Posts Tagged ‘Barak Obama’
(Dr. Jerome Corsi) – After nearly four years in office, many Americans still express frustration that much about Barack Obama remains a mystery as establishment media remain incurious about the Democratic president, while seemingly ready to dispatch crack investigative teams at a moment’s notice to probe into the personal lives of Republican figures such as Sarah Palin. Largely ignored in 2008 was research by the Hillary Clinton campaign based on contacts developed with members of the church Obama attended for two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the first of a series of articles WND has developed from months of in-person interviews with church members who have known Barack and Michelle Obama over many years. The sources requested that their identities not be published because they believe their disclosures would put their security at risk.
NEW YORK – Ten years ago, the New York Times reported on a growing underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living “straight” lives in public.
It’s within that subtext that opposition researchers for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign began investigating rumors that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was running a “matchmaking service” for members of his Trinity United Church of Christ known as the Down Low Club, which included Barack Obama.
Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.
The 2003 New York Times story, “Double Lives on the Down Low,” said that though many black men reject “a gay culture they perceive as white and effeminate,” they “have settled on a new identity, with its own vocabulary and customs and its own name: Down Low.”
The Times said that while “there are black men who are openly gay, it seems that the majority of those having sex with men still lead secret lives, products of a black culture that deems masculinity and fatherhood as a black man’s primary responsibility – and homosexuality as a white man’s perversion.”
The Down Low Club at Trinity “doesn’t have meetings, and it isn’t like the Rotary Club,” a source identified for this article as “Carolyn” explained to a WND investigator in Chicago.
“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.
“He kept his eye on the young guys coming up in Trinity,” she said, “and if he spotted someone that acted or looked gay, then Wright would give them kind of a guidance counselor-type direction on how to keep down low – how to do the things they wanted to do, but then also getting married and looking ‘respectable’ – being part of black society.”
To Trinity insiders, the Down Low Club was simply known as “the program.”
“That’s the terminology. At Trinity, you’re urged to ‘get with the program,’” explained a male beneficiary of the Down Low Club. “What that means is it’s OK to go ahead and have sex with men, just as long as you ‘get with the program’ and marry a woman, somebody no straight guy would want to marry.”
The wife, the Down Low Club member explained, is “your ‘beard,’ your cover – so you can look like you’re living a straight life, even thought your not.”
The male source was a “computer consultant” who claims not to know “scratch” about computers. But “getting with the program” at Trinity meant he could keep living a “gay” life and receive lots of computer consulting work thrown his way by Trinity, as long as he was willing to marry an unattractive woman who otherwise might have ended up a lonely spinster with no means to provide for living.
Carolyn explained that for many black families, attending Trinity was a way out of poverty.
“Trinity was a chance to network,” she said. “The stuff preached was hateful, but about 70 percent of those who go there ignore the radical rhetoric and just trying to get ahead.”
Carolyn said Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”
“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”
Openly homosexual author and commentator Keith Boykin, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, mentions Obama’s former pastor, Wright, on pages 264-265 of his 2005 book “Beyond the Down Low: Sex, Lies, and Denial in Black America.” While Boykin doesn’t refer to the Down Low Club by name, he regards Wright as among a small group of ministers who are “coming to grips with sexuality and opening up a dialogue with heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals in the pews.”
Chicago-based author, businessman, speaker and HIV/AIDS activist J.L. King wrote a controversial book in 2005 called “On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of ‘Straight’ Black Men who Sleep with Men.”
He was a guest on Oprah Winfrey’s Chicago-based TV show in 2004, which described him this way: “J.L. King had a life most would envy. He married his high school sweetheart, had two healthy children and was on the fast track to success. But, unbeknownst to his family and friends, he had a dark secret—he was living on the down low.”
Carolyn and the other members of Trinity who provided statements corroborating her testimony were insistent that WND conceal their identities as a condition of being interviewed.
“I’m still scared to discuss any of this,” Carolyn said.
“At Trinity, if you even hint at talking about Obama being gay, you are reminded of our dear departed choir director,” she said. “He was killed, and it wasn’t a robbery. The Christmas presents weren’t touched. The TV was not taken, nothing in the apartment was missing.”
Carolyn’s reference was to Donald Young, the 47-year-old homosexual choirmaster at Trinity who died of multiple gunshot wounds in his Chicago apartment Dec. 24, 2007.
Young’s murder was preceded Nov. 17, 2007, with the execution-style murder of 25-year-old Larry Bland, another black gay member of Trinity United. He also was murdered in his home, dying of multiple gunshot wounds, according to his death certificate.
Just two days after the murder of Young, a third openly “gay” member of Wright’s church, Nate Spencer, reportedly died of septicemia, pneumonia and AIDS.
As WND reported last month, a prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.
In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”
WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.
In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.
WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.
Shocking phone call
Sinclair gave an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department regarding contacts he says he had with Young just prior to Young’s murder.
According to Sinclair’s affidavit, published in its entirety beginning on page 56 of his book, he contacted Obama’s presidential campaign in September 2007. Sinclair says he requested that Obama correct claims he made about when he stopped abusing drugs to reflect use of crack cocaine during their sex encounters in November 1999.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama had stated famously he stopped using marijuana and cocaine in college, implying his drug abuse ended when he had completed his first two years of college at Occidental in Los Angeles.
Sinclair explained that when he made contact with the Obama campaign in September 2007, he provided callback numbers, in case the campaign wanted to get in touch with him.
Then, in late September or early October 2007, as Sinclair stated in his affidavit, he received a call from a male identifying himself as “Mr. Young,” who stated he was responding to calls Sinclair had made to the Obama campaign.
“This first call shocked me in that this ‘Mr. Young’ asked me why I had not asked Senator Obama to disclose sexual encounters I had with Mr. Obama in 1999,” Sinclair’s affidavit reads. “I was shocked as I had never mentioned to the campaign or anyone working for the campaign any sexual encounters. The call ended with Mr. Young stating I would hear from someone in a few days.”
Sinclair claims it was in a second call from “Mr. Young” that he began to suspect the man had been sexually intimate with Obama. Sinclair said he drew that conclusion “by the tone of the conversation” and by its “sexual nature.”
In late October 2007, Sinclair received a text message from “Mr. Young” stating Young “was intimately involved with Senator Obama and that Obama was discussing with him and his pastor how to publicly acknowledge Senator Obama’s drug use in 1999.”
The text message also indicated Obama wanted to make sure Sinclair had not discussed the sexual encounters or drug use with any media at that time.
In November 2007, Sinclair received a second text message from “Mr. Young,” advising him that Obama would publicly correct his statement as to the last time he used drugs and that Sinclair did not need to concern himself with publicly disclosing it.
Then, in early December 2007, Sinclair received his last contact with “Mr. Young,” with Young making it clear Obama had no intention of acknowledging publicly his use of crack cocaine in 1999.
After Young was murdered, Sinclair had several contacts with Young’s family.
“In several telephone conversations with his sisters, brothers, nieces and others, I was reassured that the family of Donald Young believed he was murdered to protect Barack Obama,” Sinclair wrote. “It also became clear, right from the start that members of the Young family were truly fearful of speaking out publicly, to this day, they fear for their own personal, physical safety.”
On July 17, 2010, the supermarket tabloid The Globe published an interview with Norma Jean Young, the 76-year-old mother of the slain choirmaster, in which she expressed fear that her son was murdered to protect Obama.
“What was the cause of my son’s death?” Norma Jean Young asked in the Globe interview. “I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama. Donald and Obama were very close friends. Whatever went on with this is very private. I am suspicious of a cover-up!”
She insisted there is “more to the story,” calling on Chicago police to ramp up their investigation.
“I do believe they are shielding somebody or protecting somebody,” she told The Globe.
Asked who would benefit from a cover-up, Norma Jean Young said, “It could be anyone, including Obama.”
Shortly after the Globe interview was published, Norma Jean Young left Chicago and lived for a while in Peoria, Ill. Her current residence is unknown.
The murders of Donald Young and Larry Bland remain today open cases of unsolved homicide.
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he’s just speaking bold truths. His bold truth declares that the future does not belong to practicing Christians.
Pay careful attention to what he says.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
Now, that’s the full paragraph so no one can claim I took him out of context.
But consider this.
It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe me, you go into the MIddle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.
Then Barack Obama went on to say “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.” Note he says we cannot “slander the prophet of Islam” but it’s only the image of Christ in the next sentence — not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obama’s government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?
Now, in point of fact, this is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Christ came to this world as an enemy of the world and expected to be impugned. He also tells his followers that they should expect to be impugned. There is joy in being persecuted for following the Risen Lord. In Islam, if you impugn Mohammed, you get a fatwa on your butt.
And then there is the first amendment. The President of the United States tried to have it both ways in his speech.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
Just words, Mr. President? You say “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence,” but all last week you condemned a ridiculous video trailer for a movie that does not exist. Your government ran advertisements in Pakistan denouncing the video. What of free speech, Mr. President? Last week you were saying the violence was understandable given the offensive film and this week you are trying to claim it was mindless.
Oh wait, you did it again in the same speech where you said “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence”:
At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
Time and again the President of the United States tries to have it both ways.
But are they just words?
The fact is, many religions do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet. In the widest swath of Islam, that denial is, in and of itself, slander. So what exactly are you saying Mr. President?
As an exit point, with all of President Obama’s statements on tolerance in his speech, we should remember that tolerance is really not a Christian virtue. As Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia noted, “We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself.” The Archbishop also noted that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. That’s not a statement that the President is evil in any way, shape, or form, but we should be mindful when the secular world demands tolerance for all, tolerance for all means we cannot have standards of faith to live by, because those standards obviously require we be intolerant of sins this world has embraced.
The Suicide Bomber in Bulgaria Who Killed Israeli’s – He Was a Released Gitmo Detainee – Thanks Obama
The Times of Israel
Bulgarian media on Thursday named the suicide bomber who blew up a bus full of Israeli tourists, killing five Israelis and a local bus driver, in the Black Sea resort of Burgas on Wednesday as 36-year-old Mehdi Ghezali.
Ghezali reportedly arrived in Bulgaria five weeks before the bombing and arrived at the airport via taxi, Channel 2 reported. He was also reportedly given the bomb by someone else, but no further details were provided.
There was no independent confirmation of the veracity of the information. The reports surfaced soon after Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly accused Hezbollah, directed by Iran, of responsibility for the bombing. The Prime Minister’s Office made no comment on the reports.
The Bulgarian reports, rapidly picked up by Hebrew media, posited various versions of how the bomber had detonated the bomb, including the suggestion that the bomber had not intended to die in the blast, but may have wanted to place the bomb on the bus and flee.
Ghezali has a Wikipedia page, which describes him as a Swedish citizen, with Algerian and Finnish origins. He had been held at the US’s Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on Cuba from 2002 to 2004, having previously studied at a Muslim religious school and mosque in Britain, and traveled to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it says. He was taken into custody on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda agent, having been arrested along with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives.
Following a lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, Guantanamo authorities recommended Ghezali be transferred to another country for continued detainment, and he was handed over to Swedish authorities in 2004. The Swedish government did not press charges.
A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.
He was also reportedly among 12 foreigners captured trying to cross into Afghanistan in 2009.
Earlier on Thursday the Bulgarian police released a brief video clip that claimed to show the suicide bomber, responsible for Wednesday’s terror attack on a tour bus full of Israeli citizens, walking around shortly before the blast at Burgas International Airport.
The Bulgarian news agency Sofia reported that the bomber was carrying an American passport and Michigan driver’s license, both believed to be forgeries.
Sofia also reported that the Bulgarian Interior Ministry managed to recover the fingerprints of the bomber, which they submitted to the FBI in the United States and the international police organization Interpol. The FBI and CIA joined Israeli and Bulgarian officials in investigating the attack.
Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov told Sofia that DNA tests were being run to determine the identity of the Caucasian man, who the minister described as casually dressed with nothing suspicious about his appearance to set him apart from the crowd of people at the airport.
The ministry did not indicate how the police came to the conclusion that the man was the suicide bomber.
GEORGE SOROS WANTS GUN CONTROL ON US CITIZENS
Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties — the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called “small arms” treaty.
Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, such as this entry Sunday at the Daily Paul, some political observers note that the treaty is unlikely to pass the Senate. But a very different scenario is developing for the Law of the Sea.
Twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST. Some who are included in the list of 20 are those who have not yet decided how they will vote on the issue. Thus, the list of 20 includes those who have either declared support for LOST or declined to indicate their views on the subject one way or the other
In a breaking update, two of the 20 Republican senators have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty. McConnell and Toomey now state they will vote no.
The U.S. Constitution grants authority to presidents to enter into treaty agreements with other nations and entities. But due to the fact that a treaty, if approved, becomes the law of the land, the U.S. Senate must approve by an exact two-thirds majority rather than the simple supermajority of 60 votes. This means that 67 votes are needed in the Senate to approve a treaty.
Most political observers believe that all 53 Democrats in the Senate will vote to approve LOST. And if the 20 Republicans who have failed to indicate opposition to the treaty hold firm, the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass.
The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty, or who have not yet decided, are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander.
This is a continually developing story that is changing on an hour by hour basis. For the latest information on who in the Senate has decided to oppose the treaty, consult late breaking articles here and here.
In 1983 President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST outright due to encroachments on U.S. sovereignty. Thus, the question arises as to why these 20 Republicans would be indicating support for a treaty that Reagan saw as an international attempt to usurp American sovereignty and thus supersede the U.S. Constitution.
The small arms treaty, on the other hand, is facing a much more difficult task in gaining the approval of the Senate. Although it is possible to muster 67 votes to approve, too many Democrats are facing reelection in states where gun rights are important. Democrats now have a 53 seat majority. Even if all of the Democrats voted in favor, 14 Republicans would have to join them in order for the measure to pass.
In an election year during a period of time in U.S. history when citizens have indicated in various ways that they oppose any more gun control in any form, it is difficult to imagine 14 Republicans voting in favor of such a treaty.
But as indicated by Forbes Magazine such assumptions are premature. Some senators are always loathe to oppose any treaty signed by a president for the fear of negatively impacting U.S. prestige on the international stage.
Thus, conservatives have sounded the alarm about the treaty to make sure citizens pressure their senators to vote no.
A look at some of the provisions of the treaty will reveal why many conservatives are alarmed. By international law all citizens in the United States would find it more difficult to purchase firearms due to tough registration and licensing requirements. The sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms would be banned. And an international registry of gun owners would be created, which many gun rights enthusiasts view as a precursor to a worldwide ban on gun ownership.
Using the United Nations to enact strict gun control measures on Americans could be what Obama meant when he stated months ago that his administration is working on gun control “under the radar.”