January 18, 2017

Last Ditch Attempt to Promote Bam's Buddies

Dana Mathewson

Hmph! Deport ValJar back to Iran and send Susan Rice to prison!


President Obama is making one last push to secure appointments for dozens of political allies, celebrity athletes and members of his administration before he leaves office Friday.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

If Obama Pardons Hillary

Jack Kemp

I suspect Obama, if he pardons Hillary, will do it on Friday morning to kind of hide it from the public. Even if it is made public, it would steal some of the spotlight from Trump on Inauguration Day. Meanwhile, Hillary sits home and sweats.

Then again, Obama probably won't pardon Bill Clinton, which would not bother Hillary much.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

This Sounds Different

Dana Mathewson

How Trump Can End The Parties of Corruption.


As Gene Wilder yelled in "Young Frankenstein," "It Could Work!"

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

UnManning Getting Out

Jack Kemp forwards this:

WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday commuted the prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. military intelligence analyst who is serving 35 years in prison for passing classified files to WikiLeaks, the White House said.
Manning, formerly known as U.S. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, was born male but revealed after being convicted of espionage that she identifies as a woman.
She accepted responsibility for leaking the material, has said she was confronting gender dysphoria at the time of the leaks while deployed in Iraq.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Layoffs at Clinton Crime Inc.

Dana Mathewson

Dayum! Well, looks like I'm off Easy Street now, have to trade in the Bentley for a Honda and look for an honest job. It was fun while it lasted. 😓


The Clintons are moving ahead with plans to downsize their controversial foundation’s network of offshoots, a decision carried out as the powerful family’s political influence wanes and its once-lengthy donor list shrinks.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Arrogant Media Threatens Donald Trump

Timothy Birdnow

The arrogance of the mainstream media knows no bounds. According to this open letter from the Columbia Journalism Review the fake news media, fearing being cut out of access to Donald Trump, have taken to not so veiled threats.

From the article:

"But while you have every right to decide your ground rules for engaging with the press, we have some, too. It is, after all, our airtime and column inches that you are seeking to influence. We, not you, decide how best to serve our readers, listeners, and viewers. So think of what follows as a backgrounder on what to expect from us over the next four years"

End excerpt.

The monstrous arrogance involved here is staggering! They seem to miss the point that THEIR airtime is granted to them via licence, and, yes, they have the right to print that which they see fit. but Trump has the right to speak to those who do not distort or lie about what he says. And there are libel laws...

But this pompousity continues:

" Telling reporters that they won’t get access to something isn’t what we’d prefer, but it’s a challenge we relish.

Off the record and other ground rules are ours—not yours—to set. We may agree to speak to some of your officials off the record, or we may not. We may attend background briefings or off-the-record social events, or we may skip them. That’s our choice. If you think reporters who don’t agree to the rules, and are shut out, won’t get the story, see above"

End excerpt.

That sounds like a threat to me.

I wonder how well these clowns are going to do when some of their members have access?

"We decide how much airtime to give your spokespeople and surrogates. We will strive to get your point of view across, even if you seek to shut us out. But that does not mean we are required to turn our airwaves or column inches over to people who repeatedly distort or bend the truth. We will call them out when they do, and we reserve the right, in the most egregious cases, to ban them from our outlets."

End excerpt.

Oh, like you tried to get Trump's point across when he said there were murderers and rapists among the invading Latinos and you said he called all latino people murderers and rapists? Or when he said a guy who was a member of La Raza wouldn't give him a fair trial and you claimed falsely he said it was because the man was of Mexican decent? Or how about Trump's joke about the Russians finding Hillary's e-mails and you lied and claimed he invited them to hack Hillary (even though she had been already hacked)."

Where was this thirst for Truth where Hillary's activities with the Clinton Foundation were concerned? Strange how little they cared then, even though she was selling access to the State Department and that is why she set up a private server. But who cares about that!

This letter goes on with hillarious lines about their pursuit of excellence and whatnot. The arrogance of these people is boundless.

Which is a large part of why Trump won the election. The news media is so blinded by their hubris they cannot see that the public recoils at this type of conceit. They likely don't even know it hangs from them.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.

January 17, 2017

about the Camp Lejeune toxic water vs. Love Canal

Jack Kemp

The Love Canal (near Buffalo) discoveries and toxicity scandal in the late 1970s caused the government to look into the water at military bases - and essentially cover up what they found, but not for long. The Camp Lejeune toxic mess was actually BIGGER than the Love Canal chemical contamination, making it the nation's biggest known contamination site. After Boot Camp, young Marines are sent to Camp Lejeune. One million veterans as well as their wives and their children (and also civilian workers) living on base were exposed to these poisons.

If Hitler and Stalin got together to figure out a plan to harm the U.S. Marines in a hidden way, they couldn't have come up with anything much different than the toxic water at Camp Lejeune. If a private breeder of dogs gave his puppies such toxic water, the ASPCA would close down the breeding farm. If fact, the business wouldn't want to do this because they can't sell sick dogs for long.


Nobody was forced to drink water from the so-called Love Canal. That is, until the "owners" ignored the rules of the sale of the place and sold the land to the city (following the "cleanup") to have schools built on it. In all fairness I must point out that the city (the Niagara Falls gummint was never noted for "smarts") pulled the old Emminent Domain dodge and the owners had not a leg left to stand on. Your choices get pretty narrow when a legal gun (or illegal, in that case) is being held to your head.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Christians and Feminists form up to Fight Obama's Intersectual Bathroom Policy

Jack Kemp

One of the things that shocked me about most feminist organizations is that they now don't care about protecting the privacy and safety of women and girls - and they champion any male claiming to itentify as a woman and take sports prizes and scholarships from real XX-chromosome women. The worst example is a born male mixed martial arts full surgical transgender "female" who has been beating up women in the ring and getting paid handsomely for it. He broke one woman's eye socket in a match.

Now some sanity has entered the femist community where one organization's leadership is not afraid to say that they don't want men in their bathrooms, school showers and department store dressing rooms. Check out the short Youtube video Iink in both this article and at the website below. As the video states, something must be really bad for conservative family organization and a feminist one to partner to fight an Obama initiative.


Christian and Feminist Groups Team Up to Challenge Obama's Bathroom Mandate

Cortney O'Brien
Posted: Jan 14, 2017 9:15 AM

Two forces that could not be more polar opposite are partnering for a noble cause: to challenge President Obama’s bathroom mandate. Last year, the administration told schools they had to allow anyone who identified as transgender into the bathroom of their choice. If they refused to enforce the rule, they would be refused federal funding.
Family Policy Alliance, the public policy partner of Focus on the Family, has joined with Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) because both groups are concerned how the mandate will endanger women and girls.
Kara Dansky, the chair of WoLF’s Board of Directors, acknowledged that their two organization may differ on issues ranging from abortion to gay rights, but when it comes to privacy and safety for women, they find some common ground.

"On certain issues, such as gender identity, pornography and prostitution – we’ll find that the left has pretty much sold out women on these issues,” Dansky said. "We stand up for women and girls.”
Dansky thinks it’s unfair that men who identify as girls get the same benefits as women under Title IX. Interpreting sex as gender identity jeopardizes women being treated as a category worthy of civil rights protection, she argues.
"How wrong does something need to be for a Christian family group, and a radical feminist group, to take their argument together to the Supreme Court?” asked Autumn Leva, director of policy for Family Policy Alliance. "Privacy and safety matter and we’re asking the high court to acknowledge that.”

The two groups have submitted an amicus brief to challenge the mandate, explaining that allowing males who self-identify as women into public restrooms and locker rooms endangers women and girls.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Safe and healthy (not pristine) air

Paul Driessen

One of the Environmental Protection Agency’s most influential, impactful programs involves tiny airborne soot particles. EPA claims even the lowest levels of these pollutants cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancer, and people "dying sooner than they should.” In fact, it says, nearly all the (supposed) benefits from its recent air quality and power plant rules are actually "ancillary benefits” from reducing soot levels.

There is no factual basis for these assertions. They are based on epidemiological analyses that blithely attribute deaths within normal variations to soot emissions; and on experiments that unethically exposed humans to soot at concentrations far above what EPA says are toxic or lethal – and yet did not sicken or kill any test subjects.

My article this week outlines and explains the fraudulent nature of these expensive, job-killing EPA air quality rules. It concludes by suggesting several essential steps that the new Congress and Trump Administration need to take, to restore credibility, integrity and scientific rigor to the EPA analytical and rule-making process.

Safe and healthy (not pristine) air

Federal air quality rules must be based on science – not used to stifle energy and industry

Paul Driessen

It’s called the Clean Air Act, but it was never intended to ensure pure, pristine air. Congress wanted America to have safe, healthy air, and regulations based on solid scientific and medical studies.

The law says costs cannot be considered where human health and safety are actually at stake. But legislators also understood that efforts to bring emissions to zero are unnecessary, technologically impossible, extremely expensive, harmful to electricity generation, factory output, job creation and retention, and living standards – and thus likely to reduce human health, wellbeing and longevity.

The Obama Environmental Protection Agency ignored these facts and employed highly dubious analyses to justify stringent new emission standards that impose enormous costs for no health benefits. The new Congress and Trump Administration must now restore integrity, rigor and balance to the process.

A good place to begin is with EPA’s rules for fine particulates: PM2.5, soot particles smaller than 2.5 microns (a fraction of the size of pollen and mold spores). EPA claims reducing PM2.5 emissions from power plants, factories, refineries, petrochemical plants, cars, light trucks, and diesel-powered vehicles and heavy equipment will save countless lives. In fact, it says, nearly all the (supposed) benefits from its Clean Power Plan and other recent rules are actually "ancillary benefits” from reducing PM2.5 levels.

Premature mortality is "associated with” fine particle pollution "at the lowest levels measured,” Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said. "There is no level at which premature death does not occur.” If we could further reduce particulate pollution, previous Obama EPA chief Lisa Jackson told Congress, it would be like "finding a cure for cancer” – hundreds of thousands of lives saved.

These assertions have no basis in reality. Even EPA’s own studies show they are predicated on two things: epidemiological analyses that count deaths within normal variations in death rates and attribute them to soot emissions; and experiments that unethically exposed humans to PM2.5 concentrations at levels which EPA says cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancer and people "dying sooner than they should.”

The agency’s air pollution epidemiological studies are compromised by uncontrollable "confounding factors.” No data exist on actual individual exposure levels, so researchers cannot reliably attribute specific deaths to particulates, emergency room physician John Dunn explains. Moreover, PM2.5 particles emitted by vehicles, power plants and factories cannot be separated from particles from volcanoes, forest fires, construction projects, dust storms, agricultural activities, and even cigarettes that send hundreds of times more tiny particles into lungs than what EPA says is lethal if they come from sources it regulates.

Nor does a death certificate determine whether a death was caused by airborne particles – or by viruses, bacteria, dietary and exercise habits, obesity, smoking, diabetes, cold weather or countless other factors.

If particulates are a short-term cause of death, there should be a clear association between bad air and deaths within clusters of similar areas, and effects should be consistent across clusters, notes statistician Stan Young in discussing causation versus association. However, a recent re-analysis of 1969-1974 data from 533 US counties confirmed the previous conclusion: improved air quality did not reduce mortality.

Similarly, in 2002, Canadian forest fires sent massive amounts of smoke (composed largely of PM2.5 particles) into Boston and New York City. EPA doctrine says deaths should have shot up, but they did not. 2008 forest fires in California engulfed Los Angeles in smoke and PM2.5 soot, but again deaths did not increase. In fact, they were below normal as soot levels soared during the fires.

EPA has not proposed a plausible medical explanation to support its claim that super-tiny particles cause multiple diseases and kill people by getting into their lungs or bloodstreams. It just counts deaths during arbitrarily chosen intervals of days, and says differences in the number dying in relation to air pollution levels represents "premature” deaths – rather than the fact that more people die on some days than others.

People certainly did die during some atmospheric inversions that trapped large quantities of airborne chemicals in urban areas like London in 1952. However those pollutants have been dramatically reduced in America’s air. For example, since 1970 US cars have reduced tailpipe pollutants by 99% and coal-fired power plants have eliminated over 90% of their particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

EPA thus sponsored 20 years of lab experiments that exposed human test subjects to high air pollution levels. That raises legal, ethical and scientific problems. US laws, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Accords and EPA Rule 1000.17 make it unethical or illegal to conduct toxicity experiments on humans.

In addition, researchers failed to advise volunteers that EPA claims the pollution they were going to breathe is toxic, carcinogenic and deadly. Moreover, many of the human guinea pigs were elderly, asthmatics, diabetics, people with heart disease and even children – the very people EPA claims are at greatest risk and most susceptible to getting sick or dying from the pollutants volunteers would breathe.

Finally, test subjects were exposed to eight, thirty or even sixty times more particulates per volume of inhaled air – for varying periods of time: up to two hours – than they would breathe outdoors during routine physical activities. And yet, they did not get seriously ill or die. That raises important questions:

* If PM2.5 particulates are dangerous or lethal when emitted by factories or vehicles, and there is no safe threshold – how can those same pollutants be harmless to people who were intentionally administered pollution many times higher, and for longer periods, than they would encounter in their daily lives? Why didn’t those test subjects have seizures, develop lung, cardiac or cancer problems, or die?

* If they did not, how can EPA say there is no safe level, all PM2.5 particulates are toxic, its regulations are saving countless lives, and regulatory benefits vastly outweigh their multi-billion-dollar annual costs?

Simply put, there is no basis for these claims – or for the Obama EPA’s war on fossil fuels and factories.

America’s air is healthy and safe. EPA’s PM2.5 emission standards and regulations are clearly based on bald assertions, rank conjecture, epidemiological studies that provide no scientific support for the agency, and human testing that actually proves small particulates pose no toxic or lethal risk to risk to human health, even at levels dozens of time higher than what EPA claims are dangerous or lethal in outdoor air.

Any computer models based on these assertions and studies are thus garbage in-garbage out game playing that provide no valid basis for claims about lives saved or regulatory benefits exceeding costs.

(A thorough analysis of this untenable situation can be found in JunkScience.com director Steve Milloy’s new book, Scare Pollution: Why and how to fix the EPA, which documents the ways EPA uses deceptive tactics to frighten people into believing the air they breathe is likely to sicken or kill them.)

The incoming Trump EPA needs to conduct its own internal review of existing agency PM2.5 claims, documents, emission levels and regulations – and fund an independent review by respected medical experts – to determine whether they are based on honest, replicable science. If they are not, everything based on the fraudulent PM2.5 pollution narrative should be subjected to a total do-over.

While all that is being done, EPA should suspend implementation of all policies, guidelines and rules based on the scheme. It must also inform legislators, journalists and citizens about the facts – and clearly and vigorously address inevitable environmentalist objections and denunciations.

The new EPA and Congress should also require that all past, current and future researchers make their raw data and methodologies available for outside peer review. They should stop funding activist groups that have engaged in collusive lawsuits or rubberstamped EPA actions, including the American Lung Association. Last, they should fully reform the agency’s supervisory panels, board of scientific counselors and Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) – and repopulate them with experts who do not have government grant or other conflicts, and will bring integrity and rigor to the scientific process.

These steps will help make EPA credible and accountable, and its actions based on solid science.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1586 words, total size 11 kb.

Marines Get New Rifle Magazine

Dana Mathewson

IIRC, Within the last few years Magpul moved its ops from an increasingly gun-unfriendly state to a more friendly one. Can't remember the specifics.


A reliable weapon can be the difference between life and death for those serving in the military.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Male Disposability

By Craig Willms

While I was perusing several Internet stories and Youtube videos (see the story of Cassie Jaye and The Red Pill) of the phenomenon known as the Men's Rights Advocacy and by extension the Internet-based subculture called the Manosphere and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) I came across another meme that I had never considered before. Male disposability. By this I mean our society and every society in human history consider men, mostly young men as largely disposable.

Historically women, the bearer of our children, were far more important for society to protect as only they could replenish the population after war or disaster. Men on the other hand are merely sperm donors. Only men were conscripted to go to war and only men did highly dangerous jobs. If one man or a hundred or a thousand men were killed society would go on – in this men are disposable.

This is - in my humble opinion - one of the valid side arguments some Men's Rights Advocates make. It's hard to argue with. Women through the ages have had their grievances against so-called male dominated societies, many of them completely valid, but they were never considered disposable and routinely sent off to die for a cause that had no personal import. Being chewed up and spit out by the war machine, which I will come back to, is one thing, but the case for the degrading of the masculine mystique in society is presenting unforeseen problems.

Only until very recently and against the better judgment of many for the very same maternalistic reasons have women joined men on the field of battle. It remains to be seen the wisdom of this movement. The way for this has been paved by the larger societal change in the 60's and 70's that has seen babies now eligible for disposal. Much as they were in the Roman Empire babies are not necessarily automatically cherished. The Christian era that was in part responsible for the fall of the empire has run its course in Western civilization. A concerted rejection of Christianity for better or worse has made the most remarkable aspect of the female of the species a burden rather than a blessing.

Thus the modern young male is a changed animal from those of us born in the middle of the 20th century. We were mostly married by 21 and raising multiple children before our thirties. Unfortunately many of these men ended up divorced and many cases cut off from the day to day life of their children. This is largely what has sown the seeds of today's Men's Right movement. The movement consists of older, mainly middle-class men who have seen their value to society diminish culturally and economically. Some blame it squarely on radical feminism and others lay the blame on government expansion into the family by virtue of the welfare state and, of course the curse of globalism.

Men of GenerationX and the Millennials as well as other men of the West - even in parts of Asia are foregoing female companionship and fatherhood all together. Man-boys now routinely live with their parents into their 40's until their parents start dying. Many of these men never have a meaningful relationship with a "real" woman. When the men of my generation die so too will the Men’s Rights movement. The Millennials simply won’t care having known nothing else but strong-minded, grievance based women and a dearth of male role models.

To be fair there will be pushback by men, the framework is already set. Within the so-called Manosphere they take pride in hookups with and even humiliation of the female gender, preferring to hone their craft as alpha-male wannabes and manwhores over taking a wife and raising a family. The art of the score and psychological warcraft against worthy conquests is the name of the game. Game is in fact the word they use for it. Casting judgment fairly or unfairly on women based solely on their looks is only part of it, female behavior and female entitlement is a particular area of grievance for these men. If they do take a wife often they have gone overseas to mine a pool of non-westernized women who they perceive as less entitled. While someone on the outside would consider this movement despicable they do themselves a disservice not trying to understand why these attitudes exist among so many healthy young males.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is perhaps the most startling and depressing aspect of this cultural shift. These men don't really care to explore women or relationships at all. Internet porn satisfies their sexual curiosity with all the visual stimulation that men crave and none of the stress (or distress) of a real relationship. Many of these guys will never become absentee fathers or divorcees because they will never have an intimate relationship. The ones that do give up after a bad experience or two and eschew women from then on. For them it isn't as bleak as it sounds, they become satisfied and do not feel they are missing anything. Who's to argue with that - after all isn't the point of life to be happy?

Intuitively in a societal sense and obviously in their real world experiences young men feel unappreciated. The last two generations of boys have been drugged up in school for being rambunctious. They’ve seen their education taking a backseat to that of their female contemporaries. They have become more or less a burden in the classroom, where fewer and fewer male role models exist. Later they see women as rivals in the workplace, where desirable jobs just as regularly go to women. If the dirty jobs are all that’s left then playing video games in Mom’s basement certainly holds more appeal.

Historically young men have been merely fodder for someone else’s desires. Look at the high school or college athlete - chewed up and spit out. Look at the factory line worker or the construction worker, the modern IT worker - chewed up, spit out. Look at the soldier... Consider the VA and the plight of the ones who are not killed in battle. Entirely disposable.

In fact a careful reading of history shows that there is a war with a large loss of life for the grunts every twenty years or so. Using simple logic one can see that this is the average amount of time it takes to produce, raise and train a new batch of grunts. Disposable? Just since the beginning of this young country the periodicity of major wars falls fairly neatly into this pattern. American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), The War of 1812(1812–1815), Mexican–American(Texas)War(1846–1848), American Civil War(1861–1865), Great Sioux War of 1876(Indian Wars)(1876–1877+), Spanish–American War (Philippine–American War)(1898-1902), World War I(1917–1918), World War II(1941–1945), Vietnam War(1965–1975), 911/Afghanistan/Iraq(2001-present).

While I'm not pushing the notion of a grand multi-generational, multi-millennial conspiracy to cull the population every twenty years or so, it is curious. One presumes this pattern of recharging economies to make the powers that be richer may not necessarily be the result of conspiracy - although one could come to such a conclusion – however, this scenario has played out over and over for hundreds of years. I suspect it's just a reasonable fact that an army will run out of grunts and new ones will need to be procured. That takes about twenty years or so - just a fact.

The trouble now is that men of the West are not creating families for the reasons described and because of that the fresh batch of war fodder is not being produced. The war machines have been busily pursuing unmanned drones and smart missiles and any number of automated weapons of destruction, which they gladly sell to both sides, but they will always need soldiers. Will the soldier of the future be a woman? It makes me shudder.

First male disposability, then babies and finally the females. We had better rethink some things, right?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1338 words, total size 8 kb.

Helping Obama's Legacy Part IV

William Been

It appears that the outgoing president is STILL struggling with the construction of his LEGACY. Many Americans have realized that his focus throughout his presidency has been himself and his Socialist Islamist Agenda. GROUP 4 of our Legacy items for the outgoing president follows along with a composite of GROUPS 1-4 staged in appropriate categories for the final LEGACY presentation.

GROUP 5 will be an extensive list as many recipients have submitted additional items that will be added to the Composite. I still believe he has more surprises so any suggestions or additions to the list will be welcome and published when he finally leaves office as of January 20, 2017!!!!!

Please respond with your additions and suggestions to this LEGACY starter list. Also, feel free to publish as you see fit.


· Outgoing president is silent concerning anti-American behavior of Congressman John Lewis.

· In July, 2008, 30% of Americans viewed race relations as bad while eight years of Obama resulted in 46% viewing race relations as bad in July, 2016. (Gallup)

· Farewell speech deception as he pontificated as if he is the shining example of Democracy by stating "Democracy requires basic sense of solidarity.” When he entered office, he declared to congressional GOP that "I won. Elections have consequences.” Shortly thereafter, he declared "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone!” This is the real Obama where solidarity equals unfettered power and unquestioned progressive authority ala Cloward-Piven, Alinsky, and Soros.

· While stressing the need for allies, he returned the bust of Churchill and turned against Israel!

· Obama created the greatest and strongest Republican Party ever!!!!!

· During the Obama eight years, Democrats lost 1,042 state and federal seats, governorships and the presidency.

· While campaigning for Hillary, Obama himself stated that her candidacy had placed his "legacy on the ballot.” Therefore, by his own admission, his legacy is one of a big time loser!

· While complaining about Russian interference with our election process, Obama openly interfered in the Kenyan election when far left Muslim Odinga ran for the presidency but, true to Obama’s leftist failures, Odinga lost and people died as riots spread across the country.

· On January 5, 2017 it was reported by AP that the military presence in the Iraq campaign to retake Mosul has again been increased to a total U.S. troop presence in Iraq of 4,935. This is now exactly half of what advisers had told Obama was necessary to preserve the Bush accomplishments when he summarily pulled out all troops leaving Iraq ripe for ISIS.

· Failure to call "terrorism” terrorism.

· Failure to call "Islamic terrorism” Islamic terrorism.

· Failure to enforce the Rule of Law on a broad basis.

· Lowest Labor Participation Rate.

· Highest number of Americans on Food Stamps.

· Decreasing Middle Class wages throughout Obama tenure.

· Bankrupted the two top coal producers (Arch and Peabody) just as he had promised.

· Worst economic recovery since Great Depression illustrated by no annual increase of even 3%.

· Deal with Iran that allows them to develop nuclear capability and does not allow U.S. inspection.

· Strong proponent of turning over internet to international control

· Muslim Brotherhood throughout Washington D.C. governmental levels




· Failure to call "terrorism” terrorism.

· Failure to call "Islamic terrorism” Islamic terrorism.

· Muslim Brotherhood throughout Washington D.C. governmental levels

· Migration of millions of Muslims into the populations of Europe and America and the future impact to liberty and freedom versus the Islamic caliphate must be a part of the Obama LEGACY

· Refused to honestly present situations involving terrorism, and specifically Islamic terrorism, to the American people as is exemplified by the Obama declaration that the Fort Hood disaster was "Workplace Violence.”

* Refugees flood Michigan cities with 1317 from 10/1/16 to 12/31/16 and 5481 scheduled for 2017 per Obama plan with most from dominant Muslim countries being resettled by several of the nine VOLAG groups including Christian, Jewish, and charities financed with federal funds. That this is a huge LEGACY item is validated by Church World Services receiving $44M or 64.4% of its annual revenue from the US government (securemichigan.org &CWS)
* JV team claims the 39 killed in Istanbul night club. (Explain this is ISIS for the liberals)
* Release Guantanamo prisoners even though the worst of the bad are all that is left. (No words appropriate.)


· Obama created the greatest and strongest Republican Party ever!!!!!

· During the Obama eight years, Democrats lost 1,042 state and federal seats, governorships and the presidency.

· While campaigning for Hillary, Obama himself stated that her candidacy had placed his "legacy on the ballot.” Therefore, by his own admission, his legacy is one of a big time loser!

· "Fast and Furious” scandal designed to target the Second Amendment

· "IRS” scandal targeting conservative groups

* Today (1/4/17), there are 4100 GOP State legislators (most in history), 34 GOP Governors, 52 GOP Senators and 239 GOP House members (Newt Gingrich)
* Moved to block ocean drilling to block Trump energy endeavors. (He prefers all of us in the dark-remember his solar accomplishments.)
* Democratic Party weaker today than any time since FDR created the New Deal in the 1930s. (Newt Gingrich)


· Lowest Labor Participation Rate.

· Highest number of Americans on Food Stamps.

· Decreasing Middle Class wages throughout Obama tenure.

· Worst economic recovery since Great Depression illustrated by no annual increase of even 3%.

* Added $9 trillion in national debt (Treasury Dept)


· Failure to enforce the Rule of Law on a broad basis.

· Illegal Immigrants Surge Across the US Southern Border at Record Rate (Newsmax 11/23/16)

* Have done nothing and basically said nothing while, in 2016 alone, watching 762 murders in Chicago, his adopted home town. (Did he say gun control?)


· On January 5, 2017 it was reported by AP that the military presence in the Iraq campaign to retake Mosul has again been increased to a total U.S. troop presence in Iraq of 4,935. This is now exactly half of what advisers had told Obama was necessary to preserve the Bush accomplishments when he summarily pulled out all troops leaving Iraq ripe for ISIS.

· Abandoning fledgling Iraq government without leaving adequate military support to assure the continued development of a free people including freedom of religion. (As an editorial note, this action by Obama personally may be the single greatest detrimental action by any President in history as it destabilized Iraq, empowered Iran, created ISIS and perpetuated the Syrian disaster essentially leaving the entire region in a state of crisis which, in turn, opens the door for the caliphate and global Islamic governance.)

· Benghazi scandal and cover-up that probably gave Obama his second term as he and his minions lied over and over again that it was caused by "the video” when it was actually caused by Obama policy and related tactics.


· Demonstrated weakness in foresight and then weakness in government in the debacle involving the Obama Red Line in Syria leading to the death of thousands, and still counting, as Donald Trump inherits the entire Obama National Foreign Policy disaster.

· Deal with Iran that allows them to develop nuclear capability and does not allow U.S. inspection.

· Strong proponent of turning over internet to international control

· While stressing the need for allies, he returned the bust of Churchill and turned against Israel!

· Executive decision to unilaterally stop the missile shield established by Bush in Poland

* 56 Iraqis killed in several bomb explosions on January 2nd per NY Times. (Obama pulled out knowing Iraq not ready without US presence)
* Defied US continuing commitment to Israel by allowing UN resolution to stop Israeli settlements in West bank. (High Crime?)


· Farewell speech deception as he pontificated as if he is the shining example of Democracy by stating "Democracy requires basic sense of solidarity.” When he entered office, he declared to congressional GOP that "I won. Elections have consequences.” Shortly thereafter, he declared "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone!” This is the real Obama where solidarity equals unfettered power and unquestioned progressive authority ala Cloward-Piven, Alinsky, and Soros.

· Bankrupted the two top coal producers (Arch and Peabody) just as he had promised.


· Outgoing president is silent concerning anti-American behavior of Congressman John Lewis.

· In July, 2008, 30% of Americans viewed race relations as bad while eight years of Obama resulted in 46% viewing race relations as bad in July, 2016. (Gallup)

· Endorsed and campaigned for Lacy Clay, Missouri congressman, after Clay had hung a picture in the US Capitol depicting police officers as PIGS

* Michele Obama who had never felt proud of the USA until 2008 now, in 2017, feels lack of hope after eight long years of Barack Obama
* 64 police officers killed in 2016 as outgoing president meets and welcomes "hate speech" crowd from Black Lives Matter (CNN)


· While complaining about Russian interference with our election process, Obama openly interfered in the Kenyan election when far left Muslim Odinga ran for the presidency but, true to Obama’s leftist failures, Odinga lost and people died as riots spread across the country.

* Russian sanctions for "hacking" computers to support Trump election against Hillary. (Truth and facts be damned, no light of day wanted.)
* Creation and propagation of the video to mask Benghazi from voters for his re-election.


· Multiplicity of Obama lies relative to Obamacare is truly a national disgrace to Americans who value honesty and integrity (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness)

· Subtle but continuous attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values

· HUD rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)-forcing affluent communities to build low cost HUD housing to accept crime and poverty prevalent in American cities where Democrat Party governments have dominated local politics

· Cuts sentences for federal drug crimes. (Wonder why heroin addicts are reported as dying at a very high rate, locally and nationally.)

* Bill Clinton stating that Obamacare is "crazy."


· Shut down US Space Program and now depend on Russia to transport and support the Space Station

* Government takeover of western land with multiple regulations--sounds like his contribution to Agenda 21. (He is preparing for his global job.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1748 words, total size 12 kb.

January 14, 2017

Computer Problems

Timothy Birdnow

Having some computer problems, folks. I may be hit or miss in the following week. Something broke off inside my machine and began spinning around with the disc. It then made a horrible screech and the computer shut down. I kept starting it again and it kept closing on me. After a good long rest i"m back up but I don't know for how long. I'm trying to get a backup omputer working with litttle sucess.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

USMC Camp Lejeune toxic water from 50s to 1980s poisoned vets & families

Jack Kemp

There's also a 54 min. audio program link at the website below that discusses this.

VA spent years ignoring veterans poisoned by toxic water, they’re finally paying up
Sarah Lee Jan 13, 2017 4:17 pm

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Retired Master Sgt. James Kithcart was 17 when he enlisted in the Marines. In the two years he was stationed at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina, from 1980-82, he noticed, from about six months in, what he calls "extreme fatigue.”

And it wasn’t just him – his fellow recruits were feeling the same.
In a December 2016 interview with Cleveland radio host Todd Allyn, Kithcart said he and the other enlistees were constantly taking naps.

"Here you’re talking about 17-, 18-, 19-, 20-year-old Marines that were always exhausted … you always felt like your battery was constantly drained … but you never knew what was going on,” he told Allyn.
According to Kithcart, Marines would go to the medical facilities on base where they were told that nothing was wrong with them and that they should fight what was probably dehydration by drinking water. This was before the days of bottled water, he noted. And so, being Marines, they did what they were told.

After retiring from active duty, and for the next 32 years, Kithcart suffered from sleep apnea, insomnia, constant joint pain, mysterious skin rashes and renal toxicity with one kidney the size of a 7-year-old’s, and the other the size of a gorilla’s.

Then, in September 2014, he received a letter from the Veterans Affairs Administration that indicated the dry cleaners on the base at Camp Lejeune had been pumping dirty water into a reservoir. Instead of that water going into a separator, it was going right back into the drinking supply. Kithcart, and what the VA is now admitting could be as many as 900,000 service members from a period between Aug. 1, 1953 and Dec. 31, 1987, were potentially exposed to the tainted water.
On Friday, a new rule was announced by the VA that "covers active duty, Reserve and National Guard members who developed one of eight diseases: adult leukemia, aplastic anemia, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Parkinson’s disease,” The Marine Corps Times reported. Those eligible can receive disability compensation beginning in March. They merely need submit evidence of their diagnoses and their service information proving 30 cumulative days on the base during the time period the water was contaminated.
The cash payouts will total more than $2 billion.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

Yellow Journalism; Drug Testing for Dopey WH Journalists

Jack Kemp

This comes from the gossip section of the NY Post.
I had to take drug tests (urinate into a cup for testing) when I worked as a computer programmer in corporations a few decades ago. The author below refers to this as the new "yellow journalism." Well put.


Drug testing floated for White House press corps
by Richard Johnson

One proposal on dealing with the media that was pitched to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team calls for drug testing the White House press corps.
Trump’s attacks on the mainstream media were a cornerstone of his campaign and last week he called BuzzFeed a "failing pile of garbage,” but forcing reporters to undergo random drug tests would provoke a media meltdown.
The pee-in-a-cup proposal (yellow journalism indeed) was one of 13 ideas one candidate for White House press secretary wrote in November in a confidential memo to members of the Presidential Transition Team’s Executive Committee.
He didn’t get the job, and I am not naming him because his proposal could harsh the mellow of his fellow journalists.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Agenda 21/30 and Global Governance

Helen Dyer, our correspondent from Down Under, forwards this. It is part of a letter (much longer) by her friend Graham to his New South Wales Senator:

According to the late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, in his address, "The Erosion of National Sovereignty”, this acceleration in signing of international treaties coincided with a fundamental change in society characterised by an abandonment in personal responsibility and an obsession with individual rights:

"The flood of treaties began to flow strongly in the 1960s. That was the time when the transformation of culture – some would say its disintegration – which the wars had set in train began to accelerate. One aspect of the change in society that then occurred was the tendency to insist on individual rights and to indulge individual wishes, without at the same time recognizing the co-relative obligations of individuals to society. The treaties that were made were in tune with this sentiment and some of them reflected the ideas that became regarded as politically correct. They covered a field including Civil and Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Refugees, Torture, the Rights of the Child and The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as well as the protection of the Environment. There is hardly an area of governmental activity which these treaties do not touch......”

As Sir Harry Gibbs emphasises, "A nation is not sovereign unless it is independent from control from outside its own borders”:

"It has been frankly said, by supporters of the system, that the promotion and protection of human rights is a modern tool of revolution. That revolution has already been successful in Australia. We already have laws that have created new rights at the expense of rights that we took for granted. We should not allow a revolution that affects us to be under the control of others. There is no good reason to allow rules that govern the rights of individuals and shape the nature of society to be interpreted by foreign bodies which have plainly shown an intention to give effect to their own modish notions………A nation is not sovereign unless it is independent from control from outside its own borders. In practice we have lost some of that independence. This erosion of our sovereignty was our own Doing.........Whether future Parliaments will prevent the further erosion of our national sovereignty must be regarded as doubtful, having regard to the difficulty which even the wisest of men and women find in trying to free themselves from the prejudices of the times.”

Many nations are however in the view of the UN, slowing down the global governance goals of the UN by surrendering national sovereignty too slowly.

As the United Nations points out in their report, "Global Governance and Global Rules for Development in the Post-2015 Era, the success of their post-2015 agenda is at stake. Countries must surrender sovereignty to the UN if the UN is to have the power to deal with global problems.

"For the United Nations to utilize its distinct advantages, it must strengthen its position in global governance……Implementation of the post-2015 development agenda ulti­mately depends on the political will of Member States to carry it through. Therefore, success will depend on whether all countries contribute to the reform of global governance and use their policy space to implement poli­cies that promote the three dimensions of sustainable development in an integrated manner. However, national States have tended to commit them­selves to those solutions that are in their narrow national interest or do not interfere with what they perceive as their national sovereignty, and/ or those from which they are expecting to maximize their national inter­est at the expense of others, either by domination or by free-riding (Kaul, 2013). While global challenges continue to be viewed from this narrow perspective, the probability of failing to address them will remain high. The need for responsible sovereignty, one of the five principles presented in Section II above, is more than relevant in this context. In this regard, ECOSOC should take an initiative on how to operationalize this prin­ciple. Responsible sovereignty is, no doubt, a necessary condition for States to cooperate in creating the conditions for the realization of internation­ally recognized rights and freedoms and to act according to the other key principles of global governance put forward in this report: common but differentiated responsibilities, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and coherence. Likewise, the relevance of the United Nations in global economic governance largely depends on how much Member States are willing to strengthen the Organization, so that it may become a more ef­fective factor in global economic governance for implementing a post-2015 development agenda for the benefit of all.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 791 words, total size 5 kb.

January 13, 2017

Drain the FCC swamp

Paul Driessen

While I tend to focus on EPA, Interior, Energy and environmental topics, we all know the need to "drain the Washington swamp” goes well beyond those few agencies and issues. The entire morass needs cleaning, cleansing and draining. In this well-crafted article, my colleague Eric Steinmann offers compelling reasons why the FCC swamp should be high on the Trump Administration list.

Drain the FCC swamp

This obsolete vestige of the New Deal should be dissolved

Eric Steinmann

President-Elect Donald Trump is looking for bold actions to "drain the swamp” in Washington, DC and free America’s economy, so that it can once again become the global leader and innovator. A great place to start would be abolishing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

President Ronald Reagan ended his first term by abolishing the Civil Aeronautics Board. The CAB determined air passenger routes, airline slots at airports and ticket prices. The agency was an obsolete relic from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Its elimination freed the airline industry for unprecedented growth and expanding service to nearly a billion airline passengers a year.

The FCC is another obsolete vestige of the New Deal. It is what happens in Washington when people with little or no experience in actual business dream up regulations and schemes to expand their influence as they see fit, with a virtually unlimited budget and few or no checks and balances.

FCC Commissioners have their own funding source, they answer to no one, the courts defer to them for some unknown reason, and they dream up new and different perceived problems that they can "solve” with more rules – in the process destroying honest American-style competition, time and again.

The wireless communications industry, once an example of American technological prowess, creativity and beneficial competition, has been largely relegated to four big companies and many small FCC-subsidized companies. Instead of competing for the good will and business of American consumers, they often line up to seek more FCC favors.

So what is the FCC doing right now?

* It is spending a purported quarter-billion dollars to auction a radio spectrum that rightfully belongs to the American public. It did so in a manner devised by highly paid thought leaders and game theorists, causing small businesses which wanted to participate to run afoul of its overly complex rules and have to withdraw in the first week.

* It’s crafting programs to further subsidize rural telephone companies under a 1930s era Universal Service landline concept that the commissioners have never relinquished – supposedly to provide broadband in rural areas where very serviceable broadband already exists. Worse, they plan to subsidize competition against small businesses that are providing that broadband and cannot afford the lawyers and hassles to go through cumbersome approval processes and become additional FCC sycophants.

* The FCC still refuses to end subsidies to rural phone companies that are part of a 70-year-old program that charges hundreds or even thousands of dollars to companies that want to compete with established entities. Would-be newcomers are compelled to interconnect with existing companies, many of which are notorious for setting up free sex chat lines and conference calling, and for extorting fees per call-minute from those upstart newcomers – while the established companies have their operating costs essentially paid for by the FCC.

* The agency continues to sit on rulings that have been pending for well over 13 years, to effectively punish companies it doesn’t favor or preclude them from getting any legal determination of their rights. In the process, the FCC violates its own rules, which require that such rulings be issued in five months.

* It continues to take every opportunity to further the interests of certain wealthy foreign monopolists who have donated to the commissioners’ affiliated causes, at the expense of American businesses that are trying to compete. In so doing, the FCC employs perverse policy actions or interpretations, to punish or largely put out of business any competitors that are not participating in one of its tentacle programs.

* The FCC is also preventing the full utilization of existing broadcast spectrum and putting wholly unreasonable burdens on companies that are trying to construct new and improved infrastructure on which our nation’s networks operate. It is doing this by suspending all such construction, until Indian tribes with no historical connection to a region have given the go-ahead at a snail’s pace and at a permit cost that has no upper FCC limit, but which often exceeds the cost of constructing the actual towers.

Adding insult to injury, the FCC has decreed that American businesses must pay whatever the tribes ask, and that only the FCC may communicate with the tribes. The agency has hired a number of additional personnel to conduct these sovereign-to-sovereign discussions, one tribe at a time. But in the many months since this untenable situation has been brought to the agency’s attention, it has not (to the best of our knowledge) had even one discussion or addressed one case of price gouging – nor has it provided any valid or convincing reason for its inaction.

The communications industry can largely self-regulate and can certainly negotiate and settle any disputes over construction and other infrastructure matters. If they reach an impasse, the courts or other government agencies can be asked to intervene.

There is no need to issue more broadband spectrum at this time. If a need can be demonstrated, the Department of Commerce’s Patent & Trademark Administration or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) could handle any needed registration.

President Trump should shut down the FCC and its inane government make-work programs. This would save the American People billions of dollars annually and allow competition to flourish.

It is not too late to open the marketplace and allow America’s communications industry to new ways to benefit our nation’s consumers, in an era when they deserve to reap the blessings of the numerous incredible technological breakthroughs of recent years.


Eric Steinmann is an executive with Clear Talk Wireless.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1006 words, total size 7 kb.

Black College Raises $280 K for Band to Attend Trump Inaugural

Dana Mathewson

This is the sort of thing you like to see!


With two days left in their fundraising campaign, Talladega College’s marching band received more than three times what they need to get to Washington, D.C. to participate in President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration celebrations next week

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

FBI Black Op on Trump

Timothy Birdnow

The Obama Administration has tried to deligitimize Donald Trump, claiming the Russians "hacked" the election to get Trump the Presidency. Numerous people inside the U.S. government are insisting this to be the case - despite a lack of evidence - and this is leading to people like Still in Saigon John McCain to demand congressional investigations and some even calling ti an "act of war" with Obama promising retaliatory strikes.

Then a bogus document surfaced claiming Trump was being blackmailed by the Russians.

Now we this; the Federal Bureau of Investigation sought to use FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his people.

According to the Zero Hedge:

"A new report released today features both the FBI seeking to launch a surveillance operation against an active US presidential campaign, and the ultra-rare case of the FISA courts actually turning down an FBI request to conduct surveillance against somebody.

The report, originating at the Guardian, claims that the FBI had sought broad surveillance powers over four high-ranking members of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign during the election, claiming them to have had contact with Russian officials.

The FISA court turned the request down, telling investigators they needed to narrow the request.

Though the four are not directly named in the report, it is related to claims in a dossier of Russia having substantial blackmail dirt on Trump, and that dossier centered heavily around accusations against a handful of Trump campaign personnel, including Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, along with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, meaning some of them may well be among the targets"

End excerpt.

Andrew McCarthy has this to say:

"The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he'd manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA's supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department's electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit's approval, the attorney general's designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge. FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the process, which is taken over by Main Justice's National Security Division and the FBI's national-security agents. In other words, if we assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA wiretap. No rational rogue would do it.

But now, let's consider the press reports — excerpted in David French's Corner post — that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It's an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall's media consternation over "banana republic" tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump's vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton — consternation echoed by Senate Democrats during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for attorney-general nominee Jeff Sessions.

From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on "possible financial and banking offenses." I italicize the word "offenses" because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.

According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have "any nefarious purpose." But then, Heat Street says, "the FBI's counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server."

Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power."

End excerpt.

So, this has nothing to do with the salacious accusations made against Trump in the "dossier' about golden showers and other blackmail material.

In short, this was the use of the power of the Federal Government to attempt to manipulate and interfere with the free elections of the United States. If you were to flip this on it's head and susbstitute Russians for FBI you would have grounds for war.

This smells exactly like an ACORN operation. Now who cut his teeth on ACORN operations? Who was it who had divorce records unsealed by a judge to dig dirt on his political opponent when he was running for the Senate? Who won every election up until 2008 by forfeit after dirt appeared on his opponents?

This looks exactly like the campaign style of Barack Hussein Obama.

In 1996 when Obama decided to run for the Illinois Senate there was a crowded field which included Ulmer Lynch, Jr, Gha-is Askia and Marc Ewell as well as the woman who had vacated the seat to run unsuccessfully for the U.S. Congress - Alice Palmer. Obama's aid filed objections to the legitimacy of all of these candidates. The highly politicized Chicago Board of Elections disqualified all of the candidates except Obama by claiming invalid signiatures on their petitions. Two brought lawsuits in Federal court but, without the internet, couldn't disprove the claims of the CBE even though they disqualified on average 62% of the signiatures. Obama won by default.

According to this website:

"Altogether, Obama’s four opponents submitted 5,865 signatures. Obama and Davis’s lawyer had to carefully scrutinize all 5,865 signatures before the attorney for the Davis-Obama state senate campaign filed formal objections with the CBOE. Because the Davis-Obama lawyer challenged more than 4,000 of Obama’s opponents’ 5,865 signatures, the attorney needed to attend a minimum of two or three full days of hearings while the CBOE compared the signatures from Obama’s opponents with the signatures that the CBOE had on file."

End quote.

Obama then ran unopposed in 2002, in a gerrymandered district designed to keep him in power.

When he ran for the U.S. Senate he had marvelously good luck. Peter Fitzgerald, the Republican who held the seat, was stepping down for murky reasons and Carol Mosley Braun, the Senator Fitzgerald defeated to win said seat, decided not to run for her old seat as she was dogged by corruption charges.

During the primary he faced off against a very well funded Blair Hull, whom he destroyed with allegations of spousal abuse. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_bag_of_tricks.html

Obama wound up running against Republican Jack Ryan, and, desperate for some dirty trick to win, he got a friendly judge to unseal Ryan's divorce records which included some unsavory allegations made against him by his ex-wife. In other words, Obama cheated, and Ryan had to drop out of the race. Political pundit Alan Keyes came in to run, but not being from Illinois he had little chance and Obama sailed to victory.

He has been guilty of dirty trickery ever since.

During the Presidential primary Obama accused Hillary clinton of rank racism. He bullied superdelegate3s into supporting him, according to Roger Simon:

" that Obama operatives were calling members of Congress, all of whom were superdelegates, and threatening to find, fund and run primary opponents against them if they committed to Hillary.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, told me his campaign did not do this, though Steve Hildebrand did say that superdelegates were reminded that some would see a racial dimension to overturning the decision of pledged delegates. "We definitely made that argument," Hildebrand said"

Emd excerpt.


He used the IRS to bully enemies, denying them tax exempt status and whatnot. He has allowed the National Security Agency to collect all manner of data on Americans. He maintained a database on voters and donors, suggesting he may have dirt on them as well. When he ran against Romney he dug up Joe Soptic, and claimed his wife died because Bain Capital - Romney's company - closed the plant where Soptic worked (she actually died many years later.)

Then take the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Obama demanded they pay for abortions and birth control, and they could not do so and be true to their faith. He threatened them with titanic fines if they refused to comply. He was willing to destroy the entire order to get his way.

Barack Obama is very willing to attack, even destroy, his enemies. Donald Trump plans to dismantle his "legacy" and Obama would not shy from the foulest of attacks if it suited him.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1555 words, total size 11 kb.

January 12, 2017

Hungary to Boot Soros

Dana Mathewson

I'd say somebody has the right idea!


Hungary Looks to ‘Sweep Away’ Soros-Linked Organisations
Breitbart News

A Hungarian MP has announced a proposal to "sweep away" non-governmental organisations linked to Hungarian-born left wing financier billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 25 >>
97kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.0388 seconds.
30 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 87 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.