Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category

Shattering New Evidence Reveals: Obama Spent $500,000,000 to Train a Jihadi Elite Force Which Now Partners In Christian Massacres

Obama’s $500 million plan to combat Bashar Al-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria created an elite force called “Regiment-30.” While Fox News revealed the program only gained 54 applicants, new evidence reveals that there were “thousands of outside forces” who joined Regiment-30, who are now also joining Al-Nusra terror front in Syria. The U.S-appointed Regiment-30’s main leader, as ironclad evidence reveals, is one code-named Abu Iskandar, and he has now sent out an official appeal, including airing an explosive T.V interview, confirming they joined the notorious terrorist Al-Nusra Front, which carried out massacres against Christians in Adra and Maaloula in Syria. Here is how the story goes:

As soon as the U.S-backed Regiment-30 was dispatched, their commander, Nadim Al Hassan, and his deputy, Farhan Al Jassem, along with 18 others (this would be third of the U.S. trained regiment), were “abducted” and re-educated by the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. Al-Nusra was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization and is known for massacring Christians.
The Pentagon denied the claim of the abduction of a third of this U.S.-appointed regiment. This complete lie by the Pentagon was not only flatly refuted by Reuters [1], but one official document, including an interview with the main leader of the U.S.-backed Regimen-30, First Lieutenant Abu Iskandar, reveals receiving the best of training and declares his appeal to Al-Nusra, reminding the group of its unity agreement with Al-Nusra to join forces:

The pertinent part of the plea states:
“The leadership in Regiment-30 is calling upon (and for the second time) our brothers in Al-Nusra to stop these exercises [abducting Regiment 30 operatives] and stop the bloodshed and to keep our unity [agreement] intact.”

This plea to keep a “previous unity agreement,” cemented between Regiment-30 and Al-Nusra, was also exposed from sources coming directly from the Middle East. Jenan Moussa, an Arab journalist, who was able to penetrate the headquarters of the top-ranking official in the U.S., appointed Regiment-30, Lieutenant commander Abu Iskandar, reveals an amazing tale of how this U.S.-appointed team was, again, begging Al-Nusra terror front to keep its previous arrangements and promises in preserving the unity coalition agreement that the two had made. The clear evidence from the U.S.-appointed commander spilling the beans on everything, his intentions to only use the U.S. and his previous agreement to join forces with Al-Nusra, and more can be watched in this video. translated most of the interview, showing the pertinent lines.

Jenan first introduces the scene by stating:
” … they were showing me all the weapons provided by the U.S. … it is the first time that a journalist was able to get to the headquarters [of Regiment-30] which is located in Northern Aleppo.”
Abu-Iskandar speaks of when Al-Nusra had attacked and abducted ten from Regiment-30 operatives on July 12, 2015, adding that: (see 1:50)

“we had arranged previously with Al-Nusra and agreed never to combat each other and we would never give any information to the allies about Al-Nusra. We are not the arm of the U.S. in Syria and we are not against Al-Nusra Front, the opposite is the truth, they [Al-Nusra] are our brothers and we personally know them … they might accuse us of being agents of the West but we are agents for our country … we are both the same sons and both sides
Al-Nusra and ours who were killed are [Jihadi] martyrs …”
Jenan then asks about the detail for the collaboration and arrangements between Regiment-30 and the terrorist group Al-Nusra Front (begin at 4:17). Abu Iskandar replies:
“We are forced to make arrangements with all other fighting groups [including Al-Nusra] and we say that before we came here a week ago that we met with Al-Nusra, and four months ago we met Al-Nusra, which in turn expressed admiration for the [U.S.-led Regiment 30] program. In fact they welcomed us … our arrangements with Al-Nusra is to collaborate militarily. We are not only 54, we are thousands … We were then shocked why they kidnapped Nadim, our leader … we are not 54, we are thousands, we have ground troops on land helping us.”
The “thousands” revealed by Abu Iskandar are “defensive forces” added in by the leadership of Regiment-30. “Al-Nusra released four already,” says Abu Iskandar, emphasizing that the broken unity between Al-Nusra and Regiment-30 was simply a skirmish, and that both sides mended their differences.
Jenan then asks what type of weaponry Regiment-30 is using, adding that “information has been revealed that some of your weapons [provided by the allies] are now in the hands of Al-Nusra. What did they [U.S] provide you?” Abu Iskandar denied that any weapons fell in the hands of Al-Nusra and insisted that Al-Nusra released all whom they kidnapped.
Jenan then asks (at 8:11), “Don’t you think that the Americans just dumped you here to die?” Abu Iskandar smiles, and Jenan adds, “what can 54 do against all these huge numbers of the other extremist sides, especially that you are agents of the U.S. you have been already honed in on.”
Abu Iskandar replies (see 8:30):
“The Americans, you in the media keep talking about them, the Americans are only part of this alliance. They did give us aid and lots of services, but the bigger enemy [besides the U.S.] is Bashar who is defunct politically.”
Al-Nusra is known to behead Christians, as seen in one video.


Growing chorus across U.S.: ‘No more refugees!’

Obama continues to plop thousands of Muslims here

The pushback started earlier this year in South Carolina, then spread to Minnesota, Idaho, and now North Dakota.

Michigan and Ohio are also organizing against what local residents say is a sinister and sneaky federal program that almost never gets serious coverage from local media. It’s the U.S. State Department’s refugee resettlement program, which has been humming along on autopilot since Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, signed by President Jimmy Carter.

Since that time, more than 3 million refugees from Third World countries have been permanently resettled in more than 190 American cities and towns.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from, America’s independent news network.

On the rare occasions when the program attracts national media coverage, it almost always gets spun in a positive light, citing emotional, sometimes tear-jerking stories of refugees rescued from violence in their homelands.

But activists say there’s another side to the refugee program that isn’t being told.

No longer satisfied with pat answers, residents in several states are starting to ask the hard questions. They are showing up at meetings, starting blogs and email lists, digging up information and bypassing local media to inform their friends and neighbors of what’s really going on with the refugee movement.

In conservative Twin Falls, Idaho, for instance, a group of 100 activists are going door to door informing their neighbors about how the refugee program works. Organizer Rick Martin says most people are surprised to find out that the United Nations picks most of the refugees destined for America, and that the Catholic Church, the Lutheran and Episcopal churches, along with evangelical and Jewish groups get paid by the federal government to resettle refugees in the U.S.

“When we mention that the U.N. is involved most of the time they won’t believe it, so we have to show them the articles,” Martin said.

The U.N. connection could explain why so many Muslim refugees are coming to the U.S. from jihadist hotbeds like Syria and Somalia while persecuted Christians in Syria, Iraq and Egypt have a hard time getting within sight of the Statue of Liberty. It may also explain why Muslim countries with plenty of open land, such as Saudi Arabia, aren’t taking in more of the Sunni Muslim refugees being created by jihadist-inspired civil strife in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia.

Changing the demographics of small-town America

Hundreds of residents in Fargo and Cass County, North Dakota, are the latest to get active. More than 2,500 have signed an online petition titled “Stop Lutheran Social Services in Fargo!” at

LSS, a subsidiary of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, one of the nine resettlement agencies or VOLAGs, has been funneling U.N.-selected refugees into Midwestern states areas like the Dakotas and Minnesota for years. Since 2002 the small cities of Fargo and West Fargo have received 3,647 refugees from more than two dozen Third World countries including 1,397 refugees from Bhutan, 670 from Somalia, 567 from Iraq, 209 from Liberia, 196 from Democratic Republic of Congo, and the balance from Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Cambodia, Chad, Columbia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Burundi, Burma and Bosnia, according to government databases.

On Thursday of last week Lutheran Social Services announced it has rejected the online petitioners’ plea, saying it would continue to resettle refugees from around the world in Fargo, demonstrating once again that the agency works for the federal government and the United Nations, not the people of Fargo or North Dakota.

At that point the petition had 450 signatures. By Saturday afternoon it was up to 2,370 signatures and by Sunday afternoon it surpassed 2,500.
The petition states that “Lutheran Social Services has already brought 350 immigrants to Fargo this year and plans to bring more in the second half of the year. We need to send a message to the legislative body in our county to stop this without having a vote by the population of Cass County. We would like facts and data on the immigrants and refugees already brought in by LSS.”

A steady stream of cheap labor for meat packers

The fact that a private agency like LSS can single-handedly change the demographics of a city without that city’s consent just doesn’t seem right, said petition organizer Damon Quadnik of Fargo.

Lutheran Social services is “ruining Fargo for their own profit,” states Quradnik, who started the petition less than a week ago.

Ouradnik said he is also reaching out his North Dakota senators seeking their help in shutting off the spigot of refugees being resettled at taxpayer expense by Lutheran Social Services. He wants them to stop the resettlements until the residents of Cass County have had a chance to vote on the issue.

Citizens are also starting to organize against the mass resettlement of refugees in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and nearby Willmar, where Somali refugees have been sent for years by Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities to work in meatpacking plants owned by Hormel.

The nine private resettlement agencies, including “charities” within the Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopalian, and evangelical churches, get federal grants to resettle the refugees, essentially acting as front groups for the government, but without the transparency and accountability that would be expected if the government did the work itself, said Bob Enos, spokesman for T-3 (Truth and Transparency in Taxation) in St. Cloud. His group is pushing for more openness in the way refugees are resettled in Minnesota.

“I think the meat packers had a lot to do with this,” Enos, a former businessman, told WND. “These are people in business whose raw materials won’t allow them to outsource overseas, so if you can’t bring the factory overseas you bring overseas to the factory.”

Overall, the United Nations has sent nearly 500,000 refugees directly from the Third World to more than 190 cities and towns across the U.S. since President Obama took office.

But the refugee pipeline from the Mideast and Africa really got jumpstarted under presidents George H. Walker Bush and Bill Clinton. Since 1990, more than 3 million foreign refugees have been permanently resettled in the U.S., with approximately 1 million coming from Muslim-dominated countries that have a history of hostility toward America such as Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uzbekistan and Iraq.

The nation of Myanmar, also called Burma, which is run by Buddhists, is also now trying to unload its Muslim minority, known as the Rohingya, to any country that will take them as “refugees.” The nation’s Buddhist monks fear rising radicalization of Muslims around the world will envelop the Rohingya and so they are increasingly being herded into refugee camps bound for countries in the West, according to a June 2015 report by the Institute for Security and Policy Studies. The U.N. has already sent about 1,000 Rohingya to the U.S.

In one country where the U.S. could have used the refugee program to rescue persecuted Christians – Syria – it has failed to do so. Over the past year more than 1,150 refugees have entered the U.S. from Syria with only a small handful of 40 Christians among them, while 95 percent have been Muslim, according to a search of federal government databases.

Mounting resistance in Idaho

Another city that is organizing and pushing back against the refugee program is Twin Falls, in the conservative state of Idaho. Chobani Yogurt operates the world’s largest yogurt plant in Twin Falls and a massive new meat-packing plant is on the drawing board in Boise, making it prime territory for an influx of low-skill, low-wage foreign workers.

Idaho, a sparsely populated agricultural state, has been infused with 10,166 refugees from the Third World since 2002, according to federal databases.

But the resistance is now in full swing. Some 100 people showed up at a series of townhall meetings last week hosted by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and almost all of them were there to express concerns about refugees, according to TVOI News.


Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
Crapo in July told the Times-News of Twin Falls that he “understands the need for a refugee program” and mostly defended it at the townhalls, but said he was open to considering a temporary moratorium as requested by a bill introduced July 29 in the House by Rep. Babin, R-Texas.

Residents also want the state to close a longstanding refugee welcoming center at the College of Southern Idaho, citing fears the immigrants it hosts could include Islamists from Syria. One man told Crapo at a townhall meeting he didn’t think the U.S. should be accepting men of military age from Syria, which ups the risk that they could have connections to jihadist groups like ISIS or al-Nusra Front.

The newly formed Idaho group is going door-to-door to inform residents of the plans to drop more than 300 refugees, some from Syria, on the Twin Falls area starting in October.

The State Department assures those who ask questions about security that refugees are the “most highly vetted” of all U.S. immigrants.

But the FBI, which is responsible for doing the vetting, refutes that notion.

One of the FBI’s top counter-terrorism experts, Michael Steinbach, warned Congress on Feb. 11 that the U.S. is not in a position to screen the Syrians because it has no boots on the ground and no access to law enforcement or intelligence data in the “failed state” of Syria. House Homeland Security Committee Chair Michael McCaul, R-Texas, also warned in two letters to President Obama that the Syrian refugee program could become a “jihadist pipeline” directly to the United States.

“Bringing in Syrians, who are predominantly of Muslim background, may be opening the door to terrorists pretending to be refugees,” Rick Martin, head of the Committee to End the CSI (College of Southern Idaho) Refugee Center in nearby Buhl, told Reuters. “We’re not against legitimate refugees. They need to be treated with dignity and respect. But it would be easy for someone to lie about their background.”

Reuters reported the State Department’s claim about intense vetting of refugees without mentioning the FBI’s expert testimony to the contrary by Steinbach.

Minnesota focusing on financial burden, secrecy

Rather than delving into the security risks of jihadists slipping into the United States, Enos and the Minnesota activists stay focused on the financial impact of refugees on their cities, counties and state. Most of the refugees are abandoned by the resettlement agencies within three to five months of arrival, leaving the responsibility to care for them to state and local governments and school systems, A recent study by the Congressional Research Office showed 74.2 percent of refugees receive food stamps, 56 percent are on Medicaid and 23 percent live in public housing.

“It is intolerable that private organizations can unilaterally transform communities in the United States against the will of the people who built them, and add insult to injury by leaving the financial burden on local taxpayers, while they pocket millions,” Enos said.

Enos, who has been prying information from LSS for months, said the program could never stand on its merits if the government were not so secretive and adept at using contractors to hide information.

“The secrecy with which resettlement agencies do business could not happen without the assent of our federal government,” he told WND. “If the feds ran these programs directly, transparency might be assured by the Freedom of Information Act. But private contractors are exempt, and the feds know this. They know that the resettlement program is, at its core, unsellable to the American public.”

Anyone who takes a public stand, or even demands answers to basic questions about the refugee program, such as how many will be coming each year, from what countries and a breakdown of costs to the school and health systems, or the impact on housing and labor markets, automatically gets branded a “racist” or a “bigot,” as Enos found out last month when he stood up to speak at a meeting in St. Cloud.

A local union organizer held a rally at the courthouse against the “racists” who dared to ask questions about the refugee program, while a professor at St. Cloud State University chimed in with an email blasting Enos and the “racist” speaker. Enos never mentioned race in his short talk at a local VFW hall, focusing his comments on the economic burden caused by refugees.

Working around biased media

Without exception, the activists tell WND that their local media has not given them a fair shake. Local newspapers and TV stations often quote the resettlement agency officials as the final authority on the refugee program, slanting and omitting basic facts about how the program is really run.

In Fargo, WNAY TV 6 ran a story quoting Lutheran Social Services CEO Jessica Thomasson saying that “beyond a conversation once a year about how many refugees the organization’s staff can handle, they don’t have much of a say in how many people are sent here or where they’re sent from. That’s all up to the Federal Government.”

This is not how the resettlement business works, says Ann Corcoran, who has been following the refugee industry for eight years through her blog Refugee Resettlement Watch.

“She is right that Washington is making the decisions for North Dakota – and every other state – receiving the U.N.-chosen refugees, but her parent organization — Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service — takes her suggestions for how many her local subcontracting office can handle and where they will come from,” Corcoran said.

Every week or so, the LSS parent organization sits down with U.S. State Department employees and they divvy up the refugees partially dependent on what amenities each town has to offer the refugees in the form of subsidized housing, jobs for low-skilled people and available classroom space in each receiving community.

“They even take into consideration the presence of a mosque or two,” Corcoran said, since roughly half of the 70,000 refugees imported into the U.S. every year come from Muslim-dominated countries.

“Maybe Congress should have a role, but they don’t, mostly because they have abrogated their responsibility,” Corcoran said.

Congress drops the ball on oversight

Just before summer break, Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, introduced HR 3314, the Refugee Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, which seeks a moratorium on all resettlements until Congress can audit its costs and impact.

Babin, the first congressman to take an interest in the oversight of the refugee resettlement program in more than 30 years, is hoping to get some co-sponsors when Congress returns from summer break but so far he hasn’t found any.

His bill would “press the pause button” on a program that grants permanent legal residency to nearly 70,000 new refugees a year. The refugees qualify for a smorgasbord of welfare benefits on day one upon arrival, including food stamps, subsidized housing, public education, Medicaid and WIC (federal aid for women, infants and children).

While there are success stories of refugees who have gone on to lead productive lives, many lead lives of chronic dependency.

Worse yet, some have fallen into a life of crime.

WND has reported on numerous cases of criminal and terrorist activity among refugees over the past year, most recently reporting on a case Friday in which three Somali-Americans, believed to be refugees or children of refugees, were arrested in Portland, Maine, for the brutal murder of a local man.

In another case, a refugee from Togo was in the U.S. only nine days before he raped a woman.

In April, six young Somali men from refugee families in Minnesota were arrested and charged with repeatedly trying to board flights to Turkey where they planned to cross the border and join ISIS in Syria. This case, just the latest in a string of Somali refugees involved in terrorist activity, led U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger to admit at a press conference that “We have a terror recruitment problem in Minnesota.”

On Jan. 30, WND reported that the FBI announced its newest “most wanted terrorist” was a Somali refugee working as a cab driver in Virginia who was recruiting for al-Shabab, an al-Qaida affiliate. He reportedly left the country for Somalia but has dual-citizenship and could return to the U.S. at any time.

These are just a few of the cases involving “bad apples” who got to American shores as either refugees or were born in the states as children of refugees. There are dozens more such cases, including one refugee from Uzbekistan who was convicted in Idaho last week of planning attacks against U.S. military installations.

Babin’s bill would temporarily suspend all refugee resettlements until the Government Accountability Office completes a thorough examination of its costs on local governments, states and American taxpayers, as well as the risks to national security.

“The Refugee Resettlement Program has been running on autopilot for far too long with little regard to economic, social and national security implications,” Babin wrote in a recent op-ed. “We need to step back and examine all aspects of this program. Such as, why is the U.N., whose policies often run counter to the best interests of the U.S., even in the equation?”

The entire program is run at the administration level as the president sets the agenda every year for how many will be resettled and from what countries, Corcoran said. He then sends a letter to Congress requesting “consultation.”

“Historically members of Congress responsible for this program merrily rubber stamp whatever the president says,” Corcoran said.

LSS of North Dakota is a $40 million a year operation with $10 million coming from government grants. See the group’s IRS Form 990 here:

So it’s little wonder many residents are growing weary of the secrecy from the resettlement contractors, the stonewalling from the State Department and the silence from Congress.


Quit Bashing Obama!

The Gilmer Mirror  (Northeast Texas Newspaper)

Quit trashing Obama’s accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive 


1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny 
he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers 

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being 

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in 

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a 
week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First 
President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

I feel much better now. I had been under the 
impression he hadn’t been doing ANYTHING.   

The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet The Press”


From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised “Meet the Press” THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Gann, USAF, (Ret) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and Face It”.

Senator Obama replied :
“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression…” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”

Obama continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing’. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – – – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments …….”

When I Become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past”.

“Of course now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside . I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.”

Yes, you read it right.

Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post

The Toothbrush Salesman


The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship.

Little Sally led off. “I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30” she said proudly. “My sales approach was to appeal to the customer’s civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success.”

“Very good”, said the teacher.

Little Debbie was next. “I sold magazines” she said. “I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events.”

“Very good, Debbie”, said the teacher.

Eventually, it was Little Johnny’s turn. The teacher held her breath. Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher’s desk. “$2,467”, he said. “$2,467!” cried the teacher, “What in the world were you selling?” “Toothbrushes”, said Little Johnny. “Toothbrushes”, echoed the teacher. “How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?”

“I found the busiest corner in town”, said Little Johnny. “I set up a Dip & Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample.” They all said the same thing; “Hey, this tastes like dog poop!” I would say, “It is dog poop. Wanna buy a toothbrush?” “I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it’s free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth.”

Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment.
Bless his little heart.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to
restrain the people; it is an instrument for the
people to restrain the government-lest it come to
dominate our lives and interests”
Patrick Henry

Insight into How We Are Turning into Greece

by Mark homebarrons-cover-3

In order to turn a town, city, state, or nation into Greece, you just need obscure terminology and plausible deniability.

The New York Time’s Dealbook blog has a great recent post: “Bad Math and a Coming Public Pension Crisis.”

The thing to remember when you read the post is that someone could have reported this five years ago or ten years ago. It could have been an above-the-fold headline instead of a blog post. It could have been a series of stories.

But no one at the Times wants to do that. They work for the people who plunder us and hope to get out of the game before it collapses. A story like this shows that the cracks in the foundation are now too obvious to be ignored.

When Jim Palermo was serving as a trustee of the village of La Grange, Ill., he noticed something peculiar about the local police officers and firefighters. They were not going to live as long as might be expected, at least according to pension tables.

After Mr. Palermo dug into the numbers, he found that the actuary — the person who advises pension plan trustees about how much money to set aside — was using a mortality table from 1971 that showed La Grange’s roughly 100 police officers and firefighters were expected to die, on average, before reaching 75, compared with 79 under a more recent table.

That seems like obvious fraud with a plan to be out of the system before someone realized it was broken and was held responsible for fixing it. By using the wrong tables, the government was given a false justification for not setting aside as much money.

Assuming shorter life spans reduces annual contributions and frees up money for other things, like bigger current paychecks. And if the plan bases pensions on pay, as those in most American cities do, shortening the workers’ life spans on paper could lead to both fatter paychecks now and bigger pensions in the future. In La Grange’s case, those four years meant tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to each retiree.

Now actuaries are worried about getting blamed for the looming economic implosion that will soon set upon us. The odd thing is that these worried actuaries use language that seems to indicate they think members of their profession are being wrongly blamed and then flip to language that indicates they are guilty.

[See also, “Warren Buffet Is as Much a “Tapeworm” as the Pensions He Finally Talks About.”]

“Actuaries make a juicy target,” said Mary Pat Campbell, an actuary who responded to the board’s call for comments.

She expressed concern that elected officials were using actuaries to lend respectability to “questionable behavior” like funding pensions with borrowed money, picking risky investments and “enacting benefit improvements based on lowballed costs.”

Other commentators have focused on the opacity of actuaries’ calculations and reports to the boards of trustees that govern public pension plans.

Trustees need clear and honest projections and do not receive them, a former pension trustee from Kentucky, Christopher Tobe, wrote.

I don’t know if the trustees really wanted “clear and honest projections,” but it was obviously the actuaries job to provide them regardless.

Another commentator, Mark Glennon, told the board that actuaries were churning out reports that no one but other actuaries could understand, providing cover for elected officials who were letting problems spin out of control.

“Chicago represents the most glaring example,” wrote Mr. Glennon, the founder of an online news service, WirePoints, which covers the fiscal morass in Illinois. “An actuary could have looked only briefly at some of its pension reports from years ago and seen the calamity to come. Reporters, political leadership and most pension trustees could not. Those who could understand were able to remain silent.”

But reporters could have asked for assistance. They didn’t want to know.

Pensions are massively underfunded now all over the country.


Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah


Talk of impeachment has been going on now for close to five years since Barack Hussein Obama usurped the office of President of the United States. Yet, with all the talk that was stirred up, even the passing out of Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office” to every member of Congress by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) back in October of 2013, not one person in Congress put forth one article of impeachment… not one! However, the North American Law Center has issued three articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.
The list of impeachment charges are as follows:
ARTICLE 1 – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
ARTICLE 2 – Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office
ARTICLE 3 – Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

NALC: Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama

The document above lists these articles and their subsequent documentation. There can be no doubt that Barack Obama is guilty of both high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as treason.
His identity fraud has been thoroughly documented. According to Article 1 of the impeachment articles, “Compelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has engaged in false personation and aggravated identity theft and in conspiracy to commit false personation and identity theft in the pursuit of high office and governmental power. No bona fide records of evidence presented by Barack Hussein Obama establishes his true identity, and voluminous evidence demonstrates that all of the documents presented by Barack Hussein Obama as proof of identity and eligibility for high office are forgeries, created for the sole purpose of deceiving the American people in his pursuit of political power.”
“Additional prima facie evidence demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama is using an alias, and has a different lawful identity, namely, Barack Hussein Obama, II, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah,” Article 1 continues. “Evidence exists that demonstrates Barack Hussein Obama is using Social Security numbers, none of which appear to have been issued in the state of Hawaii or that lawfully are attached to his legal identity; and that Barack Hussein Obama has concealed all of his bona fide birth, school, passport, residency, Selective Service and previous employment records in an effort to conceal his true identity.”

As far as malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office is concerned, Article 2 states, “Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.”
In aiding and abetting the known enemies of the United States, Article 3 claims:
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, contrary this oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has directly engaged in the covert aiding and abetting of foreign entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Free Syrian Army and others. He has directly or indirectly through the agencies under his direct command, used American tax dollars and assets to aid and abet known enemies of the United States, including known terror organizations and organizations identified on a Terrorist List established by the United States as enemies to the United States, in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Iran, Ukraine and North, Central and South America.
This last one, as I have written about before concerning his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood meet the specific definition of treason as contained in Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, there are at least 1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, and Waste in addition to these three articles of impeachment.
So, here is a law center doing all the leg work for Congress. Out of all of the elected representatives in Congress, not one of them has put one article of impeachment forward. Yes, I know the argument about not having votes in the Senate, but impeachment itself could have taken place long ago in a Republican-controlled House; the same house that knew it could never repeal Obamacare, but didn’t have a problem attempting to push it through nearly 50 times! Stop and let that sink in real good, then pass this along to your elected representative and ask them what’s their excuse for not submitting these articles of impeachment against Obama.
The longer the usurper remains in the White House, the more dangerous it becomes for America, and all because the American people will not demand that their elected servants do their job.


Justice Antonin Scalia Speaks Truth to Power on Obamacare Tyranny

by Mark home111005_antonin_scalia_ap_605

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented powerfully from the atrocious Obamacare ruling.

As you know, yesterday we reached the exciting climax of Supreme Court Theater: The Sequel. It should surprise none of us that it ended in the same place at which the first drama ended. Part of my anger is that I allowed media hysteria to tempt me into hoping that the Supreme Court would do the right thing. Another part of my anger is the knowledge that many Republicans in Congress are thrilled with this ruling.

The minority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Here are some highlights that are definitely worth reading:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

A few other highlights:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.


Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”


Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.


The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.”

And he closed:

The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by liti- gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

While it is true that the Supreme Court is usurping authority from the Legislative Branch by “fixing” statutes, the truth is a little bit more sinister. The Supreme Court, in doing so, is placing itself in service to the Executive Branch. So, given all the secrecy and spying and underhanded dealings we have seen from this administration, against the American people and against journalists, how do we know that the Executive Branch hasn’t found a way to “encourage” the Supreme Court to assume this role?

A man who openly invents kill lists cannot possibly be above threatening or bribing or blackmailing a judge. I don’t know that he has done so but no American can be sure that he hasn’t.


ObamaCare Beyond the Handouts – Wall Street journal June 24th

We’ve already proved we can subsidize health care. But which subsidies make sense?


By one standard no government program can fail, and that’s the standard being applied to ObamaCare by its supporters: If a program exists and delivers benefits, the program is working.

Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and others consistently point to the fact that people are willingly receiving ObamaCare benefits as proof of the program’s value. Mr. Obama himself says: “When you talk to people who actually are enrolled in a new marketplace plan, the vast majority of them like their coverage. The vast majority are satisfied.”

And the polls indeed show that 74% of ObamaCare’s eight million enrollees are “satisfied” with their plans, because the polls fail to count the 12 million who are eligible but decline to enroll.

Of the eight million who have signed up, some 87% are receiving taxpayer subsidies. In other words, they are getting health care partly or wholly at someone else’s expense. The latest data reveal that the average monthly benefit amounts to $276 per person (up from $268 in February), allowing the typical user to buy a plan for $69 per month out of pocket.

To put it another way, the annual subsidy amounts to $3,312 per recipient. Which is excellent if you’re one of the recipients.

Steve Rattner, a Wall Street figure and President Obama’s former auto-bailout czar, insists in a recent New York Times op-ed that ObamaCare “is working,” by which he apparently means it’s in operation, which nobody denies. Mr. Rattner, like a lot of analysts, writes as if costs are benefits—as if millions of people lining up for something from the wallets of their fellow citizens, ipso facto, is proof of a worthwhile program.

Mr. Rattner, in a throwaway line—really, a partisan pleasantry—adds without evidence or elaboration that health-care costs are lower than they otherwise would be at least partly due to the new law.

Now, if this were true, it would be the greatest validation of ObamaCare as public policy but there is no reason to believe it’s true.

The right question about any program is whether the benefits justify the expenditure of taxpayer money. ObamaCare’s cheerleaders provide not cost-benefit analysis but benefit analysis—as if money grows on trees or is donated by Martians or can be printed in limitless quantities by the Fed.

ObamaCare, with its subsidies to those with low incomes, is not the worst thing in our health-care system by far. Medicare indiscriminately subsidizes everyone in Warren Buffett’s age group; and, more insidiously, trains Americans from an early age to expect somebody else to cover their medical costs in retirement. And the giant tax handout to employer-provided insurance perversely treats the richest taxpayers as the neediest.

It pays to remember, however, why the pending Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell is such a lethal threat to ObamaCare. King v. Burwell argues the IRS is illegally misreading the law to grant subsidies to 6.7 million users of the federal ObamaCare exchange known as

King is a threat to ObamaCare because, without subsidies, ObamaCare is nothing. It fixes no problem in our health-care system, except to subsidize more people to consume health care at taxpayer expense. Not that subsidies are always undesirable: They help some people get necessary care. But subsidies do the most good when used sparingly, because subsidies also tend to inflate prices for everyone as well as encourage inefficient consumption that doesn’t improve health and may even endanger health.

In a final irony, many Republicans, seeing the damage an adverse Supreme Court ruling would do, take the statesman-like view that a GOP Congress must stand ready to find a new way to extend subsidies to the 6.7 million people who, since the advent of ObamaCare, expect themselves to be subsidized.

Fine, but let’s also have a major rethink of who should be subsidized and who shouldn’t, across our whole range of health-care programs, including Medicare and the workplace tax benefit.

Never going to happen? It will, if the GOP summons the courage to fix ObamaCare along the lines of the original, rational, “reform” that has motivated health-care thinking for four decades. A place to start would be reducing ObamaCare’s costly coverage mandates so policies would be genuinely attractive to people spending their own money; subsidies could then be trimmed back because fewer people would need subsidies to induce them to buy coverage.

We’ve always said that ObamaCare, for all its flaws, could become the instrument by which responsible reformers renew their push for health care that delivers value for money. In the meantime, however, no worthwhile thoughts about ObamaCare, pro or con, are to be heard from people who count a program as a success just because Americans enjoy receiving benefits at the expense of other Americans.

Muslim World Reacts to Obama’s Latest Speech