Fw: OBAMA STOPS OVERSEAS MILITARY VOTES

OBAMA IS THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN.

> E-MAIL THIS TO ANYONE YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT RIGHT
>
>> Subj: Fw: OBAMA STOPS OVERSEAS MILITARY VOTES
>>
>>
>>I just forwarded this to twenty thousand people,,
>>Its only a matter of time before the truth can really reveal itself,,
>>
>>>This is a national disgrace to our military and to our Country. Good enough to
>>>die for America, but not good enough to vote.

Today, Fox News' Megyn Kelly reports that the OBAMA Dept of Justice under Eric holder,
has allowed a deadline for the military men and women overseas to receive their absentee ballots and cast their votes ................to expire.
They had more than 6 months to approve the sending of the ballots.
BUT THEY DID NOTHING AND LET THE DEADLINE COME

This will stop 2,800,000 votes from being cast in the November election.
Military votes ... nearly all of which are anti-OBAMA.

THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE
THIS IS FRAUD
THIS IS CORRUPT
THIS IS OBAMA

SEND THIS TO ALL YOU KNOW>
STOP OBAMA --SAVE AMERICA

VOTE THESE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE

This is such a classic example of why I started this blog. It is so obviously false that nobody could possibly believe it and endorse it, unless they were utterly blinded by contempt for Obama. Anyone who would stop for just a second to think about it should immediately realize that elections are run by counties, not by the feds. Absentee ballots are sent out by local County Recorders. So even if the evil-fantasy-Obama of kunservative feverish imaginations wanted to stop the military from voting, he would have to enlist the County Recorders from every county in the country into his evil conspiracy. That's just ludicrous on the face of it.

If you thought about it a bit more, you might wonder things like: IS the military vote "nearly all anti-Obama"? and do we really have 2.8 MILLION soldiers overseas? A few clicks on Google will tell you the answers: NO and NO. While we can't know exactly how servicemembers voted, there are records of donations made by servicemembers during the 2008 election, which ran 6-to-1 in Obama's favor. Another analysis looked at military communities and observed significant Democratic shifts from 2004 to 2008. As one ABC News pollster said about the military's supposed pro-conservative bias, "data suggest you could drive a Humvee through the holes in the conventional wisdom on the subject".

As to troop numbers, anyone paying much attention to current affairs knows we're down to about 50,000 troops still in Iraq, and not quite 100,000 in Afghanistan. We have some fair numbers in other places like Germany, Japan, and Korea, but certainly nothing like 2.8 million. It turns out the total number of active duty personnel in all the armed forces totals about 1.4 million, with about 300,000 of those stationed abroad. So I guess whoever made up this slander didn't think it was sufficiently dramatic enough without ridiculously inflating the number as well.

As there is often some remote grain of truth behind these things, I wondered what it might be, so I chased down the Fox News story being alluded to. Apparently, there was some new federal legislation last year passed in response to concerns about military absentee ballots not getting in on time in the 2008 election. The new legislation requires that counties send out absentee ballots to servicemembers at least 45 days before any election. Sounds reasonable enough on the surface, except that in many states, the ballots are not always finalized that far in advance. It seems there was some trouble in a few counties in a few states complying with the new law. In response to this, the federal Department of Justice is suing some of those counties to force their compliance. And that's what Fox News reported. So not only was Eric Holder not behind some nefarious conspiracy to prevent the servicemembers from getting their ballots, but he's been enforcing the federal law against the counties who were not complying. So, to whoever made up this ludicrous slander against Obama and Holder: don't let the facts get in the way of your twisted imagination.

Fw: It's Now Confirmed!

Sign on highway in Northern Kenya, near Sudan border.

They know! When will we know? How did we get out of the "loop"?

This was immediately suspicious, since there's no reason a Kenyan sign would be written in English and Arabic. The official languages of Kenya are English and Swahili (which is written in roman script). A little bit of playing around with Google's online translator revealed that whoever Photoshopped this fake sign had a sense of humor. Here is how you write "Kenya" in Arabic:
كينيا
You don't have to read Arabic to see that what's under "Kenya" on the sign looks nothing like that. However, here's how you write "Hawaii" in Arabic:
هاواي
Compare those characters to the sign. And note that Arabic is written right-to-left. It seems the Arabic on the sign says "Hawaii", backwards!

Fw: THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND IT WILL SERIOUSLY ANGER YOU...

This is hardly to be viewed as a surprise...unless you are still in denial that this guy is pissing on your leg while grinning, winking at you and telling you, "it's only water!" Many of us still need a wake-up call.

This will open your eyes! What does Obama read?

The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world After America ! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !

Yup, they're right. This curdled my blood and seriously angered me. I'm not angered that our President is reading an intelligent book written by a highly respected authority on international politics. I'm only angered that people think so ill of the President that they look at the title of this book, knowing nothing about it, and jump to absurd conclusions. Here's what Publishers Weekly writes about this book:

When a book proclaims that it is not about the decline of America but the rise of everyone else, readers might expect another diatribe about our dismal post-9/11 world. They are in for a pleasant surprise as Newsweek editor and popular pundit Zakaria (The Future of Freedom) delivers a stimulating, largely optimistic forecast of where the 21st century is heading. We are living in a peaceful era, he maintains; world violence peaked around 1990 and has plummeted to a record low. Burgeoning prosperity has spread to the developing world, raising standards of living in Brazil, India, China and Indonesia. Twenty years ago China discarded Soviet economics but not its politics, leading to a wildly effective, top-down, scorched-earth boom. Its political antithesis, India, also prospers while remaining a chaotic, inefficient democracy, as Indian elected officials are (generally) loathe to use the brutally efficient tactics that are the staple of Chinese governance. Paradoxically, India's greatest asset is its relative stability in the region; its officials take an unruly population for granted, while dissent produces paranoia in Chinese leaders. Zakaria predicts that despite its record of recent blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong, buoyed by a stellar educational system and the influx of young immigrants, who give the U.S. a more youthful demographic than Europe and much of Asia whose workers support an increasing population of unproductive elderly. A lucid, thought-provoking appraisal of world affairs, this book will engage readers on both sides of the political spectrum.

It's written by Fareed Zakaria, who is currently the managing editor of Newsweek, and was previously the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. Here's a tidbit from his biography on Wikipedia:

After the 9/11 attacks, in a famous Newsweek cover essay, "Why They Hate Us," Zakaria argued that Islamic extremism had its roots in the stagnation and dysfunctions of the Arab world. Decades of failure under tyrannical regimes, all claiming to be Western-style secular modernizers, had produced an opposition that was religious, violent, and increasingly globalized. Since the mosque was a place where people could gather and Islam an institution that was outside the reach of censorship, they both provided a context for the growth of the political opposition. Zakaria argued for an inter-generational effort to create more open and dynamic societies in Arab countries, and thereby helping Islam enter the modern world.

Sound like a Muslim fanatic to you? Are you angry that your President is reading this book? I'm not. In fact, I'm going to add it to my reading list, it sounds pretty interesting. Thanks for the recommendation!

Fw: Islamic prayer time at the White House

Obama cancelled the National Day of Prayer service traditionally held at the Whitehouse. Now.......this.

The islamic prayer day last week at the Whitehouse.


For Obama to continue as our President is an insult
to our founding fathers (and to all Americans).

If you question the impact of the above picture,
I would suggest you get a copy of the book
The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic.
It is well researched and documented, so is trustworthy.
Anyone who believes that 'Islam is not a major threat
to our freedom and country' has their head in the sand.
This includes Obama himself.

Of course there was no "Islamic prayer day" at the White House. Let's start with the photo. Does that look like the White House to you? Note the arches in the background. This photo was taken last April during Obama's state visit to Turkey, when Prime Minister Erdogan took him to visit some national landmarks in Istanbul, including the Blue Mosque. You can read about it on Newsweek, and if you're still not convinced the above photo was taken at the same time/place, look at this MSNBC photo, where you can clearly see the same carpet, the same suit and tie, etc.

Re Obama cancelling the National Day of Prayer service at the White House, that is true but bears some context. A law was passed in 1952 requiring the President to proclaim a national day of prayer once a year, and the law was amended in 1988 to fix the date as the first Thursday in May. Every President, including Obama, has dutifully issued such proclamations. It was only President G.W. Bush who made a regular practice of holding prayer services in the White House to mark the National Day of Prayer. President Obama has simply chosen to keep his prayers a private matter. Perhaps President Obama takes to heart the biblical admonitions against ostentatious prayer (see Matthew 6:5-6).

Fw: Keep Your Feet Off Our Furniture!

Would you speak with the Chief of Staff, your Chief Economics Adviser, and your Senior Adviser with your feet up on the Resolute Desk - a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880?



We should inundate the White House with emails demanding that he keep his frigging feet off of our furniture. This arrogant, immature, self-centered man has no sense of honor, or even simple decency.

While this displayed posture is disrespectful in any culture, it should never done in an executive setting. Further, in over half of the cultures of the world, it is recognized not only as disrespectful, but as an extreme insult.

He thinks of himself as a king and not as a servant of the people, occupying our White House for his term in office. Electing him was an enormous mistake and doing so will cost us in many ways, for many generations.

Well, I have to say, I'm not thrilled about the President putting his feet on a historic piece of furniture. But apparently, Obama is no more "arrogant" or "disrespectful" than previous presidents. When I did a Google image search on "president oval office feet on desk", I quickly got photos of not only Obama, but G.W. Bush and Ford with their feet on the desk. In fact, it's rather amusing to note that you can take the exact text from above, not changing a word, and use it with this photo instead:



I wonder if the kunservatives just copied this email from one the libruls were sending around a few years ago.

Facebook: Obama surrounding himself with pictures of himself

Name Withheld In the West Wing, President's in years past have surrounded themselves with historical and significant paintings by famous artists. Evidently President Obama has surrounded himself with approximately 300, 11 x 14, pictures of himself that are changed out weekly.

This person's fevered imagination conjures the Remington Peale portrait of George Washington being removed from the Oval Office mantel and replaced with an Obama portrait. When challenged on this preposterous post, the author replied that it was reported by Ed Schultz, a librul talk-radio commentator on MSNBC, after a visit to the White House. A quick Google search reveals lots of kunservatives reacting to Schultz' comment. And to be sure, what Schultz said (audio here) was eyebrow-raising:

First of all you walk into the White House, in the West Wing, and there are picture all over, I mean everywhere! Of President Obama! I mean, of his life in the first year as president of the United States. Now I don’t know if that’s the way it is with every president, but it was almost a shrine. I mean, well, here’s a picture of Obama the president with his kids over here. There he is getting on Air Force One. Here he is with some military people. Here he is on the line working the line at one of his campaign stops. I mean, just, it was just one picture after another!

So what's really going on here? It turns out that Schultz is probably describing the visitor entry area to the West Wing, which is located near the White House Photo Office, and traditionally displays a photo gallery of the President and official visitors from the current week. Here's a detailed description of a visit to the White House in 2004 found on the web (hat tip NiceDeb):

Upon entering the building, we went into a small reception area where there were several large (approx. 18" x 24") and very recent photographs of President Bush on each wall. Lonnie told us that the pictures are rotated on a weekly basis. Most of the pictures were from the President's visit to Florida the prior weekend. All of them were quite good. I asked what was happens to them once they are taken down and was told that some are saved for use in the Presidential Library, and some are given away to the individuals appearing in the photographs with the President.

As for the Oval Office itself, it seems President Obama has made few changes (New York Daily News, 1/20/09):

Except for some Texas-centric paintings, a Winston Churchhill bust and family photographs, the furnishings and artwork favored by President Bush will stay put.

Obama has told friends he loves the taupe oval carpet designed by First Lady Laura Bush in a "sunbeam" pattern. He's also keeping the historic Resolute desk, crafted from the oak timbers of the British warship Resolute and made famous by the picture of President John F. Kennedy's son, John-John, peering out of the kneehole. The desk was presented to President Rutherford Hayes by Queen Victoria in 1880.

To nobody's surprise, a painting and bust of Abraham Lincoln, Obama's favorite predecessor, will retain their places of honor.

Other familiar items that won't be shipped off to storage include the Rembrandt Peale portrait of Gen, George Washington over the office's fireplace, and "The Bronco Buster," the stirring Frederic Remington bronze sculpture.

Obama officials said photos of Obama's family will be displayed on the table behind the Resolute desk when he walks in.

Asked about why he's keeping the new digs essentially intact, a top Obama aide quipped: "It seems that President Bush has a flair for decorating."

There were blank spots yesterday on the Oval Office's walls where Bush's Texas paintings had hung. If Obama doesn't decide on anything to fill in the blanks by today's swearing-in, curator William Allman will select placeholders.

Wikipedia provides an update on the two paintings that Obama chose to flank the Oval Office desk:

Since President Barack Obama took office on 20 January 2009 these paintings have been removed to be replaced by the American impressionist Childe Hassam's painting The Avenue in the Rain and Norman Rockwell's Statue of Liberty. President Obama has not, as yet, changed the Oval Office dramatically. Three subtle changes are the addition of a hand-carved wooden sculpture obtained by him on a 2006 trip to his ancestral home of Kenya. The figurine shows an egg placed gently into a human hand, symbolizing the fragility of power. He has also replaced the Laura Bush-inspired floral decorations with a bowl of wax apples and has replaced the decorative plates on the oval office bookshelves with books.

While his changes to the Oval Office have been conservative, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obamas have some bigger ideas for the White House overall:

The Obamas are sending ripples through the art world as they put the call out to museums, galleries and private collectors that they’d like to borrow modern art by African-American, Asian, Hispanic and female artists for the White House. In a sharp departure from the 19th-century still lifes, pastorals and portraits that dominate the White House’s public rooms, they are choosing bold, abstract art works.

Los Angeles art critic Edward Goldman enthuses about their choices in a post with images of the artworks.

Thus, it turns out that the facts of the decor at the White House don't support the desired kunservative narrative of an egomaniacal Obama turning everything upside down.

Fw: Fw: Unbelievable

Can you believe this?

This is a perfect example why I refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:

"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA !

Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.
Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this?

It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!

Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of our Government representatives know how you feel about this.

This is indeed unbelievable, because it's not true. As usual, Factcheck.org has the full smackdown. Like many of these, the lies are wrapped around a grain of truth: a $2 billion loan commitment was made by the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras. But here are the relevant facts in brief:

• No executive order was made, nor was one required, to make this loan.
• This commitment was made by the bank's board of directors, which comprised three Republicans and two Democrats, all Bush appointees.
• The purpose of the loan is to finance Petrobras' purchase of American goods and services for oil exploration. (That's the purpose of the Export-Import Bank, to facilitate American exports, helping domestic American companies sell their goods abroad.)
• The $2 billion does not come from taxpayer dollars. The Export-Import Bank is a self-sustaining institution.
• Soros does have investments in Petrobras, along with many other oil and energy companies, but he in fact substantially reduced his stake in Petrobras last August.
• This transaction has no particular connection to China, except that Brazil exports oil to China.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Fw: Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!

Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!

Many concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief.. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.

Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama's request for dismissal. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. Obama would prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama's motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).

The judge, WHO IS A FORMER U.S. MARINE, repeated several times that this is A VERY SERIOUS CASE which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama's attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.

Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama's eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories. She was fearless!

This needs to be forwarded to everyone you know....

KEEP CIRCULATING THIS E-MAIL.

THE MEDIA WILL NOT PUBLICIZE THIS

Um, perhaps the media will not publicize this because it isn't true? There was a case before Judge Carter, who was extremely patient with the whack-jobs who filed the case, but the case was ultimately dismissed on Oct 29, 2009. Factcheck.org gives a great smackdown of the whole sordid affair, including citing Judge Carter's vigorous denunciation of the arguments made by the anti-Obama attorneys:

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

Factcheck also noted that the attorney, Orly Taitz, has been bringing similar lawsuits around the country, and was even fined by one judge (a Bush appointee, no less) for wasting the court's time bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Judge Carter was more patient with her, but made these comments in his ruling:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. ...

Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

In other words, this Judge bent over backwards to give this whack-job a more-than-fair hearing. Yup, "great job", Orly Taitz.