Friday, December 27, 2013

SERIAL LOSERS : The Shocking History of the Democrat's Interventions !


Americans unsure what to think about President Obama's plans for Syria should remember that ALL military action undertaken by Democrats for the last half-century has led to utter disaster. You see, leftist Democrats are gung-ho about deploying the U.S. military provided only that it will harm the national security interests of the United States, but vehemently oppose interventions that serve American interests.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II, said he could conceive of no greater tragedy than the U.S. getting heavily involved in Vietnam. He sent aid to the anti-communist forces, but no troops. However, as we all know.... Democratic President John F. Kennedy sent troops. But in short order he was conniving to assassinate South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem - also known as ''our ally in the middle of the war.''

JFK's brother, the Democratic attorney general, actually suggested that Americans donate blood to the North Vietnamese - ''our enemy'' - as gesture of good will. Unbelievable! Then came Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam in order to prove that Democrats could be trusted with national defence. Which they cannot. As journalist David Halberstam reported, LBJ would ''talk to his closest political aides about the McCarthy days, of how Truman lost China and then the congress and the White House, and how, by God, Johnson was not going to be the president who lost Vietnam and the Congress and the White House.'' LBJ sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives to try to make the Democrats look manly.

Richard Nixon came in and honourably ended the Democrats disastrous handling of the Vietnam War by signing the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. In return for the lousy terms the president jammed down South Vietnam's throat, America promised that, if the North attacked, the U.S. would resume bombing missions and military aid. America hadn't been humiliated -- the left had to act fast! The media invented the Watergate scandal out of a minor snooping break-in, an implicated Nixon was forced to resign and a crazy left-wing Congress was inaugurated. Just a month later, North Vietnam attacked the South, and the Democratic Congress turned its back on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. (For Democrats, that's a ''victory.'')

President Carter's Iranian headache
In 1953, President Eisenhower assisted the Shah of Iran in removing nut-job Mohammed Mossadegh as prime minister, and a friendly government ruled Iran. Alas, 20 years later, Jimmy Carter became president. When Islamic fundamentalists staged a revolution in Iran, Carter refused to come to the aid of the shah, a staunch American ally. Democrats and leftist academic elitists praised Ayatollah Khomeini to the skies assuring the American people life would be peachy under him. What could go wrong? The ayatollah had barely seized power when Islamic lunatics took 52 Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was removed from office. By giving Islamic fanatics their nation-state, Carter produced the global Islamofacist movement we're still dealing with today.

President Clinton and Hilary
For the next eight years, peace and freedom spread throughout the world as President Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and restored America's power. The Democrats and their minions wailed and condemned Reagan at almost every international effort. In the face of mass starvation in Somalia, George H.W. Bush sent troops to ensure that aide could get into the country. President Bill Clinton came in and decided to convert this simple relief effort into an exercise in ''nation-building.'' In short order, the Muslim rebels killed American troops and dragged their copses through the streets. Clinton instantly withdrew the entire military operation. Years later, Osama bin Laden would laugh about America cutting and running from Somalia, noting how this show of weakness had encouraged his al-Qaida fighters.


Presidents George W. &  H.W. Bush
In response to 9/11, President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and wiped out the Taliban and al-Qaida strongholds in a few months. Bush left a limited force behind to prevent return of the terrorist training camps. Most crucially, Bush removed a monstrous dictator from Iraq and established the only Islamic democracy in the idle East. Saddam Hussein had aided and sheltered terrorists and horribly brutalized his own people, murdering millions of them. Iraq became a beacon of hope for all Muslims still living under despotic regimes. Then Obama threw away this victory in Iraq by withdrawing every last troop. Obama has allowed al-Qaida and Iran to overrun this shining example of an Arab democracy. The U.S. has troops stationed all over the world, but no troops for you, Iraq!

Then you have Obama in a fit of Islamic ass-kissing flinging America's prestige into removing the pro-Western Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Mubarak supported U.S. policy, fought the Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. Or as the leftist scum calls it; Three Black Marks against the man. The Muslim Brotherhood quickly took control of Egypt and were worse than any of Mubarak's faults,  leading to this year's military take-over and Mohammad Morsi's arrest.

The Way I See It.....President Barack Obama is another Democrat president in a 50 year long line of presidents that have continued the traditional botches and blunders on the geopolitical stage. It is still a wonder that any country still wants to deal with America as an ally on an international level. When you hear behind-the-scenes stories of Obama and his advisors making foreign affairs decisions off-the-cuff and being face with the reality of those decisions; you only have to see the unnecessary tragedy of Benghazi and the lies that followed.

For absolutely no reason - no purpose whatsoever, that is, other than fulfilling Obama's idiotic campaign ''talking point'' about Afghanistan being a ''war of necessity,'' contrasted with Iraq, a potty little ''war of convenience'' you get the full picture of an America government bereft of any real objective and no concept of ''victory''.  And now we see Vladimir Putin circling like a shark. The Iraq War turned every Middle Eastern despot into President Bush's bitch. But now Obama is their bitch. I know that Democrats car more bout free birth control than geopolitics, but if they keep getting elected, Americans will getting fitted for burqas, not IUDs.


Friday, December 20, 2013

To Syria's Revolutionaires, Assad Isn't Looking So Bad After All !


Souad Nawfal with placard
With their revolution hijacked by Islamists, many Syrian rebels are rethinking their stance against the man they've been trying to overthrow. As was mentioned in the previous post, there are many jihadist deadshits coming far and wide (from Australia, America, U.K. and Europe, etc) to Syria to fight with al-Qaida operatives and usurping the original intention of turning Syria into a democratic country.

It all started because Souad Nawfal wanted to wear pants. Every day, the 40-year-old schoolteacher turned anti-regime activist, would go stand in front of headquarters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) in the rebel-controlled city of Raqqa to protest the al-Qaeda affiliates' harsh tactics in her hometown. She hoisted placards calling for an end to injustice, for an end to oppression. First they ignored her. Then they told everyone else to ignore her, and then they tried to beat her. Still she persevered. ''A woman all by herself facing the Islamic State,'' she sniffs in a recent video posted on Vimeo. ''Talk about a State! It's more like a small gang that takes advantage of people's fear.'' But that small gang was powerful, and when ISIS started threatening her life, Nawfal finally had to flee for Turkey to a safe house, wondering what has happened to Syria's revolution. Others have taken up her courageous actions to tell the Daesh (Syrian for ISIS) to get out of Syria.

She is not alone. Hundreds of activists have watched in desperation as the revolution they launched to overthrow the repressive regime of President Bashar Assad threatens to deliver their country into the hands of equally oppressive Islamist radical filth determined to turn Syria into n Islamic caliphate. ''A lot of former activists are now saying to me, 'When the choice is between ISIS and Assad, I am going for Assad,'' says Randa Slim, a Syria expert at the Washington-based Middle East Institute. To be sure, not all the rebel groups share the same ideology, but the most effective fighting groups, with their ranks filled by foreign jihadists, funded by private donors in the Gulf and backed by al-Qaeda, are gaining ground. As they grow they are squeezing out the activists that dreamed of a Syria founded on democratic representation, freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Reports of Christian villages and enclaves taking the major brunt of Islamist atrocities are many. The fighters (haters is more fitting) come into these settlements like that cold-blooded Mohammad did in 700s (AD) giving the lovers of Jesus the options of converting to Islam, keeping their faith and pay a high tax or be killed. The killing of these innocent people continued in Syria as entire families were murdered. The atrocities happened about 12 miles northwest of Damascus and were committed by  Jabhat al-Nusra and Liwa Al-Islam fighters.  The rebels just lined people up and shot them in the head for refusing to convert.


Military sources within the Syrian military said, ''armed groups have performed execution of civilians that has been verified that over 80 people were killed in areas now taken over by our army. Often whole families were put to death.''  Some families were kidnapped in order to be used as human shields in areas where the Syrian army is now trying to free civilians. According to the report, artillery isn't being used against the cowardly jihadists to prevent further civilian casualties. The report went on stating that ''the military is in the process of clearing out the town by searching every house. Assad's forces are said to have freed dozens of Alawite, Druze and Christian families from the rebels.''

The number of people murdered in the town of Adra is expected to rise as government forces ''recover the town.''  The stories of the atrocities committed by al-Nusra and Liwa Al-Islam are as violent and merciless as ever. One local resident Muhammad Al-Said reported; ''The situation was terrible...unidentified armed men came into town, but it was obvious that they were Jabhat al-Nusra militants.''  Al-Said then added an almost unbelievable statement; ''the worst crime they committed was that they roasted people in ovens used to bake bread when those people came in to buy it.!'' He added, ''the rebels committed the atrocities so they could place blame on government forces, thankfully many fled to Damascus while the elderly, mothers with infants, and the sick hid in their basements waiting for Syrian troops to save us from these vermin from other countries.''


The Way I See It.....arming the rebels was akin to arming the next generation of sectarian dictators. In the early days many Syrians derided the peaceful opposition groups as cowards for their attempt to effect change through dialogue and protest alone. But as they say ''you can't unscramble eggs'' so probably the best solution in the end may have to be compromise, even though the head leader of al-Nusra, ( left ) Abu Mohammed al-Jouani said in an interview with Al Jazeera yesterday that he ruled out peace talks with President Assad.

The upcoming peace talks in Geneva, slated for January 22nd, give Syrians hope. Nawfal says Assad is a criminal that must eventually leave power. Nonetheless, she says,''Syrians in the opposition and the Free Army (one of the early groups made up largely of defected government soldiers) should negotiate with the regime and accept a solution that leads to a coalition of sorts. It's not a popular conviction, but it is most practical to allow both to join in defeating the al-Qaeda scum. Without that, the whole country will be destroyed. Two and a half years of fighting is enough!'' 



Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Immigration or Colonisation by Stealth ! Part 2


Here we go again!  I wrote in a previous posting on November 18th that some forms of immigration to the West now look like colonisation instead. LONDON: Dozens of Muslim protestors gathered to demand that businesses stop selling alcohol in a popular East London area yesterday. The group, led by former Al-Muhajiroun leader Anjem Choundary, warned restaurants and shops in the Brick Lane area that they face 40 lashes if they continue to sell the product, which is banned under Sharia Law.

Radical preacher Choudary (centre) with ugly cronies.
Radical preacher, Choudary also defended three ''fantastic'' men who were jailed last week for attacking drinkers while on ''Muslim patrol.'' He was referring to an incident last January involving a group of five hooded young Muslim deadbeats confronting passers-by and demanded that they conform to their shit Sharia Law. The gang filmed their activities and uploaded the videos on line. They targeted people drinking alcohol, women who they considered to be dressed immodestly, and harassed others whom they perceived as being gay. One of these idiots even told a couple they should not hold hands walking down the street because it was a ''Muslim area''.

One video uploaded to YouTube by the gang was viewed more than 42,000 times. In it, the gang confronted people, shouting ''this is a Muslim area'' at them. The hooded men are seen forcing people to empty their alcoholic drinks down drains, and instructing a group of women that ''they need to forbid exposing themselves immodestly outside the mosque.'' A second video, beginning with the title saying ''Islam will take over the world'', showed the gang directing homophobic abuse at a man walking in Whitechapel. The gang shouted at the man who appeared to be wearing make-up that he is ''in a Muslim area dressed like a fag'' and must leave. The video ended with: ''We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks. Muslim patrols can never be stopped!''

Protesting against such colonisation, however, is still the height of bad manners according to the P.C. police, as Clarrisa Dickson Wright found out last year. The television chef who reached fame as one half of the Two Fat Ladies, embarked on a tour of the country and was hoping to savour the culinary delights of every region. But her visit to one particular city, left a bitter taste and caused outrage by saying her visit to a Muslim area of Leicester was ''the most frightening experience of my life'', and claiming that it left her feeling like ''a pariah''  in her own country and topped it off by describing the area as ''a ghetto''.

When asked to explain the comments, made in her new book Clarrisa's England: A Gamely Gallop Through the English Counties, she said she was ''surprised any of the people who might object could read what I wrote as it is written in English.''  She added that she has ''never believed that political correctness was a reason NOT to say what I have experienced''. She went on to describe how she got lost after coming off the ring road and found herself in an area where all the men were wearing Islamic clothing and all the women were wearing burkas. ''None of the men would talk to me when I tried to find out where I was and how to get out of there. Even the women following meekly behind, if they could speak English they weren't about to show it by having a word with me.  It frightened me because it was part of my country I was born in''.

On Leicestershire, she writes of the ghettoisation in its city, saying that it demonstrates how multiculturalism has failed. She added; I have many good acquaintances and even some friends among the Muslim community but I must say that if multiculturalism is to work, which I have always been rather dubious of, surely it must be multicultural and NOT monocultural.'' Clarrisa went on to express a hopeful note; ''However, everything has an upside and one of the results of this is that Leicester has a very good selection of Asian restaurants. I can only hope that in a  generation to come there will be a merging of the cultures and not the exclusion zone that is the ghetto today.''


The Way I see It.....is when Ibrahim Mogra, (Left) the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, and a city imam, says; ''How can she judge an entire community on her one-off rare time of getting lost in Leicester?'' I say it's easy.  Especially when you hear more and more frequently the reports of purposely unassimilated Muslim neighbourhoods all around England rubbing the local citizens the wrong way with their ''holier-than-thou'' attitude with demands that non-Muslims are not welcome in invading their ''Muslim area''. To compound this dilemma you have authorities falling over themselves to be so politically correct not to offend this ratbag behaviour that it gives credibility to this type of attitude.

This English ''blissfulness'' in the face of a jihad-by-stealth ignores the fact that a network of groups led by Anjem Choudary has become the ''single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history'', according to a major investigation. This Islamic bum has ''facilitated or encouraged'' up to 80 young Muslims from the UK -- ands 250 to 300 others from across Europe-- to join al-Qaida linked forces fighting President Assad in Syria. Despite two decades of preaching filth, the 46 year old Briton has only ever been fined 500 pds for organising an illegal protest. Prime Minister David Cameron said Choudary needed ''to be looked at seriously because he strays extremely close to the line of encouraging hatred, extremism and violence.''  I think the Brits need a big dose of SPINAL COLUMN.


Saturday, December 14, 2013

Save The Planet ! Mince Eagles & Drive People Nuts !


Eagle flying over a Duke Energy Wind Turbine
The Green Religion has a lot to answer for. How do green activists in good conscience come up with schemes that scar the landscape and kill rare birds? A major U.S. power company has pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other birds and assorted bats at two wind farms and agreed to pay $1 million as part of enforcement laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities. Duke Energy pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at its Top of The World and Campbell Hill wind farms outside Casper, Wyoming. ''Wind energy is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds,'' said a disgusted Georg Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy. Editor's Note: It's also not green if it doesn't do anything measurable to stop global warming.

Now, under pressure from the wind-power industry, the idiots in the Obama administration said last week it will allow companies to kill or injure eagles without fear of prosecution for up to three decades. The new ruling is designed to address environmental consequences that stand in the way of the nation's heavily subsidized wind energy rush; that dozens of bald eagles and golden eagles are being killed each year by the giant, spinning blades of wind turbines. An investigation by the Associated Press earlier this year exposed the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret.

The sad resulting carnage of wind farms
President Obama has championed the pollution-free energy, nearly doubling America's wind power in his first term with utter disregard that this energy is more costly to the consumer than other traditional forms of power generation without any real hope of tackling global warming. The president's government has been forced to accept the not-so-green sides of green energy as a means to an end. Another AP investigation recently showed that corn-based ethanol blended into the nation's gasoline has proven more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and worse than the government acknowledges. These examples highlight Obama's willingness to accept environmental trade-offs in the misplaced hope that green energy will help fight climate change.

While in England they have a more serious consequence of wind farms. Wind industry skulduggery was exposed on the front page of the Telegraph exposing the way noise regulations governing the wind industry have been rigged by vested interests in one of the great public health scandals in many years. In the article entitled: Wind Farm Noise; Why is no one listening, by Richard cox, David Unwin and Trevor Sherman, they revel how government-approved pseudoscience underpins wind farm noise assessment. An assessment that completely ignores the fact that wind farms really create a noise nuisance. Also, that they actually disturb the sleep of people living near by and now there's a growing awareness that they can cause long-term ill health, including psychosis. There have been a number of Anti-turbine marches around England by concerned citizens.(below)

Anti-turbine march led by botanist David Bellamy
Of course, the government's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) denies a problem exists. The reality is that when granting planning permission for a wind farm the Planning Inspectorate relies on a fifteen year old noise assessment methodology known as ETSU and to date no one is aware of them ever turning down an application based solely on its potential to cause noise nuisance. Yet, acoustics expert Mike Stigwood of MAS Environmental, one of the few consultants to act for local authorities and resident groups, is aware of 70 wind farms in the UK causing a noise nuisance. RenewableUK (RUK) routinely uses its muscle to divert public attention away from the noise issue and, in particular, amplitude modulation (AM), the most intrusive feature of turbine noise and the cause of most complaints.

The occurrence of  AM, the loud beating, slapping or whoose noise from wind turbines is closely correlated with periods of high wind shear. AM is the most annoying noise characteristic of wind turbines. The wind industry and DECC consistently maintain its occurrence is rare but evidence collected shows it is responsible for all the 70 cases previously mentioned. In addition, there is mounting evidence of significant levels of low frequency noise (LFN) being measured inside homes located near turbines. LFN directly affects the health of residents even where the turbine noise is either inaudible or barely audible at all. Once again the wind power industry and Government have denied the presence of LFN. This is becoming a major health scandal.

An intimidating presence.

So who's standing up for local residents against these powerful forces? We might expect the ETSU approach to be scientifically sound and use reliable data to support these complaints. Sadly this is not the case. Noise is regarded as being to technical for most people including planning decision makers. It is therefore left to the acoustic experts who we expect to act in the residents best interests. Sadly this is not the case either. Over the entire period from 1997 onwards most of the acoustic advice drawn on by the DECC has been provided by just two acoustics consulting companies, Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP) and Hoare Lea Acoustics (HLA). These two companies are also the largest players in the wind farm acoustics consultancy industry acting for wind farm developers. The conflict of interest could not be greater.

The Way I See It....any neutral observer might have expected a substantial revision of the guidelines, or, at the very least, some careful attention to address the widespread criticism that the ETSU has attracted. This has not happened. In 2012 the DECC commissioned the Institute of Acoustics (IoA) to review how ETSU is applied and produce a Good Practice Guide (GPG). Strangely, the DECC terms of reference excluded consideration of noise limits, and excluded any consideration of the health effects of turbine noise! Incredibly, amplitude modulation, the most troublesome aspect of turbine noise and the cause of most complaints, was also excluded! And last but not least, the mention of the killing thousands of birds wasn't brought up.

A token public consultation was conducted during the summer of 2012 and the final GPG was issued in May of this year. Although several qualified individuals provided consultation submissions identifying serious scientific failings with ETSU and the draft GPG, all were ignored. The published GPG endorses some of the worst examples of pseudoscience I have seen. As a result the new guidance will permit even higher noise levels to be inflicted on local residents and by default shorter separation distances for developers to exploit. Any semblance of a peer review process has been reduced to a sham. The IoA likes to present itself as a professional organisation. However, in endorsing the reprehensible actions of the DECC, HMP and HLA, somehow I doubt it. So why is nobody listening?  And I think everybody should be screaming....COVER-UP !!

UPDATE:  Britain's Mail on Sunday reports on the great green gravy train:  ''A three-month investigation shows that some of the most outspoken campaigners who demand that consumers pay the colossal price of shifting to renewable energy are also getting rich from their efforts.
                    Four of the nine-person Climate Change Committee, the official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until very recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions.
                    A new breed of lucrative green investment funds, which were set up to expand wind farm energy, are in practice a means of taking green levies paid by hard-pressed consumers and handing them to City investors and financiers.


Friday, December 13, 2013

Why the West Wants to Make a Flawed Mandela a Saint !


As you get old and wiser one realizes that there has, for a long time now, been an enormous Western longing to find and celebrate a Third World leader as a saint. Lenin, Stalin and Mao enjoyed such acclaim at various stage, but so did, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez, and various other deadshits. In every case, they were found to have feet of clay or worse, they were selfish tin-pots with no vision for their people.

In the modern era, two men have enjoyed uncritical acclaim: Gandhi and Mandela. Yet Gandhi was a failed lawyer who had to leave India for South Africa to make a living. He denounced railways, modern medicine, hospitals and most elements of modern life. He also regarded South African blacks as mere savages and defended the Indian caste system. Besides in later life he slept naked with prepubescent girls and drank his own urine. Nelson Mandela had his full share of failings.

But in the case of Gandhi and Mandela, none of that seems to matter. This canonization seems to depend on a bottomless well of guilt about slavery, colonialism, and mistreatment of people of colour down the years. This is so obviously allied to a pursuit of the ''noble savage'' (ignoring the universal warring, raping, and kidnapping between rival tribes) and a longing to discover that somewhere, somehow, the Third World has discovered a new model, a new way which will transcend our fault-riven capitalism and our dead-end communism. It is as if by devoting oneself to one of these ''superheros'', one can receive absolution from that crushing burden of guilt.

What no one can take away is that Mandela showed extraordinary courage and fortitude through twenty-eight years in jail, and he adopted a generous attitude of forgiving his enemies when he emerged from jail. Otherwise, people exhibit an extraordinary amnesia. His presidential term started with the Shell House shootings, when ANC militants on the roof of ANC's headquarters used AK-47s to gun down Inkatha Freedom Party marchers in the streets of Johannesburg. Mandela simply refused to hand over either the murderers or their weapons, and attempted to justify this wholesale murder. Mandela and his ANC were about to turn South Africa into a Marxist country when they were bought off by the American Democrats and big multi-national business who showered the new black rulers with wealth and favorable international media coverage.

Then early in his term, Mandela's government laid off all the country's most experienced teachers, a blow from which the school system has never recovered. Mandela's administration also saw the passage of perhaps the most extreme labour laws in the world and radical affirmative action laws that saw the ruination of the civil service by mass replacement of skilled whites and Asians by mainly dumbass unskilled Africans. The civil service has also never recovered. His government also presided over a scandalous and extremely corrupt arms deal. I don't know if Mandela profited personally from this; the presumption is that he didn't. But corruption was slowly creeping into his administration.

Near the end of his administration he gave probably the most extreme speech given by any South African president when he suggested that thee was a vast conspiracy of opposition parties, NGOs and criminal gangs, al trying to overthrow the government. The object of the speech, quite transparently, was to lay out the rationale for his highly repressive measures. On top of that Mandela was quietly told that his mentions of HIV/AIDS were unpopular with black audiences so he shut up completely about the subject thereafter. Thus, it was under his administration that the disease grew to epidemic proportions in the country. Similarly, when the press criticised his ANC government he attacked it for being ''white-controlled'', even though most editors were already blank. So, despite his reputation for reconciliation, he was not slow to play the race card when it suited him.

The Way I See It......it was troubling to see Nelson Mandela's embrace of terrorism and - even as president - his lauding of corrupt dictators and men of violence. That's why I see Mandela's memorial service as a disgrace - a showcase of tyrants to honor a man who preached freedom. Speaking at his funeral was the Marxist co-dictator of the Cuban regime, a vice-president of the unelected Chinese communist party and the president of Brazil, who had once served in jail for being a member of a Marxist guerrilla group. The sole speaker from Africa other than Zuma was the socialist president of Namibia who congratulated  the brutal Zimbabwean scumbag Robert Mugabe for winning the rigged elections in July.

This white-washing of tyrants worked brilliantly, thanks in part to Barack Obama letting himself be used as a dupe:  Before he was caught taking "selfies" of himself  with British Prime Minister David Cameron and flirting with Denmark's pretty prime minister (much to Michelle's chagrin), Obama was on his way to the podium, when he unexpectedly stopped to shake hands with Cuban President Raul Castro and then President Mugabe. The crowd signalled its sympathies with the men of hate and oppression by giving them big cheers and massive applause but booed Zuma three times every time he and his four wives appeared on the big screens. Beware the sanctification of Mandela....beside his flaws, the good he did will be used to license evil.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Hawaii Five 0 was Popular when "Barry 0" was ''Popular'' !


A woman who claims to be a former childhood friend of President Barack Obama has spoken out about the president's past in an exclusive interview published nine days ago, by the web news site, the emaminer.comMia Marie Pope spoke by telephone with Dr James Manning on November 4th, and her story should be heard by everyone.  Pope gave alarming details about President Obama's life and personality while he was attending high school in Hawaii.

Ms Pope, who knew Obama as ''Barry'' while he was living in Hawaii, says she spent a lot of time hanging out with him during that time. She says she met the president in 1977 when she was about 14 years old, and although he was a few years older than her, they ran in the same circle of friends, hanging out around town and spending time on the beach in Waikiki.

''During those years, during the summertime, we as neighbourhood kids, we would sort of hang out every day. We all sort of knew each other's business,'' Pope told Dr Manning. ''He always portrayed himself as a foreign student, that didn't mean much to me then, but that's just what we knew about him.''  Questions about President Obama's birthplace have of course been circulating for several years, but Pope had much more to say about the young man she knew a ''Barry'' than his citizenship.

''He very much was within the gay community, which there was a thriving, even back then, a thriving gay community in that area, particularly the Diamondhead area,''  Pope went on to say. ''We knew Barry, just as common knowledge, that girls were never anything that he was ever interested in. As a young teenager, you know as a young girl, it was clear that was strictly into men.''  This was not the first time we have heard this type of rumour about President Obama's sexuality. Larry Sinclair, who says he met Obama in Chicago while he was serving in the Illinois legislature, claimed before the 2008 election that he had a sexual relationship with Obama, and that did cocaine together. That story has largely been kept out of the mainstream media.

The point here is that everything we have been told about Barack Obama's life and history may very well be false. It is quite possibly a conspiracy between the black leadership, Jewish supporters and the ''lamestream'' media that designed a scenario to prevent the American people from ever finding out anything about his life before he became a public figure.  On this blog site, I have exposed this sordid background about Obama and his wife in two articles posted on the 14th of April, this year. They were entitled: ''The Low Down on Barack Obama's Down-Low Club''  and  ''To Michelle, a 'Beard' By Any Other Name Would Be the Same.'' This information will shock you!

''He and I didn't even really get along,'' Pope said of her relationship with Barry, ''because one of his attributes that's still evident today is that he was even a pathological liar even back then. I'm not kidding! Every time this guy would open his mouth the most outlandish stories would come out. I remember saying, 'Barry, don't you ever get tied of lying?' It was always some self-aggrandizing thing. It was always something to egotistically boost himself. He didn't actually have a lot of friends, he was just in the periphery.''  Anyone who has objectively observed President Obama closely during his time in the public eye can certainly see that trait in him even today.


Pope also spoke extensively about Obama's drug use, specially cocaine, during the time she knew him. ''If you were going to do cocaine it was in powder form and was very expensive. Here we are, a bunch of broke teenagers, so for somebody to brag that thy had this cocaine was somewhat newsworthy within our little clique. He would get these older, white, gat men, and this is how we pretty much had this Impression that that's how was procuring this cocaine. In other words he was having sex with these older, white gay guys and that's how he was his cocaine to be able to freebase. I remember him as a ''low road'' guy. In other words, you couldn't trust his guy to walk your dog. And now I see what kind of adult his has turned out to be....still ''low road.''

The Way I See It.....with more and more of this slime bubbling up from the Obama's hidden history, it is up to each of us to decide whether or not we want to believe what Mia Pope has to say. But her story coincides with stories of others who have come forward in the past, sick of the stench. It is alarming that Barack Obama was able to attain the presidency when the public at large knew little about him or his history. This was my mission over the past years, if you go back and read my many postings of the facts that came to light, but never printed in a blinded, ignorant press that kept giving him a Teflon coating. No one can really make a fair assessment of just who Barack Obama really is without examining all the evidence that's coming available.


Monday, December 9, 2013

Iranian President says he was ''Accountable to our People.''


In a speech marking his first 100 days in office two weeks ago, President Hassan Rouhani said he was being ''accountable to our people'', a popular message that has seldom, if ever, been heard in Iran.

With the recent signing of the interim nuclear agreement with the Western powers in Geneva, after speaking briefly with President Obama who helped set up the initial meeting in Oman, Rouhani can take pride in saying he succeeded in relieving Iran of the crushing burden of financial sanctions and is lessening Iran's isolation from the rest of the world. In fact, Rouhani had made a virtue of necessity. Going into the talks, Iran was characterized by a collapsing economy and a regime increasingly isolated from the world and from its own youthful, restive population. All had learned to look for signals from the strident style of that asshole, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Half of Iran's population is under the age of 25, and, as New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof discovered on a lengthy road trip across Iran last year, most young adults are pro-American. They play video games, they have satellite television, they like sports cars and they dream of going abroad to Europe and the united States. These were the same young people who took to the streets of Tehran in 2009 in the Green Revolution (below), to protest the re-election of Ahmadinejad and who disobey the regime's strict laws every day. Women push up their sleeves, baring more skin than the law allows, young men drink alcohol and they flock to Iran's many amusement parks rather than the mosques.


If Iran were left alone, say some exiled Iranians in another decade or two it would moderate, the power of the clerics would fade and Iran would begin to resemble Turkey: Islamic, but socially moderate and economically free. But two decades is a long wait for millions of young Iranians who are increasingly influenced by Western culture but have less money and fewer opportunities as Iran has succumbed to the effect of international sanctions. Foreign-made luxuries became harder to find and it became difficult for Iranians to travel abroad.

Clearly, Rouhani sees the writing on the wall: The regime cannot maintain its hold on Iran over the long term if it is not seen to have legitimacy. He will have to pull up deep roots if he is to bring real change to Iran. The 1979 revolution that swept the theocratic regime into power marked a turning point  not only in Iran's dealings with the world but also with its citizens. Years of economic prosperity under Shah Reza Pahlavi gave way to repressive social and cultural practices forced on Iranians who observed them grudgingly.

The ''religious and moral purity'' claimed by the revolution's powerful clerics turned out to be illusory. One of the most powerful arms of the government, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, portrays itself as the guardian of the revolution. Its allegiance has a steep price; the Guard over time spread its tentacles into many facets of the Iranian economy, including profiting from financial interest in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. As with so many revolutions that go astray, Iran has devolved into a society with a small number of privileged elites who enjoy luxuries while the bulk of the population see its standard of living decline. The corruption among the powerful elites will not be easily resolved. Rouhani shows no desire to take on these entrenched people directly.

The Way I See It.....Rouhani will have room to manoeuvre for the time being. His policies on reducing inflation, relaxation of some security restrictions and the drafting of a citizen's rights document are well received by the man on the street, no small consideration for a regime that perhaps fears more than anything a popular uprising similar to 1979. Rouhani's policies are providing relief for a population disgruntled by the previous leadership. That alone seems to be winning him approval from Iran's Supreme leader Ali Khamenei ( photo right ).

Rouhani knows his domestic support is no unlimited. He has created and now must deal with rising expectations at home, and failure to meet them could derail his presidency. It remains to be seen whether he can negotiate a comprehensive deal on the nuclear problem. At the same time, hard-line elements within the government almost certainly will be unwilling to end a nuclear program that ran has built over decades which in turn would likely result in sanctions being restored. This is the ambitious agenda of an ardent nationalist who is taking a clear-eyed view of his nation's problems and challenges.

Friday, December 6, 2013

My Letter to a Fellow Brisbanite !


 Dear Janelle,
   I read with much chagrin the article in the Centenary News that you have returned from America after being brainwashed at a conference run by Al Gore. It would've been much better if you spent some time in the company of Professor Richard S. Lindzen, arguably the world's most prominent climate scientist. He is the Professor of Atmospheric Sciences emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology not like that washed-up politician Gore living off his past glory; the so-called documentary with 33 exposed lies, omissions and false science riddled through it.

    Professor Lindzen testified to the US Committee on Science and Technology about how many billions of dollars have been squandered on pretending to do something about the weather. On placating the great Climate God!  He added, that Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It also has been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.

    He goes on; Global warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint....(is this you?). Global warming has almost successfully co-opted institutional science making even respectable scientists give into slurping at the government subsidies trough. However, the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.

    He states; I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is even though it makes up only 0.038% of our atmosphere. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increased CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to innumerable claimed catastrophies. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and the connection of this minimal warming to purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which these terrible claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such.

    Let's get real....current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure of any real warming over 16 years makes the case even less plausible as does the added evidence from Climategate and other instances of overt cheating. In the meantime, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age. Lindzen cites a Professor Lockwood of Reading University reports some startling findings. He says solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years and raising the risk of a new Little Ice Age.

    How much waste are you willing accept before the cost of this Cock-Robin Syndrome becomes so crippling that it forces politicians to admit voters have been conned...and fleeced?  While you go around our lovely city and proselytise to the innocent with phony facts and deluded science the charts don't lie (see attached Chart). Even the IPCC has to admit the truth about NO WARMING and also mentions that hurricanes and droughts are not due to climate change...it's just WEATHER!
 
   The push to sustainability has made hypocrites out of the environmentalists with government subsidies building eyesores on the landscape known as Wind Turbines which are killing millions of birds and bats every year for the priciest electricity while ignoring the logic of clean, cheap SAFE nuclear power....such stupid, selfish hypocrites. It's a shame they are not ridiculed!  I just hope you overcome your awe of this Climate Hysteric and Resident Phony who loves to cherry-pick his  evidence and join the growing movement of rational thought, evidence and science. The Gravy Train is ending for those people who have sold their souls to climate-change dogma. It's time to wave Good-bye.

    I've written to you in all sincerity,
            Dr Frank P Mechler



Thursday, November 28, 2013

Think Before You Ink: Tattoos May Cause Cancer !


I don't know about you, but I've never gotten a tattoo and after reading this study I am glad I avoided them. If you've gotten a tattoo, or thought about it, chances are high that you weighed the artistic and social aspects of it far more than the health aspects. In fact, you may not even e aware that there is a health aspect to receiving a tattoo -- other than the inherent risks of infection, allergic reaction or disease transmission if equipment is not properly sterilized.

Research is increasingly showing, however, that there might be health risks involved, especially if your tattoo design has large areas of black ink, as the ink itself may be toxic.! I've heard it said that ''tattoo ink is quite nonreactive histologically, despite the frequent use of different pigments of unknown purity and identity by tattoo artists.'' However, University of Bradford researchers using an atomic-force microscope (AFM) that allows them to examine skin with tattoos at the nano-level have found evidence that suggests otherwise. In a preliminary study (the first to use an AFM), the researchers found that the tattoo process remodels collagen (your body's main connective tissue).

Further, nanoparticles from tattoo ink were found to exist in both the collagenous network of the skin as well as around blood vessels. This suggests that the ink particles are leaving the surface of your skin and traveling elsewhere in your body, where they could potentially enter organs, glands and other tissues. This is problematic because tattoo inks are largely unregulated and known to contain-cancer causing compounds. The researchers believe the issue could become a significant public health concern given the rise in tattooing in the last decade.


The researchers released a press statement saying: ''We need to do more work, but there is no question that these substances can be toxic. It takes a long time for the multi-step nature of cancer to show its face and we don't think we should wait to see if there is anything wrong with these ingredients. We also feel, since nanoparticles are ultramicroscopic in size, thereby making them able to readily penetrate your skin and travel to underlying blood vessels and into your bloodstream. Our evidence suggests that some nanoparticles may induce toxic effects in your brain and cause nerve damage.''

In 2011, a study in The British Journal of Dermatology revealed that nanoparticles are indeed found in tattoo inks, with BLACK pigments containing the smallest particles (WHITE pigments had the largest particles and COLOURED pigments were in between. With the exception of the white pigments, the study noted that ''the vast majority of the tested tattoo inks contained significant amounts of these nanoparticles. The Black pigments were almost pure nanoparticles. It looks like the Black-ink in tattoos may be the riskiest and is most often linked to the potential of adverse health effects like inflammation and DNA damage.''

I have read that black inks are usually based on soot and many contain hazardous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), (a Class 1 carcinogen according to the International Agency of Research on Cancer). Part of PAHs stay lifelong in the skin, absorb UV radiation which then can generate deleterious singlet oxygen inside the dermis layer. The Friends of the Earth - a global network of grassroots groups - is among those now calling for proper regulation of tattoo inks amidst the new findings that they may contribute to cancer.


The Way I See It.....until further research is completed it may be wise to ''think before you ink.''  I'm typically a major advocate of technology, but I have mixed feeling about the use of nanotechnology, particularly when it comes to exposing your body to these complex molecules for non-essential purposes like tattoos. If harnessed properly, however, nanotechnology has the potential to make major strides in conventional medicine and other areas like environmental remediation and sustainable energy.


Contrary to older toxicology risk models, less is more; by reducing a particle's size the technology has now made that substance capable of evading the body's natural defences more easily, i.e. passing through pores in the skin or mucous membranes, evading immune and detoxification mechanisms that evolved millions of years before the nanotech era we're in.  Interestingly, there is a growing sub-culture of ''Tattoo Regreters'' with many people, mostly women, who feel their body art had come by way of peer pressure, personal baggage and/or a growing obsession that needed to be relegated to past history. At least tattoo removal procedures are getting easier if not less painful.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Attack on Complementary Medicine ''Undermines Safety'' !


Justin Norrie, Editor, of  The Conversation, an independent news website writes.........

Cutting complementary (alternative) medicine courses from universities would dilute the quality of the education available and threaten safe practice but have no impact on demand for it, according to academics writing in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA). In an emphatic response to recent comments by Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), a body, I mentioned my previous posting, that is committed to stemming the spread of ''pseudoscience'' in medicine, the authors accuse some of the medical orthodoxy of trying to stifle divergent views. Just like the global warmists not listening to the deniers and getting egg on their faces.

A strong retort was given by Stephen Myers, a Professor of Complementary Medicine at southern Cross University and co-authors in warning that there is ''a great danger for the public if complementary medicine practice is allowed to develop outside mainstream education. It would definitely undermine safe practice and critical appraisal.'' Among the co-authors was Dr Kerryn Phelps, former President of the AMA and Adjunct Professor at the School of Public Health in the University of Sydney. She added, ''Science sets out to rigorously eliminate bias, not assert it. The FSM's arguments are highly emotive and, while having a gloss of superficial reasonableness, they do not stand up to critical review.''


Dr  Stephan  Myers
Professor Myers said that alternative medicine was a broad field that could not be described with generalisations. It was important, he added, to distinguish the major professional and university-based disciplines of traditional Chinese medicine, Chiropractic, Osteopathy and Naturopathy from ''fringe practices, and the actions of rogue or unqualified practitioners.'' Two ''comprehensive reviews'' of complementary medicine practice and training in Australia over the past 15 years had both supported the movement of Chinese medicine and Naturopathy and Western herbal medicine into a university setting, ''just as earlier reviews had done for chiropractic and osteopathy.''  Professor Myers firmly added that, ''It is not melodramatic to point out that if the Friends of Science in Medicine were to succeed in their stated aims, they would achieve a dystopia -- a medical 1984  where only one way of knowing the body in health and illness is permitted in public discourse.''

But John Dwyer, the condescending president of FSM and Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales said that his fundamentalist organisation strongly supports research into currently alternative approaches to see if they are credible and there is sufficient evidence to warrant  science dollars being used to settle the question whether these supposed treatments are effective or not. He said, ''No amount of dogmatic pronouncement and assertions uttered by individuals who have invented various treatments, often centuries ago, and who are still blindly followed to this day, despite of scientific discovery and advancement in medicine should go unexamined.'' (I ask you, where has this douse bag been the last 50 years? Sorry John the examinations have been done)

The Way I See It.....the FSM's views exceed the boundaries of reasoned debate and risk compromising the values that the FSM claims to support. While there was now an extensive evidence base for complementary therapies, the concept of evidence-based allopathic medicine was highly contested within Western medicine itself.  Professor of Medicine at Monash University, Paul Komesaroff, writing in the MJA, said ''It is not appropriate for doctors or scientists with a particular view of medicine to impose those views on the whole community. It is important that those who seek to be friends of science do not inadvertently become its enemies. We call on the members of FSM to revise their tactics and instead support open, respectful dialogue in the great spirit and tradition of science itself.

UPDATE:  Last week, a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia by researches from the University of Melbourne provided the best picture yet of the most common conditions treated by chiropractors and suggests most chiropractic treatments and consultations undertaken in the country are EVIDENCE BASED! The study was the first of its kind in the world and provided the most detailed information yet published on chiropractic practice. I think now Dr Dwyer and his Whores of Big Pharma should leave the stage and fade away.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Immigration or Colonisation By Stealth ?


BRISBANE AIRPORT :  (This was overheard by a patient of mine, last week, standing at the luggage carrousel next to a little old lady and a woman in a burqa ).

Old lady turning to Muslim woman:  ''Excuse me dear, I mean no offence, but isn't it hot under that burqa?''
Muslim woman (abruptly):  ''Believe me.....you'll soon be finding out what it's like wearing a burqa.''
Old lady:  "Well, my dear at my age I'm sure I won't be around to see it. If not. I'll make sure I have two bullets....one for you then one for me!''   That shut her up!

Different Styles of Muslim Dress
There you have it, my warnings over the three and half years of blog postings mentioning the world-wide Islamist underground agenda of Stealth Jihad are well founded. Again, the question is why we in Australia have allowed in people who in sentiment and even clothing declare themselves not of this society. I just returned from a professional seminar in Sydney's CBD and heard that hundreds of Muslims attended a community meeting in western Sydney and they were warned that they should refuse to co-operate with Australian government and its associated agencies, including Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) and federal police.

The annual conference of Hizb ut-Tahrir heard speakers say the federal government had a covert plan to marginalize and suppress activist and traditional Islam under the guise of engagement and fostering harmony with moderates in the community. ASIO says more moderate leaders have helped keep down tensions, especially over Syria. We are thankfully past the low point when Muslim groups elected as Grand Mufti of Australia the extremist Taj el-Din al-Hilali, who hailed the September 11 attacks as ''God's work against oppressors.'' Unfortunately, this Sheik still preaches at Lakemba Mosque - Australia's biggest - and he has young radical preachers now whip up potentially lethal resentments, particularly when Australian soldiers are fighting jihadists overseas or when the police arrest them at home.

In an address entitled Forging an Independent Path for the Community, speaker Wassim Doureihi   told the 600-strong audience gathered in that hall that many Muslims had been cowed by the federal government and its agencies into abandoning traditional and activist Islam. He added that those imams and other Muslim community leaders who co-operated with the government lent legitimacy to what Mr Doureihi claimed was Canberra's campaign against Muslims at home and abroad.  ''They sit at the table with those who are waging war against Muslims,'' he said....knowing full well that Muslims are waging war with the West as often as they can. Most Australians would say, ''Go home if you don't like it here and take your non-assimilation with you!''

Wassim Doureihi in Sydney

Just last week, ASIO's report to Parliament exploded some sweet lies we've been told about our immigration program. Here's one: immigration brings only good things, like falafel. Here's another: there's still only a ''tiny, unrepresentative minority'' of Muslim extremists here, A ''handful''. HANDFUL?  Check the ASIO report: ''This year ASIO....investigated several hundred mostly Australia-based individuals who are advocates of a violent Islamist ideology. In fact, we already have 20 Muslims jailed for terrorism-related offences and we fear more may come as there has been an increase in Australians travelling overseas to participate in terrorist training or engage in foreign disputes, like Syria. The concern is the likelihood of radicalised Australians returning home with an increased commitment and capability to pursue violent acts on our shores.''

When five Muslims were jailed in Sydney for a terrorist plot to attack a local Army base, 30 Muslim ''community leaders'' and imams signed a statement at the Lakemba Mosque, claiming ''the reason for the arrests and convictions is that these young men expressed opinions that contradict Australia's foreign policy towards majority Muslim countries.'' There seems to be a huge amount of denial in Western Sydney. ASIO's report didn't cover other evidence that significant minority of some Muslim groups have struggled to integrate. For instance, those of Lebanese descent have high rates of unemployment, welfare dependency and imprisonment, and high rates of bikie gang membership. Add this danger sign: Of the 18 terrorist groups banned in Australia, 17 are Islamist. Even the exception, the Stalinist PKK, is from the Middle East. 

The Way I See It.....our immigration policies have been incredibly reckless, thanks to politicians more concerned with seeming good than achieving security for Aussie citizens. We have been bringing in more than 10,000 refugee a year from Muslim lands - especially ones in which jihadism is worst. Many have little English and few skills. Not surprisingly, just 9% of Afgan adults find work here even five years after arriving. Yet, just last month, the Abbott Government said it would accept another 500 refugees from Syria's war between jihadists and the Assad regime. Few would be any better equipped to integrate than were the refugees we took in from Lebanon's civil war and who formed a community (ghetto) which now makes up a quarter of our Muslim population - but which has produced nearly two thirds of those charged with terrorism offences.

The ethnic link is so pronounced that Australia's immigration laws needs revision. The mandatory deportation of gang members, both foreign and domestic is being pushed by the Queensland government that's aimed at stemming the flow of Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander recruits into gangs. There should be no argument about this. An immigration system which leaves Australians in more danger from being robbed, bashed, shot or otherwise menaced is not just a failure but a betrayal. Besides...there are just so many falafels Aussies can eat.

 

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Very Radical Racist Background of Michelle Obama !


I did some background checking into Michelle Obama and her links with socialists, communists and other ranking radicals that wish nothing more than to destroy the United States as it is, and create a brand new United States! I've exposed three of Barack Obama's socialist mentors (31August - 3 September, 2012) that infected him with a distaste for the American society as a whole. This may sound shocking but it is true. Some of the words spoken by Michelle and her husband have come directly from that radical book entitled Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky. I have exposed Alinsky's background in a previous posting  (OBAMA: Lucifer is My Homeboy! - 13 September, 2012) Check it out.

Since it is hard to find her high school history, I'll start with Michelle LaVaughn Robinson's college days....and what days they turned out to be. In a February, 2008 interview with Newsweek, Michelle Obama revealed that she got into Princeton, not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig,  star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the university. As a ''legacy'' candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied. She got her college education due to her brother and her ethnicity, not her excellence in academics.

So why is she such an ungrateful radical racist woman? Let's take a look to see just what she was doing at Princeton while she was there and what types of people she had as her close friends. Some of Michelle's contacts were of the Marxist/socialist types. Charles Johnson wrote in 2012 that he remembers ''Michelle Obama attended and promoted a Black Solidarity event for guest lecturer Manning Marable, ( left ) who was professor of African-American Studies at Columbia University and according to sources, probably the best known black Marxist in the country.'' The event was the work of The Third World Center (TWC), a campus group whose board membership was exclusively reserved for only minorities. Michelle Robinson is listed as a junior member of the eleven members on the board.

We must now wonder, why did the people elect a man with a wife that has such a background, mixed with Marxism and Communism associations. Michelle Robinson's racial animosity of Caucasian people is exposed through her articles and statements from the time she was at Princeton. One can see this in her expressed ideas that the white population at Princeton were a bunch of ''racist'' individuals. The TWC governing board's obsession with race irrupted in an editorial in October, 1981. They took great offense to an op-ed titled ''Rebuilding Race Relations,'' calling the article ''racist, offensive and inaccurate'' for daring to question the group's true commitment on race relations. They wrote a scathing letter to the editor; ''The word RE-building implies that race relations once existed and, for some mysterious reason, fell apart. we, on the other hand, believe that race relations have never been at a satisfactory level. We cannot RE-build something that never existed in the first place.'' 

Michelle and Barack at a Marxist meeting
Princeton was getting more and more concerned about the self-segregation by black students and proposed reforms to counter it, including no longer permitting black students to all room together n one dorm and integrating black freshmen into the general student body. The TWC strenuously opposed all of these reforms, arguing that integration of non-white students would harm the ''support system'' available to them, especially blacks. Once again Michelle sent off another scathing letter stating, ''Don't hide behind excuses and reasons to integrate the college campus on our part. The bottom line is that white students on this campus are racist, but they may not realize it and minority strife would worsen.''  You can see that Michelle was actually biting the hand that fed her!

It looked like Michelle was in a group that found fault with anything that dealt with ethnicity. In 1983 she did more than make meetings and express her seemingly hate for whites, she went on with the TWC and made demands for minority only meetings. She would be up in arms to stop such meetings if they were to the exclusion of minorities. Yet it was fine, and even better, when she stood alongside a segregation policy that banned whites from any meetings held by the TWC! This is well noted in statements recorded in 1984; ''The TWC's board demands that non-white students should have the right to bar whites from their meetings on campus.'' The ban was frankly unnecessary, since whites were made to feel unwelcome at the meetings if they were invited at all.

The Way I See It.....Michelle Robinson (Obama) did not like the idea of all ethnicities working together, and would rather have them separate from each other. However, this is not what America had been working towards. It had been working, since the mid-1960s, towards having ethnic groups working together and not apart. This was so people could be together as one nation, as the Founding Fathers had proscribed and the efforts of the civil rights movement to bring to reality.

Yet it was Michelle that had stated that race relations at Princeton were deficient. However, it seems she was part of the problem. She sat on the board of the TWC to force Princeton to have separate meetings for minorities without any whites allowed. This attitude does not bring ethnicities together to discuss any sensitive issues they may have and therefore doesn't resolve problems. It would make them worse due to the distancing of those minorities from the white population. This would only breed suspicion amongst the white population at what the minorities were planning next to disrupt the running of the university. However, this was just the beginning for Michelle Robinson as she learned to use Saul Alinsky's works, a man she admired along with her husband Barack.


All Together Now: "LIAR, LIAR....Pants on Fire !''


It's disgusting to see how often Obama's ''useful idiots'' in the media defend his lying?  How many times did Barack Obama make that false claim about his signature legislation?  Time after time, before and after the law went into effect, the President and his aides have promised that people who liked their current health insurance would be able to keep it under the Affordable Care Act.

''If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,'' Obama said in a speech to the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009. ''If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matte what.'' The president and his cronies have repeated variations on the pledge countless times. The thing is, he wasn't telling the truth; So imagine the surprise of many Americans last week when they received notices that their health insurance policies were being cancelled.

The reality is....right from the start, Obama's team knew this was a lie, but approved it!  One former senior administration official said that as the law was being crafted by the White House and lawmakers, some White House policy advisors objected to the breadth of Mr Obama's ''keep your plan'' promise. They were overruled by political aides, the former official said. Some aides believed that the (inadequate) grandfather clause was enough to make Obama's assurance true enough, but the White House clearly didn't want to confuse people with the full story of the disruptions that would occur under the law.

Now Obama is lying about the lying!  He says he said, Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed.''  Yeah...right. So it is so very useful to Obama to have a leftist paper like the New York Times spin for him, calling a lie something nicer. An editorial in their Sunday Review page entitled ''Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping'' they wrote "Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that by law insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don't provide the minimum benefits required as of next year.''  MISSPOKE? As in accidentally used the wrong words? The New York Times is a disgrace. It lies to defend a lie by a liar who now lies about it , too. Team Obama members, like Debbie Schulz, (above) came out publicly to also back up her boss's falsehood.

Former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney, on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' accused the president of ''fundamental dishonesty'' with his ObamaCare promise. ''He wasn't telling the truth and he, and now we, know it!  That fundamental dishonesty has really - has really put in peril the whole foundation o his second term,'' Romney said. "I think it is rotting it away. What has really undermined the president's credibility in the hearts of the American people is that he went out, as a centrepiece of ObamaCare over the last several years, saying time and time again that fundamental to his plan was the right people would have to keep their insurance, and he knew that was not the case.''

Romney added; Had the president been truthful and told the American people that millions would lose their insurance and millions more would see their premiums skyrocket...there would have been such a hue and cry against it, that it would not have passed. So Mr Obama turned deceitful.''
The White House quickly went on the defensive. They brought out Ezekiel Emanual, an architect of the Obama plan. He explained, ''You would expect at this stage of the game (?) after the initial shock wears off, that not a lot of people will sign up. People will put off buying until the end.'' The flawed debut of the health website, with delays, outages and software errors, is tarnishing Obama's legislative achievement and has complicated his second term agenda as his approval rating dropped.

Veteran Comedian Jackie Mason
Forty-seven percent of Americans (most likely the ones not on government handouts) said the government is doing a ''poor'' job of implementing the health law, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found. Thirty-seven percent say the law itself should be repealed. ''I think government is inherently inept, because they don't work on a profit motive,'' Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said on the ''This Week'' program. ''I would say that there are fundamental things government can do. But government shouldn't take on new opportunities or new things to do when it's not managing what it has now.''  Comedian Jackie Mason, last week, said on a radio interview that ''this President of ours finds it easy to lie, and then when found out, he lies to cover the lie. He is a pathological liar and should be locked up in a sanatorium!''

The Way I See It.....the right way to deal with health care reform is not to have a one-size-fits-all plan that's imposed on all the states, but recognizing the differences between different states' populations, states should be able to craft their own plans to get all their citizens insured, and to make sure that the pre-existing conditions are covered. I think they are going to find, when it's all said and done, after all these states, getting away from Obama's socialist agenda, that are now laboratories of democracy get their chance to try their own plans and find the best path that'll end up with a nation that has taken a mandate approach. Romney's final word says ''Obama must work with Republicans if he's going to fix the mess that the ObamaCare rollout has become.''

UPDATE:  Obama's overall job rating has dropped to 41% since last December. A majority (53%) now disapproves of the way he is handling his job as president.