“Hope and Change” Through Lies

Great American Journal

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Outrage over the suppressed data refuting “global warming” at the East Anglia Institute in England, now spans the world. Though as a result of a liberal media “blackout,” news of the event currently remains primarily confined among the intellectually honest participants in the climate debate. Nevertheless, with each passing day, ever increasing numbers of common citizens are realizing that every aspect of their lives, from the nature of the vehicles they own to the type of lighting that will be “allowed” them by their beneficent government, is being dictated by a hoax bearing no more substance than the “Bermuda Triangle.”

Yet the global warming hucksters continue, as if the cooked and contrived data records and suppression of inconvenient facts debunking the motion of rising global temperatures were never uncovered. These eco-alarmists are compelled to do so. They have too much invested in this fraud, and it has been far too lucrative for them in the past to simply abandon it merely because it has been wholly discredited. But their seemingly confident public front belies an undercurrent of panic and desperation. Keep a straight face, continue demanding “funds” for further research and advocacy, and hope for a perpetuation of the revolving door of government monies and increased political power to continue business as usual.

Barack Obama is attending the Copenhagen climate summit on that very premise. Were he actually concerned with the best interests of this country, he would immediately empanel an investigative team to determine the truth of “climate change.” But in light of the recently publicized evidence, such a course would certainly find “global warming” to be a myth, and thus would dispel the incentives for bigger and more powerful governments to invade and manage every detail of the lives of their citizenry. And such a world, in which the state acquires unbridled power, has emerged as the true Obama agenda.

When a political movement uses lies and fraud to advance a stated cause, it should be self-evident that the “cause” is of no real concern, but only a means of gaining leverage for an ulterior agenda. Such is the only plausible conclusion that can be drawn from this revelation of total fraud at the highest levels of the “global warming” advocacy.

Even a cursory examination of liberalism, and how it has operated in this country over the past several decades, indicates that massive deception is the standard weaponry by which the movement advances. But though the brazen dishonesty is outrageous and infuriating, it also represents the “soft underbelly” of this incursion. For at the moment each ruse is exposed, even with the frustration of competing against a thoroughly corrupted nightly news, its principal members are compelled to run for cover.

The “sting” operation of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, who uncovered widespread corruption in the leftist organization ACORN some months ago, is a sterling example. O’Keefe and Giles, private citizens who received no funds or backing for their effort, took on a well-funded and well-connected organization that has successfully conducted election fraud and other illicit activity on a massive scale throughout the nation. The result was that ACORN was put to flight, and lost significant congressional funding (Though Eric Holder, the similarly corrupted U.S. Attorney General, now contends that the organization is entitled to some of those funds.).

Who can forget the fraud from the left during the 2004 presidential election? CBS news producer Mary Mapes along with Bill Burkett, brought to national attention a supposed letter from one of George Bush’s superior officers, disparaging his conduct when he was in the Texas Air National Guard,. Upon a cursory investigation, that letter turned out to be as phony as the mass extinction of polar bears. By liberal standards, Bush’s behavior while in the military was being judged on the basis of a blatant fabrication.

Meanwhile, across the aisle, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was campaigning against Bush as a great hero of the Vietnam War. Kerry’s record of receiving three Purple Hearts for battlefield “injuries,” during barely four months of service, was hardly questioned by the liberal media. Nevertheless, a group Kerry’s compatriots, who knew the truth of his “deeds,” banded together and formed the “Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.” This organization proceeded to disseminate a strikingly different account of Kerry’s real performance during his brief tour of duty.

As disinterested as were the major media players in any serious examination of Kerry’s record, they immediately sought to undermine and discredit the Swiftboat Veterans. To this day, “Swiftboating” is used by the left as synonymous with character assassination through the orchestrated telling of lies. Unfortunately for the left however, this situation presents them a problem.

Regardless of how fiercely they attacked the Swiftvets, no evidence whatsoever of inaccuracies in their accounts of the Kerry Vietnam tour could be established. In fact, it was Kerry who insisted on clearing his record, but never made the effort to get the truth out. In fact, his military records remain sealed to this day.

So it will be with the burgeoning “climate change” scandal. The evidence of a methodically implemented scam is ample, and being widely distributed throughout the world. Those on the “inside” who perpetrated this, the biggest fraud in history, will continue to make their claims as if the truth was never uncovered. Any who question the veracity of such claims will be demeaned and ridiculed, in hopes that they will simply get discouraged and eventually go away.

However, this is not the world of the statist propaganda monopolies of the past. The ability of common citizens to link up and share news of this nature, despite the derision of the political “establishment” and its media lackeys, has completely altered the manner in which these battles are fought. The left is on the run. And as is invariably the case, it is running from the truth

Stop Prosecuting our American Heroes

Right Side News Written by Chuck Hustmyre

Monday, 07 December 2009 00:00

In what has to be one of the most outrageous criminal prosecutions in American history, the U.S. Navy is dragging three Navy SEALs, members of one of this country’s most elite commando and counterterrorist teams, before a court martial for punching a terrorist in the mouth and giving him a bloody lip. And alleged “victim” of this so-called assault was not just any old anti-American, murderous barbarian Muslim terrorist. The guy these SEALs gave a schoolyard fat lip to was Ahmed Hashim Abedm, the man the U.S. suspects planned the ambush, murder, and mutilation of four U.S. civilian contractors in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. After the ambush, terrorists hung the bodies of two of the contractors from a bridge. The three SEALs–Special Warfare Operators 2nd Class Matthew McCabe and Jonathan Keefe, and Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas will be arraigned Dec. 7, according to the Navy. According to a military official, McCabe is charged with one count each of assault of the detainee, dereliction of duty and making a false official statement, including “willfully failing to safeguard a detainee.” Keefe is charge with one count each of dereliction of duty and false official statement. Huertas is accused of dereliction of duty, false official statement and impeding an investigation. The U.S. military spent five years tracking this barbarian murderer, a “high-value target” whose code name was OBJECTIVE AMBER, and these three guys were part of the team that actually captured him. Now they face prison time and the wrecking of their military careers for maybe–and I stress maybe–giving him the same injury as every fifth grader who has ever been in a playground tussle. And that’s only if one of these SEALs slugged the guy. For a while after his capture, Abedm was in Iraqi custody, where it’s apparently legal to smack a guy around who has been murdering people and trying to destroy your country. Also there exists the possibility that no one even hit the guy. In an al Qaeda training manual captured in Manchester, England and later translated by the FBI, captured terrorists are instructed to claim they were “mistreated or tortured during detention.” As a 20-year law enforcement veteran, I understand that in theory trials are the vehicle for determining the truth of charge, and that defendants are presumed innocent. However, in the real world of criminal justice, I know that prosecutors don’t file charges unless two conditions exist: 1. They believe the defendants committed the crimes charged. 2. They are confident they have enough evidence to convict the defendants. It would be unethical for a prosecutor to charge someone with a crime that the prosecutor did not believe the person had committed. Thus, these military prosecutors are convinced that at least one of these three Navy SEALs committed a crime by smacking this murderous thug in the face and that the other two SEALs committed a crime by either allowing it to happen or failing to report it. That is an outrage. We would not have won World War II had we handicapped our fighting men with these absurd rules. Fortunately, not everyone in the U.S. government has drank from the same P.C. flavored Kool-Aide. A few–far too few–Republican lawmakers are rising to the defense of these heroes. U.S. Congressman Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, said: “We should be celebrating this achievement, and these Navy SEALs should be getting medals for their work doing what we’ve asked them to do. But that’s not what is happening. … They are going to be court-martialed because some terrorist supposedly got a bruised mouth.” Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter from San Diego said: “It’s just so absurd. I mean, they split his lip. In a boxing situation, that’s legal. They punched a terrorist in the face and, boom, we’re going to launch these guys out of the Navy.” Dan Burton, a Republican congressman from Indiana, called the charges crazy. “I think that is insane,” Burton said. “What kind of a message are we sending to our troops in the field when they do their duty, risk their lives, capture a terrorist that’s wanted, one of the top 10 terrorists, and we’re going to court-martial them? I don’t care if they broke the guy’s nose or broke both his arms and his legs. This is insane.” It’s disgusting that these charges were ever filed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if these men leave the Navy even if they are acquitted. As bad as this prosecution is for these three SEALs, imagine the morale killing message it is sending to every member of our military, and especially to our special operators, who hunt these murderous terrorist bastards in the dark, far from friendly forces, out in the lands the bad guys call home. Let’s send a message to the government, stop prosecuting American heroes.

“A date which will live in infamy”

Canada Free Press

Online  Monday, December 7, 2009

Pearl Harbor bombed
At 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, a Japanese dive bomber bearing the red symbol of the Rising Sun of Japan on its wings appears out of the clouds above the island of Oahu. A swarm of 360 Japanese warplanes followed, descending on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in a ferocious assault. The surprise attack struck a critical blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet and drew the United States irrevocably into World War II.

With diplomatic negotiations with Japan breaking down, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisers knew that an imminent Japanese attack was probable, but nothing had been done to increase security at the important naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was Sunday morning, and many military personnel had been given passes to attend religious services off base. At 7:02 a.m., two radio operators spotted large groups of aircraft in flight toward the island from the north, but, with a flight of B-17s expected from the United States at the time, they were told to sound no alarm. Thus, the Japanese air assault came as a devastating surprise to the naval base.
Much of the Pacific fleet was rendered useless: Five of eight battleships, three destroyers, and seven other ships were sunk or severely damaged, and more than 200 aircraft were destroyed. A total of 2,400 Americans were killed and 1,200 were wounded, many while valiantly attempting to repulse the attack. Japan’s losses were some 30 planes, five midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men. Fortunately for the United States, all three Pacific fleet carriers were out at sea on training maneuvers. These giant aircraft carriers would have their revenge against Japan six months later at the Battle of Midway, reversing the tide against the previously invincible Japanese navy in a spectacular victory.

The day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress and declared, “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” After a brief and forceful speech, he asked Congress to approve a resolution recognizing the state of war between the United States and Japan. The Senate voted for war against Japan by 82 to 0, and the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 388 to 1. The sole dissenter was Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a devout pacifist who had also cast a dissenting vote against the U.S. entrance into World War I. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war against the United States, and the U.S. government responded in kind.

The American contribution to the successful Allied war effort spanned four long years and cost more than 400,000 American lives.

December 7, 1941

FDR reacts to news of Pearl Harbor bombing

On this day in 1941, at around 1:30 p.m., President Franklin Roosevelt is conferring with advisor Harry Hopkins in his study when Navy Secretary Frank Knox bursts in and announces that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. The attack killed more than 2,400 naval and military personnel.

For weeks, a war with Japan had appeared likely since negotiations had deteriorated over the subject of Japan’s military forays into China and elsewhere in the Pacific during World War II. FDR and his advisors knew that an attack on the U.S. fleet at the Philippines was possible, but few suspected the naval base at Pearl Harbor would be a target.
In her account of Roosevelt and first lady Eleanor during the years of the Second World War, No Ordinary Time, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts the scene at the White House on that tragic and pivotal day: Eleanor had just finished hosting a luncheon and walked into FDR’s study just as he received confirmation of the attack via telephone. While aides and secretaries scurried around the room, Eleanor overheard some of her husband’s conversation and knew that, in her words, “the final blow had fallen and we had been attacked.”
Although Eleanor, who knew Roosevelt best, later recalled her husband’s demeanor on that day as “deadly calm,” she knew that he was incensed by the attacks. He was concerned that it might only be a matter of time until Germany, too, would officially declare war on the United States and that, at that moment, U.S. forces would be hard-pressed to fight a war on two fronts. According to Goodwin, he told Eleanor that it would take time for the United States to build up its military and that he feared the nation would “have to take a good many defeats before we can have a victory.” Indeed, FDR and his advisors had discussed the possibility that the Japanese were already planning an invasion of the mainland somewhere on the West Coast.
As the day wore on, Roosevelt displayed a calm and steady efficiency: He consulted with military advisors, enlisted his son James’ help to work with the media and spoke by telephone with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who told him “we are all in the same boat now.” Early that evening, Roosevelt dictated a speech to his secretary, Grace Tully, which he planned to deliver to Congress the next day. (Eleanor actually addressed the nation on the subject of war before her husband. That evening she delivered a scheduled weekly radio broadcast in which she told listeners that although the United States had been thrust reluctantly into the war she was confident that “whatever is asked of [America] we shall accomplish it; we are the free and unconquerable people of the U.S.A.”) Late that night, Roosevelt updated his cabinet and Congressional members on the situation: “this is probably the most serious crisis any Cabinet has confronted since the Civil War.” One cabinet member later noted that the president, a former Navy man, was visibly distraught while recounting what he had been told of the strafing of sailors and the destruction of most of the Pacific fleet. After the meeting, Roosevelt went to bed.
The next day, Roosevelt addressed Congress and the nation with a somber yet stirring speech in which he swore that America would never forget December 7, 1941, as a “date that would live in infamy.”

December 7, 1941

“A date which will live in infamy”
On this day, in an early-morning sneak attack, Japanese warplanes bomb the U.S. naval base at Oahu Island’s Pearl Harbor-and the United States enters World War II.

President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull knew a Japanese attack was imminent. Having received intelligence reports of intercepted coded messages from Tokyo to the Japanese ambassador in the United States, the president anticipated Japanese reprisals for his government’s refusal to reverse economic sanctions and embargoes against Japan. The Roosevelt administration had remained firm in its demand that the Japanese first withdraw from China and French Indochina, which it had invaded in 1937 and July 1941, respectively, and renounce its alliance with fascist Germany and Italy.

But Japan refused, demanding that the United States first end the embargo on oil shipments vital for Tokyo’s war machine. Although negotiations between the two nations continued up to the very last minute, Roosevelt was aware of a secret November 25 deadline, established by Tokyo, that confirmed military action on the part of the Japanese should they not received satisfaction from the negotiations. While forewarned, Washington could not pinpoint the time or place of an attack.

Despite initially objecting to war with America, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto believed that if Prime Minister Hideki Tojo was determined to go to war, it was Japan who had to make a preemptive strike. Yamamoto studied the devastating November 1940 British attack against the Italian fleet at Taranto, and planned and led the sneak attack against the United States. Approximately 360 Japanese warplanes were launched from six aircraft carriers, reinforced by battleships, cruisers, and destroyers. The first dive-bomber was spotted over Pearl Harbor at 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time. It was followed by 200 aircraft, which decimated the American ships anchored there, most of which were only lightly manned because it was Sunday morning. Among the 18 U.S. ships destroyed, sunk, or capsized were the Arizona, Virginia, California, Nevada, and West Virginia. More than 180 planes were destroyed on the ground and another 150 were damaged (leaving but 43 operational). American casualties totaled more than 3,400, with more than 2,400 killed (1,000 on the Arizona alone). The Japanese lost fewer than 100 men.

In the short term, the Japanese goal of crippling U.S. naval strength in the Pacific, and thereby giving Tokyo free reign to gobble up more of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific in its dream of imperial expansion, was successful. But the war had only just begun.

What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?

The Betrayal

Posted on December 7th, 2009 by David-Crockett

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published

We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born, regardless of what place that may be, he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother. The “natural born Citizen” clause of our U.S. Constitution requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Rather, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then under the liberalized and questionable meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he can be a born Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a). Again, that citizenship status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But what would Obama’s citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? First, let us examine why there is still existing doubts as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, let us examine what law would apply to determine Obama’s citizenship status should he not be born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States and what his citizenship status would be under that law. These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama’s place of birth:

[Read more →]

Palin: OK to press Obama’s eligibility

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Sarah Palin

The public is “rightfully” making questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president into an issue, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared yesterday.

“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” Palin was asked in an interview on the Rusty Humphries national radio show.

“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.

Get your copy of Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” now at the WND Superstore.

Humphries asked: “Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?”

“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records – all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”

Palin said it was legitimate to question Obama’s eligibility, referring to “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son – ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.

“Maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one,” she added.

Hear Humphries’ interview with Palin:

Palin also addressed her campaign’s treatment of Obama’s radical associates, such as former pastor Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.

“McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area,” she said. “We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don’t think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we’re seeing manifest in the administration.”

(Story continues below)

// //

// //

After Humphries’ interview, however, Palin posted a message on her Facebook page under the banner “Stupid conspiracies,” clarifying that she has not and will not press the issue of the president’s eligibility.

“Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask … which they have repeatedly,” she writes.

“But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”