Thursday, August 27, 2009


Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data
By Declan McCullagh

(AP)One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

Monday, August 24, 2009


I have taken First Amendment protected editorial liberty with Hussein Obama’s Ramadan address to the Islamic world:
Ramadan Kareem (White

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Ramadan Message
Washington, DC

On behalf of the American people (stupid Americans who believe in me) – including Muslim communities in all fifty states – I want to extend best (my, mine, anyways) wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.

Ramadan is the month in which Muslims believe the Koran (even though it wasn’t composed, or written down until two hundred years after Mohammed --may piss be upon him-- kicked the bucket) was revealed to the (invented by) (huckster and self proclaimed founder and incredibly jealous and Jesus wannabe) Prophet Muhammad, beginning with a simple word – iqra. It is therefore a time when Muslims reflect upon the (craziness) wisdom and guidance that comes with faith (in this dogmatic cult) , and the responsibility that human beings (I’m only referring to Moslems here, because non-Moslems are really pigs and apes) have to one another, and to God (allah, the moon god).
These (primitive) rituals remind us of the principles that we (Moslems, not real people) hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing (Islamic) justice, progress, (absolute in)tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings (remember, non Moslems are pigs and apes).
This summer, people across America have served in their communities – educating children, caring for the sick, and extending a hand to those who have fallen on hard times. Faith-based organizations, including many Islamic organizations, have been at the forefront in participating in this summer of service. And in these challenging times, this is a spirit of responsibility that we must sustain in the months and years to come (especially for Moslems as we strive to take over the world and impose hell-on-earth for non-Moslems).

All of these efforts are a part of America’s (mine, at least) commitment to engage Muslims and Muslim-majority nations on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect (but absolutely no respect for non-Moslems at all).. And at this time of renewal, I want to reiterate my commitment to a new beginning between (my Moslem) America and Muslims around the world.

As I said in Cairo, this new beginning (of Moslem domination) must be borne out in a sustained effort to listen to each other (but never, ever to a non-Moslem, remember, they ain‘t but apes and pigs), to learn from each other (the best ways to prevail over non-Moslems), to respect one another (Moslems only), and to seek common ground (in our quest to conquer the world).

I believe an important part of this is listening (and learning from one-another), and in the last two months, American embassies around the world (under my direction with the acquiescence of stoopid dhimmi diplomats) have reached out not just to governments, but directly to people in Muslim-majority countries (where non Moslems have few human rights at all, and this is good).

We have listened only to you Moslems). We have heard you (and continue to ignore civilized people). And like you, we are focused on pursuing concrete actions that will make a difference over time – both in terms of the (victorious Moslem) political and security issues that I have discussed (with my viscious, civilization hating Mohammedan colleagues), and in the areas that you have told us will make the most difference in peoples’ lives (as we pursue Islam‘s take over and domination of those civilized people whom we hate beyond reason, just because they are real and we Moslems can‘t ever hope to compete with them in any way).

These consultations are helping us implement the (Islamo-fascist civilization hating) partnerships that I called for in Cairo – to expand education exchange programs(for Moslems only. They need all the help they can get because the pursuit of Islam really stupefies so many people); to foster entrepreneurship and create jobs (let non-Moslems work so that we can sap their energy and wealth at every opportunity); and to increase collaboration on science and technology (that will benefit us Moslems), while supporting literacy and vocational learning (especially for Moslems).

We are also moving forward in partnering with the OIC and OIC member states (Moslem axis organisation of about fifty-eight civilization hating Islamic Countries) to eradicate polio (with medication created by a freaking Jew), while working closely with the international community (consisting of many dedicated, civilized Jews, Christians non-Moslems) to confront common health challenges like H1N1 – which I know is of particular to concern to many Muslims preparing for the upcoming hajj.

And today, I want to join with the (my fellow) 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – in welcoming the beginning of Ramadan, and wishing you a blessed month. May God’s (not the real God, but the heathen Arab moon-god, Allah’s) peace be upon you.
As an aside: Obama’s Audacity of Hope" translated into Indonesian - the title went from "The Audacity of Hope" to "Jihad: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse".


Some of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer (CA) as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines.

I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry.

Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong.. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two? Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

Jim Hill 16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East South Hill, WA 98374

Monday, August 17, 2009




A central pillar of the Obama administration's Middle East policy paradigm was shattered at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem - but don't expect the White House to notice.

At the conference, Fatah's supposedly feuding old guard and young guard were united in their refusal to reach an accommodation with Israel. Both old and young endorsed the use of terrorism against Israel. Both embraced the Aksa Martyrs Brigades terror group as a full-fledged Fatah organization.

Both demanded that all Jews be expelled from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem ahead of the establishment of a Jew-free Palestinian state.

Both claimed that any settlement with Israel be preceded by an Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and by Israel's destruction as a Jewish state through its acceptance of millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs as immigrants within its truncated borders.

Both demanded that all terrorists be released from Israeli prisons as a precondition for "peace" talks with Israel.

Both accused Israel of murdering Yasser Arafat.

Both approved building a strategic alliance with Iran.

In staking out these extremist positions, both Fatah's old guard and its younger generation of leaders demonstrated that Fatah's goal today is the same as it has been since the its founding in 1959: Liberating Palestine (from the river to the sea) by wiping Israel off the map.

Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas's decision to remove both his own mask and that of his organization should cause the Netanyahu government to reassess its current policies toward the group. For the past four months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have quietly barred all Jewish construction in eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem neighborhoods, as well as in Judea and Samaria. The government's unofficial policy has been implemented in the hopes of pleasing the Obama administration, which argues that by barring Jewish building, Israel will encourage the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority to moderate its policies and so engender an atmosphere conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. The Fatah conference put paid to that fiction.

Fatah's message to the Netanyahu government is important. But even more important is the message it conveys to the Obama administration. For Netanyahu, the Fatah gathering bore out his prior assessment that the group is a wolf in sheep's clothing. For US President Barack Obama, the message of the Fatah conclave was that his administration's assumptions not only about Fatah, but about terrorists and terror-supporting regimes in general are completely wrong.

For the Obama administration, Fatah was supposed to be the poster child for moderate terrorists. Fatah was supposed to be the prototype of the noble terrorist organization that really just wants respect. It was supposed to be the group that proved the central contention of the Obama White House's strategy for dealing with terror, namely, that all terrorists want is to be appeased.

But over the past week in Bethlehem, Fatah's leaders said they will not be appeased. To the international community whose billions of dollars in aid money and boundless goodwill and political support they have pocketed over the past decade and a half they sent a clear message. They remain an implacable terror group devoted to the physical annihilation of Israel.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already making clear that it is incapable of accepting this basic truth. As Abbas and his cronies were exposing their true nature in Bethlehem, Obama's counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, was giving a speech in Washington where he demonstrated the administration's ideological inflexibility.

Speaking before the Center for Strategic and International Studies last Thursday, Brennan declared that appeasing terrorists and terror-supporting regimes and societies by bowing to their political demands is the central plank of the administration's counterterror strategy. As he put it, "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent."

To this end, Brennan stressed that for the Obama administration, the now-discredited Fatah model of conferring political legitimacy and funding on terrorists in a bid to transform them into good citizens must be implemented for every terror group in the world except al-Qaida. In furtherance of this goal, the US government will no longer refer to America's fight against terror as a "war on terror" and it will no longer refer to the enemy it fights as "jihadists" or the cause for which these "violent extremists" fight a "jihad."

As Brennan explained it, referring to terrorists as terrorists is unacceptable because doing so sets the US against terror-supporting regimes that the Obama administration believes are all amenable to appeasement. And referring to Islamic terrorists as jihadists gives the jihadists the "right" to define what jihad is. Since the Obama administration perceives itself as a greater authority on Islamic law and tradition than the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, Ayatollah Khomeini, Khaled Mashaal and their fellow jihadists worldwide, Brennan unhesitatingly asserted that "'Jihad'... means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal."

Building on the false Fatah model of appeasable terrorists, Brennan indicated that the Obama administration believes that Hizbullah is well on its way to becoming a respectable political actor. As he sees it, simply by participating in Lebanon's political process, the Iranian proxy has earned the right to be viewed as a legitimate political force. Brennan cited the fact that in addition to active terrorist elements, Hizbullah members today include "members of parliament, in the cabinet; [and] there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hizbullah organization" as a reason to celebrate the group. He further claimed that Hizbullah members who are not actively involved in terrorism "are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."

As The Jerusalem Post's Barry Rubin argued on his Web site, The Rubin Report, Brennan's assessment of Hizbullah is not merely factually wrong. It also exposes a deep misunderstanding of why Hizbullah entered the Lebanese political fray - and why Hamas entered the Palestinian political fray - in the first place. Brennan's analysis is factually wrong because at no point has any Hizbullah member ever condemned or in any way criticized its paramilitary or terror cadres. To the contrary, Hizbullah's nonmilitary personnel have gone on record repeatedly praising their terror brethren and have expressed disappointment that they are not among the movement's fighters.

Like Hamas - which Brennan in the past has expressed support for recognizing - Hizbullah entered Lebanese politics with the intention of taking over the country. It wishes to control Lebanon both to protect its military forces, and to advance its jihadist aim of spreading the Iranian revolution and destroying Israel. Like Hamas, Hizbullah's political empowerment has not moderated it. It has strengthened its military arm and made it politically impossible for its domestic rivals to oppose its war against Israel, its ties to Iran and Syria and its independent military force.

Unfortunately, as Brennan made clear last Thursday, the Obama administration is intellectually wed to the notion that terrorists like Hassan Nasrallah, and terror-supporting regimes like Bashar Assad's Syria and his overlords in Iran just want to be accepted by the West. They cannot accept any evidence to the contrary.

This week the Obama administration dispatched senior military officials to Damascus for yet another round of friendly talks with the Iranian satellite. According to media citations of Pentagon and State Department officials, the administration is looking to cut a deal where in exchange for Syrian agreement to curtail its support for jihadists in Iraq, the US will put pressure on Israel to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria.

As for Iran, the administration has officially given the mullahs until next month to decide whether they are interested in negotiating a deal with the US regarding their nuclear program. Although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her colleagues in the administration are beginning to acknowledge that Iran will not meet their deadline, the administration has no Plan B.

The White House continues to oppose placing additional sanctions on Iran. State Department officials said this week that they fear that additional sanctions - including widely supported Congressional bills that would limit refined petroleum imports to Iran - would cause the Iranian public to rally around the regime. The fact that the Iranian public is in large part now begging Western countries to reject the legitimacy of the regime has made no impact on the Obama administration. Indeed, top US officials are unanimous in their willingness to accept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the legitimate president of Iran. Appeasement remains the only option the administration is willing to consider.

The Obama administration's unswerving efforts to accommodate terrorists and terror-supporting regimes wherever they are to be found demonstrates that for the administration, appeasement is not a tactic for achieving US policy aims. Appeasing terrorists and regimes that support them is the aim of US policy.

All of this makes clear that in spite of its reasonable desire to reach a deal with the Obama White House, the Netanyahu government must abandon any plans to do so. The Post reported this week that the government is now negotiating a six-month extension of its unofficial ban on Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria with US officials. These negotiations must be ended immediately.

Indeed, the proper response to the Fatah conference is for the government to announce that it is approving all building requests it has held up for the past four months. It should also declare that from now on it will treat all requests for building permits in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem in the same manner that it treats such requests from everywhere else in the country.

The Obama administration's devotion to appeasement shows that even if it wished to reward Israel in some way for going along with a construction freeze, it has nothing to offer. The only play in its game book is further concessions to terrorists and regimes that sponsor them. A settlement freeze will lead to a demand to accept a Lebanese "unity" government where Hizbullah reigns supreme, or a Palestinian "unity" government that paves the way for Hamas's international legitimization. An Israeli willingness to discriminate against Jews in Jerusalem will lead to a further demand that Israel cede the Golan Heights to Damascus, and accept Iran as a nuclear power.

For the Obama administration there is but one way of looking at terrorists: Just as Fatah can be appeased, so the mullahs can be accommodated.

Fatah's message that it will not be appeased is a message the Obama administration will never "formally" receive nor acknowledge.

Thursday, August 13, 2009


Dr. Mengele (Nazi Death Doctor)

"Israeli" Rahm Emanuel


THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.

Friday, August 07, 2009


By Chelsea Schilling

A nonprofit public interest law firm is demanding that the White House
withdraw a citizen "snitch" program that seeks to collect information on
those who make "fishy" statements about President Obama's health care

As WND reported, the White House announced the program Aug. 4, pleading with
people around the nation to forward to a White House e-mail address anything
they see "about health insurance reform that seems fishy."

In his post on the White House blog, Macon Phillips, White House director of
new media, wrote:

Scary chain e-mails and videos are starting to percolate on the Internet,
breathlessly claiming, for example, to 'uncover' the truth about the
president's health insurance reform positions.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,
spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors
often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual
conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White
House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on
the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to

The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, sent a letter to President
Obama today, warning, "This citizen reporting program raises significant
First Amendment concerns.

"For what purpose is this information being gathered?" the ACLJ letter asked
"To whom will the information be disseminated? Is the intent of the program
to stifle free and open debate on the serious policy issues raised by health
care reform? Will you flag media outlets that publish articles critical of
your health care plan?"

Sign the WND petition challenging the Obama administration to stop its
attacks on free speech and the nation's health care system.

The letter, signed by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and Director and Senior
Counsel Colby May, noted the "flag" in the White House e-mail address and
asked the question on many people's minds: "For what purpose are these
individuals being 'flagged'?"

Sekulow and May reminded Obama of his Jan 21, 2009, memorandum to heads of
executive departments and agencies on "Transparency and Open Government."
The memo stated that Obama's administration is "committed to creating an
unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to
ensure the public trust and establish a system if transparency, public
participation and collaboration."

However, the ACLJ attorneys warned the president, "Creating a program that
requests individuals to report on their neighbors, co-workers, family
members and friends who express personal opinions in opposition to your
policy choices is not the way to encourage openness and transparency. It is
tantamount to policing ideas. Such a program will only stifle free and open
debate among the citizens of this great country."

The ACLJ noted that the program has already "induced confusion and
uncertainty among the American people as to its purpose and underlying goals
and may appear reminiscent of the FBI's secret surveillance of citizens on
the basis of political beliefs that took place several decades ago.

Sekulow and May continued, "Such confusion could lead some into wondering if
this is a return to COINTELPRO (the FBI'S Counter Intelligence Program
directed against Martin Luther King Jr.), something we are sure you do not
intend. We respectfully request that the program be withdrawn."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

An attorney for Red State noted that the White House's actions may be in
violation of current U.S. Law:

"According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the
Executive Office of the President shall, 'maintain no record describing how
any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless
expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record
is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized
law enforcement activity.'"

Attorney Eric Erickson noted, "This will be the first significant time the
White House has ignored the Privacy Act and may open President Obama up to

As WND reported, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, demanded that Obama either halt
the program or define how he will protect the privacy of those who send or
are the subject of e-mails to the White House.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to
report their fellow citizens to the White house for pure political speech
that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political
interests," the Texas senator wrote in a letter to Obama.

"By requesting that citizens send 'fishy' e-mails to the White House, it is
inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and private
speech of U.S. citizens will be reported. … You should not be surprised that
these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data
collection system."

Cornyn continued, "I urge you to cease this program immediately. At the very
least, I request that you detail to Congress and the public the protocols
that your White House is following to purge the names, e-mail addresses, IP
addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in
fishy' speech."

Radio talk show icon Rush Limbaugh also chastised the president.

"Well, I would hate to see what they're going to get now at flag@whitehouse
gov. I wonder what kind of e-mails they're going to get now. They're looking
for tattletales; they're looking for snitches; they're looking for
informants; they want their groupies to tattle on you if you happen to be
telling the truth about what's in the health care plan. The White House has,
as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips
on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers."

Bloggers and readers were livid.

Wrote one observer to WND, "In my life I never thought I'd see this happen
in America. What are they going to do with the information they get?? Pure

Added another, "Why wait for a snitch to turn your name in, when you do it
yourself and save them the trouble. It only makes sense."

A third reader simply sent a link to an online history resource that cited
the use of informants during the prelude to World War II.

The e-mail quoted, "An ominous new development within the HJ was the
appearance of HJ-Streifendienst (Patrol Force) units functioning as internal
political police, maintaining order at meetings, ferreting out disloyal
members, and denouncing anyone who criticized Hitler or Nazism including, in
a few cases, their own parents.

"One case involved a teenaged HJ member named Walter Hess who turned in his
father for calling Hitler a crazed Nazi maniac. His father was then hauled
off to Dachau under Schutzhaft (protective custody). For setting such an
example, Hess was promoted to a higher rank within the HJ."

Finally, another reader reported his own concerns about "fishy" behavior to
the president:

I am responding to your inquiry regarding fishy information. Please allow me
a moment to explain what I deem to be fishy. The fact that you will not
release your records is highly fishy and suspicious. What do you have to

You want to collect an e-mail of someone who reads and does check into
things? Then please take mine and put it on your list as I am not one of the
uninformed or extremists that you make people who have a voice out to be. We
are hard-working Americans who are tired of politicians spending our money
recklessly and wastefully. Wake up Mr. President! America isn't happy about
your health care bill. Nor are we happy how you are handling our money.

Sunday, August 02, 2009



In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by

Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

In June 2008, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, released the initial short-form Obama COLB to various newspapers including the Los Angeles Times declaring, "This is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."

This short-form Obama COLB was released as a .jpg Internet image, displaying no signs of having been folded or of carrying an official State of Hawaii embossed seal.


WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by

Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

In June 2008, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, released the initial short-form Obama COLB to various newspapers including the Los Angeles Times declaring, "This is Sen. Obama's birth certificate."

This short-form Obama COLB was released as a .jpg Internet image, displaying no signs of having been folded or of carrying an official State of Hawaii embossed seal.

who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961

The document lists Obama's parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Document enlarged to show detail alleges Barack Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa on Aug. 4, 1961

No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.

WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.

An enlarged view of the bottom of the document (see full article at link below)

Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama's Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.

Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."

Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].

"I'm forcing the issue, where Obama will have to respond," she said.

"Before, they said, 'You don't have anything backing your claims,'" Taitz explained. "Now I have something. In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has. My birth certificate actually has signatures."

Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the question by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Taitz's most celebrated case involved a military officer, Maj. Stefan Cook, whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked when he challenged Obama's eligibility to hold office. That case has now been refiled in federal court in Florida, raising the specter of a class-action claim among members of the military that their orders aren't valid because of questions surrounding Obama's constitutional eligibility.

Taitz told WND she plans to file additional paperwork with the Florida court tomorrow, adding the alleged Kenyan birth certificate to Maj. Cook's case.

Read full story with graphics at: