.
Of the information appearing only on the forgery (and not subsequently validated by the Verification of Birth), Lines 3, 4, 6d, 7a and 7b, 7c, 7e, 7f, 7g, 16, 17b, and 23 are known or derivative facts or are irrelevant.  Line 7d (mother's residence) is generally accepted as true -- Ann Dunham was residing at her parents' place on the date of birth of the baby.  Lines 12a and 12b (father's occupation) show previously known information, but perhaps not using that exact wording.  Line 17a (mother's occupation) is also generally known information -- Stanley Ann Dunham dropped out of college in the spring of 1961, during the latter part of her pregnancy.  In Line 18a (mother's signature), the identity of the mother is known, but the fact of her placement of her signature on the genuine birth certificate was not.
Of the information appearing first on the forgery and then validated by the Verification of Birth, Line 6c (the name of the hospital) is known.  Line 10 (age of the father) is generally accepted from other sources of information, although further research has shown that Barack the father was most likely born in 1934 and was age 27 in August 1961.  Line 11 (the father's birthplace) is known information, but maybe not with that exact wording.  Line 15 (the mother's age) is known and is accurate.  (Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and died in Honolulu, Hawaii on November 7, 1995 [under her maiden name, which she reclaimed after her divorce from Lolo Soetoro].  Her Social Security number, 535-40-8522, was issued in the state of Washington.)  Line 16 (the mother's birthplace) is known, of course.  Line 18b (date of mother's signature) would not necessarily be known but could be intelligently guessed.  Line 19b (date of attendant's signature) and Line 20 (date of local acceptance) could be guessed to likely be the same day the certificate was registered.
And of course the forger would know about the information appearing on the genuine long-form birth certificate that was to be kept from public view.
OK, what's left?
The identity of the doctor who delivered baby Barack (Line 19a) and the identity of the local registrar (Line 21) were not known and would have to be extracted from the genuine birth certificate.  Also, though the identity of the mother in Line 18a (mother's signature) is clearly known, as to the size, shape, and placement of her signature on the paper -- the forger wouldn't have a clue.
Thus, we are dealing here with signatures (graphic images) for the unknown information -- and that answers Question #2: why the need to prepare the forgery ahead of time?  It would be very difficult to alter any of the signature graphics on a digitized image of the genuine birth certificate, especially if it arrived from Hawaii with a genuine green security-paper background.  (It would be almost as difficult to alter any items that weren't signatures.)  It would be much easier for the forger to extract from the genuine birth certificate and digitally process the little bits of additional information needed to complete the forgery -- thus assuring that the information on the forgery would match that on the genuine birth certificate, except for the information that was to be altered.
So let's take a look at the signatures on the forgery and see if they reveal any meaningful information.
The local registrar's signature in Line 21, U K L Lee, is a single grayscale graphic (except for one stroke in the letter K), which the forger likely extracted from the genuine document and added to the forgery; digitally, in the PDF it appears in a separate layer from the layer which contains most of the text of the forgery.  But its appearance in the forgery does not appear to offer any additional clues, and knowing who the registrar was is inconsequential information.  (Despite the "ukulele" jokes, Mrs. Verna K. L. Lee is a real person, in 1961 a clerk in the Hawaii Department of Health; her signature does appear on genuine Hawaiian birth certificates of the era.)
The identity of the doctor who delivered the baby, Dr. David A. Sinclair, was not known prior to the release of the forgery, and this information was a pleasant surprise for his family when the long-form fake was released.  His signature in Line 19a, and shown in Figure SS, is a single grayscale graphic (except for the dot over the "i" in "David," which is bitmap), also in a layer separate from most of the forgery text.  Note that the characters "of A" in the descriptor "Signature of Attendant" for Line 19a are (blurrier) grayscale letters in an otherwise-bitmap line of text, likely indicating that the forger overlaid the signature snippet extracted from the real birth certificate onto the forgery, thereby replacing that portion of the descriptor on the previously prepared (bitmap) text in the fake.
The name of the doctor who brought baby Barack into the world is not politically controversial.
Figure SS.  Signature of Dr. David A. Sinclair (grayscale) in Line 19a.
Unlike the signatures of the local registrar and the attendant, the mother's signature in Line 18a, shown below in Figure DS, is not a single grayscale graphic, but a composite of grayscale and bitmap information (in separate layers, also).
Figure DS.  Signature of (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama (part grayscale, part bitmap) in Line 18a.
The signature itself appears to be authentic when compared to known-to-be-genuine signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama on her 1964 divorce papers, shown in Figure DD:
Figure DD.  Genuine signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama from her January 1964 divorce decree.
The grayscale part of the signature is "Stanley) Ann D[,]" and the bitmap part is "unham Obama" -- along with the date, "8-7-61" and the left-parenthesis preceding "Stanley."  The overall signature gives the impression that the mother first signed her name as she customarily did, then parenthetically added "Stanley" after somebody pointed out to her that it might be better if her signature corresponded to her legal maiden name as it appears in Line 13.
The "Stanley" part bleeds into the descriptor for Line 18a, "Signature of Parent or Other Informant."  The blurred letters "igna," "of," and "nt" are part of the grayscale graphic, replacing the same letters in an otherwise-bitmap legend.
Figure SP.  Close-up of "Stanley" overlaying the instructions in Line 18a, and demonstrating that (the grayscale) part of the signature was extracted from a genuine birth certificate.
If you look closely at the bleed-in of "Stanley" into the descriptor for Line 18a, as shown in Figure SP, you can see that the letters "igna" and "nt" are slightly smaller than the remaining (bitmap) letters of the legend -- a very strong indication of material taken from two different sources, the grayscale graphic from a genuine birth certificate and the remainder from unknown sources used to construct the bulk of the forgery -- as the forger had a little trouble getting the sizes of the letters to be the same.
Now look at the (bitmap) portion of the signature in Figure DS that reads "unham Obama."  Does it seem to you that "Obama" was written with broader strokes than "unham"?  It looks that way to me, though it could be a sizing problem -- the forger made the word "Obama" larger in scaling it to fit into the forgery, giving the impression that a fatter pen point was used.  Next, look at the handwritten date (bitmap graphic) "8-7-61" in Line 18b, and note that its strokes are considerably thinner than the strokes of the signature in 18a.
When somebody signs and dates a legal document, customarily a single pen is used throughout -- not three different pens.
What we are able to do here is make a very strong case that the signature and date in Lines 18a and 18b were assembled by the forger from four different sources -- the first part of the signature, "Stanley) Ann D," extracted from the genuine birth certificate, and "unham," "Obama," and "8-7-61" from three unknown sources.
If the mother had indeed signed "(Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama," then the forger could have extracted the entire signature from the genuine birth certificate as a single graphic, as was done for the doctor, David A. Sinclair, and for the local registrar, Mrs. Lee.  This was not done.  Why?
The logical answer is that the mother signed her name another way.  Since she clearly was Stanley Ann Dunham, that leaves "Obama" as the outlier.  In other words, my conclusion is that Stanley Ann Dunham signed the birth certificate using her maiden name.
This does not mean that she and Barack Obama the father were not married; it means only that the real birth certificate gives no evidence of their marriage, leaving the 1964 divorce decree as the only known documentary evidence that a marriage ever took place.
About this wedding, not much is known.  In Obama's composite "autobiography" Dreams from My Father, ghostwriter Bill Ayers eloquently elucidates wedding details that weren't.  The 1964 divorce decree identifies the marriage as taking place on February 2, 1961 (a Thursday) in Wailuku, Maui.  (Other accounts give the marriage date as February 21, 1961, a Tuesday.)
Wailuku is a half-hour plane ride from Honolulu; in the early 1960s, it was a quaint resort town.  Getting married in a removed location on a weekday, when student friends are attending classes and older friends and family are supposed to be at work, does not seem to me to indicate a wedding ceremony where the happy couple tied the knot surrounded by beaming friends and family.  Rather, these details indicate a clandestine wedding, one meant to be kept secret from friends (which it was; the couple's friends didn't even know that Dunham and Obama were engaged, much less married) and perhaps, for a while, from Ann's parents.
What if I am wrong about this?  In that case, there are two possibilities: (1) there is no substantive difference in information between the forgery and the real birth certificate in the Hawaii Department of Health file cabinet, and the White House released the forgery to "screw with the birthers"; or (2) the scam is a wider conspiracy involving more people than just employees of the White House -- likely including compromised Hawaii Department of Health employees -- and we can't be at all sure what really is on the genuine birth certificate.
In my research I have tried as much as possible to stick to the documents -- to study them carefully and extract their secrets -- and not rely on what people have said about them, thus forcing me to decide who was telling the truth and who wasn't.  But eventually, I had to make some reasonable assumptions if I was to make any progress.
In my article "What Did Savannah Guthrie Really See?," I satisfied myself that the paper document "birth certificate" that Savannah Guthrie viewed and captured with her cell-phone camera was actually a color laser printout of the digital PDF forgery.  This led me to reasonably assume that the forgery was entirely a bait-and-switch operation inside the White House, an operation not involving Hawaiian officials in the forgery's manufacture.  That in turn led me to reasonably assume that the information grudgingly provided by Hawaii, including weasel-worded statements, could be relied on, though it might not be the whole truth.  From that point, I could narrow my focus to the parts of the birth certificate most likely have fraudulent information.  But if my assumptions are incorrect, my case falls apart.
If I am correct, further research might best be done by graphologists, to analyze the authenticity of the mother's signature in Line 18a, and by others who are more skilled than I at analyzing the nature of the Dunham/Obama marriage, if indeed there was a marriage.

Friday, September 13, 2013


Obama has Never been a Democrat: He is a Undercover MUSLIM MOLE

Now that the presidential election of last year is in the distant past, it appears that Obama may have abandoned his domestic agenda and is now squarely focused on the Middle East, or to be more accurate, the “Muslim Agenda”. What is this agenda? The answer is simple – the Caliphate. Obama is setting up the Caliphate as quickly as possible for his Sunni Muslim Brotherhood brethren and it appears to be a top priority as he only has just over three years before his second term ends. Most “moderate” political thinkers will scoff at our repeated advocacy that Obama is Muslim but there is so much evidence that would suggest this is the case.
Let us make the case logically for those who do have open minds and are willing to listen to reason:

Prior to Obama’s election in 2008, he interviewed with George Stephanopoulos and confessed to being a Muslim:
How many Christians do you know that would have made that mistake?

Ed Klein wrote a book about Obama called “The Amateur” and for the book, Klein interviewed Obama’s former Reverend, Jeremiah Wright (which was also recorded by Ed Klein). Wright stated that he guided Obama to accept Christianity without affecting his faith on Islam.
Here is the pertinent part of the interview with Klein and Sean Hannity, which discusses this:

Obama recited the call to prayer in classical Arabic perfectly and stated “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,” as quoted by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Prior to a scheduled speech he made at Georgetown University and shortly after Obama was inaugurated as President in 2009, he told his people to hide the crucifix that would be behind him while he was speaking.
If one cares to Google Obama and his critique of the Bible you will find a tremendous amount. Here is just one example of speech by Obama on the Bible:
Now ask yourselves a simple question: Is this someone who confesses the faith of Christianity? Not only will you will find no criticism of the Koran by Obama but he also praises the Koran and calls it holy. I do not recall him ever saying publicly that the Bible is Holy.
Now for his actions and policies.
The first major speech Obama made after his first inauguration was the speech in Cairo, which was the first indication of his fundamentalist Islamic faith. He insisted that members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited, which ticked off Mubarak who did not attend the speech. Why invite the Muslim Brotherhood? Democratic principals? Really?
When the secular public in Iran rose up in rebellion against the Mullahs, Obama was silent and would provide no help either publicly or materially.
When the “Arab Spring” started, Obama supported and engaged the Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, he engaged with the Muslim Brotherhood and when they were overthrown with a huge outcry from the Egyptian public and the army intervened to stop the introduction of Sharia, he remained supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood threatening to remove US aid.
Does this look like a Democrat?
Does this look like a Democrat?
When the Arab Spring started, Obama immediately used the opportunity to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya without Congressional authority, which was propagandized in the USA by our government and the media. What most Americans were not told is the vast majority of Libyans supported Qaddafi, probably as much as ninety percent. The reason for this support – despite Qaddafi’s craziness and his past – is that he fought against the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda terrorists, including providing valuable intelligence to the U.S. Qaddafi also was very beneficial to his people. For example, when one got married in Libya, under Qaddafi, he provided subsidized mortgages. No matter what the purchase price of any house for a Libyan, the married couple was only required to pay 10% of their salary for ten years and then the house was there own. In America, if you get a free phone the people who will receive the free stuff will all vote for Democrats. I think getting a heavily subsidized mortgage will buy many peoples’ allegiances, do you not think? The Libyan war was a pure and classic deception by Obama to empower his Muslim Brotherhood brethren.
Your politicians in both parties lied to you big time.
Egypt has fallen back to the power of the secularist military, possibly only temporarily. The Muslim Brotherhood will lick their wounds and regroup; Obama has now turned his head to Syria. His political objective is not about weapons of mass destruction but to again empower his Sunni Muslim Brotherhood brethren in Syria and overthrow Assad. Political commentators in the U.S. believe that Obama is reluctant to take military action on Syria but based on his attack on Libya, this thinking is flawed. While it is not certain that an attack on Syria will happen, we believe the odds that Obama will eventually use military force against Syria are greater than fifty percent, especially if it will guarantee the Muslim Brotherhood’s objective.
Obama now does not care about his poll numbers or even his own party anymore; the Muslim agenda is now his only priority.
We know from the highly credible defense analyst Yossef Bodansky that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and our own U.S. intelligence services have been working together on Syria with troubling allegations that the Chemical attack may have been a setup.
Keith Ellison, the Muslim Hamas-supporting Congressman on the far left fringe of the Democrat Party from Minnesota who was against the Iraq war, is now one hundred percent in favor of going to war with Syria. It does not take a rocket scientist to work this out, does it? Just like Obama, he is a Sunni Muslim who also wishes to reestablish the Caliphate. It is just that simple!
The Emperor’s new clothes are still too hard for the average American to see.


Malik Obama (seated on the right) works for the Muslim Brotherhood.




Look the RAGHEADS will kill these libtards too !!


Friday, September 6, 2013

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria? Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad? Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force? Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad? READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT... >>ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!


Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?
Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?
Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?
Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?


Here is a rhetorical question to ask....Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI'S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009...

"Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT'S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.



Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media - a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world's third-largest oil exporter.

- See more at:

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino's like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED... WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.... AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!