The issue of Barack Obama’s birthplace has been simmering for a long time. It has been ridiculed by the left incessantly, as well as by some on the right. The seemingly sensible course is to deny that Obama was born anywhere else but in Hawaii, but as is typical of Obama, nothing is as it initially appears. There are questions that need answers.

Breitbart has disclosed that Obama’s literary agent published a booklet that describes a young Barack Obama as being born in Kenya:

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

All too predictably, the media immediately leaped to defend Obama, asserting this was some sort of oversight:

Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists have been foiled again.

Conservative-leaning Breitbart.com on Tuesday published a copy of a promotional booklet from Obama’s former literary agency. According to a brief biography in the 1991 booklet, Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii,” fueling fire to the idea that the president is not a natural-born American citizen.

As New York magazine noted, the article caused a stir in conservative circles, drawing commentary from the Drudge Report and other popular websites.

However, the woman who wrote Obama’s biography in the pamphlet said Thursday that she had misidentified Obama’s place of birth.

“This was nothing more than a fact-checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Miriam Goderich, who worked for the literary agency Acton & Dystel, told Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.”

So the left would have us believe that this woman allowed this error to fester for 20 plus years. Saner heads might question why this remained uncorrected all this time. Maybe she didn’t know Obama had been elected President? From where did she get the notion that Obama could have been born in Kenya?

But then another “Born in Kenya” account emerges- this one from the AP in 2004.

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

OK, that was from 2004- a long time ago. Another mistake, no doubt. But then here it is again. Dystel and Goederich, the successor literary agent to the original Acton and Dystel, listed Barack Obama as born in Kenya until April of 2007.

“BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.”

And it turns out that bio’s are submitted by the authors themselves:

Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.

It strains credulity to think that Obama was entirely unaware of these things- he is aware of absolutely everything that concerns him.

After reading the excerpt from Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story a couple of things stand out. Being a narcissist is nothing new for Obama:

Obama was the central character in his letters, in a self-conscious way, with variations on the theme of his search for purpose and self-identity.

His characters are designed for a specific purpose:

Like many characters in the memoir, he introduced her to advance a theme, another thread of thought in his musings about race.

And there are at least three pronunciations of “Barack”:

She called him Bahr-ruck, with the accent on the first syllable, and a trill of the r’s. Not Bear-ick, as the Anglophile Kenyans pronounced it, and not Buh-rock, as he would later be called, but Bahr-ruck. She said that is how he pronounced it himself, at least when talking to her.

“Dreams” is not really a memoir, but is largely a fiction. It is David Maraniss’ opinion that Obama’s book Dreams from my Father “should not be read as rigorous factual history.”

It’s all very peculiar. We have learned that Obama’s description of his former girlfriend Genevieve Cook is not real but a composite of women he knew. It seems that we know little of the real Barack Obama. People are composites. Everything is “compressed.” Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya. Why?

Clearly, being seen as Kenyan-born because it offered him some advantage. The media has had zero interest in why. Obama got a full scholarship to Occidental College in LA but Obama had steadfastly refused to release his college records. Was his scholarship awarded on the basis of Obama being born in Kenya? Was that the same vehicle he used to gain admission to Columbia and then to Harvard? Obama has freely mixed fantasy with fact his entire life. Was he born in Kenya or was he a fraud? This would be a compelling reason to secret those college records.

No…we’re not talking about America’s merriest, happy warrior-in-chief.

Toni Morrison named Bill Clinton America’s first “black” president in the same sense that Barack Obama is being heralded by Newsweek (are they merely trying to compete with Time’s cover?) as America’s first “gay” president. But who was America’s first actual gay president? It certainly wasn’t Abraham Lincoln.

Well, here’s the straight “news”:

Tina Brown would like you to think that our 44th commander in chief is the “First Gay President.” Jim Loewen would like you to know that title actually belongs to our country’s 15th leader, James Buchanan. After taking a moment to smack Newsweek for the “cheap sensationalism” of its buzzy cover, Loewen imparts a history lesson. “Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House,” he writes for Salon. And the country was well aware of it.

Loewen on the subject of “chronological ethnocentrism”:

Loewen’s intention isn’t just to give you a new trivia tidbit: It’s to explain why Buchanan isn’t lauded as such, and what that means. Quite simply, our “touching belief in progress” is the problem. “We must be more tolerant now than we were way back in the middle of the 19th century! Buchanan could not have been gay then, else we would not seem more tolerant now.” Loewen urges us to embrace a more complex national history, one in which “we all moved backward” for about 50 years beginning in 1890, particularly in terms of race relations. “If we can rid ourselves of the fantasy that we are always getting better, then maybe we can create a nation that actually becomes more tolerant,” he writes. “Then we might—again—elect a real gay president.” Click for his entire column.

Not to make more out of this than is warranted, Loewen concludes:

President Obama’s change of heart about gay marriage remains significant. It does show increasing tolerance compared to our recent past. During the nadir of race relations, that terrible period between 1890 and about 1940 when white America went more racist in its thinking than at any other time, the U.S. also clamped down on beards, liquor (briefly) and, yes, homosexuals. As Jackie Robinson was not the first black player in Major League Baseball, but rather the first after the nadir, so President Obama is not our “first gay” president (Forgive me: I cannot seem to retype Newsweek’s silly headline without putting quotation marks around the words), but only our “first” since the nadir.

Remembering that James Buchanan was homosexual complexifies our national narrative, to be sure, but it is a complexity that we need.

Daily Beast:

Obama has twice been called the first woman president: first in 2008, by Newsweek’s Martin Linsky, and then again by The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker in 2010. The argument in both cases was that Obama’s wisdom, values, and management style were similar to that of a female leader. In 2009 the Associated Foreign Press asked if Obama was the first Asian-American president while, the same year, Geraldo Rivera suggested he might be the first Hispanic president. Then, in 2011, New York magazine declared him the first Jewish president. “Expectations were high that editor Tina Brown would do something typically attention-grabbing to mark this occasion, but this effort seems, well, cliché,” Randall writes. “It wasn’t going to be long before someone outed our first black, female, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian-American president as gay.”

That’s just so….”gay”.

When will the sexual, ethnic, and religious identity of our president cease to matter?

As an aside and afterthought…now I’m curious to know who was America’s merriest of presidents?

Hear it?

It’s getting louder.

The sounds of a election come nearer.

And it’s making a particular President wet his pants.

Reacting to the stinging criticism from two members of Congress in a key election state Barack Obama modified his “All of the Above” energy website.

The Obama campaign changed its website Thursday night to include a reference to “clean coal” in the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan after Republicans lawmakers criticized the omission.

Under the heading “President’ Obama’s approach to energy independence,” an entire section on the campaign website was altered from “fuel efficiency” to “clean coal.” The sections now appear as: oil, natural gas, clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear.

Earlier this week, Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, criticized the president for excluding coal and hydropower, two energy resources that together provide for more than half of the country’s electricity, from his “all-of-the-above” energy plan.

“This administration has been openly in the business of putting coal out of business,” Mr. Whitfield said. “And for the president to run around talking about an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, even on his campaign website, and to not mention coal as an important energy sector is unbelievable to me.”

Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, on Wednesday tweeted his disappointment about the exclusion of coal, saying Mr. Obama was “out of touch [with Ohio’s] needs.”

In what has to be an act of desperation the Obama website was changed from this

to this

Let’s have a close look at what the newest version says:

“President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology.”

Obama’s coal industry goals can be properly summarized this way:

1. Bankrupt the coal industry.
2. See #1
3. See #2
4. See #3
5. See #4

Anything else he says is but pablum meant for the liberal (i.e. weak, gullible) mind expressly for the purposes of re-election. Obama knows well liberals suffer from CRS syndrome (Can’t Remember Sh*t) and will have forgotten everything he and Biden have said about the coal industry in the past.

Not me. I remember what Obama said. Here he is saying he would bankrupt the coal industry:

Click here to view the embedded video.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And did someone mention Joe Biden?

Click here to view the embedded video.

No clean coal for you!

Anyone with half a brain will see right through this current ruse. The problem is, Obama supporters come up short on the brain thing. Obama has been conducting the war on coal for some time.

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Consequently, coal plants are being shut down with no energy substitutes in sight.

Edison International (EIX) plans to shut down at least two aging coal-fired power plants in what could be a growing wave of retirements as low natural-gas and electricity prices and stricter pollution rules make many of these facilities unprofitable.

Edison will shut down its two Chicago coal-fired power plants — one this year and one by 2014 — rather than install pollution-control equipment to comply with state pollution limits, the company said. Edison said it also would likely shut down a third coal plant in Waukegan, Ill., and possibly others. …

Companies are increasingly announcing plans to shut down aging coal plants as the cost of installing pollution-control equipment can exceed the value of the plant.

If you believe Obama has a goal for clean coal that ends anywhere else but in bankruptcy, you’re an idiot.

Marketing seeks to create images in our minds by relying on the creativity of a writer. Political marketing often involves the creation of myths, transforming an ordinary man into a heroic figure with selfless ideals who is willing to endure suffering to serve his fellow man.

This transformation of normal ordinary men into heroes of mythical figures has never been more obvious than the stories of our most recent Liberal presidents Clinton and Obama.

We were just subjected to a reelection commercial featuring former President Clinton explaining the potential fallout and risk for President Obama if the SEAL raid in Pakistan had gone horribly wrong.

Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].

This was a unique opportunity for Americans to observe and compare our most notorious Narcissists, and watch one create the typical Narcissistic pool for all of us to admire the other’s reflection.

The myth of Narcissus is from the ancient Greeks. Greek Myths are stories that are a means to teach lessons of morality. If you will give your imagination a little freedom we will imagine the Myth of Narcissus in a contemporary setting.

Echo the Nymph was desperately in love with the handsome young hunter Narcissus, but he was proud and disdained all those who admired him, for he was in love with himself. Nemesis, a tricky god, directed him to a pool where he could observe his own reflection. From that point on, Narcissus spent all his time observing his own handsome features, unable to quit staring at his image and caring for nothing else, he eventually died by the pool. A flower grew where he fell and was to be known as the Narcissus.

If we replace Echo with the American people and the personality of Narcissus with President Obama, the basis for the myth is recreated after two thousand years.

While the American people have been dreaming of being loved and cared for by the object of their imagination, the harsh truth becomes more glaringly obvious with the passage of time, for the Narcissist exists for himself and only loves his own being.

Only Bill Clinton, the accused serial rapist who refused to kill or capture Osama and avoid the catastrophe that was 9/11, understands the strain facing the Narcissist Personality. For when he says:

“Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].”

Zeus Is The Universal Boogeyman, Here Disguised As A Swan He Rapes Leda

Zeus Represents The Powers That Threaten Mere Mortala And From Whom We Need The Protection Of An Omnipotent

Former President Clinton concentrated on portraying Obama as the wily Prometheus who risked stealing fire from Zeus to give it to mortal man. He thus risked the possibility of tragedy through this trial of personal sacrifice. For in the myth, Zeus was enraged with the theft and tied Prometheus to a rock on a mountain and during the passage of each day, an eagle ate his liver and each night his liver grew back, to be eaten again the next day. Oh, how Prometheus suffered for the crime of bringing the fire of Zeus to mankind: fire that was used only for warmth, cooking, and light. Prometheus became a man of constant sorrow for the crime of serving man. This is the fate Obama risked to serve his people. He was so near this position of constant sorrow that he needed to be pulled from the golf course during the commission of this service to mankind, lest the mission fail and he would be tied directly by a Zeus like boogeyman, supine on the mountain and the feathered beast allowed to savage his vital organs.

The personality of this same Prometheus has been a favorite reference for Karl Marx to portray the martyrs of Communism, representing those who suffer unselfishly for the cause of mankind.

True to form, the Narcissist views the world as it relates to him. Thus we have become inoculated to the “I” word and now are conditioned to view world events through the personal pronouns of Obama.

“Tonight, I can report . . . I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”

In our personal lives, we tend to tire of people who see the world revolving around them and all to ready to overuse the personal pronouns in every conversation, but with Obama, we have been conditioned to excuse and overlook his boorish behavior.

Being programmed by these harpies of Madison Avenue to believe and accept the allusion of the strong leader who protects us from the evil of the world is a feature of being subjected to media. Most of the recent efforts Of the Obama marketers have been amateurish and obvious, but precious few of us caught the ambiguities of Clinton marketing Obama.

Sometimes, it is the utter audacity of the marketing ploy that creates the lasting impression. The vision of a man’s liver being eaten each day and of a maiden being raped by a God in the form of a swan are not easy to accept, but they have survived for 2500 years, and their story lines are still being used to teach and create allusions.

Unfortunately for Obama, the image of Narcissus is working against him, for Narcissus is his only enemy and it is his self-absorption that ultimately destroys him. The comparisons are all too obvious and transparent, and his adoring public like Echo grows weary of the self-absorbed man who loves himself above all others.

NARCISSUS. A large genus of flowers of the amaryllis family, native to Asia and Europe, is called narcissus. Included are the daffodil, the poet’s narcissus, the jonquil, and others.

Meanwhile back on the Tinseltown farm last night…

The Campaigner-in-chief comes out of the closet to milk the celebrity cash cows:

(CNN) — Hollywood pulled off another blockbuster as a star-studded guest list delivered $15 million into the campaign coffers of President Barack Obama Thursday night.

The fundraiser at the home of actor and activist George Clooney in the Studio City neighborhood of Los Angeles attracted dozens of guests including Clooney’s girlfriend, actress/model Stacy Keibler; DreamWorks studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg; designer Diane Von Furstenberg; Barbra Streisand and her actor husband James Brolin.

Hollywood…America’s last best hope [/sarcasm]. With Biden out apologizing for supposedly “jumping the gun”, the timing of it all (including the Romney bully#%$* story) seems suspiciously intentional. Could President Obama have raised so much at this event had he not come out of the closet in support of gay marriage? The announcement certainly energized his base:

Obama’s decision to publicly endorse gay marriage has electrified his liberal base and restored some of the transformative luster that had dimmed since his 2008 campaign.

“Pretty darn happy today. Thanks Mr President, for supporting the dignity of my family and so many others!” said actress Jane Lynch of hit TV series “Glee” on her Twitter feed.

Hollywood is a traditional source of funding and adulation for Democratic presidents, though there have been persistent reports that Tinseltown feels it has not been feeling sufficient love from Obama.

Many in California remember the attention that former president Bill Clinton lavished on them. Hollywood was also a prime source of funding for Clinton’s wife Hillary when she ran against Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

WaPo…

Fundraisers say the donations began pouring in within minutes of the news Wednesday that Obama, who said he had been “evolving on the issue” for months, affirmed his support for the right of same-sex couples to be married.

~~~

Fundraisers said many donors have chosen to max out their contributions to the campaign and the Democratic Party over the past day as a sign of support for the president’s stance. Donors this year can give $5,000 to Obama and $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee, as well as additional amounts to committees formed to help Obama in swing states.

“Here I thought the LGBT community was already knocking it out of the ballpark for Obama, and now I see they’ve expanded the ballpark,” said Andrew Tobias, a longtime gay rights activist and treasurer of the DNC. “And many of my straight donors are energized as well. People are excited up and down the line.”

~~~

On Thursday night, Obama was slated to attend a $40,000-a-plate dinner at the Los Angeles home of actor George Clooney that could net as much as $16 million in donations online and in person, top donors said.

The campaign has called that number too high but has declined to provide further details. The event could turn out to be the most profitable presidential fundraiser since unlimited donations to political parties were banned a decade ago.

The president is scheduled to return to Los Angeles on June 6 for an LGBT gala to be attended by up to 700 people. Lawyer Dana Perlman, who is helping to organize the event, said he was “ecstatic” about Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage and says he expects gay men and lesbians to respond with contributions.

“This man has come out 100 percent for our community, and each and every member of the community must now step up and do everything he or she can to see that he is reelected,” Perlman said.

Really?! “100 percent”?! As far as I can read it (and not that I’m the only one), unless President Obama is still revol- er, I mean “evolving”, he came out and expressed the bare minimum:

President Obama:

Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

Sounds like there’s more room for him revolving evolving:

Even though Obama is openly and for the first time ever embracing states’ rights on an issue that Stewart considers a civil rights issue — a position that the Left declares racist on every other civil rights issue — Stewart celebrates Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to, uhm, come out after 32 out of 32 states voted to ban same-sex marriage and the day after the NC vote — Stewart celebrates Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to declare his support for same-sex marriage after several wealthy and high-profile backers of gay marriage threatened to withhold money — Stewart applauds Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to stop lying about his position on same-sex marriage a day or so before he’s set to make a major record-setting fundraising swing through New York and Hollywood — Stewart applauds Obama’s “evolution.”

Stewart declares the vote against same-sex marriage in North Carolina “bigoted” and yet through an extraordinary act of cognitive dissonance, takes no issue with Obama singling out gays for his new-found Federalism, which is another way of saying Obama thinks NC should be allowed to pass a law that both Stewart and Obama consider to be a violation of civil rights.

Nothing, however, is more pathetic than the opening of this clip where Stewart actually says out loud that what Obama did was to put principle over politics.

In the West Virginia Democrat primary, Obama was challenged by a prisoner from Texas and managed a significant victory of 20 points. Democratic strategists see these results as proof that Obama is regaining the momentum of 2008. Like the reports on the economy and jobs, news that can be spun with a positive view is vital to the Obama campaign.

Obama’s latest challenger, inmate Keith Judd, put up a valiant effort from the Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for the Democrat Presidential bid. Unfortunately, Judd has been serving time since 1999 for making threats at the University of New Mexico, but despite his apparent disadvantage, he managed to control 40% of votes cast and Obama tallied less than 60% for his first major victory of the 2012 campaign.

Judd ran with a skeleton campaign group, actually it is questionable whether he had any support; he managed to get on the ballot with a $2500 filing fee, a form known as a notarized certification of announcement. State Democratic Party Executive Director Derek Scarboro said no one has filed to be a delegate for Judd, but he only needed 15% of the vote to qualify for a delegate at the national convention. Sadly, this political miscarriage only serves to prove the Elitist nature of federal politics, without funding, the little man doesn’t stand a chance against those with backers like George Soros.

Even though some West Virginians were reluctant to vote for a federal inmate incarcerated in Texas, it is obvious that Obama controls a percentage of loyalists within the Democrat Party.

Hopefully, Judd will command a greater percentage of the Democrat Party upon his release.

Barack Obama’s re-election has adopted a new slogan: “Forward”

It has some really interesting historical predecessors:

Click here to view the embedded video.

via GP

And then there are these:

Under the Leadership of the Great Stalin — Forward to Communism!

Under Lenin’s Banners, Under Stalin’s Leadership, Forward to a New Prosperity of the Soviet Motherland, to the Complete Victory of Communism in Our Country!

Forward to the Victory of Communism!

Via WZ

And over at Free Republic was the reminder of these images:

And who could forget this?

Click here to view the embedded video.

All we need now is that “Civilian Defense Force” as powerful as the military.

Then we’ll take your guns

The collection agency for the Federal Reserve known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working with legislators to gain control over the rights of Americans. Without the right to due process, the IRS can simply claim a citizen owes $50,000 dollars or more to their illegal operation. This accusation alone will give their agency the right to revoke American’s travel rights and even remove the right to own a firearm.

With the help of Representatives like Barbara Boxer of California, a bill rapidly working through Capitol Hill (passed through the Senate and is currently up for review in the House) will give the IRS power to:

Accuse Americans of delinquency of tax payment without due process
Revoke their passports and travel rights
Place the accused in a centralize database
Authorize the removal of their right to own a firearm

No formal charges are required. Simply the accusation from the IRS is sufficed to strip American citizens of their Constitutional rights.

All you need is the accusation that you are a subversive.

Obama employs the words favored by the Nazis and Stalin and the Communists. Coincidence?

I don’t think so.

Is someone trying to fundamentally change this country?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I think so.

FORWARD!

Every time I listen to Barack Obama describe how he repelled down a rope from a stealth helicopter on a dark Pakistani night and took down Osama Bin Laden I am reminded of the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.”

Seldom has a story been more dishonestly spun than the one surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Barack Obama is celebrating the deathday of Obama Bin Laden with a party from himself. I caught a post over at Weekly Standard in which Dan Halper notes that the smirking Obama once again suggests that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to kill Bin Laden. Obama is quoted as saying:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

But here’s the part that caught my eye:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,”

As if going into Pakistan was his decision. Or his plan.

It wasn’t.

Going into Pakistan was George Bush’s decision, based on the advice of a CIA analyst named “John.”

While he was shepherding the hunt for bin Laden, John also was pushing to expand the Predator program, the agency’s use of unmanned airplanes to launch missiles at terrorists. The CIA largely confined those strikes to targets along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. But in late 2007 and early 2008, John said the CIA needed to carry out those attacks deeper inside Pakistan.

It was a risky move. Pakistan was an important but shaky ally. John’s analysts saw an increase in the number of Westerners training in Pakistani terrorist camps. John worried that those men would soon start showing up on U.S. soil.

“We’ve got to act,” John said, a former senior intelligence official recalls. “There’s no explaining inaction.”

John took the analysis to then CIA Director Michael Hayden, who agreed and took the recommendation to President George W. Bush. In the last months of the Bush administration, the CIA began striking deeper inside Pakistan.

Barack Obama adopted John’s and Bush’s plan. Then he co-opted it.

“John” persisted in the hunt for Bin Laden for a very long time. Then in 2007 a co-worker of John’s targeted “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.”

All the while, John’s team was working the list of bin Laden leads. In 2007, a female colleague whom the AP has also agreed not to identify decided to zero in on a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a nom de guerre. Other terrorists had identified al-Kuwaiti as an important courier for al-Qaida’s upper echelon, and she believed that finding him might help lead to bin Laden.

“They had their teeth clenched on this and they weren’t going to let go,” McLaughlin said of John and his team. “This was an obsession.”

It took three years, but in August 2010, al-Kuwaiti turned up on a National Security Agency wiretap. The female analyst, who had studied journalism at a Big Ten university, tapped out a memo for John, “Closing in on Bin Laden Courier,” saying her team believed al-Kuwaiti was somewhere on the outskirts of Islamabad.

The intel used to find and kill Bin Laden came from a career CIA analyst- not from Barack Obama.

John and his team had guessed correctly, taking an intellectual risk based on incomplete information. It was a gamble that ended a decade of disappointment. Later, Champagne was uncorked back at the CIA, where those in the Counterterrorism Center who had targeted bin Laden for so long celebrated. John’s team reveled in the moment.

And it has been revealed that the decision to undertake the raid was not Obama’s decision either. That belonged to Admiral William McRaven.

It’s been almost a year since President Obama’s leadership and foreign policy bona fides were allegedly established by the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. A campaign film narrated by Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks tells of the president’s alleged solitary, agonizing decision.

With apologies to Vice President Biden, maybe President Obama doesn’t carry quite as big a stick as Joe would lead us to believe.

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says “operational decision-making and control” was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

“The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven’s hands,” the memo says. “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out.”

In other words, it was McRaven’s call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

Now back to that Obama assertion:

President Obama’s campaign has highlighted a 2007 quote from Mitt Romney, who suggested that the fight against terrorism was bigger than bin Laden, and that it wasn’t important to “move heaven and earth” to catch him.

Curiously, back in 2009 Obama held pretty much the same position:

Obama: Killing bin Laden may not be essential

In a late Wednesday interview with CBS News, Obama signaled a more measured approach to catching the ever-elusive bin Laden, refusing to deliver any “dead or alive” ultimatums.

“I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function,” Obama said.

“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

It’s no stretch to assert that it was Barack Obama who in 2009 co-opted Romney’s 2007 position on the capture of Barack Obama. It is completely disingenuous for Obama to suggest otherwise because he was the beneficiary of the decisions made by George Bush and “John’s” detective work. You’d never know that by listening to Obama. Contrast the braggadocio of Obama

“I directed Leon Pannetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”

“I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden”

“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”

“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Usama bin Laden and bring him to justice”

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad Pakistan”

“I have made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam; bin Laden was not a Muslim leader”

to the quiet and classy reserve of George Bush describing the capture of Saddam Hussein:

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘em.

Barack Obama did not decide to take the war into Pakistan. Obama did not decide to send drones deeper into Pakistan. Obama did not find Bin Laden. Obama did not pull the trigger on the raid. What you could bet your life on is that had the mission failed McRaven would have been thrown under the bus and Obama would have said “You know, this was not our plan, per se.” What Obama did do was take credit for it all.

His behavior is so offensive that he has blasted by John McCain and the SEALS. Even Arianna Huffington has called Obama’s ad “despicable.”

This morning on Fox News the CIA interrogator who over saw the CIA EIT program (and who personally briefed Nancy Pelosi) said that the interrogating Abu Zubaydah gave them a rather important piece of information- that Osama Bin Laden was communicating with the outside world through one person- the courier.

Barack Obama has called waterboarding torture and sought to prosecute those who carried out the EIT’s all the while being the beneficiary today of the information gained from those techniques.

Barack Obama is full of sh*t. He is a miserable low life.

But we can’t leave without revisiting the only truth Ted Kennedy ever uttered:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Dog Days of Summer Are Here

Some of us are willing to give a tacit seal of approval to people who eat dogs, but if someone has the audacity to tie a dog cage with a dog inside to the top of their station wagon, before embarking on a family vacation, a serious breach of the holy covenant between man and dog has been breached. I assume most of you are aware that people in Indo-China, Indonesia, Korea, and our president have enjoyed the flesh of dogs with no misgivings; however, in all the world, no one agrees with securing the family dog to the roof of a car.

Many people consider this single infraction to be serious enough to refuse to vote for Romney. They are willing to overlook our ruinous debt, the total disregard by White House personnel to pay Third World Hookers their hard earned money, A refusal to draft a budget, An energy policy that causes the rest of the world to laugh at us, Fast and Furious insanity that has cost the lives of a federal agent and hundreds of Mexican nationals, the paying of hundreds of millions of dollars in phony Green Energy Scams to Obama bundlers, an Attorney General who refuses to answer questions and is primarily concerned with justice for “His People,” a GSA crew that spends money in gross indulgences, Leon Panetta’s personal indulgences of flying on the government’s magic carpets for his personal trips, and Michelle’s personal indulgence of vacation flying on her own Air Force One to arrive four hours early and avoid the crowded conditions on her husband’s plane, while the First Couple lectures the rest of us on energy consumption.

Just because our president admits to enjoying dogs for dinner in his best seller, “Dreams From My Father” is no reason to look down on him; it was Romney who tied the dog to the car and risked all types of misfortune and personal injury to the dog.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”

(Many Americans are wondering if our president and Lolo had too many peacock dinners.)

If Romney would have eaten the dog before the trip or barbecued the dog for a road snack during the trip, the public would have found his actions to be far more palatable.

This is a serious election and we must keep our priorities in a logical perspective; otherwise, we will put too much emphasis in the failures of a flawed leader and dog eater, and fail to concentrate on a man who drove with a dog on the top of his car.

Epilogue: No dogs were eaten by me or Romney, while writing this article.

World English Dictionary

zombie or zombi (ˈzɒmbɪ)

1. a person who is or appears to be lifeless, apathetic, or totally lacking in independent judgment; automaton

Obama supporters do not generally have much will. They lack independent judgment. They are automatons. They are easily distracted by shiny objects and Barack Obama has a host of shiny things he uses to distract them from the real issues facing the nation. As he has no record upon which to run, Obama needs these shiny objects and they are critical to his re-election efforts. Among them:

The Buffett Rule

Obama has made and continues to make a big deal out of this. He continual assertion is that it’s about “fairness.”

“Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions.”

Those whose earnings derive from capital gains pay 15%- which is what the law demands. Obama knows that, but this shiny object gets the class warfare fans all fired up over nothing. The mesmerized Obama zombies believe that this $4 billion per year shiny object will eliminate the trillion dollar plus deficit.

Romney’s tax returns

Barack Obama demands that Mitt Romney release more of his tax returns.

President Barack Obama has called on Republican Mitt Romney to release his past tax returns, saying that candidates for office need to be “as transparent as possible.”

Obama told Univision in an interview conducted at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia that candidates need to disclose their tax records as a way of letting the public know their financial background. It was the first time Obama had made the request personally, His campaign has pressured Romney to release a trove of tax documents going back to the 1990s.

“I think that it’s important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency,” Obama said in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on Univision’s “Al Punto” program.

As transparent as possible? Hysterical! This is the guy who won’t release his college records so we can see exactly who is bankrolling him. This is the guy who wages a war on whistle blowers. This is the guy who continuously blocks FOIA requests. This is the guy whose administration holds transparency meeting behind closed doors. But Obama can depend on his weak minded supporters to focus on this shiny object and ignore all the rest.

Oil company tax breaks

Obama wants minor tax breaks for oil companies ended.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s plea to Congress to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies was rebuffed Thursday as the Senate turned back a Democratic bill to repeal the tax breaks.

Moments after Obama made his election-year appeal in the White House Rose Garden, the Senate failed to reach the threshold of votes needed to proceed to a measure that would have ended the subsidies. Obama had argued that Americans are getting hit twice – once at the gas pump, and once more by sending billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil companies.

“I think it’s time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank,” the president said. “And I think it’s curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies.”

The Obama devoted think that increasing taxes on oil companies will somehow make gas cheaper and if not, well, at least this shiny object will inflict some pain on companies. They are unable to think through to the fact that whatever is lost will simply be passed along in higher costs.

War on women

Never one to miss a chance to pander, Obama hopped on the “war on women” bandwagon:

President Barack Obama on Friday showered attention on helping women yet warned in the same motion that they should not be reduced to a uniform political bloc, declaring they are not an interest group and “shouldn’t be treated that way.”

“When we talk about these issues that primarly impact women, we’ve got to realize that they are not just women’s issues,” he said at a White House forum on women and the economy. “They are family issues. They are growth issues. They are issues about American competiveness. They are issues that impact all of us.”

That one’s not going to go well.

Obama’s White House has been described as “hostile” to women:

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. Because it actually fits all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

And as it turns out, Obama pays women 18% less than he pays men:

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

And Bill Maher is at it again, this time attacking Ann Romney:

“But what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work.”

But the Obama zombies will continue to harp on this shiny object.

These shiny objects are of no practical value. None of them would have any significant effect on the economy but Obama is hoping that they will continue to distract and mesmerize the zombies who dare not think seriously for themselves.

We ought to offer these are official Barack Obama campaign merchandise: