WHAT OBAMA READS

This is not a doctored photo.

OBAMACARE IN COURT

Remember when Nancy Pelosi made the Idiotic statement “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”?   
Well Ms. Pelosi, we now know what’s in it.

It is a highly flawed, unconstitutional and feeble attempt by Obama and the majority of    Democrats in congress to “Fundamentally Change America” from a liberty-based system of free market enterprise into a Marxist nanny state where people like Nancy Pelosi are in charge of critical life-and-death decisions best left in the hands of intelligent citizens.

In other words, Ms. Pelosi, conservatives on the Supreme Court discovered what exactly is in the foolish bill. Suffice it to say, they were not amused.

Of course, that could change before a final decision is rendered, but gambling people are betting that ObamaCare will join the Obama “Stimulus Plan,” the Obama push for $8 a gallon gas, Obama’s closure of GITMO, Obama’s handling of the federal deficit, the Obama Solyndra mess, Fast and Furious and other colossal screw-up’s in Obama’s growing list of screw-up’s.

Challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it.  This is the first time that a majority of the States have combined to protest an act of Congress. Now We the People must wait while the fate of our Republic is decided in secret by a court from which there is no appeal.

Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether the Obamacare individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate itself and whether Congress crossed the  Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.

While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend.

After months of anticipation, thousands of pages of briefs and more than six hours of arguments, the justices are voting on the fate of ObamaCare this morning, in a closed meeting.  No one else will be present.  In the weeks following this meeting, individual votes can change. Even who wins can change, as the justices read each other's draft opinions and dissents.

THE WHOLE TRUTH . . click here

THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

..

The Democratic Party has produced a television ad purporting to show Rep Paul Ryan throwing grandma off the cliff, by opposing ObamaCare.

A couple of San Antonio doctors have responded with an effective ad to counter this injustice. See the ad produced by Drs Jane Hughes and Kris Held.

..

Watch the video by clicking on the link below IF you can handle the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ-p29xEM0s&feature=share

CYA . click here to read

I think everyone might find this article from The Washington Times interesting.

.

I know I sure do.

.

http://times247.com/articles/immigration-records-missing-for-week-of-obama-s-birth/?ow

Occupy Wall Street update

Occupy Wall Street protests are getting clearer now...

Zuccotti Park is the park in NYC that the Wall Street protesters are occupying?

Did you know this park is not owned by the city of New York?

It is owned by Brookfield Properties.

Brookfield Asset Management received an Obama Department of Energy Loan guarantee of over $160 million within 10 days of approving the take over of the Park.

Brookfield is a Canadian company with assets of 70 billion.

Google it!   It is all on their website.

-And WHY is the US Taxpayer guaranteeing a loan to a VERY wealthy Canadian company??

Who was just hired by Brookfield Properties as an attorney?

Vice-President Joe Biden's son.

Who sits on the board of Brookfield Properties?
Mayor Bloomberg's live in girlfriend.

Now, guess what company just received some of the last of the Obama Stimulus $$$$$$$.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaat's right, Brookfield Properties.

Isn't life great in America!

Now, on a completely unrelated note, Wisconsin is shaping up to be the swing state in the 2012 presidential elections. Not Florida. Not Ohio. But Wisconsin.
Now, guess who owns the company that will be tabulating the electronic votes in Wisconsin.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaat's right, the biggest contributor to Obama, the puppeteer George Soros.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat a coincidence!


Remember what Stalin said. 

"He who votes does not have the power.
He who counts the votes has the power".

The Democratic Party will do ANYTHING to get Obama re-elected and to retain control of the Senate.

Demolishing Due Process

Posted By Representative Ron Paul On March 20, 2012

 

It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:
“All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.”

It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration’s authoritarian claims.  Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, “Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.”  The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher.  Congress and the people should finally wake up!

Tell Congress: Support HR 3785 to Repeal Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act — sign the petition and send free messages to lawmakers here!

This article was written by Texas Rep. and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul; visit his website.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

In effect, Obama’s recent Executive Order allows the federal government, directed by the President, to commandeer and control all aspects of the economy and the lives of all Americans.  
 http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7188857862599182987#editor/target=post;postID=185850392016129851

It centralizes control to an astonishing and frightening degree.  It gives the President the power to declare Martial Law even in time of peace. It also, for example,  parcels out control to “ the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer” and thereafter to:
The Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
The Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
The Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
The Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

The obvious question is why is this EO necessary in the absence of any threat of an invasion or even an attack?

Am I the only one wondering why the President of the United States, in the run-up to a national election, should feel that this is the time to issue such an EO? 

I know I would be considered a kooky conspiracy theorist if I dared to even mention the possibility that Obama would attempt to carry off a coup d’etat to establish himself as an American dictator.  However, consider this for a moment; Obama has surrounded himself with Cabinet Secretaries and a shadow government of “czars” that would likely support him if he were to attempt such an audacious move.

Such a move most likely would not happen until his second term after he has had the opportunity to appoint a couple more left wing extremists to the Supreme Court, but you never know. 

The “legality” of such a move would be rubber-stamped by the Attorney General whose regard for the Constitution and laws of the nation is dubious at best, treasonous at worst. The President’s views about the Constitution are well known and he resents the limits it puts on his powers.

Would Congress stand by and allow its powers to be usurped? Imagine yourself a Senator or Representative fearful of arrest and detention. Rounding up all 435 members would not be a difficult task.

The nation’s media, with exceptions, has “covered” for this President regarding the legitimacy of his right to hold office, his absurd energy policies, and his takeover of various segments of the nation’s economic base; the auto industry, the insurance industry, and ObamaCare attempt to takeover the healthcare sector.

That is why this EO has evoked such fear and concern and that is why Congress has to assert its Constitutional powers before this President is permitted to overthrow the legislative branch of government and seize control through an EO that is so broad that it is a breathtaking seizure of power that could only be considered if the nation was, in fact, under attack.

This EO is about “preparedness”, but for whom?

THE SUPREME COURT GETS IT RIGHT

The Environmental Protection Agency has been issuing “drive-by” decisions that a parcel of land is a protected wetlands and thereby prohibiting the owner from using it, for any purpose.  I mean they cannot build a home on it, or farm it, or anything else.  And, to make matters even worse, they then refuse to hear any challenges to such decisions.

The EPA has been doing this every since Obama used an executive order to grant them Gestapo like unlimited powers.  Many concerned citizens, myself included, have been complaining that this was unlawful and unconstitutional.  

Now, here’s some good news for a change.  The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with us.

The decision came a few days ago in the case of the Sackett family of Priest Lake, Idaho. Mike Sackett and his wife bought a piece of land in a residential subdivision that was about two-thirds of an acre, purchased the appropriate building permits and started work on their dream home.

Then the EPA arrived, ordered them to restore the land to its pristine condition, protect it for years and then go through a ruinously expensive application process to request permission to use their own land.

Further, the EPA, in collusion with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, told the couple they could not even challenge the decision unless they went through that expensive process.
The Supreme court said the EPA must provide a process through which a challenge to its decision can be addressed in a meaningful way. The law firm working on behalf of the Sacketts called the decision a “precedent-setting victory for the rights of all property owners.”

The EPA previously had threatened the couple with fines of up to $75,000 per day for failing to follow the agency’s intrusive “compliance” plan through which federal officials not only effectively seized control of the land, but also the couple, by demanding their paperwork records and other detailed information.

Damien Schiff, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the couple without charge, had argued the case at the Supreme Court on Jan. 9.

He said the implications of the decision are clear.

“EPA is not above the law,” he said. “That’s the bottom line with today’s ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can’t deny them access to justice. EPA can’t repeal the Sacketts’ fundamental right to their day in court. And for that reason, it is a great day for all Americans, for all property owners, and for the rule of law.”

He continued, “The justices have made it clear that EPA bureaucrats are answerable to the law and the courts just like the rest of us. EPA can’t try to micromanage people and their property – it can’t order property owners to dance like marionettes – while denying them any meaningful right to appeal to the courts. It can’t threaten property owners with financial ruin and not have to justify its threats to a judge. And it can’t issue lazy, drive-by ‘wetlands’ edicts about private property. It will have to put in some honest work and use credible science, because the regulators must be able to justify their wetlands orders in a court of law,” he said.

Schiff said, “Rest assured, while today’s ruling strengthens everyone’s individual rights and property rights, and everyone’s access to justice, it does not weaken legitimate environmental protection one iota. Regulators will simply have to be professional and thorough, not careless and slipshod, when they issue wetlands orders.

“In the case of urgent pollution threats, EPA will still have the power, as it does now, to seek an immediate court injunction. But when there is no emergency, EPA can’t start ordering property owners around – and threatening them with tens of millions of dollars in fines, as with the Sacketts – without first doing some genuine due diligence. EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary – not just a power trip.”

Mike Sackett said he and his wife were subjected to “hell” by federal bureaucrats.

“We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution,” he said. “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.

“Now, the Supreme Court has come to our rescue, and reminded the EPA – and everyone – that this is still America, and Americans still have rights under the Constitution. We want to thank Pacific Legal Foundation for defending us, without charge! Without Pacific Legal Foundation, this day would have not come, and this court ruling that vindicated the rights of all Americans against bureaucratic bullying, would not have happened.”

The family bought the small parcel in 2005 in an area surrounded by other homes. The EPA’s decision, without hearings or notice, that it was a “wetlands” was accompanied by threats of fines and penalties.

The Sacketts wanted to challenge the EPA’s decision, but the agency refused to hold a hearing, and then the 9th Circuit Court said they had no right to judicial review at that point. The court said the couple would have to pay for a years-long “wetlands” permit process first.

That process could have cost 12 times the value of the land, the legal team working for the Sacketts said.

When the case was argued in January, justices suggested the EPA actions were “outrageous” and “very strange.”

Samuel Alito said that the scenario was one that most homeowners would say “can’t happen in the United States.”

And Elena Kagan said it was a “strange position” for the government to adopt in insisting that the property owner has no right to a hearing on such an order.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. turned the question back on Malcolm Stewart, the government attorney assigned to defend the EPA’s actions.

“What would you do if you received this order?” he asked.

Stewart wouldn’t answer.


Alito also noted it was “very strange” for a system that would require a party to apply for a permit to build on “wetlands” when the fact being challenged was whether the land was “wetlands.”

Justice Antonin Scalia called it the “high-handedness of the agency” when the EPA demanded the couple turn their land into a protected preserve, installing vegetation that wasn’t there before they started their project.

The government did not contest the recitation when Alito summarized what had happened:
You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says you have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house. Remove the fill. Put in all kinds of plants. and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to … you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000 and by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg noted that the couple had sought a hearing from the EPA over the controversy, “and the EPA said no.”

The Sacketts had described for a congressional hearing recently the shock when they found federal EPA agents on their land, ordering them to stop foundation work, “restore” the land with non-native species, fence it, guard it for several years and then request a permission to continue their home project that in all likelihood would be denied.

“Bullying,” they said.

“That’s what the EPA does. They came into our life, took our property, put us in limbo, told us we can’t do anything with it, and then threatened us with fines,” she said. “They use intimidation and we as American people, my husband and I, are fed up. We’re scared.

“They can’t be allowed to do this,” she continued. “It’s wrong. This is why we are suing the government, the EPA.”

Fast and Furious update

ATF Managers Lawyer Up, Slam Gun Laws and Still Deny Gunwalking

From Townhall.com  .   By Katie Pavlich   3/21/2012

The attorneys of Bill Newell, embattled former ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division, and David Voth, Supervisor of Phoenix Group VII (the group that carried out Operation Fast and Furious), are accusing Senator Charles Grassley and Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa of making “many inaccurate and harmful statements” and “factual distortions against” their clients.

In a letter obtained by Townhall, attorney and former Department of Justice Prosecutor Paul E. Pelletier, representing Newell, writes on behalf his defendant to “correct the factual distortions in your staff’s ‘memorandum.’ To be clear, this faulty memorandum and the conduct of the Committee’s investigation to date has disserved the hard working ATF agents, in Phoenix and elsewhere who, with great personal sacrifice, risk their lives every day to make a difference in the communities in which we live. It is, of course, now evident that the citizens of this country are far less safe today primarily as a result of the irresponsible manner in which this ‘outcome-determined’ investigation has been conducted.”

Pelletier accuses Issa and Grassley of refusing to follow evidence in the Fast and Furious investigation, saying, “I have learned that the ultimate success and legitimacy of any investigation depends upon the capacity of investigators to blindly follow the evidence where it leads and to neutrally and dispassionately evaluate that evidence before reaching a conclusion. Given your staff’s tortured factual conclusions, your staff’s utter disregard of any evidence that contravened or rebutted the preordained and misdirected conclusions of misconduct, speculation to motive is unnecessary.”

The letter lists three “false assertions” made by the Issa and Grassley:
1. ATF purposely failed to confront straw purchasers and interdict guns. Disrupting and deterring the illegal activity took a backseat to the lawful goal of dismantling the entire organization.
2. Intercepts from the DEA wiretap provided the probable cause necessary for ATF to make arrests as early as December 2009, or, at the very least, supplied the necessary predicate to use other investigative techniques to disrupt illegal activity and seize the weapons. ... ATF, however, did not act on this information. Agents could have arrested Celis-Acosta in December of 2009 and used the arrest to work their way up the ladder to the two cartel associates.
3. ATF insisted that the techniques used in Operation Fast and Furious were necessary to take down a complicated gun trafficking operation. In reality, however, the network was not complex.

The letter also refers to Issa and Grassley’s reference to gunwalking as a tactic used by ATF as erroneous and an “attempt to cast wide blame on the ATF supervisors and agents as well as the attorneys in the Department of Justice.” Pelletier says his client Newell advised on multiple occasions and under oath that no such tactics were contemplated or existed in the Fast and Furious investigation. But even putting both Issa and Grassley’s findings aside and simply based on whistleblower testimony, the claims of “false assertions” by Pelletier on behalf of his client Bill Newell are false.

(For evidence against Pelletier's point 2, click here. For evidence against Pelletier's point 3, click here. 70 percent of Fast and Furious guns were bought by just 5 straw purchasers.)

“What I found concerning and alarming was more times than not, no law enforcement activity was planned to stop these suspected straw purchasers from purchasing firearms. The only law enforcement activity that was occasionally taken was to conduct a surveillance of the transaction, and nothing more,” ATF Special Agent and whistleblower Orlindo Casa said under oath on June 14, 2011 before the House Oversight Committee. “On several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms in such a manner that would only further the investigation, but I was always order to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
In other words, Casa was told to allow the guns to walk.

Another whistleblower, ATF Special Agent John Dodson, had similar statements during the same committee hearing.

“This was not a matter of some weapons getting away from us, or allowing a few to walk so as to follow them to a much larger or more significant target. Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals -- this was the plan. It was so mandated,” Dodson said. “The numerous guns we let walk have yet to be recovered.”

Not once did Pelletier mention the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry as a result of this program, or the fact that at least two guns that were allowed to walk showed up at the crime scene. Pelletier also failed to mention Americans are now at risk thanks to the actions of the Obama Justice Department, in partnership with ATF, allowing thousands of weapons to be trafficked into the hands of ruthless criminals. Even Eric Holder admits we will see tragic consequences from these actions for years to come. In short, the letter tries to make one staunch point: Bill Newell, as Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division, did not instruct agents to allow guns to walk and gunwalking tactics were not used in Operation Fast and Furious.

The letter also takes a jab at the nation’s gun laws while giving Newell credit for trying to stop gun trafficking rather than facilitating it through Fast and Furious.

“We need more, not less, public servants like Special Agent Newell and the men and women who, despite the challenges imposed by our nation’s gun laws and the legal system in which they operated, strove to make a difference and tried their level best to put an end to the illegal gun trafficking the plagues the Southwest Border,” Pelletier wrote. Pelletier, who has been described as "left-wing and liberal as Ted Kennedy," also took the opportunity to add that he believes the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious is politically motivated.

In another letter obtained by Townhall addressed to Issa and Grassley from David Voth’s attorney Joshua A. Levy, Issa is accused of mischaracterizing statements and authored documents by Voth in a June 14, 2011 Congressional Report. The letter accuses Special Agents Dodson, Casa and Larry Alt of not complaining about "Operation Fast and Furious' underlying strategy or tactic" during its implementation and attempts to further smear their characters. This letter, like the one from Newell’s attorney, denies gunwalking as a tactic: "In Operation Fast & Furious, the ATF Group VII agents did not walk guns, they did not avoid the interdiction of firearms when they lawfully could have seized them," the letter proclaims. "The ATF did not purposefully fail to interdict firearms."

Once again, whistleblower testimony proves otherwise. From the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 14, 2011:
"Although my instincts made me want to intervene and interdict these weapons, my supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, top keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk." –John Dodson

"Suspected straw purchasers were identified, again with no obvious attempts to interdict the weapons or interview suspects." –Olindo Casa
"No interdiction efforts were planned." –Peter Forcelli

The letter from Levy blames Issa and Grassley for causing damage to Voth and for weakening "the criminal justice system’s attempt to help protect innocent Americans and Mexicans from the drug cartel's conspiracy to purchase, deliver, and use some of the deadliest firearms to protect their dope."
So, who should we believe? Corrupt ATF managers who have denied gunwalking since day one of the Fast and Furious investigation, or brave whistleblowers who have put their personal lives and careers on the line to get the truth to the American people?

Keep in mind: 1,400 Fast and Furious guns are still missing; after more than a year of investigation, the DOJ has still failed to turn over 74,000 requested documents to the House Oversight Committee.
You can read each of the letters here and here.

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE . click here to read

Did you ever see the movie "The Manchurian Candidate"?

I found this on the internet!

Is Obama a CIA Controlled Manchurian President?

I have already pointed to the curious backgrounds of President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Geithner's father, in what I suspect was a CIA cover position, worked for the Ford Foundation in Asia. He was in charge of micro-finance for the Ford Foundation for all of Asia. In otherwords, he had an excuse to travel anywhere throughout Asia.

President Obama's mother was in charge of micro-finance in Indonesia, and so Geithner's father was the top level boss of Obama's mother.

The New York Times has obliquely admitted the early Geithner-Obama connection.

Did Geithner's father ID Obama early on as a potential presidential CIA candidate?

Here's the latest curious development from the mailman who delivered mail to the house of the  parents of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers:

 A retired U.S. Postal Service carrier who delivered mail to Tom and Mary Ayers in a Chicago suburb in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims to have met Obama in front of the Ayers home...

Allen Hulton, who was commended for 39 years of honorable service with the USPS, has given a sworn affidavit to investigators commissioned by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to determine whether Obama is eligible for Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. Hulton has recorded about three hours of video interviews with WND.

Hulton says that in conversations with Mary Ayers while on his route he learned of the couple’s enthusiasm and support for a black foreign student. One bright, warm Chicagoland day, he recounts, he met the student who fit Mary Ayers’ description in front of the Ayers home in Glen Ellyn, Ill. That young man, Hulton is convinced, was Barack Obama.

Hulton delivered mail to the Ayers, who are both deceased, when he was stationed at the post office in Glen Ellyn, an upper-middle class suburb 25 miles west of downtown Chicago, from late 1986 to 1997. He was a USPS employee from March 28, 1962, through March 30, 2001...


“It was a beautiful neighborhood – one of the nicer routes any of the letter carriers would have liked to have had,” Hulton recalls. “It had some large and very beautiful homes.”

As WND reported yesterday, Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers – whom he dismissed in a 2008 debate as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” – plagued him in the 2008 presidential campaign and could resurface in this year’s election, as many questions remain.

Young Obama

Over a period of years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hulton estimates he spoke with Mary Ayers about 18 to 20 times and once to Tom Ayers, who died in 2007. Mary Ayers died in 2000.

“Sometimes Mary would be out when I delivered the mail, and we would exchange a few words on occasion,” he says, recalling that she liked to talk about her family.

“One day, Mary came to the door when I came up to the house with the mail,” he remembers. “After a greeting, she started enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student they were helping out, and she referred to him as a foreign student.”

Hulton assumed that by “helping” the student, Mary Ayers meant she and her husband were financially supporting the black foreign-exchange student with his education...

He says that Mary Ayers told him the student’s name, but that it was a “strange name” that he could not remember, even though at the time it sounded African to him.

“I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him,” Hulton says. “And I believe she said he was from either Kenya or Indonesia, and I favor Indonesia in my recollection.”...

About a year after discussing with Mary Ayers the foreign student she and her husband were supporting, Hulton recalls meeting a young black male on the sidewalk in front of the Ayers home.

Hulton describes the man as being in his early 20s, noting that he was tall, thin, had a light complexion and that his ears stuck out.

“He greeted me,” Hulton says. “He was very polite, dressed nicely, but informally – slacks and a dress shirt – and he spoke with no accent. Immediately this young black man entered into conversation with me. He told me he had taken the train out from Chicago and had come to thank the Ayers family personally for having helped him with his education.”

Hulton remembers asking the young man what his plans were for the future.

“He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton says.

“There was a little bit of a grin on his face when he said it – he sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant. I know how people will say things because they have an ambition, but it did not come across that way,” Hulton says. “It came across as if this young black male was telling me he was going to be president, almost as if it were the statement of a scientific fact that had already been determined, as if his being president had been already pre-arranged.”

Hulton says the claim made him speechless.

“I kind of stuttered a response and said that nowadays anything is possible. I wished him good luck with his ambition,” he says.

Immediately, Hulton associated the young black man with the foreign student Mary Ayers had mentioned to him so enthusiastically about a year earlier.

“I remembered the conversation I had with Mary, and I associated this young man with the foreign student she had discussed with me, because Mary said they were supporting this foreign student, and the young black man I met outside the Ayers’ home said he had come to Glen Ellyn to thank the Ayers in person for helping him with his education.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Hulton observed several news reports detailing the relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, and he recalled the encounter with the young man in front of Tom and Mary Ayers’ home.

“The facial and physical characteristics, as well as candidate Obama’s voice, matched that of the young black male I met in front of the Ayers’ home,” Hulton says in the affidavit he signed Nov. 12, 2011, for Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation.

“I am positive that the black male I spoke with in front of the Ayers’ house that day was indeed a young Barack Obama.”

WAR IS HELL . click to read

Under President Obama we doubled-down in Afghanistan? 
We sent more of our young men and women to fight and possibly die in a country whose synonym is Quagmire while announcing the eventual date of their withdrawal at the same time.  In an unprecedented action Mr. Obama announced our attack as he heralded our retreat in a calculated political decision that has cost lives, squandered treasure and told the Taliban to wait in the wings for the second act.

We have poured trillions of dollars into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt, to say nothing of what is more precious than money—the blood of the brave men and women of the United States military. And for what?

To watch Iran’s influence infuse Iraq?  To see the butcher of Teheran hold and raise hands with the propped-up presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan?  If there is a picture worth a billion words, that is it.  That picture of Islamic unity is like using American sacrifice and tax dollars to jab a finger in America’s eye.

Some misguided policymakers in Washington, D.C. actually think we can do good in Syria by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda types against Bashar al-Assad, the Shiite dictator and ally of Shiite Iran. Those policymakers will say we need to abide by our humanitarian principles and support the revolutionaries, regardless of their Islamic stripes.

However, helping one Islamic militant faction against another is a huge mistake. They know how to use America to serve their long-term purposes, and the ultimate outcome will backfire against us just like it did in Egypt and Libya.

Civil War General Sherman coined the phrase “War is Hell.”   He was right, but I would like to also add that Afghanistan is Hell, and it is time for us to get the hell out of hell.

For the Soviet Union, the war in Afghanistan dragged on for ten years (1979 to 1989) and eventually led to the collapse of the super power.  In case you haven’t noticed, the same thing is happening to us.  Our original mission in Afghanistan was to drive out the Taliban.  The Taliban are still in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.

The figures on American and NATO casualties went from twelve in 2001 to 68 so far just this year.  During the “surges” to gain control over various provinces, 2009 resulted in 521 dead, 2010’s toll was 7ll.  In all, there have been 2,915 coalition soldiers who have lost their lives there; 1,910 from the U.S., 404 from the United Kingdom, and 150 from our neighbor, Canada.

The effort has included soldiers from nations that include Denmark (47), Poland (35), Spain (34), the Netherlands (25), and France (82) a total of some twenty-eight nations.

It has been a failure.   America and its NATO allies, just like the Russians, have to leave. Plots against America can be planned anywhere.  Afghanistan is the worst place in the world to fight a war.  Alexander the Great found that out, the Soviets found that out, and eventually I’m sure, we will also find that out.

Despite the heroism and sacrifice of our armed forces, America hasn’t actually won a war since World War II and hasn’t formally declared war since 1941.

I do not believe The Middle East will ever embrace the values of freedom and liberty.  They certainly will not in our lifetimes.

Estimates of the total U.S. military expenses in Afghanistan are calculated to exceed $190 billion.
In 2010 alone, U.S. military assistance to Afghanistan was $5.6 billion.  Some element of those billions was spent on humanitarian infrastructure, health, community development, education and other worthy, but utterly wasted efforts.  Most was stolen by an utterly corrupt “government” led by Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan has no income producing agriculture, industrial or economic structure.  Its only export of any significance is opium with which to produce heroin.  Pay no attention to the “progress” reports by U.S. generals.  There has been no progress in Afghanistan.  There is only the dark hole of Islamic fanaticism.

The war in Afghanistan is now the longest American war we have ever fought, longer even than the war in Vietnam.  Most of the original terrorists in al-Qaida who planned 9/11 are either dead, in prison, on the run or holed up in Pakistan. 

While I’m on the subject of Pakistan, this administration says that Pakistan is our most trusted Muslim ally, but the truth is, Pakistan has consistently been found to be “one of the most anti-American countries in the world.”

I know a lot of people will disagree and that’s OK, because I am sure a lot more will agree with me.
It is time to leave Afghanistan.  
It is time to get the hell out of Hell.

ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Provo, Utah (CBSDC) – Jon McNaughton, a controversial artist who often mixes religion and politics in his work, has released a new painting.

In “One Nation Under Socialism,” President Obama holds the U.S. Constitution as it burns.
While McNaughton previously depicted Obama stepping on the nation’s founding document, “One Nation Under Socialism” glowers directly as if challenging the viewer. His right hand is holding the Constitution and his left hand is pointing to the flames.

McNaughton tells CBSDC that the hands “represents his recognition of what is happening (to the Constitution) as it goes up.”

“There are numerous symbols and subtleties in this painting, and I’m not ready to reveal all of them,” McNaughton said.

DRILL BABY DRILL

YES WE CAN DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS

The average price of a gallon of gas and a barrel of oil are near an all time high, and is expected to go much higher.  The question is “WHY”?  The obvious answer is “BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT OBAMA WANTS.

President Obama keeps insisting that his policy is "all of the above."  All except, of course, for building the Keystone pipeline and drilling:

• off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants);
• off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there);
• in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts);
• in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles International Airport);
• on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).

In a recent speech, he said said: “We’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices.”   Well, I think he’s as full of crap as a Woodstock outhouse.  All you have to do is compare what they’ve been doing in California to what they’ve been doing in North Dakota.

According to the Fraser Institute’s 2011 Global Petroleum Survey, California is the worst State in the Nation for its hostility to drilling. As a matter of fact, measured against the rest of the world, California ranks 91^st.


Thanks to years of placating environmental extremists, California’s anti-drilling regulations make it almost impossible to drill for new oil anywhere in the State, onshore or off. As a result, its production of oil has fallen by nearly one-third in the past 20 years. As oil production has declined, so has tax revenue. Even with several gigantic tax increases during that period, oil revenues in the State are down.

That’s too bad, because California needs every penny of income it can get. It has one of the highest State sales taxes and personal income taxes in the country. Still, it’s not enough. The budget deficit for the coming fiscal year will top $9 billion — the fifth year in a row of billion-dollar deficits. Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed solution? Raise taxes even higher.

So you won’t be surprised to learn that wealthy Californians are fleeing the State as fast as they can. According to census data, almost one-third of its wealthiest residents — those earning $500,000 a year or more — fled the State between 2007 and 2009. On our Left Coast, they won’t drill for oil. And pretty soon, they won’t be able to drill many millionaires, either.

Let’s compare the near-bankrupt People’s Socialistic Republic of California with what’s been happening in one of the most independent and entrepreneurial States in the union: North Dakota.
In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there were 150 million “technically recoverable barrels of oil” in an area of North Dakota known as the Bakken Shale.  In 2008, the number had climbed to 4 billion barrels.  Two years later, it had doubled to 8 billion barrels.

Today, thanks to vast improvements in recovery technology as well as the discovery of vast new oceans of underground oil, estimates of “recoverable” oil in the Bakken Shale have tripled to 24 billion barrels. That is more oil than is being produced anywhere else in the United States, including Alaska’s famed Prudhoe Bay.  But it’s a small fraction of what is possible.

Experts say that current technology can extract only about 6 percent of the oil they know is underground in North Dakota. Total estimated oil reserves are thus around 500 billion barrels. And new discoveries are happening all of the time.

Let me include an interesting footnote on the subject of “reserves.” In 1980, the oil reserves in the United States were estimated at 30 billion barrels. Yet in the intervening 32 years, this country actually produced 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, we produced more than 2.5 times more oil than the leading experts said there was 32 years earlier.

Today, the numbers are even more staggering. The amount of “technically recoverable” oil in the United States is estimated at 1.4 trillion barrels. (Please note that is “trillion,” with a “T.”) Unfortunately for us, most of that oil is located in areas Obama says we can’t search for it: in portions of Alaska and in waters off our shores.

Combined with known resources in Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. How much is that?  Let me put it in perspective: It is more than all the oil the world has used since the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Penn., 150 years ago.

When natural gas and coal are added to the total, the numbers are clear: We have enough energy reserves in the United States to fuel all of our needs for 100 years, even if we never made another discovery.

The State has the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation, at just 3.3 percent. California’s, by contrast, is 11.1 percent. That doesn’t even count the unemployed people who have simply stopped looking for work. The true unemployment number is probably closer to 20 percent.

According to the Census Bureau, North Dakota led the Nation in job and income growth in 2011. While California is losing millionaires every day, North Dakota is creating them faster than anyplace else in the country. But even entry-level positions are benefiting. For example, a job flipping burgers at McDonald’s pays $18 an hour plus a “signing bonus” for new employees.

And while the State of California can’t begin to pay all of its bills — it even issued IOUs last year in place of tax refunds — the biggest argument in North Dakota’s State Capitol is how to spend all of the money that’s pouring in. Legislators in Bismarck have approved hundreds of “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, railroads and pipelines. But even while spending more on worthwhile projects, legislators also agreed to cut the State income tax.

What’s happening in North Dakota is a classic example of the one thing that would solve our energy problems everywhere — and most other problems in the economy, too. Unfortunately, it’s the one thing Obama and his team won’t even consider.

The solution is simple: Get government off our backs. Let the market work. The results will be amazing. Maybe next year we’ll have a government that’s willing to give it a try.

CLICK HERE TO WAKE UP

While you were sleeping, President Barack Hussein Obama signed the latest Executive Order.

Executive Order “National Defense Resources Preparedness”, in effect nationalizes all the energy, food and water currently existing on American soil.  It also allows Peace Time Martial Law at the discretion of one man.   It makes the dire big-brother predictions of Orwell’s 1984 look seem tame by comparison.

I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorists, but this COULD be the first step in a plan to postpone the election.  I have to wonder why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past this administration.

YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH THIS . click here

YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH THIS, and to be sure see the film when it comes out. It’s about time we start to strike back with the truth that the media will not print!

An extremely important movie is coming this summer - Dinesh D'Souza - Obama & 2016

Dinesh D'Souza is author of many New York Times best sellers. The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award Winning Schindler's List., Braveheart, and others.

It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being reelected for another four years.

Watch this short informative video preview of this movie which came out only yesterday and share it with others. It has already been seen by over 18,000 people.

Within a very short time it will have been seen by millions!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6QOscKvUjU

Saving California

By Michael Reagan

3/15/2012

 

In less than 50 years they ruined my home state.

They over-taxed it, over-regulated it and bankrupted it. They strangled its vibrant economy, destroyed its education system and let its infrastructure crumble.

Who are these people who've turned the Golden State into Greece?

Not Big Business. Not the rich. Not the poor. Not millions of immigrants from Des Moines or Juarez.
"They" are the career politicians in Sacramento. Their excessive lawmaking, taxing and spending have transformed California into a European welfare state with a grim future.

It's hard for me to believe how things have deteriorated in California since the late 1960s. I can remember when Ronald Reagan was governor. We had a surplus. He actually gave money back to the people of California.

The state once was famous for having the best education system, the best business climate, the best roads and infrastructure in America. It was a growing, dynamic paradise where people came to pursue their dreams and hopes.

Now California's a wreck that people and businesses are leaving in droves. And Gov. Brown and his gang are offering us more of the same this fall -- higher income and sales taxes and a bullet train no one wants but them.

To reverse its death spiral, California needs to return to a part-time legislature and turn its career politicians into part-time citizen politicians -- which is what they are in 41 other states and what they were in California until 1967.

Today the state's 120 legislators work year-round and their $95,000 salaries are sweetened by as much as $50,000 in tax-free per diem allowances. They are the highest-paid lawmakers in the country.

Compare California to Texas and Florida. In Texas they pay legislators $600 a month and the legislature meets 140 days a year. In Florida lawmakers get $30,000 a year and meet just 60 days.
The politicians in Texas and Florida do not make politics their careers. They have to have real jobs in the real world. When they're not in Austin or Tallahassee, they must live and do business under the same laws they have written.

Part-time legislators are what the founding fathers wanted lawmakers to be. My father Ronald Reagan was a citizen politician. Politics was not a career for him. It was a service. He gave of himself.

People have repeatedly asked me to run for the U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. But I think that a new job I have -- chairing the "Citizen Legislature Act" -- is better for me and the state.

California citizens are in the streets collecting signatures now to put the initiative on the fall ballot. The act would return the state to a part-time legislature. Lawmaking sessions would be cut from 230 days to 90 days. And legislators would be forced to produce on-time, balanced budgets or not get paid. What a concept.

The act also would end politics as a full-time career in California. Legislators would be paid $1,500 a month. At $18,000 a year, they'd have to find real jobs and see what it's like to live under the dumb and/or bad laws they write by the thousands in Sacramento.

The "Citizen Legislature Act," which I will work hard to see become law, would shock the systems of the politicians. They'd have to start serving the people of California, not themselves. And I bet they wouldn't be passing any new bullet train legislation.

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is heard daily by over 5 million listeners via his nationally syndicated talk radio program, “The Michael Reagan Show.”

PLAN TO STEAL ELECTION . part 2 . click to read

On Super Tuesday in Vermont, Poll workers caught on tape handing out Ballots in names of dead people and giving out ballots in living people's names to anyone who walked in. However, in that very same city, bars, hotels and city clerk issuing civil union all required ID.

Click here to watch video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLSjL--qvsw#!

My question is, if requiring an ID to vote is discrimination, then why is requiring one to cash a check, to board an airplane, buy a drink in a bar, and buy a six-pack of beer at walmart, not discrimination?

I’ll answer that question for you.

It’ all part of the democrats elaborate plan to stuff the ballet box to give Obama another four years to totally destroy this country.

READ THIS;   http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7188857862599182987#editor/target=post;postID=8977819896892154475

AND THIS;

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7188857862599182987#editor/target=post;postID=8109466798069488402

DEMOCRATS PLAN TO STEAL ELECTIONS . click here to read

Texas Voter Identification Law Blocked by Justice Department as Biased

By Seth Stern - Mar 12, 2012

 

The Obama administration blocked Texas (BEESTX)’s new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, escalating a partisan dispute over voting restrictions.

The U.S. Justice Department used its power under the Voting Rights Act to halt the Texas law, saying in a letter to the state today that the measure may disproportionately harm Hispanics. The department in December blocked a similar law in South Carolina (NFSESC).

Democrats have objected to the voter ID laws as impediments to minority voting while Republicans have said they protect the integrity of elections. Republican officials in Texas, one of eight states that passed voter identification laws last year, said the administration has no valid reason to challenge the measure.

“Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach,” Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s decision isn’t final. Texas and South Carolina have filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking permission to enforce their photo ID requirements.

Before blocking South Carolina’s law, the last time the Justice Department challenged a state voter identification measure under the Voting Rights Act was in 1994.

History Binds States

Texas and South Carolina are among 16 states or portions of states that must obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before redrawing their district lines or changing election procedures because of a history of voting rights violations.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.

“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.
The Voting Rights Act puts the burden on Texas to prove its law wouldn’t interfere with minorities’ ability to vote.

‘Federal Overreach’

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s action is an example of the administration’s “abuse of executive authority.”

The American Civil Liberties Union supports the administration’s efforts to block the laws.
“It’s a good sign that the Department of Justice is stepping into the jurisdictions where it can to stop these laws in their tracks,” said Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project in Atlanta,

Under the Texas law signed last year by Perry, voters who arrive at the polls without one of seven acceptable forms of photo IDs issued by the state or federal government, including concealed carry handgun permits, would be given a provisional ballot, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Those ballots would count only if voters bring an approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the election.

‘Minor Inconveniences’

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The law’s requirements “entail minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in his court filing on Jan. 24.

The photo ID law would disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, who are least likely to have any of the required forms of identification or the documentation needed to obtain one, said Luis Figueroa, a San Antonio, Texas-based legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also would hurt students because college or university IDs would not be accepted, Figueroa said.

The photo ID requirement could suppress minority turnout by three percent to five percent in Harris County, where Houston is located, and give Republicans an edge in local elections, said Carroll Robinson, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston and a former city council member.

Election Integrity

“We’re going to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority voters as they become more and more the majority in Texas,” Robinson said.

Patricia Harless, a Republican state representative, said concerns among constituents about “the integrity of elections” rather than possible partisan advantage explains why she sponsored the voter ID measure last year. The law reduces the possibility of fraud, she said.

Lawmakers excluded student IDs because “we wanted a form of identification that was easily recognized by the poll workers at the election site,” Harless said.

Voters 65 and older automatically qualify to cast ballots by mail, which requires no ID, and the state will provide free voter identification cards.

“We worked really hard to make sure we met the constitutional requirements,” Harless said.

Lacking State ID

The Obama administration blocked South Carolina’s law in December after concluding minorities in the state are almost 20 percent more likely to lack state-issued identification than white registered voters.

The Justice Department asked for similar statistics from Texas, which said it doesn’t collect the kind of racial data needed to accurately determine how many of the state’s registered voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID card are black or Hispanic. Texas provided data based on Hispanic surnames and no data on the impact on black voters, according to the Justice Department.

Jasmine Price, a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college 30 miles from Houston, said the law would make it harder for her to vote in person in Texas, as she’d prefer, rather than by absentee ballot in her home state, Arkansas.

Price, 19, said if the law takes effect, she’ll try to find the time in between a full course load and three shifts a week as a manager at a Houston sporting goods store to drive seven miles from campus to the nearest state Department of Public Safety office that issues IDs.

Literacy Tests

“My forefathers had it even harder to vote -- they had to pass literacy tests -- but they made sure they did what they had to do so that their vote could count,” said Price, who is black. “So if they say I have to go to the DPS office, as much as an inconvenience as it is to go there, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Alabama, where the voter ID law is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014, and Mississippi, where lawmakers haven’t adopted legislation to implement a citizen initiative approving a similar requirement, would also have to obtain Justice Department or federal court approval.

In Wisconsin, which doesn’t need to obtain the same kind of advance approval under federal law as Texas does, two state judges have temporarily blocked a voter ID requirement.

The latest ruling today in a challenge by the League of Women Voters came six days after a second judge ruled in a separate suit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against Governor Scott Walker.

WHO AM I . click here to read

It fooled me..... read it all to the end.

 

I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT MY STRUGGLES

I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country. I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me, I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy.
No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs, that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30s then, with help behind the scenes,

I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.

They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.

Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me, as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy...
I was very critical of my country in the last war, and seized every opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy.
I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
It was the free market, banks and corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate them and, if they became envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign". That sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path

of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope', together we could change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities."
My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. I'm glad they didn't.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world.

And then the world learned the truth.

Who am I?
answer: ADOLPH HITLER.
If you were thinking of SOMEONE ELSE, you should be scared ... very scared!