Sydney M. Williams “Obama – An Evanescent Presidency?”

Mr. Obama came to the Presidency five and a half years ago with the promise for great expectations. He thrilled his followers with his siren call for fairness, of cleansing the atmosphere, beautifying the earth and rolling back the seas. He would bring peace and goodwill to all mankind…and he would provide free contraception for women, whether they wanted it or not. His message was one of unifying a people grown divided by seven years of a war against terrorism that many felt, including most of the media, had been waged based on lies told by the Bush Administration. Then, the Bush years ended with the near-collapse of the financial system, conveniently and comfortably nestling into Mr. Obama’s ideology that sees capitalism as evil and government as good.

People saw an intelligent, articulate, good-looking young man who exuded confidence, and who bore a hint of the exotic in both his name and heritage. They saw what they wanted to see, and the media was circumspect in terms of not delving too deeply into his past. Truth be told, no one really knew the man we would elect to become President.

Now, five and a half years on, we are more polarized than ever. Negativism fills the air. The economy, instead of rebounding from a steep recession, has swum haltingly back. Despite recent robust employment numbers, the civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.8%, remains at record lows. In spite of promises to end wars and renew bonds with the Muslim world, the world has become more dangerous. Yet, we have scaled back our overseas military commitments and watched our enemies become bolder. The consequence is a reinvigorated Russia, a more aggressive China and total mayhem in the Middle East, with Syria in civil war and Iraq likely to collapse.

The Executive branch has assumed (or is attempting to assume) unprecedented powers, especially the EPA, IRS and HHS. Fortunately, we live in a country in which government is comprised of three equal branches. In its ruling last week, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Mr. Obama had overstepped his legal authority. It was at least the 4th time the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against the Administration. While he has unilaterally promised to fix immigration, a recent Gallup Poll found 69% of the people disapprove of his approach, including 40% of Democrats. Given his arrogance, his preference for expensive vacations and the company of sports and entertainment celebrities rather than political friends or foes, it is unsurprising that a recent Quinnipiac poll found Mr. Obama to be the worst President in the post-War years – worse than Nixon, Carter or George W. Bush! That is an incredible finding for a sitting President – a stunning condemnation of a man once adulated by his followers. Remember the New Jersey elementary school teacher who had instructed her young charges to sing paeans of praise to Barack Hussein Obama?


I used to believe we had a two-party political system. I was delusional. I got a good smack of reality on September 4, 2012, as I stood in front of a Republican judge in a rural county of Ohio. The treatment would have been no different with a Democrat on the bench. I was there because I had filed a lawsuit against the Republican Ohio Secretary of State, John Husted, in an effort to keep Barack Obama off the ballot in November 2012.

There is a good reason why I filed it.

I believe that Barack Obama is a fraud and a liar. I am neither. I discovered the truth about Obama five years ago as I was investigating his questionable background for a client. I am a licensed private investigator in Ohio and have been for more than twenty years. Of the approximately eight hundred investigative companies here, a couple dozen are owned by women. I belong to that small group.

I also belong to the subsets that include widows, septuagenarians, mothers of seven, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, holders of master’s degrees, paralegals, notary publics, those of Irish ancestry and my favorite of all: certified write-in candidates for President of the United States. But I digress.

As a licensed investigator I have access to information that others don’t. As I began my investigation into the background of Barack Obama, I expected to find nothing. After all, he was already installed as president, even though never vetted by anyone.

His rush to spend our money didn’t sit well with me, and I pushed on after encountering multiple dead ends. Suddenly, there it was! A social security number (SSN), assigned to Obama, popped up which I immediately recognized as fraudulent. It was a number issued in 1977 in Connecticut and could not be Obama’s.

Until June 2011, SSNs were issued to the address where a person lived when he or she applied for their number and in the state where he or she resided. I have looked at thousands of SSNs, which is why I recognized the discrepancy immediately. I also knew after years of experience how the numbers were distributed across the country.

The first three numbers for social security cards in Connecticut run from 040-049. Hawaii’s numbers, where Obama was living in 1977 when the number was “allegedly” issued to him, was fifteen years old, in high school and hanging around with his dope smoking friends.


On Wednesday, 2 July 2012, the Commander General of Ft. Sill US Army Base, Major General John Rossi, Fires Center and Commanding General, published a PR blurb on their official “Centers of Excellence” webpage, with a picture ( of the General having lunch with Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.). They were having a pleasant lunch and discussing a range of topics before the Congressman was announced as departing to visit Health and Human Services (HHS).

He may have departed to visit HHS but it was a “facility” on a US Army Base. A US Congressman, the people’s Representative, has every right to engage actively with all non-classified activities on Ft Sill. It is understandable that provisions always have to be made for classified visits, but as our representative, under our Constitution, Representative Bridenstine was well within the scope of his responsibilities:

Taken from the Oversight and Government Reform committee:

“We start with several basic premises on which there is general agreement. The power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in the social, economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the federal government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.” – Chief Justice Warren for the Majority,Watkins v. United States

But the Congressman’s HHS visit to their “facility” on Ft. Sill did not occur. As the Congressman stated in his Press Release:

“There is no excuse for denying a Federal Representative from Oklahoma access to a federal facility in Oklahoma where unaccompanied children are being held. Any Member of Congress should have the legal authority to visit a federal youth detention facility without waiting three weeks.”


SHAPIRO: Evil Murderers of Palestinian Boy Provide Fodder for Israel’s Jew-Hating Enemies
There is zero moral equivalence between Israel and those it fights. But that won’t matter to the world.

On Sunday, Jews all over the world woke up to the news that Israeli authorities had arrested six described as “Jewish nationalists” for the murder of 17-year-old Mohammed Abu Khdeir. They were sickened and horrified by that news. There were no candies in the streets. There were no calls for streets to be named after the alleged murderers. There were no glowing interviews with their parents in the Israeli press, or suggestions that they were heroes or martyrs. There were no governmental officials hedging their bets about the evil acts.

That’s because there is zero moral equivalence between Israel and those it fights. As I wrote last week:

Should it turn out that Jews did perform this disgusting atrocity, the State of Israel will find, prosecute, and give the harshest possible penalty to the perpetrators. That in and of itself destroys any attempted moral equivalence between Israel and her enemies, given that the Hamas-unity government itself stands behind the murder of the three Jewish boys, that the Hamas-unity government propagandized in celebration of their kidnappings and deaths, and that Palestinians celebrated their deaths.

But the world will ignore all of that, and instead pretend that the Jews and the Palestinians are two sides of the same coin. The world will apply Western standards of morality to the Jewish nationalists, as they should – they will not ask about their “root causes” or ponder their anger. They will then ignore those same Western standards, as they always have, when dealing with the Palestinians, suggesting that the kidnapping and murder of three Jewish boys is driven by settlements and security fences.

The Obama administration will continue to paint Israel as an aggressor against Palestinians, and Palestinians as victims of Israeli aggression. They are already placing heavy focus on the beating of Tariq Khdeir, cousin to the slain Palestinian, who reportedly may have been throwing Molotov cocktails at police – a case that will be investigated and prosecuted by the Israeli government; they have said nothing about the Palestinian Arab rioting which has rocked the country for days, Israeli Arabs attacking Jews, Hamas firing rockets at pre-schools in Israel, or an Israeli woman murdered for “nationalistic reasons”.

David Singer: The PLO & Hamas Threaten Split Over Islamic State

The declaration of the Islamic State on the first day of the holy fasting month of Ramadan threatens once again to embroil the recently reconciled PLO and Hamas in renewed and violent confrontation after just ending their seven-year internecine feud – destroying any hope of ever achieving a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan and Israel.

The Islamic State is a self styled Caliphate – a system of rule that ended in 1924 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The statement declaring its establishment reads:
“Here the flag of the Islamic State … rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo [Syria] and Diyala [Iraq]. The infidels are disgraced. The Sunnis are masters and are esteemed. The people of heresy are humiliated. The Sharia penalties are implemented, all of them. The front lines are defended, crosses and graves demolished. Governors and judges have been appointed, a tax has been enforced and courts will resolve disputes and complaints.” The Islamic State already controls large swathes of northern Iraq after a sustained assault which began with the overthrow of Iraqi control of the country’s second largest city of Mosul, near the Syrian border, on June 9.

Over the last two years it has established a strong presence in parts of Syria, controlling key oil fields in eastern Syria in the area bordering Iraq, levying taxes and other penalties and implementing strict Sharia law on besieged communities.

At its head as Caliph – the self-proclaimed successor to the Prophet Mohammed – is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose spokesman has made his intentions clear:
“The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect — the time has come for them to rise” Will Hamas rise and throw its weight behind this new Caliph – given the following provisions of Article 11 of the Hamas Charter:
“… Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.” Hamas has reserved the right to resist the temptation to blindly pledge its allegiance to this newly declared Caliph and the Islamic State under article 23 of the Hamas Charter:


The barges were towed along the Hudson. Streets were blocked off, police officers collecting overtime were assembled as the crowds trickled in early to grab prime viewing positions for the fireworks display in a celebration of freedom under heavy guard by opponents of freedom. They were not celebrating the freedoms of the Declaration or the Constitution, but the freedom to get free things.
Nancy Pelosi explained that the ObamaCare mandate was a penalty on “Free Riders”. Down by the Hudson River, British warships once plied the waterway in a bid to prevent the colonists from acting as “Free Riders” on their investment.

The debate over whether people could be disenfranchised and compelled to pay for the grandiose plans of an out of touch government was eventually thought to have been settled further north at Saratoga. But the debate is back.

Co-Dependence Day is the new Independence Day. “I love you, you tolerate me and we all live together in a happy planned economy.” Free riders are people who, like the Colonists, are perceived to have benefited from the gargantuan investment of government without paying their proper share.

All that the Crown really wanted was for the colonists to pay their “fair share”, a share that was determined thousands of miles away. All that the colonists wanted was the rights of Englishmen that they believed they were entitled to. After a great deal of bloodshed, the colonists won the right to be Americans instead—an odd series of consonants and vowels having to do with an Italian explorer but meaning free and limited government.

The “Free Riders” who didn’t want to pay into the empire won the day, but hardly anyone in the crowds heading toward the Hudson remembered what the day was about. The denizens of public housing, who are the true “Free Riders”, certainly don’t. They are getting a free ride on everything from food to housing, but the free ride comes from the taxpayers that Pelosi and Obama damn as “Free Riders”. And the only way to keep their free ride going is by ending everyone else’s freedom.

The fireworks are just one more free thing in the sea of free things that they swim in. The Fourth to them is Fireworks Day. Every country has its fireworks days and this is the day that this one chooses to light up the night sky. The day means nothing to them because though they are surrounded by free things, they aren’t free.

The difference between freedom and free things has been progressively erased so that many think that the American Revolution was fought because the British weren’t providing affordable health coverage to the colonies. If only they knew about the NHS, they would vote to go back.

There is a big difference between a free country and a country of free things. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both. A free country isn’t obsessed with free riders, only a country of free things obsesses with making everyone pay their fair share for the benefit of the people who want the free things.

Eroticized Violence, Savage Justice in Saudi Arabia by Valentina Colombo

“God is not fanatic; the ulema [religious scholars]… are.” — Mohammed Charfi, Muslim intellectual.

Saudi Arabia’s behavior comes with the bought consent of the West, which would rather constantly reprimand and punish Israel than address the Arab and Muslim world’s floggings, stonings, beheadings and amputations — not to mention executing homosexuals, gender apartheid and the often merciless treatment of foreign workers. Such a double standard exposes that many Europeans who consider themselves moral and speak about “ethical investing” are, in fact, accessories to these Saudi crimes, and therefore themselves guilty of crimes against humanity.

“He does not see this court as legitimate.” — Samar Badawi, wife of human rights lawyer Walid Abu al-Khayr, who was sentenced by a Saudi court to 15 years in prison.

Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, has been sentenced to 1000 lashes, ten years in jail and a fine of $270,000 for a blog regarded by Saudi Arabia’s regime as insulting Islam.

“My commitment is…to reject any repression in the name of religion…a goal that we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” — Raif Badawi

Terrorism only exists, therefore, if and when it is directed at the Saudi regime, and may well mean just defeating Shiites.

Saudi human rights lawyer Walid Abu al-Khayr, who defended blogger Raif Badawi, was sentenced yesterday, July 6, to 15 years in prison He was arrested on April 15, accused of: “inciting public opinion,” “disobedience in matters of the sovereign,” “lack of respect in dealings with the authorities,” “offense of the judicial system,” “inciting international organizations against the Saudi kingdom” and, finally, for having founded illegally, or without authorization, his association “Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.” He was also forbidden to travel for fifteen years after his release, and fined 200,000 riyals ($53,000) according to Abdullah al-Shihri of the Associated Press. His wife, Samar Badawi, said that he refused to sign the verdict and would not appeal the case, since “he does not see this court as legitimate,” she said.


A lot of people are commenting that there is nothing to watch on CNN. Instead of news, CNN is daily airing hours of Anthony Bourdain travelling to experiment with food and hours of crime shows, such as “Forensic Files,” which is probably the most interesting thing to watch these days on CNN.

The current administration scandals and other important topics are ignored by CNN, unless they are in the context of criticism of Republicans. CNN seems to be trying to force a reality on the American public that does not exist. The majority of the American people are concerned about the economy, the scandals and the radical change the administration is forcing on the American people. Like it or not, all of the media, right and left, should be reporting on Obama’s push for such radical changes. If the leftist media supports the change, then fine, but they should go ahead and talk about why they support it, instead of pretending that nothing is happening in America.

The role of the media is supposed to be to keep citizens informed and educated about what is going on inside their government, in society and in the world. America under Obama has been undergoing a major change that is very alarming to many American citizens, but the mainstream media seems not to notice.

We now have a situation where instead of reporting on government, CNN thinks and acts as though they are the government. Instead of naming their shows with titles that reflect what the media’s job should be — to be a watch-dog — they have chosen to impersonate government. We thus have a show on CNN entitled, “The Situation Room” in which Wolf Blitzer reports as though CNN and the White House situation rooms are the same.

Another CNN show is “State of the Union.” Again here CNN is playing the role of president of the United States, reporting on the state of the union. Another unsuccessful daytime show that was canceled soon after it started was Kyra Phillips’ “Raising America.” Here we see yet another maternalistic title attempting to control and teach America how to raise its kids.

The mainstream media have extended the separation of “Church and State” to their own reporting. In so doing, they have confused themselves with the government yet again. America has left untapped the great talent of many outstanding male and female pastors and religious leaders who would be wonderful guest and hosts of many non-religious shows. Just look at the success of Mike Huckabee on FOX. It is a shame to see disclaimers by some TV channels stating that “they are not responsible for the content” of religious shows such as the 700 Club, but the disclaimer is never made on other shows.

The leftist media is starting to feel the negative effects of its insincerity and bias. Instead of self-discipline and sticking to their duty to the public, they have allowed themselves to be seduced into competing with the goals and role of the government. Instead of objectively examining the causes of their shrinking viewership, they continue to impose their agenda to educate the public about what their of hope and change should be. Instead of reflecting what is going on in society so that the public can make informed decisions, they continue with their obsession of steering the public into their leftist agenda.

Why Obama Ignored Iraq Posted By Daniel Greenfield

ISIS marching through Iraq has smashed the media’s taboo against criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. Substantive discussions are taking place about why his foreign policy is such a miserable failure.

And they mostly miss the point.

Liberal journalists still proceed from the fallacy that there was a foreign policy debate between neo-conservative interventionists and liberal non-interventionists. These are a series of digested Bush era talking points that have no relationship to reality since Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq carried over from Bill Clinton. It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq.

The liberals weren’t non-interventionists who insisted on multilateralism and UN approval before acting. Obama, like virtually every other Democrat, disproved that myth as fast as he could. Nor were they even opponents of the Iraq War until opposing the war became politically convenient.

Obama however isn’t on this map at all. It’s not that he is an opponent of intervention. The Libyans can tell you that. It’s that his reasons for intervening fall completely outside the grid of national interests.

The anti-war activist as pacifist is largely a myth. There are a few anti-war activists who oppose all wars, but mostly they just oppose America. Obama, who got his foot up the political ladder by flirting with the anti-war movement, falls into that category. Obama isn’t opposed to wars. He’s opposed to America.

Obama is an ideological interventionist, not a nationalist interventionist. And despite his multilateralist rhetoric, he isn’t your usual globalist either. Instead he uses national and international power as platforms for pursuing ideological goals without any regard to national or international interests.

That is true of both his foreign and domestic policy.

Obama’s foreign policy is issue oriented, just like his domestic policy is. There is no national agenda, only a leftist agenda. America is just a power platform for pursuing policy goals.

Domestically, Obama does not care about fixing the economy. The economy is a vehicle for pursuing social justice, environmental justice and all the many unjust justices of the left. It has no innate value. Likewise national security and power have no value except as tools for promoting leftist policies.

Obama thinks of the ideological issue first. Then he packages it as a national interest for popular consumption. It’s a Wilsonian approach that is not only far more extreme than the policies of most White House occupants have been, but also more detached.


Scenes all too familiar from the Arab conflict with Israel have followed the murder last Wednesday of a 16-year-old Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Mourners at his funeral chanting the Muslim war-cry “Allahu Akbar” as they carry the boy’s open coffin, the crowd shouting slogans like “Intifada rise up” and “America and Israel are the terrorists,” banners representing terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad waving above the crowd, gangs of “youths” attacking Israeli police throughout East Jerusalem, barrages of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel, and the usual condemnations of Israel and calls for “restraint” from the “international community” – all sadly are business as usual. And the “business” is the demonization of Israel and the obscene double standards indulged by too many in the West.

The Israeli authorities have quickly tracked down and arrested 6 Israeli minors as suspects in the killing, even as the killers of the Israelis are still at large. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said, “We do not differentiate between terrorists, and we will respond to all of them.” The speed of the arrest, and Netanyahu’s unequivocal identification of the crime as an act of terrorism, should underline the differences between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which seemingly is making little effort to hunt down the main killers of the 3 Israelis, and the Authority’s political partner Hamas, which praised the killings. As Netanyahu pointed out, “The murderers [of the Israelis] came from the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority; they returned to territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority is obliged to do everything in its power to find them, just as we did, just as our security forces located the suspects in the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir within a matter of days.”

But Israel’s enemies are unlikely to draw the proper conclusion from this contrast, or even take time to note how comparatively rare such violence on the part of Israelis is compared to the thousands of Israelis murdered by Palestinian Arabs over the decades. Rather, the moral and intellectual idiocy of the “cycle of violence” meme will determine reactions to this murder on the part of those too lazy or timid to choose a side, even as they hold Israel up to standards of behavior and forbearance no other country would accept. But there are good and bad sides in this conflict, and which side has the moral high ground can be seen by comparing further the reactions of each to the recent murders.

Listen, for example, to the response of Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas to the kidnapping of the Israeli teens, delivered at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Saudi Arabia: “Those who kidnapped the three Israeli teenagers want to destroy us. First and foremost [these teenagers] are human beings like us. It is our responsibility to search for them and to return them to their families. We will hold their kidnappers accountable, whoever they are.”

For those impressed by these comments, notice that the first sentence condemns the kidnapping not as a moral evil or a terrorist act, but as a tactical blunder damaging the Palestinian Arab program of destroying Israel by “stages.” Bad p.r. is the problem, not the evil of terrorism or the deaths of 3 innocent teenagers. This sort of comment is consistent with Abbas’s past habit of joining general condemnations of terrorist acts to complaints about their bad timing or damage to Palestinian interests. Speaking of the Second Intifada and its brutal terrorism, Abbas commented, “If we do a calculation we will see that without any doubt what we lost was big and what we gained was small.” Later, speaking out against a rocket attack from Gaza, he said, “This is not the time for this kind of attack,” which suggests there is a time for shooting rockets at women and children. That is, blowing up innocents is not wrong, just inefficient at that particular time for achieving the long-term goal of a Palestinian state that eventually will include the territory of Israel.