JoanSharonNovember 24, 2009 12:01 pm

Ed Pilkington in
New York
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 22 November 2009 19.45 GMT

Neil Sankey has spent his life investigating organised crimes. As a former British police officer with almost 20 years experience, he was seconded to elite units of Scotland Yard through most of the 1970s and now runs his own private detective agency in California.

Over the years he has been involved in some big investigations. As part of the Special Branch and Bomb Squad he monitored British leftwing groups and the IRA, and in America his clients have included several big car companies.

Birthers against Obama: ‘An illegal president, a foreign imposter’ Link to this audio

But never has he handled anything quite as monumental as the investigation that is absorbing his energies today.

Sankey is pursuing what he believes to be fraud on a gigantic scale — a conspiracy, no less, to infiltrate and destroy the free world by putting a foreign imposter into the White House.

Sankey is a member of the fringe alliance known widely as the Birthers (he dislikes the expression, considering it pejorative). Together with other activists, he seeks to prove that Barack Obama is not a true American and is therefore ineligible to be president.

Over the past year Sankey has been at the centre of some of the most aggressive efforts by the Birthers to unseat the president. At the end of last year he tried to block Obama’s inauguration by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president. More recently, he has carried out his own probe into Obama’s personal identification history which has revealed, he believes, a suspicious multiplicity of social security numbers.

Sankey says his fascination began with the realisation “that this man wasn’t what he said he was. He wasn’t an ordinary Democrat — he was far more extreme than that.” So about a year ago he began reading blogs and websites that claimed to expose Obama’s foreign roots, his spurious Hawaiian birth certificate and the $2m White House cover-up that has prevented the public finding out about the plot.

His travels put him in touch with Orly Taitz, one of the most energetic and flamboyant of the Birther leaders. Of Moldovan extraction, she emigrated via Israel to California where she works as a dentist and lawyer. She has filed numerous legal suits around the country on behalf of serving US military personnel attempting to prevent their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds that they should not be taking orders from an illegally serving commander-in-chief.

Sankey’s journey from having worked in some of the most elite police units in Britain to taking part in a movement dedicated to the pursuit of a paranoid conspiracy theory may seem bizarre. But he insists it has been a natural progression. He joined the Hampshire force in 1961, and was seconded as a detective sergeant to Scotland Yard where he developed a specialism tracking leftwing political groups and the IRA.

“We created an operation into what we called revolutionary criminality — monitoring leftwing bookshops and extremist literature, following the leftist fringe and the Marxist links of the IRA.”

In 1980 he moved to California, set up his agency, and became a naturalised American in 1985.

Sankey contends that his police experience in England now informs his fight against Obama. “It’s quite obvious to me — America is heading towards a socialised state just as has happened in Europe. Socialised medicine, everyone on the dole, and when everything collapses you tip the scales into Marxism.”

He also believes his training in Scotland Yard is now reaping benefits for the Birthers. The same techniques he used to analyse the IRA’s associations he is now applying to Obama. Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president — but he believes it raises further doubts that need investigating.

Taitz says Sankey’s UK police expertise has been invaluable. “He has had superb training. I have the greatest respect for Scotland Yard.”

The Birther movement is not a unique phenomenon within US politics. Bill Clinton was accused by conspiracy theorists of having murdered his friend and White House legal adviser Vince Foster; George Bush had to contend with the Truthers who believe he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

But the Birthers are unlike previous movements in that they are focused on who Obama is rather than what he does.

“There is no other president who has had his citizenship questioned in this way,” says Patricia Turner, an expert in folklore at the University of California, Davis. Turner says that the popular Birther theories that Obama has used fake Hawaiian documents to disguise the fact he was born in Kenya or Indonesia are retellings of an old story. “This is just a proxy for old-fashioned racism. They are driven by hostility towards anything they see as foreign or exotic.”

Although the Birthers are on the fringe of American politics, they are part of a wider surge of rightwing anger towards Obama’s perceived socialist policies that is sweeping the country.

As such they can command considerable support. An internet petition demanding an official inquiry into Obama’s origins has been signed by almost 500,000; critics say the number is inflated by multiple clicks.

Like any virulent conspiracy theory, that of Obama’s birth has proved immune to the intervention of fact. When Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii was digitally scanned for all to see, it was denounced as a forgery. The birth notices printed by two Hawaii newspapers announcing his birth in August 1961 were similarly dismissed.

Dozens of legal actions have been brought before the courts by Taitz and other Birther leaders, and so far every one has been thrown out. Last month a federal judge dismissed Taitz’s lawsuit seeking to challenge the chain of military command up to Obama as commander-in-chief. In a devastating ruling, the judge accused Taitz of trying to “emasculate the military” in a way that would “leave this country defenceless”.

None of these setbacks have dissuaded Sankey. He says accusations of racism are smears that he has come to expect. “The objection is not Obama’s colour but his politics. I like him as a person, I just wish he was genuine.”

Political PyroNovember 21, 2009 10:47 pm

This from the THINKPROGRESS Web Site:

This week, both the websites of CafePres.com and Zazle.com decided to stop selling merchandise that featured the latest right-wing craze: the slogan “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” However, Cafe Press then changed its mind and told ThinkProgress that it was reinstating the merchandise, which fell within “fair political commentary.”

Whether it’s “fair political commentary” was quickly questioned. While 109:8 reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the next line is, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow,” suggesting far more violent rhetoric than simple criticism. Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet has explained that Psalm 109 is “considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.”

This From the POLITICALPYRO.Blog

The new item is more to the point… so to speak. Shown here by Speaker of the House D-Nancy Pelosi, the new item gives the “American voter a view of how we are going to stick it to them”, exclaimed a worked-up Pelosi.

“Sales are through the bottom and up to the roof” said a light hearted and gay unnamed source at contributors.blogsome.com. “We never expected that this item would bring so much pleasure to so many, it was truly unexpected joy and an uplifting moment for us.”

The portion of the Psalm 120:2 that the Pelosi strap-on is speaking too is verse 2:

Deliver my soul,
O LORD, from lying lips,
From a deceitful tongue.

Sources outside the White House said that the “Forgive Obama’s Lies” strap-on incorporated the big three (Religion, Politics and Sex) where the Bear and Button only had just two. The sources went on to say…” Any time you can merge those three things, you have what we deem here in Washington the ‘Bill Clinton Tri-fecta’.”

I leave it up to you… A cuddly bear, or a Pelosi and her strap-on…

Terry Lanciotti 1:28 pm

SEIU’s alleged ballot fraud during a union election in Fresno, CA. this week has a video to back the allegations. SEIU’s fraud wasn’t against political opponents or some evil capitalist. No, SEIU’s fraud was against a brother/sister labor union.

SEIU has been engaged in a fire-fight with the National Union of Health Workers. For SEIU, it isn’t enough that workers are unionized, but they must be unionized AND their dues flow into the purple political machine. The video features SEIU official David Regan, who ran the union’s voting campaign. Keep in mind, again, the “opponents” he mentions aren’t Republicans or businesses, but another labor union.


Watching this insane lunatic reminds me of a scene from Godfather III… Calo whispers to Lucchesi, “Power wears out those who do not have it”, then fatally stabs Lucchesi through the throat with his own glasses.


Obama and his thugs should remember… “Power wears out those who do not have it”

Sic Transit GloriaNovember 7, 2009 6:41 pm

Reports early today from inside Russia suggest that a link exist between the Obama Administration and the H1N1 Virus.

It has yet to be confirmed, but sources inside several militant Muslim groups throughout the Middle East and as far west as China have been working together in an effort -proposed by the Muslim faction of the Obama adminastration- to bring about this “World Pandemic Scare and Panic”.

“The ends justify the means,” a person close inside the N1H1 Network Scare said yesterday. “We see this as a way for Obama, and all Muslims… to take control of the US government by Executive Order and forgo the whole legislative process,” The source further added, “If you look at the way they (US) handled 9-11, this risk of a Global Pandemic will have legislators hands in cuffs and Obama’s pen running dry,” -With all the Executive Orders he will sign- “By the end of November.”

There is also that little “bone” that they threw Obama for his compliance. HealthCare and the pending legislation. “If you look at it,” -HealthCare Legislation- “He -Obama- could have had a little piece early or right after he was elected, but he -Obama- wanted it all, so we suggested that he use the H1N1 scare we were working on as the hammer, and told him to wrap it all in one nice bundle.”

Reports throughout the world continue to tell us of thousands of deaths as the virus spreads like wildfire across the continent of Eurasia. But here in the US, the death rate does not match the scare rate and that has many US citizens puzzled. “If you look at it, he -Obama- has already got his toes wet with a couple Executive Orders that deal with managing the control of the outbreak, imagine what he will be able to do once we get things to fevered pitch.”

An unnamed source close to the Obama administration added today, “There is no doubt that we as Americans have a mindset that we can fix the world, no doubt. And now with all our efforts coming to fruition, the administration can now pull out the rubber stamp and make America a socialist country.”

Marion Valentine added…

It could very well be true, anything to further the progress towards Global Socialist Government. Isn’t it strange that Ft. Rucker whose labs develop countermeasures to Biochemical warfare, and develop vaccines was missing several “vials” of an undisclosed virus and 3 days later 20 polo ponies from Mexico at a match in Florida dropped dead… and then a few days later, even though it was not flu season, H1N1 broke out…..hmmmmmm

Marion ValentineOctober 24, 2009 12:39 pm

As I predicted, though I was unsure whether it would be the H1N1 virus or the collapse of the dollar the Communist Puppet (Barack Obama) would use to cement his total control over ever aspect of our lives.

From the day he took office, Obama and his puppet masters have been building a shadow Government with all power vested in them. The Czars he has appointed who were not vetted and approved by Congress nor elected now have the authority to control every aspect of American commerce.

I challenge you to look at the Executive Orders that have been signed over the last 30 years and are still in place.

Also carefully read the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act. They are listed here America In Peril You will see that with the Executive Orders already in place, combined with the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act, with the stroke of a pen Obama can suspend the Constitution, the Judiciary, Elections and in effect declare himself president for life.

The next step In the wannabe dictators plan is to declare Martial Law, confiscate all privately owned firearms, round up all dissenters and move to detention centers.

Also there will be detention centers for those who have the H1N1 virus.

A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, un-passed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a “drug crisis”.

It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially.

These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis.

Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971.

Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, “I hereby declare a national emergency”, thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.

This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House. The power provided by these “laws” allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J Ruff:

“Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

Next we will look at all legislation passed or attempted by the dishonest Socialist regardless if they call themselves Progressive, Liberal, Independent, Republican, or Democrat.

If you have a computer you can look up the legislation.

Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Here are the later Executive Orders:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

Marion A. Valentine
U.S.N. Intelligence Service (disabled)

K.T.KnightcrawlOctober 1, 2009 10:41 am

UPDATE!!!!COURT ORDER FINALIZES SCHEDULE FOR TRIAL!

by John Charlton

(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.

The order, reads as follows:

On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.

Case Management dates are as follows:

Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was , or will be, in whole or in part DENIED!

AND READ THIS..
Taitz files Motion for Relief, in Barnett vs. Obama

October 7, 2009 by John Charlton
ACTION FOLLOWS MINUTE ORDER FINALIZING DATES, DISAGREEMENT WITH DEFENSE ON PROCEEDING IN DISCOVERY — Captain Barnett gives her reaction

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months
from now!

CLICK HERE FOR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

CLICK HERE FOR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing
today 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
today, instead setting a hearing date for Oct. 5, 2009 since Obama’s
attorneys had just filed the motion on Friday. 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. I guess 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 plaintiff’s attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a
great job and won some huge victories today. She was fearless!

Jeff Schwilk, Founder

UPDATE: 11:43 am Pst The ruling- Motion to Dismiss will undergo further review by Justice Carter. No order for discovery.

11:50 am Pst Gary reported the court is in recess and finished for the day. Initially Justice Carter was leaning to dismiss the case and accept Defendant’s MTD, however Orly Taitz and Gary Creeps made a very impassioned argument and the gallery burst into applause, the US Marshall’s did not stop the outburst, and it was felt Justice Carter was swayed by the outburst to not throw out the MTD but rather reconsider his decision.

He advised both parties no matter his ruling, both would be able to appeal to a higher court.

FOLLOW THIS CASE HERE >>The Post & Email< <

NOTE
BECOME A PYRO CONTRIBUTOR>>> BLAST US, LOVE US… WE WANT YOUR THOUGHTS PRO OR AGAINST. WE WILL NOT CENSOR YOU SUBMISSIONS. SIGN UP AND START PUTTING YOUR IDEAS HERE!

Terry LanciottiSeptember 27, 2009 10:08 am

Obama’s Answer to the ACORN Sex Scandal:

As I look at the Polanski situation one glaring question needs to be answered. Why now?

Searching through the information I have found on the internet concerning the details of Polanski, a few glaring truths hit you in the face. He (Polanski) did it, he plead out, the judge was not going to honor the plea, so Polanski fled and no one has cared up til now.

35 years, and several US presidents later, Washington DC’s ilk finally has a sex scandal that calls for the ‘Polanski’ solution.

Like the proverbial ace in the whole, Obama pulls Polanski from his sleeve… and in one fell swoop clears the way for a non tolerance stance against sexual solicitation, that is backed by a ‘where no other president would go before‘ claim. It is the perfect means to validate his stance and gives Obama and crew the ‘If we would have known‘ out, for the ACORN scandal.

He (Obama) is the perfect political mad scientist, building a political Frankenstein. GOD HELP US ALL!

>>> What next… The ‘Ruby’? Could this be Polanski’s fate. I was going to use the ‘Roth’ but could not find a Godfather Part 2 video clip of Herman Roth getting shot when getting off the plane from Israel.

The ‘Ruby’


Political Pyro 9:22 am

Was it Hillary or Holder? Or can we chalk it up to the ‘New World Order’ and Obama’s attempt to rearrange the deck chairs once again.

The old conspiracy theory is true, I know it now. That is why the Bushies and the Clintons are so chummy. The Bilderberger group and the banks truly do own the world. This would explain Switzerland folding too. France folding to American pressure simply does not happen.

I smell a rat.

Political PyroSeptember 25, 2009 9:57 pm

Hitler was failed art student. Yet so are millions. Most create as a means of expression. Hitler created as a vessel for adulation. When he did not earn respect he sought it by force.

Throughout history nations have endured the egos of dictators. Yet those like Castro and Kim Jung Ill stemmed from a military uprising that involved thousands.

Without doubt, their egos developed later but their beginnings were humble and even today both men dress plainly because they still have a genuine belief that they are one of the people.

Even Pinochet Duvalier and Mao Tse Tung never shed the military uniform that served as a symbolic reminder of the genuine movements that propelled them to and unlikely existance of power.

Seeing themselves as some sort of royalty, these dictators took on the image of having a divine purpose to their existance. Royalty throughout history created dictatorships not derived from ego of the individual but from a people’s desire to be lead by divinity. A King was informed of this divinity at birth and later comes to believe (if not sacked first) it his God chosen place among the masses.

Hitler, Stalin, Obama… are all different men. They were not propelled by the sort of revolution we have come to understand as Americans. No, not at all… Each man fed on the fears -like vultures- and fomented distrust by predicting mass carnage across a great people. Thus, filling the vacuum created with the idea of Hope and that change was said to be caused by governance that was flawed.

Spooking a trouble nation for the purposes of feeding their egos and in turn pulling out of thin air a clarion call for radical change. In short they created chaos where none could be found as a means to power.

Lenin despised Stalin who supported Trotsky. Stalin simply eliminated Trotsky by assassination. Obama eliminated Palmer by nullifying her eligibility.

Stalin eliminated his opponent then silenced the majority with fear. Obama lost the popular vote to Hilary Clinton but used his foot soldiers (The Hopians) to organize the Super Delegates.

Obamas ego like Hitlers is nothing more than a mask to hide a lifelong crisis of his true identity. Torn by opposing colors and religious zealots, Obama has chosen to forge his own identity through Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Robinson.

Yet his homosexuality developed from the need to seek a father figure. In Michelle he found the axis that squashed these homosexual leaning. Her strong minded militant black perspective gave Obama a sense of masculinity. It would be akin to dating Jodie Foster.

In all… Hitler found that the contrived adulation of his people was not enough. Then he needed to destroy those not like him, then he needed more love from Poland, Denmark then France…

This is where all short lived dictators loose their way. Hitlers ego was his driving force. Castro on the other hand never let his ego consume him. Castro knew when enough was enough and how to paralyze an nation but still make it social conscious believe that it was able to still walk and run.

What we as American should fear is that when Obama learns that his adulation stems from his false self, he will become lethal. He is too weak to tell us who the man behind the curtain is. He expects us to continually guess what shape his persona will take and he will punish those who don’t.

Like a balloon that never stabilizes, Obama -like Hitler- will rise to self destruction.

Terry LanciottiAugust 4, 2009 10:08 pm

LOOK! I am not one whom likes to stand and howl at the moon… and this ‘birther’ question did catch my attention early on… but after a few looks I knew that the point was moot as Obama made sure early on that this issue would not see the light of day. Nonetheless….

Pastor Manning would first like to make his entry…

America is Under Attack


Now… to the legal stuff.

US Law establishes that while there are several ways one can become a US citizen, there are actually only three different types of US Citizens with three very different sets of qualifications and citizen rights.

* A US Citizen
* A Native Born Citizen
* A Natural Born Citizen

To become President you can only be a natual born citzen:

Exactly What is a Natural Born Citizen?

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

“No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Founding Fathers had to grandfathered themselves to become President. Thet did not allowed dual citizenship because of divided loyalties.

A “natural born citizen” is born on U.S. soil to TWO parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens.

Obama’s father was not a citizen. He was a student on Visa from Kenya who was a colony of Britain at the time. His mother was 4 months short of age to be able to give him citizenship. So Obama was a British citizen at his birth. He is not eligble to be President, no matter if where he was born.

But if he is indeed born in Kenya, he is not even a U.S. citizen since he was never naturalized. That means that he didn’t even had the right to be a Senator.

A CITIZEN and a Natural Born Citizen is very different. Amendment 14 talks about citizenship… but not Natural citizen ship.

But because of Obama’s adoption, pass port travel (back in the eighty’s), Indonesian Collage records, and that every document pertains to his birth has been sealed along with many others… suspicion abounds.

SO… Lets just list the facts, so that you may weigh the evidence and its usefulness then let your own judgment be your guide.

For the record, the following Obama records remain under lock and key, more than two years into public demands for Obama “transparency”… and Obama has spent a reported $1 Million in legal fees to keep them SEALED!ll

* Obama’s official birth records -SEALED
* His Occidental College records -SEALED
* His Columbia College records -SEALED
* His Harvard College records -SEALED
* His College Thesis -SEALED
* His Harvard Law Review articles -SEALED
* His Indonesia Adoption records -SEALED
* His Passport file -SEALED
* His connection to countless foreign and domestic thugs -SEALED.
* His Kenyan Birth Records -Sealed And More on Kenyan -

Obama’s adoption by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro is also of consequence, as Obama could only be a US citizen by way of “naturalization.” There is no record of Obama naturalizing as a U.S. citizen upon returning from Indonesia.

Since ALL Obama records remain SEALED, what files have others used in their investigations in order to draw their absolute conclusion that Obama is legitimate?

Historically, all presidents have sealed potions of their personal information for security reasons… and this is understandable. But the amount and type of documentation currently under seal for president Obama is unprecedented.

All of this wound up into a loose frame of gray matter and a bunch of dislike for a socialists styled, no count, do nothin… user of the people… and you got a very good conspiracy theory.

And the movement continues… Tonight, on the radio… they will be discussing Obama’s Kenyan birth records.

I am not one who thinks that this issue makes believers look like they are just filled with hate and want their pound of flesh wherever they can get it… I think that Pastor Manning said it best…”When I get pulled over by a police officer… I don’t go into a whole long thing about where I learned to drive, or how my daddy taught me this or that, I just produce the god darn drivers license… Barack, just produce the gosh darn birth certificate!”

Now… the Pyro weighed in on this issue. Here is his take.

Is He or Isn’t He? The Obama Birth Certificate Drama Continues…

Today, August 5, 2009 we have this from Canada Free Press:

Canada Free Press & Northeast Intelligence Network Exclusive

Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to November

Do you remember Watergate? Thirty-five years ago this Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixon administration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of the Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution.

Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy.

Although we do not have the birth certificate or proof of ineligibility, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press have documentation of a cover-up relating to the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office. The proof we possess not only exposes a well orchestrated cover-up, but also provides critical insight into why the topic of Obama’s eligibility has failed to gain traction in the corporate media.

The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse - should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November.

After receiving and authenticating the document, US based veteran private investigator Douglas J. Hagmann opened a full scale investigation into the media blackout, with specific emphasis on tracing the blackout origins to those issuing them. This investigation was conducted in conjunction with Judi McLeod, founding editor of Canada Free Press and Brian Thompson, CFP Information Technology chief following a meeting near Toronto, Ontario last December. At that meeting, it was decided to keep the existence of the document secret until additional evidence could be obtained.

Today, after an extensive eight month investigation, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are breaking their silence and revealing explosive information about a widespread cover-up that began at the earliest stages of the Obama presidential campaign. The cover-up traces back to some of the most powerful and influential people in the U.S. and continues today.

Summary of the Evidence~

As noted above, we are in possession of a written account by a well known national talk show host who details how he was prohibited to discuss the controversy of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility as president of the United States. This signed document cites exact dates and times when he was forbidden to discuss any aspect of the birth certificate controversy, and includes direct references to the individuals responsible for such prohibitions. Further, his statement identifies the individuals who originated the orders and their positions, and confirms that failure to adhere to the order would likely end his career in that industry. He also confirms that other, less specific but more menacing threats were implied during conversations with those making the subject off limits.

Although we possess the original document containing the name and contact information of the talk show host, we have decided not to publish his name or network affiliation at this time. Based on the correspondence from this individual and respecting the nature of the threats to him personally and professionally, it is our decision to allow him to enjoy anonymity until such time as he decides to reveal the facts himself at a time of his choosing.

From multiple interviews conducted within the last eight months, we have obtained information from other sources, independent of the above, who have also been instructed to avoid any discussion of the birth certificate issue at all costs, to wit:

The account of an administrative assistant employed in New York City by a cable network news station who provided significant, detailed information of a 2008 meeting between the top network executive and four-(4) well-known news anchors. This source confirmed that she drafted the memo to the various hosts to notify them of the date, time and location of this high-level meeting at the request of the network’s top executive.

Present at this meeting, she verified that the network official issued “warnings” to the personalities “to avoid any on-air discussion of the birth place, eligibility, and news accounts of litigation compelling [Barack Hussein] Obama to produce a legitimate copy of his birth certificate.” She stated that the network executive had her arrange the conference immediately following a meeting “between [the network executive] and an attorney closely associated with candidate Obama who was acting on his behalf.”

The statement of a corporate secretary for a major news network confirming the existence of a one-page inter-office memo, bearing the markings “confidential” and “not for dissemination,” addressed and distributed to news anchors and on-air talent” that specifically instructed the recipients to avoid any discussion pertaining to the Obama birth certificate controversy. The memo was written and distributed in October 2008, and specifically instructed on-air talent to “advise guests, as necessary, to refrain from citing any news story, legal proceedings, Internet ‘blogs’ or other sources that pertain to the ongoing eligibility controversy of future President Barack Obama.”

As outlined above, our Investigation has uncovered both direct and indirect evidence of threats being made against some of the nation’s top radio and television personalities, which would explain some giving this topic mere lip service. As one source interviewed during the course of this investigation stated, “I’ve got a career and family to think about.”

Although no one should be surprised over the manipulation of the news, the nature of this manipulation, and the extent of the threats against journalists, should shock even the most well grounded.

Any reasonable person must question the motivation of the media moguls. The individuals who have – and continue to threaten talk show hosts, news anchors, and others are the top people. We are not talking about mid or upper level management – this is from the very top in all cases. If there is nothing to the birth certificate issue and the question of eligibility, why the secrecy?

Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod
Copyright © Canada Free Press


Take the poll:

Terry Lanciotti 10:07 pm

We here at the Politicalpyro Contributors Blog love to have fun with the news and on occasion our tongue and cheek pokes make sense.

Our most recent installment was when Hillary Clinton was commenting on our relationship with rouge nations, especially our relationship with N.Korea.

Below is our post from July 20, 2009 on Hillary Clinton’s comments…

N.Korea… As Easy As Dealing With My Husband

Its funny too watch Hillary at times cause I always have in the back of my mind… I wonder if she treats Bill this way.

Take a Look At This > Clinton Likens North Korea To “Unruly Teenagers

Notables Quotes:

1:39 ~ Well what we’ve seen is this zaa constant daa demand for attention… and daa (thinking about Bill) Well maybe it the mother in me or ahh the experience I’ve had with small children (thinking about Bill, again) and unruly teenagers or people who are demanding attention (Bill standing in his underwear, asking what IS ~ IS) Ahhm, don’t give it to them. They don’t deserve it. They arerrr… acting out in a way to send a message (Thinking about Bill and his use of Cigars) that is not a message that we are interested in receiving.

And now we have this from todays news…

August 4, 2009, 9:03 am
Bill Clinton Leaves North Korea With Two Freed American Journalists


A photograph released by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency shows
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il posing with former President Bill Clinton and his
delegation in Pyongyang on Tuesday.

If attention and star power are indeed what North Korea is after, these images ought to do the trick. This report from The Associated Press shows photographs and video provided by North Korean state television of former President Bill Clinton stepping off a plane in Pyongyang on Tuesday and later meeting the country’s leader, Kim Jong-il:


According to this video report by the BBC, the video of Mr. Clinton’s arrival in Pyongyang was featured in a news bulletin on North Korean state television on Tuesday evening, just after a report on the improving quality of biscuits at a local factory. The report on Mr. Clinton’s arrival on the North Korean television news program is posted on The Guardian’s Web site. For a better look at the greeting, readers can also study more raw video of the arrival, captured by North Korean cameras and posted on the BBC’s Web site.

They also quoted a statement from Mr. Gibbs, President Obama’s spokesman, who said: “While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment.” Mr. Gibbs added: “We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

Wrap Up>>>

Now… One of two things happened here. Hillary read my post and a light bulb went off in her head or Bill really went to N.Korea to beg them to give back the nuclear technologies he gave them back on his watch. Which ever the case may be it still begs the question… What in the hell is Bill Clinton really doing in N.Korea?

Take the Poll:

Terry LanciottiJuly 20, 2009 10:57 am

Should Health Officials Have to Be Healthy and Trim?

Are there jobs where your weight should matter? Obviously if you can’t squeeze down the aisles, you might not make a great flight attendant, but what if you’re in reasonably good health and capable of doing the job?

President Obama has nominated Regina Benjamin for Surgeon General, but instead of people being totally psyched about her MacArthur genius award, her impressive charitable works, or her down-to-earth working-class background, everybody is trying to guess her BMI. Some people think a country plagued with obesity should not have an obese person representing our nation’s health care.

Still, we don’t remember anyone throwing this argument at all those husky surgeon generals who happened to be male. If C. Everett Koop ~ could be in charge of the nation’s health-care system while doing an amazing impression of a Civil War surgeon, should we really care about Benjamin’s few extra pounds?

Pyro Say’s

Back in the day, doctors were judged for their skills too find what will heal you. Now, in America we only care about what is on the outside. What is that saying about beauty and it being skin deep…

On a More Positive Note:

Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues

Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 20, 2009

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama’s stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama’s approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.

The president’s overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago.

Obama has taken on a series of major problems during his young presidency, but he faces a particularly difficult fight over his effort to encourage Congress to pass an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

The legislation has run into problems in the House and Senate, as lawmakers struggle to contain spiraling costs and avoid ballooning the deficit.

Since April, approval of Obama’s handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.

The erosion in Obama’s overall rating on health care is particularly notable among political independents: While positive in their assessments of his handling of health-care reform at the 100-day mark of his presidency (53 percent approved and 30 percent disapproved), independents now are divided at 44 percent positive and 49 percent negative.

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.

Republicans have hammered the president and congressional Democrats over the cost of an health-care overhaul and its potential impact on the federal deficit, twin issues that have emerged as a possible brake on any new package.

Obama’s approval rating on his handling of the deficit is down to 43 percent, as independents now tilt toward disapproval (42 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove).

Pyro’s Thoughts

Looks like the spoon feeding has somewhat awaken those apathetic for Obama and his color… Oops, did I say that. It seems that color is only skin deep…huh.

Terry LanciottiJuly 19, 2009 6:40 pm

When I first read this I kinda sat back and pondered what would I do with ‘Joe’ if I were the Obama Administration… Yep, Under the Obama Speeding Bus of Disaster! Awesome economic piece… makes you wonder who Obama is listening too, or what his real plans are for the US.

The Most Misunderstood Man in America

Joesph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz predicted the global financial meltdown. So why can’t he get any respect here at home?

By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 18, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009

Anya Stiglitz was in the middle of a Pilates class in Central Park on an April morning when her cell phone rang. Glancing down, she saw “202″ pop up—no number attached—and knew it was the White House. An aide to Larry Summers ~Larry Summers was on the line, looking for her husband, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Anya said she’d pass on the message to Joe—then went back to work on her abs. No big deal, she thought. People often call her when they want to talk to Joe, because even though he’s spent four decades figuring out how the global economy works, he hasn’t quite gotten the hang of voice mail. “He doesn’t listen to his messages, so if you want to talk to him, keep calling,” Anya says on his cell-phone recording.

Anya figured Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, was probably just calling to gripe about Joe’s latest op-ed in The New York Times. Joe Stiglitz and Larry Summers, two towering intellects with egos to match, are not each other’s favorite economist. “They respect each other, but they hate each other like poison,” says Bruce Greenwald, Stiglitz’s friend and academic collaborator at Columbia. (”I’ve got huge admiration for Joe as an economic thinker,” Summers told NEWSWEEK.) Stiglitz had been hammering at Obama’s economic team for its handling of the financial crisis. He wrote that the stimulus program was too small to be effective—a criticism that has since swelled into a chorus, though Obama says he’s not adding more money. Stiglitz also had called the administration’s bailout plan a giveaway to Wall Street, an “ersatz capitalism” that would save the banks’ investors and creditors and screw the taxpayers. “I thought, Larry—he’s just going to yell at Joe,” Anya recalls.

But Summers’s aide soon called back, and this time he said it was urgent: could Professor Stiglitz come to Washington for a dinner hosted by the president—that same night? Anya patched him through to Joe’s office at Columbia University~Columbia University; Stiglitz accepted, and jumped on an early train. He was a little miffed: the other eminent economists attending the dinner, like Princeton’s Alan Blinder and Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, had been invited the week before. Stiglitz, a former chairman of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, had supported Barack Obama as a candidate as early as 2007. But until that day, four months into the administration, he had heard barely a word from the White House. Even now, when the president was making an effort to hear a range of economic voices, Stiglitz seemed to be an afterthought. (A White House spokesman said only that the president wished to include Stiglitz.)

Such is the lot of Joe Stiglitz. Even in the contentious world of economics, he is considered somewhat prickly. And while he may be a Nobel laureate, in Washington he’s seen as just another economic critic—and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name, and fewer still would recognize the man, who is short and stocky and bears a faint resemblance to Mel Brooks. Yet Stiglitz’s work is cited by more economists than anyone else’s in the world, according to data compiled by the University of Connecticut. And when he goes abroad—to Europe, Asia, and Latin America—he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. “In Asia they treat him like a god,” says Robert Johnson, a former chief economist for the Senate banking committee who has traveled with him. “People walk up to him on the streets.”

Stiglitz has won fans in China and other emerging G20 nations by arguing that the global economic system is stacked against poor nations, and by standing up to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He is also the most prominent American economist to propose a long-term solution to the imbalances in capital flows that have wreaked havoc, from the Asian contagion of the late ’90s to the subprime-investment craze. Beijing has more or less endorsed Stiglitz’s idea for a new global reserve system to replace the U.S. dollar as the world currency. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has been influenced by Stiglitz’s work, especially when “he talks about the economics of poor people,” says Fang Xinghai, the head of Shanghai’s financial-services office. But his stature is huge in Europe as well: French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently featured him at a conference on rethinking globalization. And earlier this month, while traveling to Europe and South Africa, Stiglitz received a call from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office: could he return through London and help the P.M. get ready for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh?

Stiglitz is perhaps best known for his unrelenting assault on an idea that has dominated the global landscape since Ronald Reagan: that markets work well on their own and governments should stay out of the way. Since the days of Adam Smith, classical economic theory has held that free markets are always efficient, with rare exceptions. Stiglitz is the leader of a school of economics that, for the past 30 years, has developed complex mathematical models to disprove that idea. The subprime-mortgage disaster was almost tailor-made evidence that financial markets often fail without rigorous government supervision, Stiglitz and his allies say. The work that won Stiglitz the Nobel in 2001 showed how “imperfect” information that is unequally shared by participants in a transaction can make markets go haywire, giving unfair advantage to one party. The subprime scandal was all about people who knew a lot—like mortgage lenders and Wall Street derivatives traders—exploiting people who had less information, like global investors who bought up subprime- mortgage-backed securities. As Stiglitz puts it: “Globalization opened up opportunities to find new people to exploit their ignorance. And we found them.”

Stiglitz’s empathy for the little guy—and economically backward nations—comes to him naturally. The son of a schoolteacher and an insurance salesman, he grew up in one of America’s grittiest industrial cities—Gary, Ind.—and was shaped by the social inequalities and labor strife he observed there. Stiglitz remembers realizing as a small boy that something was wrong with our system. The Stiglitzes, like many middle-class families, had an African-American maid. She was from the South and had little education. “I remember thinking, why do we still have people in America who have a sixth-grade education?” he says.

Those early experiences in Gary gave Stiglitz a social conscience—as a college student, he attended Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech—and led him to probe the reasons why markets failed. While studying at MIT, he says he realized that if Smith’s “invisible hand” always guided behavior correctly, the kind of unemployment and poverty he had witnessed in Gary shouldn’t exist. “I was struck by the incongruity between the models that I was taught and the world that I had seen growing up,” Stiglitz said in his Nobel Prize lecture in 2001. In the same speech he declared that the invisible hand “might not exist at all.” The solution, Stiglitz says, is to move beyond ideology and to develop a balance between market-driven economies—which he favors—and government oversight.

Stiglitz has warned for years that pro-market zeal would cause a global financial meltdown very much like the one that gripped the world last year. In the early ’90s, as a member of Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, Stiglitz argued (unsuccessfully) against opening up capital flows too rapidly to developing countries, saying those markets weren’t ready to handle “hot money” from Wall Street. Later in the decade, he spoke out (without results) against repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated financial institutions and separated commercial from investment banking. Since at least 1990, Stiglitz has talked about the risks of securitizing mortgages, questioning whether markets and authorities would grow careless “about the importance of screening loan applicants.” Malaysian economist Andrew Sheng says, “I think Stiglitz is the nearest thing there is to Keynes in this crisis.”

That would be John Maynard Keynes, the great 20th-century economist who rocketed to international renown in late 1919 when he published The Economic Consequences of the Peace. In his book, Keynes warned that the draconian penalties imposed on Germany after World War I would lead to political disaster. No one listened. The disaster he predicted turned out to be World War II. Like Stiglitz, Keynes was not a favorite at the White House. Keynes also believed that markets were imperfect: he invented modern macroeconomics—which calls for major government intervention to help ailing economies—in response to the Great Depression. But after meeting Keynes for the first time in 1934, FDR dismissed him as too abstract and intellectual, according to Robert Skidelsky, Keynes’s biographer. Keynes himself fretted that Roosevelt was not spending enough.

To his critics—and there are many—Stiglitz is a self-aggrandizing rock-thrower. Even some of his intellectual allies note that while Stiglitz is often right on the substance of issues, he tends to leap to the conclusion that government can make things better. Harvard economist Rogoff has called him intolerably arrogant—though he added that Stiglitz is a “towering genius.” In a letter to -Stiglitz published in 2002, Rogoff recalled a moment when the two of them were teaching at Princeton and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker’s name came up for tenure. “You turned to me and said, ‘Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?’ I responded something to the effect of ‘Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve chairman of the 20th century.’ To which you replied, ‘But is he smart like us?’” (Stiglitz says he can’t remember the comment, but adds that he might have been referring to whether Volcker was an abstract thinker.)

Stiglitz’s defenders say one possible explanation for his outsider status in Washington is his ongoing rivalry with Summers. While they are both devotees of Keynes, Summers often has supported deregulation of financial markets—or at least he did before last year—while Stiglitz has made a career of mistrusting markets. Since the early ’90s, when Summers was a senior Treasury official and Stiglitz was on the Council of Economic Advisers, the two have engaged in fierce policy debates. The first fight was over the Clinton admin-is-tration’s efforts to pry open emerging financial markets, such as South Korea’s. Stiglitz argued there wasn’t good evidence that liberalizing poorly regulated Third World markets would make any one more prosperous; Summers wanted them open to U.S. firms.

The differences between them grew bitter in the late 1990s, when Stiglitz was chief economist for the World Bank and took issue with the way Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and Summers, who was then deputy secretary, were handling the Asian “contagion” financial collapse. After World Bank president James Wolfensohn declined to reappoint him in 1999, Stiglitz became convinced that Summers was behind the slight. Summers denies this, and maintains that no rivalry exists between them. Summers’s deputy Jason Furman says that Summers now “talks to [Stiglitz] a lot.” “A lot” is an exaggeration, Stiglitz responds. “We’ve talked one or two times,” he says.

Despite the Obama team’s occasional efforts to reach out to him, Stiglitz remains deeply unhappy about the administration’s approach to the financial crisis. Rather than breaking up or restructuring the big banks that failed, “the Obama administration has actually expanded the notion of ‘too big to fail,’ ” he says. In a veiled poke at his dubious standing in Washington, Stiglitz adds: “In Britain there is a more open discussion of these issues.” A senior White House official, responding to this critique, says that the Obama administration is most often criticized these days for intervening too much in the economy, not too little.

In other respects, Obama is embracing some of Stiglitz’s views, suggests Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget—and a former Stiglitz protégé (he worked for Stiglitz during the Clinton administration). One example: Obama’s new idea for reforming health care by creating a government-run program to compete with private-sector insurers. “There is an intellectual paradigm in health care that says you should move to purely private markets,” says Orszag. “Joe’s perspective would suggest major difficulties [with that]. That led to the thought that we need a mix: there is an important government role.”

Today, settled as a professor at Columbia, Stiglitz occasionally finds himself welcomed in the nation’s capital, though usually at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to testify before Congress. While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn’t come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this. As for the invitation to dinner at the White House, there were a few theories kicked around the spacious Stiglitz household on Manhattan’s Upper West Side as to why it came at the last minute: one was that Obama, in an interview posted online that week by The New York Times, had cited Stiglitz as one of the critics he listens to, so it would have seemed strange if he hadn’t been invited to the dinner. While Stiglitz was flattered by the discussion over a dinner of roast beef and Michelle Obama’s homegrown lettuce, he can’t stop himself from complaining that an occasional meal with dissidents is not the best way for the president to formulate policy. “Some of the most difficult debates and judgments can’t really be hammered out in an hour-and-a-half meeting covering lots of topics,” he says. Stiglitz may a prophet without much honor in Washington, but he seems to be determined to keep the prophecies coming.

Political Pyro 10:58 am

‘The Cause of My Life’> This is what Ted Kennedy deems his calling.
Inside the fight for universal health care.

>Click Here for the Link<

You know what Americas problem is? Its people like Ted Kennedy. Here is a murderous, rapist, drunken, drug using, scandalous, and lets not forget… privileged family with no end insight of ever spending its ill gotten family fortune and they want to give us something that he wouldn’t even use. Hey Ted, watch this video and tell me… Why should I trust you?

Marion ValentineJuly 16, 2009 4:16 pm

It took me a few minutes to get through this piece. Its nicely put together and does not miss anything.

Here is the Link: Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

Terry LanciottiJuly 12, 2009 8:28 am

Racism: A Black Fortune 500 Company:

Where he makes his point.

3:00 ~ Black people cottage industry is racism. See, black people don’t own banks, there not great at medicine, there not great at technology, there not great at engineering, there not at math or science. Black people are great at using racism as a cottage industry.

Terry LanciottiJuly 11, 2009 8:42 pm

Obama Eulogizes Michael Jackson


Mike TJuly 9, 2009 9:04 pm

Here are more questions, and this time some good questions…..

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you don’t care that your President is not a natural born citizen and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, then delete this and go back into your “hope and change” cocoon.

Marion ValentineJuly 8, 2009 8:37 pm

CNSNews.com
Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ACTUAL REPORT

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008.

But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie — government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms — “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”

The report talks about the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy, citing President Clinton’s directive to “lift America’s homeownership rate to an all-time high by the end of the century.”

The Clinton strategy further said that Freddie and Fannie should reduce down-payment requirements and, according to the report, “called for increased use of ‘flexible underwriting criteria,’ which it said could be achieved in concert with ‘liberalized affordable housing underwriting criteria.’”

“That is the perfect smoking gun that tells how Barney Frank [D-Mass.], the Clinton administration and others would do it in those days,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, said Tuesday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

“The seeds of the meltdown began with the well-intentioned goal that everyone have a home even if they can’t afford it,” he said. “It led to one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made 54 percent of the “subprime” mortgage loans from 2002 to 2007, or about $1.9 trillion in mortgage loans to borrowers with credit scores lower than 660.

The report comes after Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) – who fought against regulation of the two quasi-public mortgage giants — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wrote a letter in June to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calling on the GSEs to lower lending standards on condo buyers.

The report argues that lowered lending standards were the cause of the housing crisis and did not exempt the Republicans or the Bush administration from blame. It said placing certain lending quotas for under-served populations allowed “both Democratic and Republican administrations to consistently make campaign promises to boost homeownership through government intervention in the market.

Consequently, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, HUD dramatically increased these quotas, which reached their zenith when the Bush administration raised them to 56 percent, 27 percent and 39 percent, respectively.”

“As home prices continued their dizzying rise, many people decided to cash in by buying a house with an adjustable rate mortgage featuring a low introductory teaser rate set to increase after a few years,” the report continues.

“These borrowers, confident in the oft-cited assertion that U.S. home values had never before fallen in the aggregate, planned to sell or refinance their investment before the mortgage rate adjusted upward, pocketing the difference between the initial purchase price and the subsequent appreciation in value,” says the report. “However, buyers failed to grasp the effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.”

The report also talks about how the two GSEs became a powerful lobby. Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson opened up “partnership offices” in congressional districts, hired relatives of members of Congress, and GSE employees contributed $15 million to federal campaigns from 1998 to 2008. Throughout that time, all attempted reforms in Congress were blocked.

Also, in 1995, “Johnson seeded the Fannie Mae Foundation with $350 million of Fannie stock. The company used this foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute,” states the report.

Fannie and Freddie were not subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, while executives were paid well. Former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines earned more than $50 million in compensation during his six-years at the helm, the report says. Fannie and Freddie paid billions more to shareholders. “Thus, the government subsidizations of GSE operations amounted to little more than corporate welfare,” the report says.

The report cites Frank’s accusations that to blame Fannie and Freddie is to blame only the lender and not the borrower.

“This misses the mark entirely. In fact, responsibility for the erosion of mortgage lending standards, which began with government affordable housing policy, rests squarely on the policy makers who advocated these ill-conceived policies in the first place,” the report says. “Borrowers quite naturally responded to the incentives they were given, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, and risky lending spread to the wider mortgage market.”

Marion ValentineJuly 4, 2009 12:14 pm

Sarah Resigns as Governor of Alaska, so what now?

As for her future, Palin said: “I look forward to helping others — to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops and energy independence.

Sarah is now free, and as a private citizen, can shove back against those who brought 15 ethics complaints against here, which were ALL dismissed, she may even be able to sue to recover the legal cost of her defense.

She is also for the next several months free to take her message to every corner of America, and considering the crowds she always draws…even ACORN cannot skew the numbers even registering the names on all the tombstones in the country. She is also free as a private citizen to loudly and publicly denounce Obama and his Thugoracy and expose that which the media will not. She is free to bring together the conservatives, moderates and independent voters who believe that less Government is good government.

She will be free to take head on the slanderous lies printed in the Propaganda media, and debunk them and make them pay dearly, for printing them.

She is free to take the gloves off and fight back without any backlash on the Governor’s office, she will prove she is a fighter.

She gives American Patriots hope that we can believe in.

Run Sarah Run……Look out Obama, the Pit Bull wearing lipstick is nipping at your heels.
Marion A. Valentine, U.S. Navy Intelligence Service/:Cryptologist(disabled)