Rally for Rush

So. Did you hear about Carbonite and Rush Limbaugh?

No, you didn't. Not the way you will in a minute. But first?

It's time to turn the tables.

It's time to stand up to the bullies.

It's time to Rally for Rush.

Rush Limbaugh has discussed at length -- at length -- what Sandra Fluke and her statist cronies are up to. Yes, he used the words "slut" and "prostitute" -- using the ludicrous to make his point. Ms. Fluke, in one of the most pathetic, shamelessly whining stories in recent memory, demands to be paid for her sex life because it costs $3,000 for three years of birth control while she's at law school. She demands that a Catholic university violate its fundamental right to religious liberty so she can have others pay for her sex life. So Rush asked the farcical obvious about somebody who demands that someone else pay her for her apparent, self-admitted prolific sex life. He spent two solid days relating her greed for other people's money and a lack of personal responsibility to the oldest of principles.

Right on cue, the blacklisting crowd came out of their Stalinist caves. Having driven Lou Dobbs from CNN, cut off Beck's windpipe at Fox, severed Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, thus emboldened they have now set their sights on Rush.

And Rush, threatened with his livelihood, has issued this statement:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

This, but of course, was not enough to satisfy. Sandra Fluke herself raced to the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC todenounce Rush. Yes, the same Ed Schulz who not long ago called conservative radio and TV commentator Laura Ingraham a "slut." And he wasn't joking either. But suddenly, Ms. Fluke simply didn't care. Why? Because this entire controversy over Rush's words was never about the actual subject. It was really about yet another drive to blacklist yet another conservative in the media.

Big mistake. Really big mistake.

Did I mention Carbonite yet? Hold on.

IN THE DAYS AFTER the death of Andrew Breitbart, perhaps the question can be phrased this way: "What would Andrew do?" Well, first, he would suggest you go to one of his sites to learn the facts -- and in this case a very interesting fact about Sandra Fluke's view of free speech. Here's the link at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government where you will find this opening in a story by Charles Johnson:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell's campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about "manipulating [students'] emotions" with misleading statistics about abortion. But when it is her turn to speak on Capitol Hill, the third-year Georgetown Law Student demands she gets her say in a hearing that has nothing to do with birth control.

Well, well, well. So Sandra Fluke has a record of denying free speech to others? In addition to giving a pass to Mr. Ed on the slut business? Free speech for Sandra Fluke but not Rush Limbaugh or those pro-lifers at Cornell? Interesting, yes? Hypocritical and thuggish, definitely. She also walked out in protest of the congressional hearing where supporters of religious liberty were allowed to speak. It turns out, as reported here, that Fluke is no struggling law student -- she's already a professional far-left genderist, long deeply into the leftist scam of judging others by skin color or gender.

We all know the answer as to what Andrew Breitbart would do in this situation. He would stand up to the bullies.

So buckle in. And when you are finished reading -- don't sit there pondering. Stand up. Do something. And yes…. I will have suggestions as to exactly what you can do to Rally for Rush.

As a matter of fact, let's start right there. Let's start with what you can do right now.

First, read this story from the Friday Huffington Post. It provides a snapshot of what's going on in the effort to intimidate Rush Limbaugh -- and in so doing intimidate the rest of us.

Now take a look at this story from Politico from January 12 of this year. That's right, the one that begins this way:

Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one, according to a new poll Thursday.

The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010.

You with me? Conservatives outnumber the left in this country by two-to-one. If you add in moderates, that means 75 percent of the American people do not identify with the kind of people these sponsors are so publicly trying to appease.

So let's start with that recognition as we go through the list of sponsors who are buckling to left-wing bullies. Caving in to thugs who claim to represent a mere 20 percent of the American public. Caving in to fanatics who, unable to sell their ideas by beating Rush Limbaugh in the ratings, seek to drive him from the air, wreck his career -- and most importantly, attempt to intimidate the 40 percent of the American people who self-identify as conservatives. Not to mention the other 35 percent who, as self-defined "moderates," surely don't support left-wing extremists who wish to shut down free speech. To shut us -- their various customers -- up.

These sponsors are:

Sleep Train
Sleep Number
Legal Zoom
Citrix
Quicken Loans
Carbonite

So Also in The Huffington Post story is a tweet from Pro Flowers saying they will "reevaluate their marketing plan."They have now done so, and, as seen here, become the seventh sponsor to withdraw from Rush's show.

So what we have are seven intimidated ex-sponsors.

Perhaps it's time to confront every last one of them with a taste of their own medicine. Here's their information.

• Sleep Train: This gutless company says it has been advertising with Rush for 25 years. They should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely ashamed. The founder of Sleep Mattress is Dale Carlsen.

Mr. Carlsen may be the salt of the earth, but he is about to give his employee-owned company and his employees an enormous, self-inflicted black-eye. Here's the information you need to reach Dale Carlsen.

This is the e-mail for Sleep Train's customer service: customerservice@sleeptrain.com.

This is the 800 phone number for Sleep Train: 1-800-919-2337

This is the 800 fax number for Sleep Train: 1-866-293-5719

This is the snail mail address for Sleep Train:

Sleep Train Mattress Centers
2204 Plaza Drive
Rocklin, CA 95765

• Sleep Number: The President and CEO of Sleep Number is Bill McLaughlin. This company has contact through an e-mail form they provide here.

More about McLaughlin in a minute.

• Legal Zoom: The Co-founders of this company are Brian Liu, Brian Lee, Eddie Hartman & Robert Shapiro. Again, more on these guys below. The contact info for Legal Zoom is as follows:

The address for e-mails is here.

The Corporate Headquarters phone number is: 1-323-962-8600. The fax number is: 323-962-8300

The Corporate Headquarters snail mail address is:

Legal Zoom.com
101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203

• Citrix: Mark B. Templeton is the President and CEO, his bio here.

The contact info for the Citrix Corporate Headquarters is :

Toll Free Phone: 1-800-424-8749
Phone: 954-267-3000
Fax: 954-267-9319

Snail mail:

Citrix Systems Fort Lauderdale
851 West Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

• Quicken Loans: Quicken, under the leadership of its Founder and Chairman Dan Gilbert (his info here) has gone the extra mile to antagonize the 40 percent. It has this statement on its website:

Due to Rush Limbaugh's continued inflammatory comments -- along with the valued feedback we have received from our clients and team members -- Quicken Loans has suspended all advertising on the Rush Limbaugh radio program."

Note: Quicken is so skittish the above message appears for mere seconds before vanishing. It took repeated tries to copy verbatim the simple, highly provocative message above.

The Quicken contact info is found on this page of their website. Note: The company has an online chat function on this page. Also:

Phone, Client Relations: 1-800- 863-4332

Snail Mail Address:

Quicken Loans - Main Office – Compuware
1050 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226

• Second last on the list is Pro-Flowers. Their contact info is here.

• Carbonite: OK. Now we'll talk Carbonite. And about Mr. McLaughlin of Sleep Number. And two of the co-founders of Legal Zoom.

Carbonite's statement was especially and curiously unctuous, its withdrawal of sponsorship coming as it did after Rush's apology. Here is Carbonite's CEO David Friend:

No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show.

Friend added:

We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.

Now. Carbonite really deserves some special attention.

David Friend is making his attack on Rush sound like he's one upset Dad with a couple of nice young daughters. And oh, yes, he wants a "more civilized public discourse."

Is that all there is to Mr. Friend? Quite aside that he gives a pass to Sandra Fluke for her obnoxiously intolerant behavior when it comes to the free speech of others, is there anything else going on here?

Yes. Of course.

Take a look here at this link to Bloomberg/Business Week which profiles Mr. Friend and affirms him as "General Partner" of an investment group called "Orchid Partners" in Boston, Massachusetts. And Orchid Partners? Yes indeed, they are the venture capital firm behind… Carbonite.

Where Mr. Friend is listed as "Co-Founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President."

So?

So when you cross check Mr. David Friend of Orchid Partners in Boston with the Federal Election Commission, one finds -- ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh shocker!……… that a Mr. David Friend of Orchid Partners in Boston has been a contributor to… ready? Here's the list of just where David Friend spends his political money:

MoveOn.org, America Coming Together and Democracy for America, all three listed here as George Soros funded groups, the latter set up by Howard Dean. Texans for Truth also drew Mr. Friend's support. This group, according toWikipedia, was set up by MoveOn.org spin-off Drive Democracy.org in 2004. Why? To… wait for it… challenge then-President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard. The precise same stunt for which CBS fired Dan Rather after documents were discovered to have been forged. The Bush-Cheney campaign said of Texans for Truth that it was "a smear group launching baseless attacks on behalf of John Kerry's campaign that will be rejected by the American people." They were. But that didn't quench Mr. Friend's affection for either the smear campaign or supporting leftist candidates such as Howard Dean, and John Kerry.

And get a load of this. Take a look right here at Ed "Laura Ingraham is a slut" Schultz's site for his radio show. Who is listed as a Schultz sponsor? That's right: Carbonite. Like Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz apologized. The difference? If Rush uses the word "slut" to illustrate the absurdity of the left-wing Sandra Fluke's views -- David Friend is outraged. But when Ed Schultz refers in hostile fashion out of the blue to conservative and Catholic Laura Ingraham as a "slut" -- hey, no big deal for Carbonite.

In other words, to put it politely, Mr. Friend's woe-is-me I'm-withdrawing-my-company's sponsorship-from-Rush Limbaugh-because of-my-lovely-daughters is as close to certifiable BS as one can imagine. Mr. Friend, one can only suspect, placed Carbonite's ads with Rush Limbaugh because he knew it would make him money -- which he obviously then funneled to MoveOn and the rest. Meanwhile, he keeps advertising on the Ed Slut Show… sorry… Ed Schultz Show. His daughters? His daughters? What a deeply cynical man.

Not to mention Friend's chutzpah calling for a "more civilized public discourse" when he is busy contributing to MoveOn.org, the self-same group that put together this charming video comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Not to mention MoveOn's "Bush Lied" routine. This is pathetic.

And oh yes, Mr. Friend isn't the only Rush-drop out whose leftist connections are suspect in this episode. Sleep Number's CEO Bill McLaughlin, Sleep Number being a product of a company called Select Comforter? That appears to be the same "William McLaughlin" who identified himself to the FEC as being with Select Comforter of Minneapolis -- when he contributed to the same Soros-funded "America Coming Together" as Mr. Friend.

And how about two of the four guys running Legal Zoom? Mr. Brian Liu is recorded as giving tens of thousands of dollars to two Obama campaign outlets, including the Obama Victory Fund 2012. Brian Lee gives his bucks to the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation. Did I mention Mark Templeton of Citrix gave Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign $2,300?

Here is Carbonite's contact info, not that it will do you any good.

• Last on the list is the newly added Pro-Flowers. Their contact info is here. And yes, you got it. Founded by a now Democratic congressman, Jared Polis, the company is currently owned by Provide Commerce, itself owned by Liberty Media. Provide Commerce's CEO William Strauss is a contributor to the Pro-Flowers founder, the Democrat Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado.

NOW, LET'S UNDERSTAND a few things here. Let's pull back the curtain and see what's really going on.

Remember the recent spate of stories on Media Matters from Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller?

The first one found here.

To summarize, the Daily Caller discovered the leftist Media Matters, along with other leftist groups, had engaged in an intense behind the scenes campaign to fire Don Imus, at one point employing some fifty people in the effort, while Media Matters head David Brock "personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired."

Writes the DC:

Media Matters soon became more sophisticated in its campaigns against non-liberal cable news anchors. Lou Dobbs, then of CNN, was a frequent target.

"As part of the Drop Dobbs campaign," explains one internal memo prepared for fundraising, "Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish Language stations in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets."

Ford pulled its advertising from Dobbs's program before the television ad aired, but Media Matters kept up its efforts, working primarily with Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and with the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other self-described civil rights groups.

In November of 2009, Dobbs left CNN. "We got him fired," says one staffer flatly.

Certainly Media Matters deserves a lot of credit for the work they did," Nogales said in an interview. "They're very effective."

Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.

"We called it 'fingerprint coverage,'" explains one former staffer, "where you know it was the result of your work." As an example, he cites the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by the controversial former White House "green jobs" czar Van Jones, which received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck's show. But in fact, he says, Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck's sponsors.

DO YOU GET the picture? The American Left -- whether it pops up in the form of Media Matters, Color of Change, MoveOn.org, Texans for Truth or other groups -- is determined to shut off conservative dissent from their agenda by whatever means necessary. Fueled in part by money like that they received from David Friend of Carbonite. To do this they are quite specifically going after conservative talk radio hosts and television commentators one by one by one. The fact that David Friend of MoveOn.org/Carbonite is there to stick it to Rush is all the better. The fact that Ed Schulz called Laura Ingraham a slut is one big no-big-deal to Sandra Fluke herself when she wants air time on with Mr. Ed. Why should David Friend care if Ms. Fluke doesn't? So, Carbonite continues as Mr. Ed's sponsor, sluts be damned.

As noted earlier, what began with Don Imus, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck has just hit Pat Buchanan.

Now, they want Rush's scalp. So all these companies are bleating about angry customers demanding they stop sponsoring Rush? Mr. Friend of Carbonite has the gall to lay off his decision on his daughters when he's a card carrying leftist who gives the slut business the brush-off when it's Ed Schultz?? Are these people (other than Carbonite, whose CEO manifestly appears to have an agenda) really that professionally incompetent as a company that they don't understand what the Daily Caller story was saying?

Are they really, seriously that clueless when there is a very detailed story out there X-raying in graphic detail just how this anti-free speech game is played? Fifty people assigned just to get Don Imus alone? The head of Media Matters personally calling "the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message" to fire Imus -- having the job done within a week? What don't these sponsors understand when a left-wing radical activist crows that "we" got Lou Dobbs fired? What don't they understand about "fingerprint coverage" designed to fire prominent conservatives?

Are these sponsors really that stupid that they aren't aware they are being played for suckers by leftist radicals? Or, in fact, like David Friend and Carbonite, are they shadowy, behind-the-scenes participants?

Once upon a time -- in 1962 when Ronald Reagan was the host of General Electric Theater on CBS -- there was a call for Reagan's scalp for the same reason. The Left didn't like what he was saying. In fact, Michael Reagan oncewrote about the day GE fired his Dad for speaking what we now call truth to power. Wrote son Michael Reagan of his Dad's encounter with saying the politically incorrect:

General Electric wants us to feel warm and fuzzy every time we screw in a GE made-in-China twisty light. But I haven't felt warm and fuzzy toward GE since that day in 1962 when Dad came home and told us he had just been fired by GE and his show, "General Electric Theater," was canceled.

Dad explained that CBS hadn't canceled the highly rated show. Instead, GE had pulled the plug. As the company was negotiating some government contracts, Bobby Kennedy, the attorney general of the United States, bluntly informed GE that if the company wished to do business with the U.S. government, it would get rid of "General Electric Theater" and fire the host.

Dad had criticized the Kennedy administration in some of his speeches, and the administration fought back through the president's brother. Within 48 hours of Bobby Kennedy's call, Ronald Reagan was out of a job.

Ronald Reagan in 1962. Rush Limbaugh fifty years later in 2012. The left never changes.

But conservatives have changed in those last fifty years. In his last speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) just weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart stood at the podium and said: "Conservatives used to take it and we're not taking it anymore."

There isn't going to be any of this intimidation anymore.

Conservatives are the majority in this country politically. No longer are they required to sit meekly, just take it and shut up. Rush Limbaugh's audience doesn't have to put up with this garbage as conservatives of an earlier era once did.

Make no mistake. The question is now on the table: should the sponsors who allow themselves to be intimidated by these bullies into attacking Rush Limbaugh deserve commercial support from conservatives? Some are doubtless sponsors of other conservative shows. Carbonite is now instantly revealed by its own CEO as being a cynical player of a double game -- funding left wing groups who participate in blacklisting campaigns, giving a pass to lefty Ed Schultz for using the exact word as Rush, then helping from the inside and laying the blame for withdrawing Carbonite's ads from Rush on his daughters. But clearly, if they are abandoning Rush Limbaugh, this serves as an implied threat to every talk radio host in the land who has these companies as sponsors. By doing what they have now done, these one-time sponsors of Rush Limbaugh's show have now startlingly indicated that they are signing on with anti-First Amendment thugs.

How does the far left play this blacklisting game? They exploit race and gender to try and destroy First Amendment protections. People who support a philosophy long on record as supporting every racial gambit from slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan right on through to the violation of voting rights by the Black Panthers, racial quotas and illegal immigration have no scruples. Genderism, as Sandra Fluke demonstrates anew, is not about individuals, it's about the left's concept of one gender. And, as Ed Schultz's slut comment about Ingraham demonstrated, if you don't fit that profile well -- you're a slut.

No one disputes the right of any would-be sponsor to choose where they place their advertising dollars. That simply isn't the question.

The question is: do these sponsors listed above, all willing participants in this thuggish behavior, understand that they are going out of their way to self-identify with those who have quite effectively demonstrated themselves to be anti-free speech thugs?

Do they understand that they are, with enormous effectiveness, voluntarily identifying themselves as peddlers not of mattresses, legal services, high tech gizmos, mortgages, computer back-ups or flowers -- but radical left wing politics designed to deliberately blacklist, insult, target and shut down the free speech of 40 percent of the American people? Their own customers? And that in some cases the people engaged in these efforts use their addiction to skin colorism or judging by gender to do these things? Clearly David Friend does believe this or he wouldn't be supporting MoveOn.org and Ed "The Slut" Schultz -- but the rest? (Note: Another Mr. Ed sponsor? That would be ESPN -- which forced Rush out after he suggested Donovan McNabb wasn't that great of a quarterback but the press covered for him because of his skin color. Apparently ESPN doesn't care about Schultz's slut problem either. Yet another double-standard.)

Do these companies understand that the message they are sending to every single Rush Limbaugh listener is that they are going to play hard ball with their own conservative customers?

If so, why in the world should any conservative -- part of that two-to-one 40 percent identified by the Gallup Poll -- ever in a million years want to buy a product from these people? .

AND LAST BUT not least: Rush Limbaugh, now a very familiar figure on the American political scene, is one of the most decent human beings on the planet. He is well known to his listeners. There is zero need here to say a word about this man's character, his endless devotion to charitable causes, his staunch support for the American men and women in the military, and much more. The mindless treatment these sponsors are engaged in with this man is shameful. Disgraceful.

So. Let's note carefully. This is exactly the moment where a talk radio host -- this one the most prominent in the land -- needs help from his longtime listeners, fans and friends. For the record, it's safe to say I have not contacted Mr. Limbaugh or sought him out for contact on this story. He will be reading this for the first time.

As this Rush-drama unfolded over the weekend I had an over-the-Internet-transom e-mail from a woman identifying herself as a "Rush Fan -- Ellie from Akron." Said Ellie: "We all need to stick by Rush in this latest assault by the attack dog media…. how many of these cowardly, so-called 'indignant' sponsors deserting him now, came to Rush's defense 3 years ago when the NFL, CNN, ESPN were calling him a racist simply because he wanted to be part owner of a pro-football team." Excellent question, Ellie from Akron.

It's time to fight back.

To take on Sleep Mattress, Sleep Number, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Quicken Loans, Carbonite and, now that they've caved, Pro-Flowers. And anybody else who wants to play this disgraceful blacklisting game with their customers.

To expose the hypocrisy and double standards. To make it crystal clear that that those who sell out our First Amendment rights to far left radicals are in fact going to be actively perceived as collaborating in a deliberate attack on their customers, real and potential.

It's time to stand up for free speech. To draw a line in the sand. And let these companies know that the blacklisting line stops with Rush.

It's time -- way past time -- to stand up to the blacklisting free speech bullies. By phone. By e-mail. Twitter, snail mail or whatever.

But however you do it?

It's time to Rally for Rush.

And yes, by all means: Pass it on!

Obama’s Eligibility…Not One Shred of Authentic Verifiable Evidence

In the wake of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s press conference regarding his Cold Case Posse’s investigation into Obama’s documents, we are left with some questions.

These questions are NOT new questions but they bear asking again and now, since an official law enforcement agency has finally investigated and issued a report, perhaps these questions gain in validity.

Yes, many others have raised these questions and rightfully so. The questions began nearly 4 years ago but, for the sake of sticking to the documents in question, we will confine our points to questions raised within the last year.

On April 25^th 2011, Obama “released” his “official certificate of live birth” in a press conference from the white house briefing room. Nearly immediately, those who knew of such things as computers, graphics, layering and such, called into question the process employed in creating this birth certificate.

Not for a minute should their efforts be discounted in questioning the validity of it. Indeed, they set the stage for this official law enforcement investigation and without doubt, they deserve credit for their work. The difference is, while they did indeed know their stuff, they were not affiliated with an official law enforcement investigation and therefore, were ripe for ridicule, ripe for what we now KNOW was UNWARRANTED ridicule.

Now, to the questions regarding the long form birth certificate which MUST be asked, AGAIN, because of the OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, conducted by the office of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County Arizona.

1) If a REAL and AUTHENTIC certificate of live birth exists, showing Barack Obama to have been born in Hawaii on August 4^th 1961, why then produce a forgery?

Answer 1) He wasn’t born in Hawaii on August 4^th 1961.

Answer 2) He was born in a foreign country.

Answer 3) Barack Obama Sr. is not his real father.

All of these are possibilities in and of themselves or perhaps a combination of them are true. Whatever the real truth might be, one truth is clear; there would be no reason whatsoever to manufacture a forged certificate of live birth if an authentic document exists.

2) Since the document in question IS a forgery, WHO forged it?

Answer) Sheriff Arpaio clearly stated neither he nor his Cold Case Posse is accusing Obama himself of creating the forgery but he also made clear, they HAVE identified a “Person of Interest” in the creation of the forgery.

3) Did Obama know that he was presenting a forged certificate of live birth on April 25^th 2011?

Answer 1) Yes he did.

Answer 2) No, he was duped.

To believe he was duped, one would have to believe that Obama believed everything which was on that forged certificate was true. He would have to believe he was indeed born in Hawaii, on August 4^th 1961, that Obama Sr. was his father etc when in fact either some of it or all of it was a lie told to him, we can only suspect, by his mother and his family and throughout the years, no one related to him or no one who was a close family friend who knew the truth ever imparted that truth or eluded to it, to Obama.

If Obama DID know the document was forged, he perpetrated a fraud upon the American public from the white house briefing room on April 25^th 2011.

4) When was the forged document created?

Answer 1) In 1961

Answer 2) In 2008

Answer 3) In 2011

As the technology employed to create this forgery didn’t exist in 1961, it could not have been forged at that time. Had the forgery been created in 2008 or there about, when Obama decided to run for president, why not release it at THAT time rather than wait more than 2 more years? It seems most likely that the forgery was created shortly before its release in April of 2011 in direct response to Trump’s vow to investigate the matter.

Now, let’s look at the other document in question with regard to the Arpaio investigation…The Obama Selective Service Registration card.

Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse was able to confirm, just as they did with the long form birth certificate, that the Selective Service Registration card, with 100% certainty, is a forgery.

Here are the questions:

1) Why forge a Selective Service Registration card?

Answer 1) The authentic card could not be found.

Answer 2) Obama never registered for Selective Service.

As other cards can easily be found including cards from those who registered for Selective Service in the same United States Post Office as the forged card indicates Obama registered, it would appear to be HIGHLY improbable that Obama’s card has gone missing. It seems much MORE likely that Obama never registered, as was required by law, for Selective Service.

2) When was the forged Obama Selective Service Card created?

Answer 1) In 1980

Answer 2) In 2008

Answer 3) in 2011

Here again, if an authentic Selective Service Registration card was ever filled out by Obama in 1980, it would exist today and no forgery would be needed. It is doubtful that the forgery was created in 2011. Most likely, the forgery was created in 2008 as Obama was approaching the nomination. The Cold Case Posse showed how it was most likely created with the focus being the pica date stamp. Since a 1980 (note the 4 digit year number) did not remain in existence in 2008, a 2008 pica date insert was cut in half and the 08 (note the 2 digit year number) was inverted (turned upside down) to record as 80 (again, note the 2 digit year number) which is not at all in accordance with a real pica date stamp used by the United States Post Office.

3) Who forged the Obama Selective Service Registration card?

If, as it seems most likely to be, that the Obama Selective Service card forgery was created in 2008, it would appear most likely that it was created by someone within the DNC. This, if it is indeed the case, would be because in the vetting process, at some point, when it became apparent that Obama would be the nominee, certain documents which should exist relating to him, simply didn’t exist and to cover for these missing documents, i.e. the Selective Service Registration, forgeries were then created.

4) Did Obama know his Selective Service Registration card was forged?

Answer 1) No, he was duped.

Answer 2) Yes he did.

Only Obama himself would know for sure whether or not he ever registered for Selective Service. If he did, an authentic Selective Service Card would be in existence today. If he did not, he would know it and the forged Selective Service Registration card in his name, would be known by him, to be a forgery and as that card has been displayed for years, as his, he would have known for years that a forged Selective Service Registration card was being purported as authentic in his name.

Finally, the microfilm issue highlighted in the Sheriff Arpaio press conference.

One of the questions investigated by the Cold Case Posse revolved around possible entry into the U.S. by Obama’s mother. Anyone entering the United States, citizen or foreigner, is required to fill out an official card through INS.

It is thought that, sometime within the first week of August 1961, Stanley Ann Dunham may have entered the United States from overseas bringing with her, a baby. Suspiciously missing from the INS records thus far investigated was that very week. Microfilm reel #184 shows only a couple of cards before that reel goes blank. Reel #185 picks up with August 8th 1961. Missing completely are August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th, 1961.

1) When did that week’s record go missing?

2) Who removed that week’s record?

3) Why is it missing?

At this point, we have no idea when that single week’s portion of the INS microfilm record went missing. As to who was responsible, we can only guess it rises to a higher level than the DNC. While it would be relatively simple for the DNC to create forged documents to stand in for nonexistent documents, the INS is a federal bureau and missing records are far different from records which never existed.

It seems necessary for someone within the INS to have removed any portion of the INS records. This would mean that someone else would have had to facilitated in the call for that portion of the record to have been removed.

Did money change hands in this process? Did someone high up in the government instruct someone at INS to remove that portion of the record?

Those are questions which now need to be asked and answered.

As to WHY that week’s microfilm record is missing, we can only guess that it showed something which would not be conducive to Obama and his election to the office of president. That portion of the INS record could have shown Stanley Ann Dunham and baby arriving in the United States.

While this portion of the microfilm record pertains to entries through or across the pacific, the records pertaining to Atlantic entries has not yet been provided but, considering Stanley Ann Dunham then lived in Hawaii, the Pacific entries would be most important.

This of course would indicate that the Barack Obama who was elected to the office of President in 2008, may well have been born on foreign soil and regardless of his father’s citizenship status, is FAR, FAR away from being constitutionally eligible to serve as either the President or Vice President of the United States.

Connecting the Dots

It must be pointed out that connecting these dots is my doing and was not part of the Sheriff Arpaio press conference nor has it been eluded to by the Cold Case Posse.

The dots can indeed be connected given the results made known from the Cold Case Posse as a result of the Arpaio investigation and to do so, we must go back to the top of this article.

The long form birth certificate displayed by Obama on April 25^th 2011 has been shown, via this investigation, to be a forgery. If Obama was born outside the country, which may well be indicated by the missing week’s record of microfilm provided by INS, Obama would be a foreigner. As a foreigner, he would not have filed a Selective Service Registration necessitating the need for a forged Selective Service Registration card to be created and if a foreigner, an authentic certificate of live birth simply would not exist in Hawaii which would then have to be provided, in April of 2011, as a forged document.

The idea that Obama is a foreigner is also bolstered by another piece of information garnered by the Cold Case Posse.

It was clearly stated that the Posse is in possession of a legal sworn affidavit stating that when introduced to Bill Ayers, Obama was introduced as a FOREIGN STUDENT looking for financial aid in regard to his education.

From this, only 2 conclusions can be made.

1) Obama WAS indeed a foreign student which would mean he was NOT a United States citizen.

2) Obama was masquerading as a foreign student in which case he was perpetrating a fraud.

Given the forged birth certificate, the forged Selective Service Registration and the week’s worth of missing INS microfilm records, and his introduction to Ayers as a foreign student, it becomes more probable in connecting the dots, that Obama was indeed foreign born.

Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who is aware of this information and either dismisses it as bull, ignores it or does not, for any reason, believe a full congressional investigation is warranted is actively assisting in the perpetration of fraud and is, in fact, actively engaged in the dismantling of our Constitution.

This includes sitting Members of Congress, the media, the RNC, the DNC and citizens at large.

Combine what we have been presented via an official law enforcement agency’s investigation with other evidence acquired via investigations such as the apparent fraud regarding Obama’s Social Security number and the only credible conclusion can be that we have no idea who the man occupying our oval office really is.

Any state or private entities pursuing the removal of Obama’s name from 2012 ballots must use this evidence, acquired through the Arpaio Cold Case Posse in there legal challenges.

The Inescapable Conclusion

Forget the valid arguments regarding Obama being ineligible due to the “Natural Born Citizen” clause contained in the Constitution resulting from his father’s lack of citizenship status.

At this point, now more than 3 years into his term…

Not one single shred of authentic evidence has been presented to prove Barack Obama is even a United States CITIZEN. We have a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service Registration, what by all accounts is a fraudulent Social Security number, missing INS records, sworn legal affidavits indicating he was a foreign student…But not one single verified, authentic document proving Obama to be even a United States citizen.

Not one.

The National Patriot encourages you to obtain and read Jerome Corsi’s book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”by clicking here.

The National Patriot also encourages you to read the summary of Sheriff Arpaio’s report and watch the videos showing exactly how the birth certificate and the Selective Service Registration card were forged by clicking here.

For those who believe this to be purely partisan, think again. If all that is requires for a liberal to serve as President is a handful of forged and fraudulent documents than so too would a conservative be able to point to forgeries and fraud as “proof” of citizenship.

If a foreign citizen, of any political party is allowed to serve either as a Member of congress or as President or Vice President, our republic is finished.

If, upon such 100% certainty of forgery as exists with Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Registration, as shown by a law enforcement entity and verified by forensic document experts is allowed to be considered nothing but a distraction or not worthy of a full and immediate intensive congressional investigation, as it regards our Constitution, national security and the Presidency, duplicity on the part of the Members of congress in allowing the possibility of a foreign national to serve as President today or in the future will be precedent setting.

Daylight - The Story of Obama and Israel

A few weeks ago the Obama administration put out a video extolling Obama's record on Israel. They took excerpts from speeches by Israeli leaders praising Obama and used them as proof that Israelis view Obama is a great friend of the Jewish state.

On the whole it was an obscene production. What can Binyamin Netanyahu or any other Israeli official say other than that Obama is a great friend of Israel? We have to face the dismal fact that Obama may remain in the White House until 2017. No Israeli official can afford to say openly what they think of this man.

While Israel's leaders cannot say the truth about Obama, American Jewish groups can say the truth. Unfortunately, since the majority of American Jewish leaders are more concerned about maintaining their liberal bonafides than defending Israel, the voices opposing Obama's hateful treatment of the US's most vital ally in the Middle East have emanated mainly from the underfunded margins of the American Jewish community.

Ahead of the 2010 elections, in a bid to ensure that Obama's animosity towards Israel is exposed for all to see, Bill Kristol, Gary Bauer and Rachel Abrams formed the Emergency Committee for Israel. A Super Pac, ECI is permitted to run political ads. They did this effectively in the special congressional election in New York's 9th Congressional District last September.

ECI's ads played a significant role in making Obama's record on Israel a major issue in the race in the heavily Jewish district. As a consequence, the traditionally Democrat Jewish vote went to the Republican candidate Bob Turner over the Jewish pro-Obama Democrat Dave Weprin. By most accounts, it was the flip in the Jewish vote that won Turner the election.

This week, the ECI is at it again. The day before Obama is scheduled to give a fraudulent, saccharine, speech at the AIPAC conference in which he congratulates himself for not yet ending the US's military cooperation with Israel and refers to himself repeatedly as Israel's greatest friend ever, ECI released a new half hour video documenting Obama's actual record on Israel. It is a must see video for all American Jews who consider themselves pro-Israel, (that would be almost all American Jews), and a must see video for all Americans for whom Israel is a voting issue.

Please disseminate this video far and wide.

Popout

http://www.google.com/reader/view/#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2Fcarolineglickblog

Netanyahu vs Obama – Who Would You Trust To Lead A Nation?

Received this photo today and found it to be the perfect contradiction of two men in their youth – one the future Prime Minister of Israel, the other the future President of the United States.

On the left we have Lieutenant Benjamin Netanyahu in his 20′s as a member of an Israeli special forces unit. He was injured in action during a mission to free airline hostages in 1972.

Israel would elect this man its prime minister in 1996 and again in 2006.

On the left is Barack Obama in his 20′s as a member of the anti-American counter-culture movement that took root in American universities during the 1960′s and 1970s. His own autobiography details his use of a variety of recreational drugs during this time – including cocaine.

America would elect this man its president in 2008.

Will America elect him its president again in 2012?

_________________

North Korea Has Allegedly Tested Nuclear Warheads For Iran

What is one sure thing sure to set triggerhappy warmonger fingers in the US and Israel on Defcon 1 more than the word Iran? The words Iran and North Korea. How about three nouns that will send crude soaring by at least $10 the second a CL trading algo sees them fly across Bloomberg? Try "Iran" "North Korea" and "Nukes." And if the following report just released by the Wiener Zeitung is even remotely correct, then Israel, the military industrial complex, and crude are all about to go ballistic, not necessarily in that order.

According to one of Europe's most famous newspapers, which in turn references a report in Welt am Sontag, North Korea has conducted at least two nuclear warhead tests in 2010, of which was on behalf of Iran. "This could mean that with North Korea's help Tehran may already have a tested nuclear warhead....According to the newspaper "Welt am Sonntag", this assumption is based on data from the Organization of the contract for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. Accordingly, the Swedish nuclear physicist Lars-Erik De Geer uses data from monitoring stations in South Korea, Japan and Russia and believes that North Korea instead of uranium, used plutonium in two prior secret tests as far back as in 2006 and 2009." What is striking here is the effluvience of meaningless innuendo and baseless allegations. But this certain plant may well be the false flag straw that breaks the camel's back. While it is unclear if it was planted by the US or Israel is irrelevant, it has one simple mission - to preempt even more irrationality by Iran, a day after its parliamentary election has put president Ahmedinajad in power vacuum limbo, with his chief opponent gaining vast popular support. Which is precisely what is needed to validate a response.

More from the Austrians, google translated:

The longtime director of the Policy Planning Staff in the German Defense Ministry, Hans Rühle, writes in the "Welt am Sonntag" that "some of which now go out intelligence that North Korea has actually conducted a nuclear test in 2010, at least for Iran.

Supposedly this means that all military operations now will take for granted that the axis of uber-evil, i.e., North Korea and Iran, now just can't wait to shoot ICBMs at every capital in the "free and democratic" western world, just because they "hate it for its freedoms" [sic].

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that this is simply yet another media fallback alibi to justify an offensive incursion into Iran, if and when it is required. The only question is if the global deflationary collapse (ala Lehman) will happen before or after, which in turn, as John Taylor wrote a few days ago, will then be promptly followed by the (luckily) terminal central planning hyper-reflation experiment.

In the meantime, let the crude liberation begin.

h/t JohnGaltFla

Daylight: New film blasts Obama's Israel record

One day before the AIPAC conference kicks off in Washington, an anti-Obama pro-Israel group is widening its criticism of President Barack Obama's record on Israel -- while the White House defends its treatment of the relationship.

The trailer for a new 30-minute video, entitled "Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel," cuts together clips of Obama quotes and outside commentary to put forth the narrative that Obama has made statements and taken actions as president that have put him out of step with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters.

"We believe that that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," Obama is shown saying, a reference to his May, 2011 speech, where he for the first time explicitly defined U.S. policy as supporting the 1967 borders with agreed swaps as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

"He didn't quite have a full grasp of what the full region looks like," conservative journalist Lee Smith is shown saying in the video. "This is not how you treat an ally."

The ad goes beyond the Israeli issue to suggest that the president is too solicitous of Muslim concerns. The end of the trailer shows Obama saying, "I want to make sure we end before the call to prayer," a clip from his town hall meeting with Turkish students in Istanbul in April 2009.

The video was produced by the group the Emergency Committee for Israel, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its pre-AIPAC publicity campaign, including posters and billboards all over Washington that question Obama's commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"He says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Do you believe him?" the posters read. Then, next to a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, it says, "Do they?"

ECI is run by executive director Noah Pollak and Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain-Palin staffer now working at the consulting firm Orion Strategies and as chairman of the board of theWashington Free Beacon, an new conservative website.

"Obama says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable," Pollak told The Cable today. "We hope he means what he says, but the recent statements from his administration, his contentious relationship with the Israeli government, and his consistent efforts to weaken congressional sanctions don't inspire confidence."

The ECI board is comprised of Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Gary Bauer, who has endorsed Rick Santorum, and Rachel Abrams, the wife of former NSC official Elliott Abrams, and the author of the controversial Israel-focused blog "Bad Rachel." The group is also the only Israel-focused advocacy organization to have formed a SuperPAC in the run up to the 2012 election.

As part of its pre-AIPAC activity, ECI took out a full page ad in the New York Times yesterday calling out donors for supporting two liberal advocacy organizations in Washington, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, and accusing those donors of "funding bigotry and anti-Israel extremism."

Pollak also said that the video, billboards, and ads happen to refute a pre-AIPAC interviewObama gave to The Atlantic, in which Obama expressed frustration with the attacks coming from conservative lawmakers and groups like ECI that claim he is not pro-Israel.

"Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," Obama said. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"

"Obama said today he doesn't understand why there are questions about his record of support for Israel," Pollak said. "We think this movie will set the record straight, and remind pro-Israel Americans of the facts of this administration's failure to stand with Israel at some critical moments."

Obama cautions against “a premature attack” on Iran, rejects red lines

In a widely reported interview to The Atlantic Friday, March 2, US President Barack Obama held to the line which he claimed “the Israelis share” that “Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time…” DEBKAfile: This assessment is certainly not shared by the Israelis.

In a New York Times article published Thursday, former Israel Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin wrote:
“Asking Israel's leaders to abide by America's timetable, and hence allowing Israel's window of opportunity to be closed, is to make Washington a de facto proxy for Israel's security - a tremendous leap of faith for Israelis faced with a looming Iranian bomb.”

The two views represent the crux of the fundamental disagreement between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu three days before they meet at the White House on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear.
When Obama stressed: “I don’t bluff …When the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” he was stating that his policy on Iran remain unchanged ahead of that meeting.
He went on to reiterate the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions on Iran’s regime.

In recent days, senior US officers and Pentagon sources were enlisted to aim tough talk at Iranian ears and tell Israelis the administration was committed to their security and making available the military means for demolishing the Iranian nuclear threat. This was an exercise to soften up Israeli and Jewish opinion ahead of the president’s Atlantic interview and his negation of the Israeli government’s positions.
The interview told Israel and the 14,000 delegates attending the AIPAC convention opening in Washington Sunday, March 4, not to expect President Obama’s speech to augur any shift in America’s Iran policy.
When Obama said “I think the Israeli people understand it,” in reference to the refrain “all options are on the table,” he ignored the widening gap between his take on the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the conclusions reached by Israel’s political, military and intelligence leaders and experts.
The Israeli view was laid out clearly by Yadlin when he wrote, “That moment of decision will occur when Iran is on the verge of shielding its nuclear facilities from a successful attack – what Israel’s leaders have called the zone of immunity.”
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources note that not only Israel, but US intelligence and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, are convinced that Iran is already in the second stage and possibly the third of its operation to shielding its nuclear facilities in one or more zones of immunity.

This ominous development is ignored in the US president’s interview.
Israel knows that the US had the means to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities even when they are buried in “zones of immunity.” Israel lacks those means.
When he declared, “The Israeli people understand that the United States isn’t bluffing when it says ‘all options are on the table,’” Obama no doubt recalled the disagreement with Netanyahu going back six months when the Israeli prime minister asked him privately on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to lay down a US-Israeli consensus on red lines for Iran’s nuclear program, beyond which the US President would be committed to strike Iran.
In return, Israel would promise to refrain from attacking Iran and follow America’s lead on the issue.

The US president turned him down.

Israel has not relinquished its position, which Yadlin put very clearly: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity - and all other options have failed to halt Tehran's nuclear quest - Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”

The absence of that American assurance is keeping Israel from a commitment to refrain from attacking Iran notwithstanding all the verbal ammunition thrown at its government from Washington.