Obama's brother linked to Muslim Brotherhood

by: Jerome R. Corsi 

NEW YORK – President Obama’s half-brother in Kenya could cause the White House more headaches over new evidence linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and establishing that controversial IRS supervisor Lois Lerner signed his tax-exempt approval letter.
Malik Obama’s oversight of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international investments is one reason for the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to an Egyptian report citing the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Tehani al-Gebali
In a news report on Egyptian television of a Gebali speech, translated by researcher Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian Liberation Organization operative, Gebali said she would like “to inform the American people that their president’s brother Obama is one of the architects of the major investments of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“We will carry out the law, and the Americans will not stop us,” she said. “We need to open the files and begin court sessions.
“The Obama administration cannot stop us; they know that they supported terrorism,” she continued. “We will open the files so these nations are exposed, to show how they collaborated with [the terrorists]. It is for this reason that the American administration fights us.”
New! “Impeachable Offenses” lays out the blueprint for impeaching Barack Obama for crimes against the United States. Order it now at WND’s Superstore!
Shoebat said Gebali explained the news is important to Americans who are concerned about their president’s actions, calling it “is a gift to the American people,” implying there were more revelations to come.
In an interview on Egyptian television, Gebali said the cost to Egypt has been great, and she vowed her country will not allow any conspiracy against its people or the Egyptian state. She insisted that pushing Egypt to bankruptcy is unacceptable, because it would plunge her country into a dire state similar to Iraq and Libya.

Shoebat said that if the reports are correct, Turkey appears to play a central role in the alleged conspiracy. He emphasized that Egypt has asserted to the international community that it will not tolerate any attempt to push the country to bankruptcy.
Shoebat’s blog linked to three “very credible sources” that corroborate the report on Gebali’s comments.
Shoebat reported in May that Malik Obama is the executive secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization, or IDO, a group created by the government of Sudan, which is considered by the U.S. State Department to be a terrorist state.
In 2010, Malik Obama attended an IDO conference in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum. One of the objectives of the IDO is to spread Wahhabist Islam across the African continent.
Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir supervised the conference. Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court on seven counts related to crimes against humanity.
Shoebat asserted the evidence places Malik Obama “in bed with terrorists, working in a terrorist state as an official of an organization created by terrorists.”

Malik’s tax-exempt problems
WND reported in May that funds contributed in the U.S. to a 501(c)3 foundation run by Malik Obama have been diverted to support Malik’s multiple wives in Kenya, an expert on Islamic extremism has charged.
Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS tax-exempt division currently under congressional investigation, signed the letter approving tax-exempt status for the Malik Obama’s Barack H. Obama Foundation.
Lerner, currently on paid executive leave from her IRS supervisory position, took the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 22 rather than answer questions on inappropriate criteria used by her IRS department to delay or otherwise deny tax-exempt status for tea party and “patriot” groups.
Shoebat has detailed his allegations in a 22-page investigative report titled “New IRS Scandal: Islamic Extremism and Sex Slaves: Report Reveals Obama’s Relatives Run Charities of Deceit,” published on his website
After a thorough examination of available evidence, Shoebat explained to WND his allegations against the Obama family tax-exempt foundations:

When Malik Obama and Sarah Obama raised money in the United States as the respective heads of foundations claiming to be charities, not only did the Internal Revenue Service illegally grant one of them tax-deductible status retroactively, but these foundations have supported – to varying degrees – illegal operations that acquire funding for personal gain, philandering, polygamy and the promotion of Wahhabism, the brand of Islam practiced by Al-Qaeda.

For the past two years, since long before the current IRS scandals became public, WND has been reporting irregularities in two IRS-approved 501(c)3 organizations operated in the U.S. by Obama’s half-brother and step-grandmother in Kenya.
WND reported in September 2011 the Barack H. Obama Foundation apparently received IRS approval one month after an application was submitted in May 2011. The IRS determination letter June 11, 2011, granted a highly irregular retroactive tax-exempt approval only after the group came under fire for operating as a 501(c)3 foundation since 2008 without ever having applied to the IRS.
In October 2012, WND reported a separate foundation, the Mama Sarah Obama Foundation, created on behalf of Obama’s step-grandmother in Kenya, has transferred funds, 90 percent of which are raised from U.S. individuals and corporations, to send Kenyan students to the top three most radical Wahhabist madrassas in Saudi Arabia.
Since its founding in 2008, the Barack H. Obama Foundation, operating out of a commercial mail drop in Arlington, Va., has solicited tax-deductible contributions on the Internet, listing addresses and telephone numbers both in the U.S. and Kenya, without disclosing the group lacked an IRS determination letter.
In September 2011, the IRS confirmed to WND that the Barack H. Obama Foundation had received a determination letter in June 2011, awarding the group tax-exempt 501(c)3 status retro-actively to 2008

Tax-exempt polygamy?
On March 3, 2013, Andrew Malone, reporting for the London Daily Mail, documented that Malik’s youngest wife in Kenya, Sheila Anyano, 35 years his junior, had spent the past two years living with three of Malik’s other wives at the “Barack H Obama Foundation rest and relaxation center,” a restaurant complex that profits from visitors drawn by the family’s connection to the American president.

According to the Daily Mail, members of his extended family in Kenya have accused Malik, a practitioner of Islam and a polygamist, of being a wife-beater and philanderer. Malik is accused of seducing Sheila, the newest of his estimated 12 wives when she was a 17-year-old schoolgirl – a crime in Kenya, where the legal age of consent is 18.
Malone tracked down Sheila’s mother, Mary, who explained to the reporter that Malik Obama had “secret trysts” with the girl after spotting her attending prayers at the mosque he has built in Kogelo, the family’s ancestral home.

Sheila, now age 20, told Ambrose that marrying Malik, now age 55, was the “worst decision” of her life and confirmed that she and Malik kept their marriage “a secret,” because she was 17.
“At first he was good, after he started speaking to me at the mosque,” Sheila told the Daily Mail. “But he has changed. Marrying him has been the biggest mistake of my life. He beats me, but mostly he’s just nasty and quarrelsome.”
Shoebot charged that Malik Obama is abusing non-profit funds.
“There is no evidence to suggest that Malik is building any houses in Kogelo for widows and orphans as claimed,” Shoebat said.
Neither is there evidence that the Mama Sarah Foundation has built any homes for widows, orphans and HIV/AIDS victims.
“The only evidence where monies were spent involves the Barack H. Obama Recreation and Rest Center in Kenya, which housed Malik’s 12 wives in a facility that includes a restaurant and a mosque with a madrassa,” he said.
“While building mosques is legally considered charity, evidence shows the entire funding came directly from entities and individuals from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain,” Shoebat said. “There is nothing of charitable nature to show for all the funds Malik raises from the United States. To date, there is no evidence for any accomplishments toward building homes for orphans, widows and AIDS victims in Kogelo or anywhere else in Kenya.”

Limited financial reporting
An IRS Form 990-EZ required for tax-exempt organizations was filed on May 23, 2011, only days before the IRS determination letter was sent.

Barack H. Obama Foundation, Form 990-EZ, filed May 23, 2011, page 1

The Form 990-EZ appears to have been hand-written by Malik Obama himself, complete with an unorthodox page of calculations evidently included to back up the amounts entered into the form.
The Form 990 reported the foundation had received $24,250 total gross income for 2010, derived from contributions, gifts and grants.
“We were not very successful this year because of limited contributions,” Malik reported on the Form 990. “The Foundation sponsored a Youth Tournement (sic) and embarked on construction of community bridges.”
Malik surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign, dressed in African garb and holding a photograph of Barack Obama in African garb.

Abongo “Roy” Malik Obama displays a 1980s-era photograph of Barack Obama in Kenya

Born in Kenya to Kezia
Born in Kenya, on March 15, 1958, Abongo Malik “Roy” Obama was the first child born to Barack Obama Sr.
The son of Kezia, Obama Sr.’s first wife, Malik was only 18 months old when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in New York Aug. 8, 1959, on a BOAC flight in transit from Kenya to begin his undergraduate studies at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu.
Having abandoned Kezia in Kenya, Obama Sr. subsequently married Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Jr.’s mother, while in Honolulu, according to the account Obama relates in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father.”

Obama family portrait taken in Kenya. Abongo “Roy” Malik Obama stands to Barack Obama Jr.’s immediate left

Egypt eyes Obama's brother for terror list

by: Jerome R. Corsi 

NEW YORK – President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother, Malik Obama, appears headed for the Egyptian terror watch list because of his Muslim Brotherhood ties.
Complaints have been filed with Egypt’s prosecutor-general calling for Malik to be put on Egypt’s terror watch list and brought to Egypt to be questioned by state criminal investigators for allegedly financing terrorism, according to former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat.
According to Egyptian newspaper and television reports, Malik Obama has become a target in an Egyptian government terrorist investigation because of his role as an owner and investment adviser for the Sudan-based Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO, and the organization’s umbrella group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Shoebat has provided the following translation of a report from an Egyptian media source, Youm 7, detailing criminal complaints filed against Malik Obama with the Egyptian attorney general and the Egyptian High Court, petitioning to put him on the terror watch list in Egypt:

Dr. Ahmed Nabil Ganzory, in his capacity as lawyer and agent for Dr. Sadik Rauf Obeid, and resident in the United States of America, filed a complaint with Egyptian Attorney General Hisham Barakat, against Malik Obama, accusing him of supporting terrorism in Egypt and for his involvement in managing the Islamic Dawa Organization (IDO). The complaint also asks to include Chancellor Tahani Al-Jebali to substantiate claims against Obama. …

Complaint No. 1761 for the year 2013 reported to the Attorney General asked the Egyptian High Court to consider the suspicious activity of a group called the Islamic Dawa Organization, which is owned and managed by Malik Obama. This group is now being investigated by international bodies and the attached evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a close link exists between Malik Obama and some of the most notorious characters already wanted for their involvement in terrorism, as is consistent with the pictures and reports attached. …

The complaint also asks the court to bring in Malik Obama – a resident of the United States – to be questioned in regard to the terrorist groups in Egypt, whether by inciting or participating with or in any form of support punishable by law. It seeks permission to declare Obama a defendant in his right outside Egypt diplomatically, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the case of non-appearance and compliance for the investigation, the complainant requests monitoring [Malik Obama] by including his name on all Egyptian airports and ports, and take the necessary legal steps.”

[Editor’s note: bold text placed in translation by Walid Shoebat for emphasis] 

WND has previously reported that Malik Obama is the executive secretary of the Dawa Organization, a group created by the government of Sudan, which is considered by the U.S. State Department to be a terrorist state.
New! “Impeachable Offenses” lays out the blueprint for impeaching Barack Obama for crimes against the United States. Order it now at WND’s Superstore!
Shoebat has further reported Malik Obama attended an IDO conference in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, that was attended and supervised by Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on seven counts related to crimes against humanity.
An objectives of the IDO is to spread radical Wahhabist Islam across the African continent.
WND has reported Malik Obama was the best man at the wedding of Barack Obama to Michelle Robinson on Oct. 3, 1992. He has been photographed visiting President Obama in the White House.

Tied to Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
The criminal complaint referenced in the translation by Shoebat also calls for the inclusion of Tahani al-Gebali, former chancellor and a current advisor to the Constitutional Court of Egypt.
WND reported Aug. 20 that Gebali went public in Cairo with allegations that Malik Obama had links to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Gebali charged that Malik Obama is “one of the architects” of the investments made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
In her allegations against Malik Obama, Gebali also threatened to expose evidence of the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
“The Obama administration cannot stop us,” Gebali said, as reported by Egyptian television. “We need to open the files and begin court sessions. The Obama administration knows that they supported terrorism. We will open the files and begin court sessions.”

Gebali further charged the Obama administration’s enthusiastic support of the Morsi government brought into power after the “Arab Spring” continued even after the Morsi government welcomed Muslim Brotherhood leaders into the government.
Gebali suggested the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was a main reason President Obama has opposed the current military government ruling Egypt since Morsi was deposed.
Shortly after July 3, when Morsi was removed from office by a military coup that led to the establishment of the current Egyptian government, the Egyptian Independent newspaper reported in English on July 15 that Egypt’s prosecutor general, Hisham Barakat, moved to freeze the financial assets of several Islamic politicians, including Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohamad Badie.
Last Sunday, Hisham Barakat moved to bring criminal charges against Morsi and 14 other members of the Muslim Brotherhood in a Cairo criminal court. Morsi was accused of “committing acts of violence and inciting killing and thuggery” in the deadly street clashes outside the presidential palace in December 2012 with opponents of his rule.
WND has reported Egyptian government prosecutors plan to introduce evidence Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo received bribes paid in amounts as large as $850,000 a year each from the Obama administration in Washington via the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

In September 2011, WND reported the Barack H. Obama Foundation, owned and operated by Malik Obama, apparently received notice of IRS approval in a document signed by Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS tax-exempt division now on paid executive leave from her supervisory duties after she took the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 22. She was to be questioned regarding her department’s use of inappropriate criteria to delay or otherwise deny tax-exempt status for tea party and “patriot” groups.
Malik Obama received the determination letter from Lerner one month after an application was submitted in May 2011. The IRS determination letter June 11, 2011, granted highly irregular retroactive tax-exempt approval only after the group came under fire for operating as a 501(c)3 foundation since 2008 without ever having applied to the IRS.

[Abongo “Roy” Malik Obama displays a 1980s-era photograph of Barack Obama in Kenya]

In May, WND reported that funds contributed in the U.S. to a 501(c)3 foundation run by Malik Obama have been diverted to support Malik’s multiple wives in Kenya, according to Shoebat.
In October 2012, WND reported a separate foundation, the Mama Sarah Obama Foundation, created on behalf of Obama’s step-grandmother in Kenya, has transferred funds, 90 percent of which are raised from U.S. individuals and corporations, to send Kenyan students to the top three most radical Wahhabist madrassas in Saudi Arabia.
In the first parliamentary elections held in Egypt after former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood’s newly formed Freedom and Justice Party won nearly half the seats in the People’s Assembly.

Eligibility complaint pulled over 'intimidation'

by Bob Unruh 


A state board in Kansas that had planned a hearing Monday to examine evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Oval Office was left in limbo today when the plaintiff, citing “animosity and intimidation,” abruptly withdrew his complaint.
According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Joe Montgomery of Manhattan, Kan., had filed a complaint with the Kansas Objections Board asking that Obama’s name be removed.

He had cited the fact that Obama has confirmed his father was a Kenyan national, meaning Obama would not qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” Court cases and experts have defined natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizen parents.
The state board, including three elected state officials, determined earlier this week there was not enough information available to make a decision, and they asked for evidence.
A team of activists and researchers who have spent years investigating the eligibility issue immediately dispatched a letter that included evidence Obama is ineligible.
But before the next hearing, scheduled for Monday, could be held, Montgomery fled, the Capital-Journal reported.
“There has been a great deal of animosity and intimidation directed not only at me, but at people around me,” the newspaper reported Montgomery said in a note to state officials. “I don’t wish to burden anyone with more of this negative reaction.”

State officials the next steps are unclear, but the board may not have the option to review the facts without the formal complaint. There was no immediate indication that anyone else was stepping up to continue the case.
The information set to be delivered for the committee to review at its meeting included a letter to members of the Democratic National Committee warning that certifying Obama as an eligible candidate could be “perjurious.”

The letter, directed to Kansas Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, was from activist Tom Ballantyne, author of “Oh Really, O’Reilly!”; former Army. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a physician who was drummed out of the military for questioning Obama’s eligibility; retired Col. Lawrence Sellin; retired Navy Cmdr. Charles F. Kerchner Jr; and activist Gary Wilmott.
It was prompted by a report in newspapers that the Kansas board was considering a complaint brought by Montgomery that Obama should not be on the ballot because he is ineligible.
The Topeka Capital-Journal said the three members of the board, Republicans Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Colyer, were asking for information.
During the hearing, Kobach said: “I don’t think it’s a frivolous objection. I do think the factual record could be supplemented.”
The paper reported the officials were asking officials in Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi, where the issue previously arose, for information.
In his message to Colyer, Ballantyne said the letter being forwarded “contains legal facts and analysis from noted national attorney Larry Klayman. The information … will be critical to your making an informed judgment regarding the historic question before your three-person ballot-challenge panel.”
As WND reported, the recent letter from Larry Klayman to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the DNC, pointed out evidence of Obama’s ineligibility that could make letters from the DNC to states verifying his eligibility an act of election fraud.

Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, wrote:

At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States. 

Arizona’s inquiry
The evidence Klayman cites in the letter includes Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s highly publicized request of the state of Hawaii to verify that the likely Democratic nominee is a “natural-born citizen.”
WND reported Bennett eventually closed his inquiry without obtaining any pertinent documentation.
Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.
“As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”
But Bennett said all clearly was not above board.
“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”
Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio continues to investigate Obama’s eligibility after determining that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is fraudulent.

Path to conclusion
Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know Obama’s eligibility wasn’t complicated.
He contended Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.
He did, however, verify that “the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.”
“Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record,’” he wrote.
But Klayman explained state law requires Onaka to furnish “in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified.”
Klayman said the law leaves Onaka with no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’
“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.
WND called Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for comment, but there was no response.

Altered
Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states: “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”
“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.
Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”
He noted at this point, “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.”

Perjury
For a party official to declare Obama eligible “would be to perjure him or herself,” he wrote.
Klayman told Bauer that in 2008 the Hawaii Democratic Party “removed the standard language heretofore employed certifying the ‘constitutional eligibility’ of candidates Obama and Biden.”
“In other words, the state party most keenly aware of Mr. Obama’s existing records would not (and did not) certify their constitutional eligibility,” he said. However, at the same time, “then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did certify their constitutional eligibility [to present] to election officials in Hawaii, while removing that same standard language [when it was] presented in at least some (if not all) of the remaining states.”
Klayman, whose high-profile legal career has included lawsuits against OPEC, Cuban interests, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, told WND the letter puts Democrats on notice that certifying Obama’s eligibility without having the actual knowledge opens them up to liability for making false statements.

2008 documents
WND reported early in Obama’s term on the Democrats’ certification of Obama’s eligibility for the 2008 election.
A commentator at Canada Free Press first exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president and then said Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.
“In most states,” Williams wrote, “it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.”
Williams posted copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president, one that contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility and filed in Hawaii (where state law requires the specific language) and another omitting the language and filed in the remaining 49 states.

The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then candidate for vice president, “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”


The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.

Obama sued in government cover-up

oped: Here are the facts folks..A sitting President cannot be arrested and prosecuted...unless Congress Impeaches,prosecutes and removes from office [They have failed us miserably]...however a ex-President can be arrested and prosecuted for crimes committed while in office..the statue of limitations begins when the president leaves office... this applies to local,state and federal jurisdictions! This also applies to appointed cabinet members such as Attorney General...who serves at will to the POTUS...however this only applies to hiring /firing...they are required by law to serve we the people and must answer to the electorate ! 
AG's Holder and Lynch have not, by any means, served we the people they have served their proverbial masters agenda and must be held accountable after his administrations term has expired! The next POTUS must order his DOJ and FBI to persue investigations related to the Obama administration's illegal laws,rules,regulations and obstruction of Justice for the entire term! 8 years worth of abuse of authority...High crimes, misdemeanors,and sedition all bordering on Treason!



via:TheHornNews
When President Barack Obama was elected, he promised to make his administration the most transparent in U.S. history.
He not only broke that promise — he may as well have set it on fire. And now his administration is going to have to answer for its secrecy in court.
The White House and several federal agencies have just been slapped with a major lawsuit by the Cause of Action Institute, a government watchdog group.
CAI is the latest to accuse Obama, his top aides, and federal agencies of repeatedly breaking the law and refusing to release public documents, especially when they pertain to sensitive issues or administration scandals, like the Hillary Clinton email controversy.
According to a CAI press release, the group sued 11 federal agencies, plus the Office of the White House Counsel (OWHC) and White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, “to end the Obama administration’s practice of delaying government responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the administration considers politically sensitive or embarrassing.”

The Obama administration has long been criticized by the press as one of the most obstructionist in all of U.S. history. According to analysis by The Associated Press, Obama’s administration set a record for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year.
In the last year, Obama’s administration took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.
The administration also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law.
According to CAI, the Obama administration even created a secret process where government agencies have to route many FOIA requests through the White House Counsel’s office before responding.
The White House’s backlog of unanswered FOIA requests at year’s end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000. It also cut by 375, or about 9 percent, the number of full-time employees across government paid to look for records. That was the fewest number of employees working on the issue in five years.

Now, the CAI lawsuit will ask a federal judge to demand that the Obama administration stop its stalling tactics and start complying with FOIA requests.
“The Obama administration … has interfered in the FOIA process in ways that violate the statute and hinder its purpose of federal transparency,” CAI said in its release. “Although President Obama came into office with promises of transparency, his administration’s actions have not matched such rhetoric.”
Under the president’s instructions, the U.S. should not withhold or censor government files merely because they might be embarrassing, but federal employees last year regularly misapplied the law.
According to The Associated Press, in emails obtained from the National Archives and Records Administration about who pays for Michelle Obama’s expensive dresses, the agency blacked-out a sentence under part of the law intended to shield personal, private information, such as Social Security numbers, phone numbers or home addresses. But it failed to censor the same passage on a subsequent page.
The sentence: “We live in constant fear of upsetting the WH (White House).”

The Mysterious “Frank” Returns... The Obama Files

oped: Indeed people really need to do their homework before casting a vote see:  http://www.theobamafile.com/index_next_personal.html  http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/LegendOfBarackObama.htm let your venture begin!  

by: Cliff Kincaid 
Yesterday’s news became big news on the Fox News Channel on Thursday when former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought up the name of President Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was almost seven years to the day when we published our seminal piece about Davis, “Obama’s Communist Mentor.”
Davis was a member of the Communist Party and a suspected Soviet espionage agent. He was included in the FBI’s security index, meaning that Davis could be arrested or detained in the event of a national emergency. The FBI file on Davis documents his anti-white and pro-Soviet views, infiltration of the Hawaii Democratic Party, and other activities.
Davis also wrote an autobiographical and pornographic sex novel, Sex Rebel, disclosing that he had sex with a young girl and engaged in shocking and bizarre sexual activities.

Giuliani’s public identification of Davis and discussion of his role in grooming a young Barack Obama marks the first time, in my memory, that a top Republican has ever mentioned the Davis-Obama relationship. It was done in the context of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly of questioning how Giuliani could dare ask whether Obama loves America.
If the Republicans had brought this up during the 2008 campaign, Obama might have been defeated and the country could have been spared the last six years of “progressive” hope and change. The Davis-Obama relationship is something so damaging and corrupt that its public airing would have raised questions about the Democratic Party’s vetting of Obama and the direction of the Democratic Party itself.
However, Republican operative Karl Rove was warning Republicans not to accuse Obama of being a socialist. He said such a charge would generate a negative backlash. The result in 2012 was another Obama victory.
Now that it has become apparent to more and more people that Obama is not a traditional liberal Democrat and is, in fact, a Marxist with Muslim sympathies, a figure such as Giuliani feels compelled to speak out. So let’s take a look at what Giuliani said.

“I don’t feel it. I don’t feel this love of America,” Giuliani said, talking about Obama. “I’m talking about a man who grew up under the influence of Frank Marshall Davis who was a member of the Communist Party, who he refers to over and over in his book, who was a tremendous critic of the United States.”
Kelly countered that Obama “was raised in part by his grandparents. His grandfather served in World War II, his grandmother worked in a munitions plant to help the nation during World War II. I mean, to suggest he was raised by people who don’t love America or didn’t help him learn to love America.”
Giuliani argued that “his grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist.” He added, “You can fight in World War II, and then you introduce someone to a Communist and the young boy gets…”
After Kelly interjected that “it’s a political world view. It’s not a hatred for the country,” Giuliani responded, “Communism wasn’t hatred for America?”
Giuliani is correct about the Davis influence over Obama and the role that the grandfather played in picking Davis as a mentor.

But when Giuliani notes that Obama refers to Davis “over and over in his book,” Dreams from My Father, it’s important to point out that Davis was not identified as Frank Marshall Davis in that book. Instead, Obama identified him merely as “Frank.” The rest of the story was put together by anti-communist researcher Trevor Loudon, and we confirmed the identification with another source in Hawaii who was a close friend of Davis.
Even more of the story was put together by Paul Kengor in his authoritative book on Davis, The Communist. It appears that Davis was an influence over Obama for about nine full years, until Obama was 18 and went off to college. Obama went off to college and, by his own admission, would attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as his friends.
This relationship alone would have disqualified Obama from getting low-level federal employment. The loophole in our system is that background checks are not required for federal elected officials. Our founders counted on a free press to review the fitness of those running for office.

When former Obama adviser David Axelrod talks about Obama being free from major scandals, he is ignoring the biggest scandal of all—how Obama concealed his Marxist upbringing and relationship with Davis. Axelrod of course was part of the cover-up. When “Frank” was identified as Davis, the Obama campaign insisted he was just a civil rights activist.
As we reported at the time, news organizations such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Newsweek and even Fox News ignored or downplayed Davis’s communist sympathies.
As Giuliani indicated, there are other influences on Obama that help explain his anti-Americanism. These include the “community organizing” philosophy of Saul Alinsky, his pastor Jeremiah Wright and the communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Giuliani clearly feels, at this stage in Obama’s presidency, that some things have to be said openly for the sake of the country. A former crime-busting U.S. Attorney who was mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, Giuliani fears for the future of our country. But it’s not just the fate of America that is at stake. It is clear that Obama has no love for America’s traditional allies, such as Israel. Hence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to America to plead his case personally. He is afraid that Obama wants to make a deal that will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Now that Giuliani has publicly raised some inconvenient truths about Obama, the “progressives” and their media allies will naturally scream and cry “McCarthyism.”  Strangely taking this tack, Fox News’ Kelly wondered if Giuliani’s comments about Obama had damaged “the Republican brand.” The Republican brand will only be damaged by an inability to face facts and confront and expose anti-Americanism at the highest levels of the United States government. It is shocking that it has taken this long for the evidence to emerge publicly on a national basis on Fox News and other channels.

This controversy will help determine what direction the Republicans will take. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who has made it his job to protect Obama from the fallout from major scandals, was quick to label Giuliani’s remarks about Obama as “stupid.” He also attacked Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker as “spineless” for saying Giuliani “can speak for himself,” and not directly challenging what the former mayor had said
“What Scott Walker did ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender,” wrote Milbank.
This is a signal from one of Obama’s best friends in the media that the information unearthed by Giuliani is of the blockbuster variety. Giuliani went for the jugular and hit a gusher.
The first thing Republicans can do is simply challenge the media to report on the Davis FBI file. They have been avoiding it for over six years.
Congress could also investigate Obama’s communist connections, which stretch from Hawaii to Chicago, and question the FBI about what they knew, if anything, about the Obama-Davis relationship. The reestablishment of House and Senate internal security committees, including a loyalty program for U.S. officials to eliminate security risks, should be considered.

Republicans could remind people that it was anti-communist Democratic President Harry Truman who started the first loyalty program. He issued executive order 9835 establishing the program in 1947.
The executive order said that “each employee of the Government of the United States is endowed with a measure of trusteeship over the democratic processes which are at the heart and sinew of the United States,” and declared that “the presence within the Government service of any disloyal or subversive person constitutes a threat to our democratic processes…”
It is time for a background check on the President of the United States. Does he pass the loyalty test?

CNN 'birther buster' report 'perpetrates fraud'

by: Jerome R.Corsi
On the heels of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s investigative trip to Hawaii, CNN pulled out old material – including microfilm misrepresented as Barack Obama’s birth certificate – to run a report called “Busting the Birther Conspiracy Theory.”
In the segment, broadcast May 30, reporter Gary Tuchman declared his intention to refute conclusively the contention Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Some careful observers, however, objected that the Tuchman report was a rebroadcast of material that CNN originally broadcast last year and possibly even earlier.
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.

Moreover, CNN showed a microfilm copy of a birth certificate as if it were Obama’s original 1961 record. But it turned out to be someone else’s birth certificate.

At approximately the 1:22 mark of the segment, CNN displayed a microfilm copy of what viewers were led to believe was Obama’s birth certificate.
Close examination of a screen capture as seen in Exhibit 1 makes clear that the document is not Obama’s.


  Exhibit 1: CNN portrayal of “Obama birth certificate”

As seen in Exhibit 2, when the microfilm birth certificate is enlarged, the number appears to end with the digits “000,” while the computer-generated long-form birth certificate displayed on the White House website on April 27, 2011, bears the number “10641.”

Exhibit 2: CNN portrayal of “Obama birth certificate,” enlarged

After an extensive textual comparison between Exhibit 1, as broadcast by CNN May 30, and the Obama PDF posted on the White House website, blogger PixelPatriot declared CNN’s broadcast “fraudulent.”
“One does not have to look very far to know that a news organization can perpetrate ‘Fraud” on a level such that its impact on the American public is enormously widespread and devastating both to the organization committing an act of ‘Fraud,’ which is a crime, and to the public having been harmed,” PixelPatriot wrote, charging that CNN’s display of a false birth certificate was equivalent to the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times and the Killian document controversy that led to CBS anchor Dan Rather’s resignation.
As WND has reported, the Hawaii Department of Health has refused Arpaio’s request to release the microfilm record of Obama’s birth.
Old news
At 23 seconds into the report, Tuchman interviews the former director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino. The screen displays the subtitle “Gary Tuchman found proof in Hawaii in April 2011,” suggesting the interview with Fukino was most likely a year old.
“Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President,” published by WND May 17, 2011, discusses thoroughly on pages 262-264 two statements by Fukino regarding Obama’s birth record.
Yet, the CNN May 30 broadcast completely ignored the questions raised in the WND book published a year ago.

Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity.
What is clear is the content of Fukino’s interview added nothing new to statements she had made to the press dating back to 2008, when the Hawaii Department of Health was still supporting the short-form certification of live birth as the only Obama birth document that Hawaii law permitted the agency to make available to the public.
“In October 2008 and again in July 2009, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified that Barack Obama’s original birth certificate was in the Hawaii State Department’s files,” Snopes.com wrote at that time in an entry now scrubbed from the site.
In an attempt to dispel the birth certificate controversy, FactCheck.org reported in 2008, “The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 (2008) that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
FactCheck.org cited Associated Press reports that Fukino and Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii registrar of vital statistics, had personally verified that the health department “holds Obama’s original birth certificate” – the identical claim Fukino made in the May 30 CNN interview with Tuchman.
A close look at Fukino’s statement of Oct. 31, 2008 makes clear that it was carefully worded to give the impression that the Department of Health possessed Obama’s “original birth certificate,” even though that is not precisely what she said.

Here is the press release in question:




What Fukino said was that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
The key phrase was the qualification “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
That phrase was left out of the CNN report, and Tuchman did not press Fukino on the discrepancy.
The question remains whether the Hawaii Department of Health has on file in its vault a 1961 original, type-and-ink paper document that matches the PDF the White House posted on its website April 27, 2011.
Because Fukino’s statement of Oct. 31, 2008, was qualified, questions persisted. Eight months later, on July 27, 2009, she felt it necessary to issue a second statement:
What Fukino said precisely in the subsequent statement was that she had seen “the original vital records maintained by file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen.”
But what are these records?
Fundamentally, the Hawaii Department of Health only has verified that the short-form and long-form birth certificates are “abstracts” of Obama birth records the department has on file.
So far, the Hawaii Department of Health has withheld from public inspection the original 1961 Obama birth records the agency claims to hold on file.

Birth announcements
The CNN May 30 broadcast displayed the 1961 announcements of Obama’s birth that were published in the two Honolulu newspapers, presenting them as if they were proof Obama was born in Hawaii.
The report ignored refutation of this contention presented in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” on pages 74-76.
The book points out Hawaiian law in 1961 allowed registration of an unattended birth based on personal testimony, not documentary evidence a baby had been born in Hawaii.
The law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth was the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, 1955.
Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” in Section 57-9 opens the door for a family to make a false claim and obtain a Hawaii birth certificate for a child born outside the state, possibly even in a foreign country.
The section provides that in instances in which an unattended birth occurs outside a hospital, if neither parent of the newborn is available to prepare a birth certificate, “the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the necessary birth certificate.”

Clearly, Obama’s maternal grandparents could have presented themselves to a local registrar to obtain a birth certificate for the child, even if the child had actually been born in a foreign country.
The address in the two newspaper birth announcements, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, was of the grandparents not the parents, who apparently never shared an address as a married couple.
The birth announcements published in the Hawaii newspapers prove only that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii, not that he was actually born there.

At approximately three minutes into the May 30 broadcast, Tuchman interviewed “long-time newspaper reporter in Honolulu” Dan Nakosa, without informing the viewers that Nakosa has not worked as a newspaper reporter in Honolulu for two years.
Nakosa correctly tells Tuchman that the newspaper published the birth announcements from records provided by the Hawaii Department of Health, not from advertisements placed by the parents or the families of the newborn children.

What Tuchman and Nakosa fail to discuss is the evidence provided on page 77 of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” indicating:
Neither newspaper had an editor that handled birth announcements;
Both newspapers merely published birth announcements, directly as received, from information published in Hawaii DOH vital statistics announcements;
Hawaiian hospitals did not report to newspapers any birth announcement information; Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth do not typically list hospital of birth or attending physician information;
Neither newspaper independently checked the truthfulness or accuracy of birth announcement information from Hawaii DOH vital statistics records;

Errors and misstatements in birth announcements published in the two Hawaiian newspapers can and do result from incorrect information recorded in vital statistic information published by the Hawaiian DOH.
Moreover, the 1961 publication of birth announcements by the two Honolulu newspapers was haphazard at best.
The papers apparently published the announcements when space needed to be filled in the paid classified advertisement section.

Many birth announcements were published in one newspaper and not the other; birth announcements were rarely published the same day in both newspapers; and many hundreds of births were never reported in the newspapers at all, especially if the child was born to an unmarried woman.
No birth announcement listed where the birth occurred, meaning unattended births were reported identically as if the birth had occurred in a hospital attended by a physician.

Memories of baby Obama?
At 3:42 into the May 30 report, Tuchman interviews Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who has asserted he knew Obama’s parents, remembers the birth and visited with they young family when Obama was an infant.
Again, CNN failed to review the discrepancies in Abercombie’s recollections of Obama’s birth and infancy in Hawaii.
WND has documented that shortly after the baby’s birth, Obama’s mother left Hawaii with her infant son and moved to Seattle, where she enrolled in night courses at the University of Washington.
WND has further documented that Ann Dunham did not return to Hawaii with her son until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands in 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard.

In an interview published by the New York Times Dec. 24, 2010, Abercrombie distinguished that he did not see Dunham and her newly born son at the hospital. But he claimed to remember the couple bringing the baby to social events, which is unlikely if Dunham was in Seattle, not Hawaii, and Dunham and Obama Sr. never lived together.
CNN also did not report Abercrombie’s much publicized failure after he first took office to fulfill his promise to find the authentic 1961 original Obama birth certificate and show it to the American public.

Mystery grows: Journalist died prepping Obama exposé

by: Jerome R. Corsi 

NEW YORK – Before his death in a fiery car crash, Michael Hastings was preparing to publish a major investigative piece tied to the undercover agent who is suspected of sanitizing President Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.
The mystery has only deepened since the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office ruled that drugs in his system at the time of the June 18 crash, including amphetamines and marijuana, likely did not contribute to the crash.
Hastings, 33 years old at the time of his death, wrote for Gentleman’s Quarterly, Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed, reporting on national security issues.
His June 2010 article in Rolling Stone featuring remarks highly critical of the Obama administration made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal — then the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan — led to President Obama relieving McChrystal of command.

Reported drug use
The autopsy two months after Hastings’ death found small amounts of amphetamine in his blood, suggesting he may have taken methamphetamine several hours before his death. Traces of marijuana also suggested Hastings had smoked the drug hours before he had taken the methamphetamine.
Hastings died when his Mercedes, traveling at a high rate of speed, crossed into the median on a deserted Highland Avenue at 4:20 a.m. and struck a tree. The automobile burst into flames, charring Hastings’ body so badly that it took several days to make a positive identification.
Los Angeles newspapers have suggested Hastings had become obsessed with Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive domestic surveillance capabilities and with disclosures the Department of Justice had obtained of the phone records of Associated Press reporters.
His fiancée, Jordanna Thigpen, told the LA Weekly that just before his death, Hastings’ behavior had become erratic because of his increasing concerned that helicopters commonly seen in the Hollywood Hills were spying on him and that his Mercedes had been tampered with.

“He was scared, and he wanted to leave town,” Thigpen told the newspaper.
She recalled that the night before his death, Hastings asked Thigpen if he could borrow her Volvo because he was afraid to drive his own car.
Fox News reported family members told investigators that Hastings, who supposedly had been “sober” for 14 years, had begun using drugs the month before his death. The drugs included the hallucinogenic DMT, although it was not detected in a blood report conducted after the crash.
Fox News further reported a family member told investigators Hastings was seen passed out at home about three hours before the crash and that he had been smoking marijuana the night of the crash.
Investigators told Fox News that Hastings was found after the crash with a medicinal marijuana identity card in his wallet and that he apparently was using the drug to ease post-traumatic stress disorder experienced after his assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A security video that captured Hastings’ car crash showed a flash of light before the car hit the tree, raising suspicions Hastings’ death may have been caused by an explosion.
San Diego 6 News has reported that a witness in a nearby business is claiming the explosion occurred before Hastings’ car hit the tree. An explosion before impact, which would slow down the vehicle, would explain the minimal damage observed on the palm tree. Other physical evidence at the crash site also is not consistent with a high-speed, out-of-control impact.

Brennan and the CIA
On Aug. 12, Kimberly Dvorak reported for San Diego 6 News that Hastings at the time of his death was working on an exposé on CIA director John Brennan.
In July, a source provided the station with an email hacked from “super secret CIA contractor” Stratfor’s President Fred Burton and subsequently posted on WikiLeaks that suggested Brennan was in charge of the Obama administration’s surveillance of investigative journalists.

Michael Hastings and Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett at President Obama's election-night victory party in 2012 (Photo: John V. Santore)

Though rumors persist that Hastings was near completion of a new exposè on Brennan to be published shortly in Rolling Stone, the magazine so far has not published any such piece.
Obama’s passport records sanitized
WND has previously reported that Brennan played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.

On March 21, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, two unnamed contract employees for the State Department were fired and a third unnamed State Department contract employee was disciplined for breaching the passport file of Democratic presidential candidate and then-senator Barack Obama.
The Washington Times on March 20, 2008, noted that all three had used their authorized computer network access to look up and read Obama’s records within the State Department’s consular affairs section that “possesses and stores passport information.”
Contacted by the newspaper, State Department spokesman Sean McCormick attributed the violations to non-political motivations, stressing that the three individuals involved “did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.”
“As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity,” McCormick told the Washington Times.
Exactly how the State Department came to that conclusion, McCormick did not disclose.
By the next day, the story had changed.
The New York Times reported March 21, 2008, that the security breach had involved unauthorized searches of the passport records not just of Obama, but also of then-presidential contenders Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Again, the New York Times attributed the breaches to “garden-variety snooping by idle employees” that was “not politically motivated.”
Like the Washington Times, the New York Times gave no explanation to back up its assertion that the breaches were attributable to non-political malfeasance.
Still, the New York Times report said then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spent Friday morning calling all three presidential candidates. Rice had told Obama that she was sorry for the violation. She said she “told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file.”
The newspaper quoted Obama saying he appreciated the apology but that he expected the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly.”
According to the New York Times report, Obama’s tone of concern was obvious.
“One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Obama told reporters. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.”

The New York Times noted that the files examined were likely to contain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, addresses and dates of birth as well as passport applications and other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship. Only at the end of the article did the paper note that State Department spokesman McCormick had emphasized the most egregious violation appeared to have been made against Obama.
Obama was the only one of the three presidential candidates involved who had his passport file breached on three separate occasions. The first occurred Jan. 9, 2008, followed by separate violations Feb. 21 and March 14. Moreover, all three of the offending employees had breached Obama’s files, while the passport files of McCain and Clinton had been breached each only once.
The Brennan connection
The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va.
The newspaper gave no background on either corporation other than to note that Stanley Inc. did “computer work for the government.”

John Brennan was sworn in as CIA director in March

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570 million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department, headed by Brennan, who then serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Obama’s presidential campaign.
By Saturday, March 22, 2008, the Washington Times reported that the State Department investigation had focused on the contract worker for the Analysis Corporation, because he was the only one of the three involved in breaching the passport records of both Sens. Obama and McCain, the two presidential candidates whose eligibility as “natural born” citizens under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution were in question.

Consistent with the claim that the motive for the passport breach merely was mischief, the three State Department contract employees received relatively light penalties. Two were fired and one was reprimanded.
Although at the time the State Department promised a full-scale investigation, the public was kept in the dark.
In July 2008, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a 104-page investigative report on the passport breach incidents, stamped “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The document was so heavily redacted, it was nearly worthless to the public. Scores of passages were blacked out entirely, including one sequence of 29 consecutive pages that were each obliterated by a solid black box that made impossible the determination even of paragraph structures.
One investigative reporter, Kenneth Timmerman, said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breaches was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his presidential eligibility.
According to this theory, the breaches of McCain’s and Clinton’s files were done for misdirection purposes, to create confusion and to suggest the motives of the perpetrators were attributable entirely to innocent curiosity.

Brennan tilts toward Islam
WND has reported that in a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies that is archived on the White House website, Brennan commented that using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” to describe terrorists “risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”
Brennan advised that U.S. foreign policy should encourage greater assimilation of the Hezbollah terrorist organization into the Lebanese government.
WND further reported that in a July 2008 article in The Annals, a publication of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Brennan argued it “would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.”
Continued Brennan: “Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah’s interest in shaping Lebanon’s political future from within government institutions. This involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah’s genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping and violence.”
At the August 2009 press conference for the CSIS, Brennan declared: “Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ‘80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.”

Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah frequently maintain civilian units of doctors and lawyers to emphasize their outreach with local politicians and to increase their political acceptance in the international arena.
Conceivably, the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, better known by the Turkish acronym IHH, would fit into Brennan’s definition of the charitable side of organizations such as Hezbollah, despite IHH’s ties to al-Qaida. The links to the terror organization have been amply documented by experts such as former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary’s counter-terrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 1977.
Despite this history, IHH is not included on the State Department’s current list of 45 groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, which names both Hezbollah and Hamas.
In his speech to the New York University law school students posted on YouTube by the White House, Brennan included a lengthy statement in Arabic that he did not translate for his English-speaking audience.
Noting that he was as an undergraduate with the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, Brennan proceeded to use only the Arabic name, “Al Quds,” when referring to Jerusalem. He said that during his 25 years in government, he spent considerable time in the Middle East, as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

“In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina,” he said. “I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims of making that pilgrimage.”
WND previously reported Brennan participated in a meeting with Muslim law students facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America, a group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the founders of the Holy Land Foundation of Texas. The founders were given life sentences “for funneling $12 million” to Hamas, the group currently in political control of the Gaza.
WND further reported that at the meeting with Muslim law students, Brennan declared himself a “citizen of the world” who believed the U.S. government should never engage in “profiling” in pursuit of national security.

Sheriff Joe to Congress: Investigate Obama's eligibility

 
by: Bob Unruh 

Hey, while Congress is investigating the use of the IRS to harass conservative activists, is trying to find out what the Obama White House covered up about Benghazi and is looking into why the Justice Department went after reporters’ phone records, why not include a check into Obama’s eligibility, too?
That’s an idea confirmed in an affidavit filed with a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
The affidavit comes from Mike Zullo, the chief of a special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to look into the question at the request of his constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 election ballot.
Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Zullo outlined their findings.
“At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine,” Zullo wrote in his affidavit to the Alabama court.

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.
“Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States,” he said.
The Obama administration’s reaction to questions about his eligibility, which have been ongoing since before the 2008 election, has been to pooh-pooh any questions and make jokes about the questioner.
But those on the special team assembled by Arpaio to investigate are not laughing. Nor does Zullo’s affidavit to the Alabama Supreme Court joke around.

It was only a few weeks ago when Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in their demand that the case, a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president, be dismissed.
Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
The party had insisted, “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
The document scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel – not widely recognized as a constitutional expert – to make its case: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”
But Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and although his work largely has been under the radar in recent months, it is continuing, Zullo’s affidavit confirmed.
In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
In his concurrence, Parker describes McInnish’s petition as follows: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.’”

Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents, but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.
“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.
Zullo testifies that the White House computer image .pdf file contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
Things have yet to be resolved, even though Obama is into his second term, authorities noted.
“As of the date of this report, this investigation remains open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered, further validating the original investigational findings.”
His testimony continued, “Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.”

At issue is the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” something a foreigner likely would not be able to qualify as, he said.
“One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources,” Zullo wrote.
Zullo also noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
He said raising further questions is the fact Obama has refused to release: Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama), Obama’s adoption records, records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from return from Indonesia, Obama’s baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii), Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association, Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State senator, Obama’s law client list, Obama’s medical records and Obama’s passport records.

In action related to the same case, Klayman asked the court to strike the brief from the Alabama Democratic Party. He called in “frivolous and arrogant, and said “in addition to mocking in disrespectful fashion the seriousness of this case and the integrity of our judicial system, [Democrats] seek to improperly present new evidence not on the record for appeal.”
He also argues the case needs to be decided even though Secretary of State Beth Chapman doesn’t think so.

Obama birth-certificate doubts head to Capitol

wnd exclusive

Audible gasps, shock, outrage and support for a congressional investigation were the responses by law-enforcement officers, elected officials and attorneys to a presentation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, made a public presentation Saturday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in St. Charles, Mo., then held a closed-door session for police officers, elected officials and others.

“Sheriff Arpaio wants this in Congress. That’s where we intend to take it,” Zullo said in an interview with Carl Gallups of PPSimmons Radio.
Zullo said he was amazed by the number of law-enforcement personnel and others at the conference who were not aware of the evidence that Obama’s birth documentation is fake.
He told Gallups the overwhelming response was “absolute shock,” noting “audible gasps” could often be heard during his presentation.
Zullo said one official came up to him afterwards and said: “I have been purposely ignoring this matter – until now. I will ignore it no longer.”
Several constitutional officers, public officials, attorneys, elected officials and others are now pledging full and personal support for moving the issue to a congressional investigation, Zullo said.
He said the virtual media blackout had kept many of the officials in in attendance uninformed and they are now outraged that they have seen the evidence that they should have seen from the beginning.”

Zullo said the media is being “side-stepped.”
“We are making inroads and contacts that we have never made before,” he said. “This conference is really going to pay off in moving things forward. Very important people are now beginning to see the amassed criminal evidence of perhaps the biggest fraud in American history. They are moved – they are shocked – and they are ready for action. Plans of action are now being laid at this very conference. This meeting could prove to be monumental.”

Obama’s birth certificate became an issue before the 2008 campaign — raised first by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — because of allegations he might not qualify for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.”
Though the Constitution provides no definition, many scholars believe the drafters of the Constitution understood it to mean someone who was born of citizen parents. Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, and some critics suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.
Arpaio launched his Cold Case Posse investigation after Maricopa County constituents expressed concern about placing an ineligible candidate on the 2012 presidential ballot.
Zullo recently met with members of Congress concerning the evidence his team has gathered.
After examining the evidence, he said, “They’re looking … and saying, ‘My God, a fifth-grader can see through this.’”
Evidence from Arpaio’s investigation was entered in a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice in November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
The affidavit in the Alabama case, written by Zullo,says his team “concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp.”
“This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine,” Zullo wrote.
The evidence, he said, should be put before Congress.
Zullo said Arpaio “continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States.”
The Obama administration has dismissed questions about Obama’s eligibility with mockery and ridicule.

In a brief asking that the Alabama case be dismissed, Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”
But Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and although his work largely has been under the radar in recent months, it is continuing, Zullo’s affidavit confirmed.
In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
Parker wrote: “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
In his concurrence, Parker described McInnish’s petition: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.’”
Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.
Zullo testifies that the White House computer image file of Obama’s birth certificate contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“As of the date of this report, this investigation remains open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered, further validating the original investigational findings.”
His testimony continued, “Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.
“One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources,” Zullo wrote.

Zullo also noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
He said raising further questions is the fact Obama has refused to release: Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama), Obama’s adoption records, records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from return from Indonesia, Obama’s baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii), Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association, Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State senator, Obama’s law client list, Obama’s medical records and Obama’s passport records.
In action related to the same case, Klayman asked the court to strike the brief from the Alabama Democratic Party. He called in “frivolous and arrogant” and said “in addition to mocking in disrespectful fashion the seriousness of this case and the integrity of our judicial system, [Democrats] seek to improperly present new evidence not on the record for appeal.”