More This & That & Whatever.... The Best Of Intellectual Froglegs

[Warph]

Communists in Congress? Just count 'em...
Book names names, details strategies to 'transform' U.S.

NEW YORK – New Zealander Trevor Loudon has just published an encyclopedic new 689-page volume, "The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress," to accompany his 668-page 2011 book, "Barack Obama and the Enemies Within."

In both volumes, Loudon has proved himself to be among the foremost experts in the world investigating and reporting the penetration of communists, socialists and the current group of "progressives" affiliated with Democratic Party politics who portray themselves as liberals.

In his 2011 book, Loudon presented documented evidence that Barack Obama's rise in politics was not an accident, but a conscious, decade-long effort by the radical left to promote a candidate with African roots. Obama, he said, was packaged as an engaging and seemingly harmless Trojan Horse radical, sent to Chicago to refine his skills running for office as a Democratic Party politician.

It is impossible to read "Barack Obama and the Enemies Within" without being convinced that Obama's education in communist ideology stretches from the extracurricular education he received from Communist Party mentor Frank Marshall Davis in Honolulu to his recruitment as a New Party candidate in Chicago, with strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America.

Loudon continues naming names in his current volume, "The Enemies Within," which documents how extensively communists, socialists and progressives have penetrated the U.S. Congress, running on the Democratic Party ticket.

The goal of these radicals in Congress, Loudon demonstrates, is the same goal Obama announced when running for president in 2008, to transform the United States from the constitutional republic established by its Founding Fathers into a radical socialist state. The aim is to be achieved through passing extensive social welfare legislation designed to bankrupt a government adhering to concepts of private property and private enterprise.

In an insightful essay on the Democratic Socialists of America, Loudon emphasizes the impact on U.S. radicals of the late Italian Communist Party theoretician Antonio Gramsci, whose writings from prison declared that the "working class revolution" is a dead end, arguing instead that communism can best be achieved "by infiltrating civil society – political parties, churches, labor unions, universities, the media, community groups, etc., to turn them into revolutionary vehicles."

Similarly, Loudon documents how the Communist Party of the USA itself has adopted a stealth plan to achieve revolutionary goals by decisions made in the 1970s to infiltrate and manipulate the Democratic Party. The plan is to form alliances with the radical elements in organized labor in conjunction with radicals in the African-American community and the feminist movement to establish a progressive coalition on the left that could dominate the national political agenda for decades to come.

His essay on the Institute for Policy Studies provides extensive evidence that the IPS, operating today with the distinction of being oldest – founded in 1963 – and most influential of the far left "think tanks" in Washington, D.C., "works closely with several U.S. Marxist groups, but is particularly close to the Democratic Socialists of America."

The congressional profiles of current members of Congress provides extensive evidence of radical leftist ties in the backgrounds of top Democratic Party legislators, including Democratic Party Sens. Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Debbie Stabenow, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray and Tammy Baldwin.

In the House of Representatives, Loudon profiles the radical left background of Democratic Party Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Louis Gutierrez, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Marcy Kaptur, Peter DeFazio, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott and dozens more.

Loudon's profiles of the radical lawmakers is extensively footnoted, complete with photos, news clips, website screen captures and quotations from published sources that leave no doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of his allegations.

In documenting the success with which the radical left has captured the politically correct core of Democratic Party politics since the 1970s and the end of the Vietnam War, Loudon joins bestselling author Paul Kengor, who published in 2010 "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Conservatives for a Century," followed in 2012 by "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor."

What authors Loudon and Kengor show is that communism in America did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is alive and well, with ties that run deep today with Barack Obama in the White House and the radical leftist Democrats serving in the halls of Congress.

Loudon will be in Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club Aug. 20 to participate in the all day conference "The Crisis in American Journalism and the Conservative Response," hosted by the public policy group America's Survival Inc.

Joining Loudon, who is listed on the program to speak about his book "The Enemies Within," will be Kengor, presenting his new book, "All the Dupes Fit to Print: Journalists Who Have Served as Tools of Communist Propaganda."


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/communists-in-congress-just-count-em/#y0tAaSKHdAXLTzLm.99

[Warph]

The Radical Racist Background of Obama &
We're Not Talking About Barack
Part One

by Leon Puissegur

I did some background checking into Michelle Obama and her links with socialists, communists and other high ranking radicals that wish nothing more than to destroy the United States as it is, and create a brand new United States! This may sound absurd and demeaning, but it is true. Some of the words spoken by Michelle Obama and her husband Barack Obama have come directly from a radical book titled Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky.

I'll expose Alinsky's background in future articles, but before we go too far, let us just start with Michelle Obama's college days, since to find her high school history seems to be quite difficult.

Michelle Obama's maiden name was Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, and she was born on January 17, 1964. She married Barack Hussein Obama in 1992.

According to FrontPageMagazine reporter Jacob Laksin, "In a [February 2008] interview with Newsweek, [Michelle] Obama reveals that she got into Princeton ... not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a 'legacy' candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied."

The First lady got her college education due to her brother and her ethnicity, not her excellence in academics. So why is she such a radical racist woman? It must come from somewhere in her background. Perhaps her parents were the ones who led her to this road of turmoil about racial prejudice. Let us take a brief look to see just what she was doing at Princeton while she was there and what types of people she had as her close friends. Some of Michelle Obama's contacts in College were of the Marxist/socialist types.

Princeton, 1984


Charles C. Johnson wrote on October 30, 2012, "Michelle Obama attends and promotes a 'Black Solidarity' event for guest lecturer Manning Marable, who was, according to Cornel West, probably 'the best known black Marxist in the country.' The event is the work of the Third World Center (TWC), a campus group whose board membership is exclusively reserved for minorities."

A classmate of Michelle's identified her to TheBlaze as the second person on the left. Article/photograph taken from The Daily Princetonian – Vol. CVIII, No. 107 November 6, 1984

Daily Princetonian article showing Michelle as a board member.

With this documented article, we see that Michelle Obama, much like her husband is closely associated with the teachings of Marxism and had attended meetings with Marxist-type people. We must now wonder, why did the people elect a man with a wife that has such a marked background, mixed with Marxism and communism by association with such types of people?

Michelle Robinson's racial animosity of Caucasian people is exposed through her articles and statements from the time she was at Princeton. One can see this in her ideas that the white population at Princeton were a bunch of "racist" individuals. Johnson quotes an article Michelle Robinson (Obama) wrote while at Princeton University, following an introduction to the quotation.

If ever there was an example of the TWC governing board's obsession with race, an editorial from October 21, 1981 is it. The members took great offense to an op-ed titled "Rebuilding Race Relations," calling the article "racist, offensive, and inaccurate" for daring to question the group's true commitment and to present a thesis on race relations counter to its own.


"The word RE-building implies that race relations once existed and, for some mysterious reasons, fell apart ... ," the board wrote in a scathing letter to the editor. "We, on the other hand, believe that race relations have ​never​ been and still are not at a satisfactory level. We are not RE-building. We cannot RE-build something that never existed in the first place."


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/the-radical-racist-background-of-michelle-obama-were-not-talking-about-barack/#GkhqwE0ZxqCqYpFk.99

[Warph]

Obama Supporters Will Go Hysterical Over This Well Sourced List Of 252 Examples Of
His Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Etc.
August 17, 2013 by Dan from Squirrel Hill
http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

I ask you to please show this list to as many people as possible – and especially, to please show it to as many Obama supporters as possible. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant. I can't stop Obama from doing any of these horrible things, but I can tell people about what he is doing. So please share this list with others on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Thank you.

*******************************************************

Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of hypocrisy. But Barack Obama does these things to a far greater degree than anyone else that I have ever known of. His campaign promises were so much better sounding than anyone else's – no lobbyists in his administration, waiting five days before signing all non-emergency bills so people would have time to read them, putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN, reading every bill line by line to make sure money isn't being wasted, prosecution of Wall St. criminals, ending raids against medical marijuana in states where it's legal, high levels of transparency. Obama's promises of these wonderful things sounded inspiring and sincere. They sounded so much better than the promises of any other President. So when Obama broke these promises, it felt so much worse than when other Presidents broke their promises.

In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections.

Some of the things on this list are major events that should scare the daylights out of any true liberal who cares about civil liberties.

Other things on this list are medium things that some Obama supporters may dislike, but would be willing to overlook in light of the things that Obama has done which they like.

And some of the things on this list may seem trivial, but I still think they are an interesting reflection of the kinds of policies that Obama supports.

Every claim that I make in this list is sourced. Click on the blue text to see the sources. I have cited a wide variety of sources, from right wing, to left wing, to middle of the road.

I welcome any comments and criticisms that you may have. If you say my list is wrong, please back up your claim by citing specific examples.

And now, on with the list:

http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

[Warph]

Obumacare Is Based On Lies, Hypocrisy, And Illegal Activities

Here are 42 examples:

1) Lied about putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN

Although Obama had made a campaign promise to have all of the health care reform negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, he broke that promise after he was elected.

The secrecy of these negotiations was so strong that U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

2) Lied about letting people keep their health insurance

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:
"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Also before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:
"Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance."

However, after Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance.

After Obamacare was passed, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated

"... new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26... meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible."

Also, after Obamacare was passed, the Franciscan University of Steubenville dropped its coverage in response to the law.

Universal Orlando dropped its coverage for part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In addition, after Obamacare was passed, Forbes reported

"The House Ways and Means Committee has released a new report that sheds light onto how Obamacare incentivizes companies to dump their workers onto the new law's subsidized exchanges."

Also after Obamacare was passed, MSN reported
"The Affordable Care Act mandate most commonly known as Obamacare has some tight stipulations that, CNN says, are forcing health care companies to rip up most of their current plans and draft new ones that comply. According to a University of Chicago study, just about half of the individual health care plans currently on the market won't cut it once key provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in next year."

Furthermore, it was reported that Obamacare would cause 58,000 Aetna and UnitedHealth Group customers in California to lose their insurance.

In response to Obamacare, some employers have dropped coverage for their employees' spouses.

The chain of Wegmans supermarkets cancelled the policies of its part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare

"will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits... these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable... we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans"

3) Lied about the cost of Obamacare

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama promised

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

However, after Obama signed it, the Washington Post reported that it would add more than $340 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade.

In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obamacare would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised.

In May 2013, it was reported that Obamacare's program for high risk patients was more expensive than what Obama had promised.

4) Falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress

Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress.

5) Illegally gave Obamacare exemptions to unions that supported the passage of Obamacare


Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare.  Many of these organizations were unions that had supported the passage of Obamacare, but now wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.

In addition, these exemptions are illegal, because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.

The Washington Times wrote of this:

"Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny."

"The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration's friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists."

"More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem."

6) Said the health insurance mandate was not a tax, but later told the Supreme Court that it was

Before Obama's health care reform was passed, he said that the mandate was not a tax. However, after it was passed, the Obama administration argued in front of the Supreme Court that the mandate really was a tax.

7) Punishes hospitals for saving the lives of patients with heart disease

Obama's health care reform contains a provision that reduces  Medicare payments to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates. Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said of this, "Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates. So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?"

Encouraged medical device manufacturers to lay off employees

In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).

In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts.

9) Encouraged employers to switch their employees from full time to part time

The New York Times reported that Obamacare

"sharply penalizes full-time employment in favor of part-time employment."

In response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, some restaurants have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including some franchises of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Wendy's, Taco Bell, White Castle, and Fatburger.

Community College of Allegheny County switched 200 professors and 200 other employees from full time to part time in response to Obamacare. Clint Benjamin, an English professor at Community College of Allegheny County, said that this would reduce his own monthly pay by $600.

Also in response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, other colleges have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including Florida's Palm Beach State College, Ohio's Youngstown State University, and New Jersey's Kean University.

In Virginia, thousands of government employees had their hours reduced because of Obamacare.

The Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh reduced the hours of 48 of its employees in response to Obamacare.

Regal Entertainment Group, the largest chain of movie theaters in the country, announced that it would be switching thousands of its employees from full time to part time in response to the Obamacare mandate.

Utah's Granite School District reduced the hours of 1,200 of its employees in response to Obamacare.

In response to Obamacare, many Wal-Mart stores have stopped hiring full time workers.

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will

"destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class... the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation."

10) Falsely said that switching to electronic medical records would make health care cheaper

Although Obama claimed that switching to electronic record keeping as part of Obamacare would make health care cheaper, it actually made it more expensive.

11) Broke his own deadline for creating healthcare exchanges

Three years after Obama signed Obamacare, the New York Times reported that Obama would miss his own deadline for creating some of the insurance exchanges for small businesses.

12) Falsely said that surgeons get paid between $30,000 and $50,000 for amputating a leg

In August 2009, while trying to justify the passage of Obamacare, Obama stated

"Let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money."

The American College of Surgeons responded to this by saying

"President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service."

13) Falsely said that doctors perform unnecessary tonsillectomies to make more money
In July 2009, Obama said:

"Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if ... your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.'"

"Now, that may be the right thing to do. But I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."

The  American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery responded by saying

"The AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President's portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries. In many cases, tonsillectomy may be a more effective treatment, and less costly, than prolonged or repeated treatments for an infected throat."

14) Added 20,000 extra pages to Obamacare without Congressional approval

After Obamacare was passed, Obama added 20,000 extra pages to it, even though those extra 20,000 pages had not been voted on by Congress.

15) Signed health care reform law whose own authors called it a "huge train wreck" that was "beyond comprehension"

U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), one of the authors of Obamacare, said of it, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), another author of the law, said it was "beyond comprehension."

16) Waited until after the 2012 election to release unpopular Obamacare rules

In April 2013, the New York Times reported:

... even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.

...  the Obama administration didn't want to release unpopular rules before the election.

Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned.

A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling... Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.

17) Used Obamacare to illegally give the IRS additional powers without approval from Congress

In May 2013 the Washington Post wrote:

The law allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set up federal health exchanges in the holdout states. But the statute makes no mention of the IRS providing credits and subsidies through federal exchanges.

The IRS resolved this conundrum by denying its existence. In a May 2012 regulatory ruling, it asserted its own right to provide credits outside the state exchanges as the reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. But the language of the law is not ambiguous. And health scholars Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, in an exhaustive recent analysis, find no justification for the IRS's ruling in the legislative history of Obamacare. "The statute," they argue, "and the lack of any support for the IRS rule in the legislative record put defenders of the IRS rule in the awkward position of arguing that it was so obviously Congress' intent to offer tax credits in federal exchanges that despite a year of debate over the PPACA, it never occurred to anyone to express that intent out loud. A better explanation is that the PPACA's authors miscalculated when they assumed states would establish exchanges."

So: The IRS seized the authority to spend about $800 billion over 10 years on benefits that were not authorized by Congress. And the current IRS scandal puts this decision in a new light. What was the role of politics in shaping this regulatory decision? What pressure was applied?

18) Illegally solicited donations from health insurers

In May 2013, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from health insurers to help pay for Obamacare. Such soliciting is illegal.

19) Pressured unions to reduce the amount of health insurance coverage for their employees

In May 2013, the New York Times reported:

Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor's office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past.

Expect to have your blood pressure checked or a prescription filled at a clinic at your office, rather than by your private doctor.

Then blame the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to their employees.

Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.

Tom Leibfried, a legislative director for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one of the unions whose plans are vulnerable to the tax, says the demands that workers pay more for their care is a perennial aspect of labor negotiations. "We're very concerned about the hollowing out of benefits in general," he said. "What the excise tax will do is just fuel that."

20) Betrayed the people of the city that helped him launch his political career

As part of his effort to get Obamacare passed, Obama repeatedly promised that people could keep their current health insurance if they liked it.

More than any other city, the people of Chicago helped to get Obamacare passed. Chicago is where Obama chose to live when he first got into politics. The people there launched his political career and voted him into office.

And this is how Obama repays them. In May 2013, the Chicago Tribune reported:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to start reducing health insurance coverage next year for more than 30,000 retired city workers and begin shifting them to President Barack Obama's new federal system.

The move is aimed at saving the city money

Once the phaseout is complete, those retired workers would have to pay for their own health insurance or get subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The city-subsidized coverage is particularly important to retired workers who aren't yet eligible for Medicare

Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said the uncertainties of the Affordable Care Act and the state insurance exchanges they would create make the city's plan hard to assess.

"This uncertainty will cause anxiety and fear for tens of thousands of seniors who gave their working lives to public service — men and women whose retirement savings are already under attack in the name of 'pension reform.'" Bayer said.

21) Raised the interest rate on student loans to pay for Obamacare

Obamacare raised the interest rate on students loans from  5.3% to 6.8%. The money is used to fund Obamacare.

22) Refused to fire or prosecute 15 IRS agents who illegally seized the medical records of 10 million people

In March 2011, 15 IRS agents illegally seized the medical records of 10 million people without a warrant. Obama refused to fire or prosecute them.

23 Hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare

In June 2013, it was reported that Obama had hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.

24) Illegally bypassed Congress to delay Obamacare's employer mandate

As the Obamacare law was written, the employer mandate was to begin in January 2014. This is what the law said when it was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama in 2010.

However, in July 2013, Obama delayed the employer mandate part of Obamacare until January 2015. Obama did this without approval from Congress.

For Obama to change a law that was passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress, is a violation of the Presidential oath that Obama took to uphold and defend the Constitution.

What Obama did here is an action of a dictator, not an action of a President whose power is limited by a written constitution.

If Obama can get away with this, then it sets a horribly dangerous precedent, and means that the President can arbitrarily make any change to any law that has been passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress.

25) Made it too hard for some doctors to continue their practices

In July 2013, ABC News reported that some doctors were shutting down their practices in response to Obamacare.

Dr. Robert WcWilliams, an obstetrician/gynecologist with more than 5,000 patients, said:

"It's going to be run by bureaucrats – and it's going to be run by politicians – who have no idea what is in your best interests, then I'm getting out."

26) Falsely guaranteed that people could keep their doctor

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

"Here is a guarantee that I've made... If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor."

However, in July 2013, the Obama administration said that people "may" be able to keep their doctor.

27) Broke his promise to have real time verifiability of Obamacare subsidies

In July 2013, Investor's Business Daily wrote:

Meanwhile, the administration tacitly admitted last week that its promise of real-time verification of a consumer's eligibility to buy subsidized coverage at an ObamaCare exchange wasn't exactly panning out.

Under ObamaCare, only those who don't have access to "affordable" insurance at work can buy coverage in an exchange, and only those below certain income levels are eligible for tax subsidies.

Rather than a high-tech instant check, the administration told states they could simply take the applicants' word for it when it comes to their employer-provided coverage, as well as their "projected annual household income," without the need for "further verification."

28) Singed health care reform whose rules contradicted each other

Obamacare allows insurance companies to charge higher premiums for smokers. At the same time, it prohibits insurance companies from charging more than three times as much for older people as it does for younger people. In June 2013, Obama's computer programmers said that they had been unable to write a computer program that simultaneously agreed with both of these rules.

29) Signed a health care reform plan that is so horrible that even the IRS agents who run it don't want to participate in it

Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.

But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don't want to participate in it.

In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:

"I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act."

When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:

"I don't want to speak for the NTEU, but I'll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you're an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you're probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I'm pleased with rather than go through a change if I don't need to go through that change."

30) Illegally prevented individual employees of small businesses from choosing their own plan during the first year of Obamacare

Obamacare requires that individual employees of small businesses be allowed to choose their own insurance plan during the first year of Obamacare. However, in March 2013, the Obama administration announced that it would not be allowing them to make this choice during the first year.

31) Falsely said that Obamacare had not hurt jobs

In July 2013, the Obama administration said that Obamacare had not hurt jobs.

However, in the real world, in response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs). In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts. The New York Times reported that Obamacare "sharply penalizes full-time employment in favor of part-time employment." In response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, some restaurants have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including some franchises of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Wendy's, Taco Bell, White Castle, and Fatburger. Community College of Allegheny County switched 200 professors and 200 other employees from full time to part time in response to Obamacare. Clint Benjamin, an English professor at Community College of Allegheny County, said that this would reduce his own monthly pay by $600. Also in response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, other colleges have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including Florida's Palm Beach State College, Ohio's Youngstown State University, and New Jersey's Kean University. In Virginia, thousands of government employees had their hours reduced because of Obamacare. The Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh reduced the hours of 48 of its employees in response to Obamacare. Regal Entertainment Group, the largest chain of movie theaters in the country, announced that it would be switching thousands of its employees from full time to part time in response to the Obamacare mandate. Utah's Granite School District reduced the hours of 1,200 of its employees in response to Obamacare. In response to Obamacare, many Wal-Mart stores have stopped hiring full time workers. In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class... the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation."

32) Falsely said that health insurance premiums would be reduced by $2,500 per family by the end of his first term

In February 2008, Obama said:

"We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president."

However, by the time his first term was over, family premiums had gotten bigger, not smaller. The increase was $3,065 per family.

33) Illegally gave Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts

In August 2013, Obama gave an Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts.

This waiver was illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same.

34) Exposed the hypocrisy at Democratic Underground

For some really hilarious displays of shock and outrage by supporters of Obamacare at how it's harming low wage workers, check out these threads at Democratic Underground: one, two, three, four, and five.

35) Betrayed the unions that helped him to get elected

In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.

Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans

"We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable," said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here

Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law's requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members' compensation package

36) Illegally changed Obamacare to benefit members of Congress and their staff

In 2010, Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.

Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changes to Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama's actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.

37) Illegally avoided enforcing the required income verification of people who receive subsidies for Obamacare exchanges

Even though Obamacare requires the government to verify the income of people who receive subsidies for Obamacare exchanges, in August 2013 it was reported that Obama would not be verifying their incomes.

38) Placed a 40% tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans

Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax.

39) Made medical care for special needs children more expensive

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare would make it more expensive for the parents of special needs children to pay for their children's medical equipment and specialized private schools that cater to their medical needs.

40) Illegally delayed the caps on out of pocket payments without Congressional approval

As it was passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama in 2010, Obamacare sets caps on the out of pocket payments that people pay for health care, and these caps were legally required to take effect in January 2014.

However, in August 2013, Obama delayed these caps until January 2015.

Because Obama imposed this delay without it first being approved by Congress, Obama's action was illegal. The President does not have the legal authority to change an Act that was passed by Congress, without that change first being approved by Congress. What Obama did here is not the act of a President whose power is limited by a written constitution, but is, instead, the action of a dictator.

41) Outlawed the low-premium, high-deductible health insurance that some people prefer

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare would bring an end to the low-premium, high-deductible health insurance that some people prefer.

42) Created new fines for charitable hospitals that give treatment to uninsured people

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare creates new fines for charitable hospitals that give treatment to uninsured people.

[Warph]

Obuma Bets Against Human Nature — and Usually Loses

by Victor David Hanson - August 19th, 2013
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/obama-bets-against-human-nature/

There are many ways to learn about the bleaker aspects of human nature. One would be to run a pizza shop, or regularly to have to clean a public restroom. Perhaps giving close attention to the text of Thucydides might give a more abstract lesson. Also, the Old and New Testaments offer plenty of examples of the fallen state of man.

Obama apparently did not get the message. What is the common denominator of his failed foreign policy initiatives (reset with Russia; a new, kinder, gentler Middle East; supposed breakthroughs with China; outreach to Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela) and his domestic catastrophes (Obamacare, deficits, huge debts, chronic unemployment)? In a nutshell, he does not seem to know much about human nature, whether in the concrete or abstract sense. Obama never held a menial job or ran a business. In lieu of education in the school of hard knocks, he read the wrong, if any, seminal texts.

The problem with a thug like Vladimir Putin is not just that he does not respond to "outreach" and "reset," but rather that he interprets such loud magnanimity as weakness. And when sermonizing and lectures are added to perceptions of American impotence, the impression of timidity leads further to contempt, and ultimately to a devilish desire to humiliate and disabuse a naïf Obama of his moral pretensions. And what of the world watching all this? Unfortunately, it is more likely to enjoy viewing a strong rebuff of utopian idealism than a weak embrace of it.

For the sellout of the Czechs and the Poles over missile defense, the unnecessary effort to enter into more strategic arms talks with the Russians, and the sermons about being a good citizen at the UN or tolerating dissent at home, in return we received Russian snubs over Eric Snowden and Putin's obstructing U.S. efforts against Iran or Syria. Had Obama from the outset kept quiet about "reset," avoided trashing his predecessor, and stood firm when Putin pushed, Putin would now respect him as much as he feels contempt.

In his Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech, Obama sought to reach out to the Middle East on the unlikely premise that his own affinities with Islam (a Muslim father, a Muslim middle name, Muslim relatives), his mixed racial heritage, and his multicultural sympathies for the Islamic world would turn stand-offish moderates into friends and prior enemies into moderates.

But why so? All the silly euphemisms in the world — man-caused disasters, overseas contingency operations, workplace violence — would not make jihadists suddenly like the U.S. just because the new president was not a white, Christian Texan.

Such superficial affinities are as unlikely to promote diplomatic breakthroughs as they are likely to appear insulting. Does Obama have any experience with the particularly disturbing human characteristic — learned both from literature and the experience, say, of going to a dangerous public school — that forced efforts to fit in, to accommodate, to ingratiate, to seek affinities where they don't exist are not interpreted as outreach as much as condescension?

The almost eerie hatred for Obama seen in Egypt — among the military, the Islamists, the Egyptian street, and even the secular pro-Western reformists — in part derives from a sense that Obama tried to cajole them all with cheap commonalities and mytho-histories rather than negotiate often conflicting national interests through tough transparent talks.

A good way to get beaten up in the hallway at a tough school is to assure the local king-of-the-hill thug that both of you really have a lot in common. In some sense, Obama's entire Middle East policy mirrors the hilarious scene in Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino, where the white punk attired in pseudo-gang attire believes he can out-jive gangbangers into leaving his girl alone. He can't. Obama has unfortunately become such a wannabe in the eyes of unapologetic Middle East gangsters.

On the home front, Obamacare is imploding largely because interested parties are acting in predictably human ways that escape Obama and his elite technocrats.

Why would an employer incur extra health care costs when he could juggle and reduce employee hours to avoid them? If you work for government most of your life, you are usually not fired, usually expect annual pay raises, and usually are assured of an ample pension.

But not the self-employed. The tire store owner, the 200-acre peach grower, or the restauranteur sees hourly money going out but not necessarily coming in. That constant angst makes the entrepreneur wonder which wrong decision will be the proverbial final expense that breaks his back.

In other words, there is nothing in Obamacare to turn natural self-interest into group interest: not the employer mandate; not the clumsy efforts to force healthy youth to pay a tax for care they most likely will not use; not assuring the well-funded public employee or union member that he can get even better government-brokered insurance; and not even telling the uninsured homeless person that he should sign up and pay something for a plan rather than walk into the free emergency room or local cost-free government clinic.

At the very time the president made it in the material and psychological self-interest of the employer to pull back from hiring, he gave equally negative incentives for people to scramble for work by vastly expanding food stamps, unemployment and disability benefits, and health care entitlements. The result is that a part-time job in Obama's new economy is either no better, or often worse, than receiving government benefits while sitting at home. Why would most — human nature being what it is — take a break from watching daytime television to take a pay cut to pick peaches or mop floors?

Bosses are also human, and resent the tiresome class rhetoric. "Spread the wealth" or "not the time for profit" initially could be written off as the president's funny tics. But add in "fat cat," "one percent," "millionaires and billionaires," and "you didn't build that" and the monotonous becomes bothersome and finally odious.

The business person is all too human and understands that Obama seems to resent his success, and thus will seek to regulate it further, tax it more, and deride it in ways that express either his ignorance of how hard it is to make a profit or a teenage sense of envy of earned success. But an economy is simply the sum total of millions of private agendas — partly the result of predictable material self-interest, partly a consequence of equally predictable notions of honor or pride. Feeling that the president does not respect what you do does not encourage risk-taking; magnified millions of times over, that individual stasis instead leads to a collective slowdown.

Why are Obama's polls plummeting again despite a successful reelection, a still obsequious press, and a perennial campaign of demonizing his opponents? Scandals like the IRS mess, the NSA embarrassment, the Benghazi disaster, and the AP monitoring certainly account for much of his current unpopularity. Yet some of the dislike is also due to a growing anger at Obama's hypocrisy — one of the strongest of all human emotions that affects us as no other paradox.

No one begrudges Obama his Martha's Vineyard annual getaway, or his incessant golfing in his yuppyish get-up, or sending his family by separate plane to Aspen, Vail, or Costa del Sol. But why would someone so wish to rub shoulders with the very one percent who, he has so incessantly assured the country, are mostly the source of our problems?

Does Obama have a hierarchy of good and bad fat cats, both good and bad corporate jet owners, or noble grandees who really built their businesses? More likely, the public thinks that Obama either is an abject hypocrite — demagoguing while enjoying the fruits of wealth — or he suffers from a weird psychological guilt over enjoying the good life that forces him to trash in the abstract what he so indulges in the concrete.

Either way the common denominator is hypocrisy. Had Obama gone after supposedly selfish CEOs, and then flown to his home to Chicago for some hot dogs in his backyard, there would have been some consistency. Or had the president talked of the need for big business to be successful to provide jobs as he hobnobbed with such CEOs at Martha's Vineyard, no paradox would arise.

Other paradoxes encourage such hypocrisy. Why weigh in personally on white/black controversial interaction — the Professor Gates psychodrama or the Trayvon Martin death — when the expectation will only arise that such a racially sensitive president will comment on all such public faultlines? That becomes a dilemma when white/black crime occurs at one-eighth the frequency of black on white crime. Most American do not want sermons on the history of race relations, only simple answers as to why their president focuses on some interracial controversies and not far more frequent others. That sense of parity is also human nature, and so entirely missed by Obama.

In almost every policy debacle — subsidizing money-losing wind and solar while ignoring profitable fracking, trashing the previous administration's anti-terrorism protocols while vastly expanding drones, or lecturing on civil liberties and transparency while overseeing the Benghazi IRS, AP, and NSA scandals — Obama has no sense of the very natural reaction of all-too-human Americans.

Such wisdom about what makes average people tick is not necessarily found in prep school in Hawaii, the Ivy League, politics in Washington, or Martha's Vineyard — and after five years that fact is all too apparent.

[Warph]

Obama's DOD Publishes Military Primers Identifying Conservatives As Extremists And Haters

Friday, August 23, 2013, 7:26 PM

Obuma's new terrorist

Beware, all patriotic Americans who hold the Constitution sacred.  Obama's Department of Defense has labeled you an extremist and a hater; and with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center they're teaching military personnel how to identify you.  The DOD warns that sheet-wearing KKK behavior has been replaced with "talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place".  The document, also, equates today's Conservatives with Colonists fighting British oppression.  No surprise, they categorize the 9/11 attack as a "historical event".

Dictator In The Making

Judicial Watch reports:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-department-teaching-documents-suggest-mainstream-conservative-views-extremist/

Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained educational materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) depicting conservative organizations as "hate groups" and advising students to be aware that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." The documents repeatedly cite the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying "hate groups."

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed on April 8, 2013. The FOIA requested "Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force." Included in the 133 pages of lesson plans and PowerPoint slides provided by the Air Force is a January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute "student guide" entitled "Extremism."  The document says that it is "for training purposes only" and "do not use on the job." Highlights include:


•The document defines extremists as "a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights."
•A statement that "Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place."
•"[W]hile not all extremist groups are hate groups, all hate groups are extremist groups."
•Under a section labeled "Extremist Ideologies" the document states, "In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."
•In this same section, the document lists the 9/11 attack under a category of "Historical events."
•"[A]ctive participation...with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited." [Emphasis in original]
•The document details the "seven stages of hate" and sixteen "extremists' traits."
•The SPLC is listed as a resource for information on hate groups and referenced several times throughout the guide.
•Of the five organizations besides the SPLC listed as resources, one is an SPLC project (Teaching Tolerance) and one considers any politically or socially conservative movement to be a potential hate group (Political Research Associates).
•Other than a mention of 9/11 and the Sudan, there is no discussion of Islamic extremism.

In April 2013, following a terrorist shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters that occurred in August 2012, Judicial Watch filed multiple FOIA requests to determine what, if any, influence SPLC's branding of hate groups had on government agencies. On its website, the SPLC has depicted FRC as a "hate group," along with other such mainstream conservative organizations as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries. At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins accused the SPLC of sparking the shooting, saying the shooter "was given a license to shoot ... by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Though the document released today by Judicial Watch was obtained from the Air Force, it originated in a DOD office and is, therefore. thought likely to be used in other agency components.

"The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.  And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today's military," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  "And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations.  After reviewing this document, one can't help but worry for the future and morale of our nation's armed forces."

Obama wants to redefine "terrorist" and purge the U.S. military of all conservative, patriotic Americans.  Yeah, good luck with that.

[Warph]

Surprise! Barry Soetoro Voter Registration
FOIA Request Denied By DC Election Board

by Dean Garrison
August 22, 2013

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/surprise-barry-soetoro-voter-registration-foia-request-denied-by-dc-election-board/#0y8ojzimkA1z1B2d.99


A few weeks ago we reported a bizarre story about Barry Soetoro being registered to vote in Washington D.C.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/bombshell-barry-soetoro-is-registered-to-vote-in-washington-d-c-and-barack-obama-still-votes-in-illinois/


Soetoro was registered with a White House address and had Barack Obama's August 4, 1961 birthdate. We know that the birthdate was the same because that information was required to do a search. Below is a screenshot of our original findings.

Before I go on. For those of you who are not aware, Barry Soetoro is Barack Obama. The Soetoro name was taken from his adopted father while the young Barack was in Indonesia. And now that I've cleared that up...

There are those in the blogging community who were not willing to accept the fact that the registration was removed a few days after being discovered. They wanted answers and rightfully so. Sonoran News, who originally broke the story, sent a Freedom of Information Act request to attempt to get those answers.

Linda Bentley reports:

WASHINGTON – A few weeks ago, we published an article: "Voter fraud at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?" exposing a voter registration under the name Barry Soetoro, the name President Barack Obama used while attending elementary school as a citizen of Indonesia, using the White House's address. It was also pointed out that both Obama and the First Lady are registered to vote in Chicago. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted on July 22 to the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (DCBEE) director asking for a copy of the voter registration, if Soetoro voted in the Nov. 6, 2012 election, and what the process is for verifying voter registrations submitted by mail and online.

Senior Staff Attorney Terri Stroud responded almost immediately to acknowledge the request and state she would respond to the request on before Aug. 12 by making the documents requested, or a legally segregable portion thereof, available or notify me of her determination not to make the requested document available.

Stroud responded on Aug. 12, as promised, denying my request.

She wrote, "I am writing to inform you that your request for a copy of a voter registration application submitted under the name "Barry Soetoro" is being denied pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(3), as it is a record which is the focus of an investigation into a specific alleged illegal act which could, if proved, result in civil or criminal sanctions.

"With respect to the questions posed in your FOIA request concerning voter history and the Board's process for verifying voter registrations submitted by mail and entered online, under the law, an agency 'has no duty either to answer questions unrelated to document requests or to create documents.' Zemansky v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 574 (9th Cir. 1985). The law only requires the disclosure of nonexempt documents, not answers to interrogatories. See Di Viaio v. Kelley, 571 F.2d 538, 542-543 (10th Cir. 1978).

"Please be advised that if you deem this response to be a denial of your request, you have the right to appeal to the Mayor, or you may seek judicial review in the Superior Court, pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-537 and 3 D.C.M.R. § 2012.1. If you elect to appeal to the Mayor, your appeal should: 1) be in writing; 2) include a statement of the arguments, circumstances, or reasons in support of the information sought by your request, and; 3) include a copy of our written letter issued to you."

Just another case of government stonewalling. I am sure that The White House was consulted to see what action should be taken. There is a real possibility that we have a sitting president who committed voter fraud, by potentially voting in both D.C. and Illinois, and we may never know.

Tim Brown reported on July 31st:

I discovered this little tidbit of information at the DC Board of Elections website. In a press release dated June 14, 2010, the DC Board of Elections wrote,

The Board's regulations direct that any voter whose mail is returned undeliverable is to be deleted from the voter registration list if they do not cast a ballot and fail to respond to notices over the next two subsequent general elections for federal office. However, the Board does not entirely delete any record from its voter registration database. While records of individuals removed from the list of registered voters are marked as 'deleted' and do not appear in the poll book at precincts on Election Day, the record itself remains on file permanently and can be reinstated.

District residents are encouraged to register to vote or update their registration using the Board's online tool at www.dcboee.org and to submit their completed voter registration application by mail by August 16, 2010. Between August 17 and August 30, residents can only register in person at the Board's office. Once early voting begins on August 30 and at the polls on Election Day, residents can only register and cast a ballot if they bring with them a current photo ID, utility bill, bank statement, or government document listing their current address. Those individuals will be required to cast a special ballot, which will only be counted if the Board verifies that the voter meets all qualifications and has provided proper proof of residence.

So, this voter registration was made in October, which meant that Barry Soetoro had to appear with a current photo ID, utility bill, bank statement, or government document listing his current address. Furthermore, one wonders why the record of his registration is deleted after less than a year. According to the DC Board of Elections, they don't do this. Thus, the plot thickens.

So there is a good chance that Barry Soetoro actually voted in the general election. Hopefully out of respect for the process they asked for two forms of identification and he showed a valid birth certificate.

I am tired of being called a conspiracy theorist. Any time we come up with one of these stories, we are just hoping that a big conservative media outlet or a congressman will take it to the next level. It never happens. We have evidence that, at the very least, deserves an explanation. But no one with the resources to get any real answers has the required backbone to get it done.

So we keep seeking the truth and keep being told we can't have access to it.

I wonder who Barry Soetoro voted for?

[Warph]

Describing My Experiences In Afghanistan — In 6 Words

Defined by limitation, urgent in its economy of language, the six-word story is a useful medium for chronicling individual experiences of war. 

by Thomas Gibbons-Neff
Aug 27 2013

Baby shoes for sale. Never worn.[

The six-word story--legendarily but probably falsely attributed to Hemingway -- has since inspired imitators, creating a new genre of writing. Like a tweet or a haiku, the six-word story is defined by limitation, urgent in its economy of language.

Six words.

In July of 2010, walking off the bus after returning from Afghanistan, I never imagined being able to describe my war in six neatly packaged words.

It's three years later and I find myself obsessively racking my mind for every horrible moment that I spent overseas, proceeding to cut away the fat until I have six shining words that say all that I want.

The most recent iteration of the six-word story trend is Six Word War, a Kickstarter project started by two West Point graduates, Mike Nemeth and Shaun Wheelwright. "Describe a 15-month combat deployment, all the firefights and anguish and boredom, in just six words," is how the challenge was framed by Stars and Stripes, a newspaper covering the project.

"Dustoff is inbound, keep him awake."

That's my best thus far.

Matt had multiple gunshot wounds in the arm. Dark red blood seeped through his uniform and onto the brass-covered earth.

A dog barked in the distance as the sun dropped from the horizon, the dull thud of rotor blades mixed in with the echoes of a distant firefight.

Matt had received a large amount of morphine and showed clear signs of shock. The medevac helicopter -- call sign "Dustoff" -- was fifteen minutes away.

The corpsman told me to keep him awake until the helicopter arrived.

"Dustoff is inbound, keep him awake." It was my six-word war.

Whether it's sitting across the table from your mother and articulating what combat has done to her son or putting pen to paper, the desire to explain is always there. Our generation has failed to yet write its definitive account and so the six-word war finds its place in the margins somewhere between a Facebook post and a manuscript.



The stories I've read run the gamut between arresting and hilarious. Some themes cling to that residue of combat, that bad taste left in your mouth after the smell of cordite clears and the only evidence of a struggle are a few bloody bandages blowing aimlessly around a landing zone.

Loss, grief, fear, and doubt. Themes Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen monopolized to define the "lost generation" of World War I veterans are instead being chronicled and disseminated in the twenty-first century by the everyman.

The people submitting these stories do not all call themselves writers. They're veterans with folksy descriptions like "regular guy" and "just another American," and like moths to the flame are flocking to Tumblr and Twitter to tell their stories:

"'Merica solution to a Pashtun problem."

"We came, we saw, we misconquered."

"Built expensive gym just before withdrawal."

"Returned. Son didn't recognize me anymore."

The stories resonate with their fellow combatants and with civilians alike. Journalists like Rajivv Chandrasakaran and Hannah Allam have taken up the hashtag #sixwordwar as well, succinctly chronicling their perspective.

It is the human element so desperately harvested in news clips and documentaries. Here it is, served from the primary source in six digestible words.

They are quickly becoming our own epitaphs. We have no national monuments erected for our war on terror, like those strewn across the battlefields of France. No poet has yet arisen from our generation to pen a "Dulce et Decorum est." We do not know how history will remember us. For now, all we have are photos on hard drives and steel bracelets venerating the dead.



In the age of Twitter, where 140 characters are redefining how we consume nonfiction, the six-word war matters. Together the stories weave a new perspective of how my generation defines the war and warrior. A generation that is painstakingly aware of its place in the world and the consequences of its actions.

As I crafted stories over the course of a glorious Sunday on Lake Tahoe, my girlfriend, who hadn't spoken since I began muttering to myself, looked at me and said:

"Thousands of Facebook friends, feeling antisocial."

Juxtaposed, our six word stories portray radically different paths of two millenials in their early twenties, but they both accomplished the same thing: Our respective insecurities, issues, and problems were tidied up, trimmed, and dropped neatly under some proverbial Christmas tree.

For those of us who have been through the breach, check out the great things they're doing at Six Word War and submit your own. You can do it anonymously, and I promise you won't be the first who writes: "You can't spell lost without LT."

And for those who haven't been in combat, write yours down anyway. I spent the better half of an afternoon carving away at memories, stripping the layers back, and finding the reasons they were memories in the first place. The six-word story allows you one more way to understand the experiences that make up who you are.

We can't all write novels, and sometimes we can't even say what we mean, but therein lies the merit of finding your six-word war. It's painful and gratifying, but sometimes six words are all you need.



Came home.   Moved on.   Couldn't forget.


Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a former Marine and writer living in Washington, D.C.

[Warph]

The Authority to 'Declare War':
A Power Barack Hussein Obuma Does Not Have!

A Syrian intervention is exactly the sort of situation the Framers had in mind when they gave Congress, not the president, the authority to "declare war."

by Garrett Epps
Aug 30 2013

("It's pretty clear that an American attack would violate the Constitution")

The prime minister of the United Kingdom, armed with the Royal Prerogative, does not need Parliament's assent to lead Britain into war. The president of the United States, holder of an office designed to keep "prerogative" powers in check, assuredly does.

Yet history will apparently write that, in the late summer of 2013, the prime minister sought permission and, when Parliament denied it, receded from the field -- and that a president scorned to ask, and went ahead with an act of war.

This paradox shows that American intervention in Syria is fraught with legal, as well as military, danger -- and that constitutionally, as well as in foreign-policy terms, it may be a problem with no good solution.

Before discussing American constitutional law, we should admit that the world situation is terrifying, and the arguments for American intervention -- alone, if need be -- are powerful. Syria has apparently used chemical weapons against civilians on a mass scale -- a crime against humanity. Use of chemical weapons is a "red line" not only to Obama but in international law; perhaps only the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be a worse violation of the laws of war. The United Nations, created and empowered to deal with just such an emergency, is paralyzed because two great powers, Russia and China, have shameless decided to pursue short-term self interest and defend the criminals in defiance of the world.

Does that crisis in some way create a new legal regime, a change both in international law and in American constitutional norms?

I think it's pretty clear that an American attack, without the sanction of the United Nations, the support of allies, the authorization of Congress -- or, it must be said, much hope of meaningful success -- would violate the Constitution. As Jack Goldsmith writes in Lawfare, it "will push presidential war power beyond where it has gone before."

Since the very beginning of the Republic, presidents have used force to defend American ships, military personnel, and civilians abroad. No one doubts, in 2013, that a commander-in-chief could order emergency military action to defend Americans, or the nation as a whole, from attack. And sometimes that emergency power has been stretched to include a real-time response to fast-moving events that threaten world order, even if U.S. targets are not involved. Time enough, when seconds count, to consult Congress after the dust has cleared a bit.

American presidents have also used force, without consulting Congress, to fulfill American treaty obligations. The most famous example was President Harry Truman's decision to commit American troops to the war in Korea without requesting authorization even after the fact. Truman argued that he was obliged, under the U.N. Charter and a Security Council resolution, to come to the aid of South Korea, and that that obligation superseded Art. I § 8 cl. 11's reservation of the power to "declare war" to Congress alone.

President George H.W. Bush, in seeking authorization for the first Gulf War, claimed that he did not need it, because of a Security Council resolution authorizing action against Kuwait. (The bluff worked, and Congress approved the war.) President Bill Clinton committed U.S. forces to intervention in the former Yugoslavia, and never sought authorization. In Kosovo, there was no Security Council resolution, but Clinton claimed to be acting under the NATO Treaty and at the request of the other nations of the Balkans.

How do these precedents apply to Syria? Not well. First, the crisis is undoubtedly an emergency -- but it is not an emergency that demands presidential action within minutes or hours. The U.S. is preparing in deliberate, even stately, fashion for a carefully choreographed attack on Syria; there's plenty of time for the president to invoke the "extraordinary occasions" language of Article II § 3 and convene a special session of Congress.

Internationally, a strike against Syria would go well beyond the flimsy justification offered even for Kosovo. The Security Council has not authorized action against Syria, and will not. Even with U.N. personnel producing the evidence that the Damascus regime has used chemical weapons, the U.S. apparently does not plan even to ask for permission to use force. The nations in the Middle East region have not asked for U.S. intervention. NATO does not support it -- and for heaven's sake, not even Britain will stand with the U.S.

To sum up: U.S. citizens and military personnel are not under attack. It is not a split-second emergency. The President does not face a request from the Security Council, NATO, the Arab League or even the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

This is precisely the kind of situation for which the Framers of our Constitution designed its division of authority between President and Congress. Sending our missiles against Syria is an act of war. If it is to be done, Congress, not the president, should approve.

We are, of course, a long way from Philadelphia 1787, and much of what the Framers thought and intended is now obscure. But there's not much question they gave the power to commence war to Congress. The idea of a single chief executive arose within the first week of the Convention, and John Rutledge of South Carolina declared that "he was for vesting the Executive power in a single person, tho' he was not for giving him the power of war and peace."

This theme carried through. The Framers gave Congress even the minor powers that go with making war -- prescribing military discipline, issuing letters of "marque and reprisal," etc. The Committee of Detail gave the entire power to "make war" to Congress, not the President; Madison moved the change to "declare," saying he did so to make clear that the president would have power "to repel sudden attacks." Before the vote to change that language, Elbridge Gerry spoke for many when he said he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war."

That is the power that, signs suggest, Barack Obama will exercise sometime this weekend or next week.

It's important to acknowledge the pressures on the president. An international legal system that does not punish and deter the use of sarin gas is not worthy of the name. The established mechanisms have failed. We may be facing the equivalent of Italy's attack on Ethiopia with poison gas, which revealed the bankruptcy of the League of Nations and set the world on the course for World War II. Weighed down by the specter of what will happen if no one acts against Bashar al-Assad, Obama may believe he dare not risk rejection from a dysfunctional Congress.

If that is his rationale, however, he should say so, not claim some pernickety new exception to the Constitution. He should, perhaps, say that the president of the United States is also de facto Prime Minister of the World, with the prerogative to defend sovereign peace, and that he must act when others do not.

It's not much of an argument, but it may be the best he has.

[Warph]

Did Saddam's WMD Go to Syria?

Posted on Monday, June 18, 2007

Have you ever noticed that it's always politicians, media types, and either washed up or disgruntled, anonymous intelligence sources who claim there never was any WMD in Iraq? On the other hand, every single commander and deputy commander of CENTCOM says that Saddam did have WMD. So too do the inspectors with the closest knowledge of before and after inspections: Dr Butler, Dr Kay, Dr Duelfer, and most of the former UN inspectors. Is this subject one where the word of a former governor of Vermont is better than that of highly decorated generals and weapons inspectors who have served their country all over the world for decades? While Gov. Dean's hands were sticky with maple syrup, people like General Zinni, General DeLong, General Franks, and so many others had their hands covered in the sands of the Middle East. While Rep. Pelosi works to blame President Bush for things as random and controllable as the weather, people like Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfer were in 130 degree desert heat wearing plastic suits in toxic environments and being shot at. Perhaps it's wiser to believe the professionals who serve with honor and for whom lying is a disgrace rather than a politician for whom pandering to constituents and the party base isn't lying. It's "spin."

If one is to raise an eyebrow and for a moment believe the Generals, then the obvious question is, "What happened to Saddam's WMD?" The former dictator declared them, and declared them destroyed but offered no evidence of their destruction; no wreckage, no contaminated sand, no documents, and not even witnesses. One must wonder how the most poisonous chemicals and biological agents ever made by man just disappear without leaving a trace, without anyone logging their destruction, and without anyone having done the destruction themselves. Moreover, if the WMD once did exist (as Saddam, the UN, and the Clinton and Bush Administrations as well as the world all acknowledge)....then where are they?

There are basically three claims as to what happened to Saddam's WMD: they were flown to Syria, they were driven to Syria, and they were shipped out on Russian ships.

One of Saddam's generals, General Georges Sada, has come forward with claims that Saddam moved his "special weapons" out of Iraq, to Syria in late summer 2002. He allegedly did this under the guise of humanitarian aid flights to Syria after there was a dam burst in July, and the shipments were made on modified civilian planes, by pilots Sada knows personally. On June 17, 2002, the Times of London reported that Iraqi nuclear centrifuge parts were being smuggled out of Syria-originally stored at the port of Tartus, they had been moved to Damascus International Airport and moved to points unknown from there-effectively corroborating Sada's story. The Time's report even cites the Dam break as a cover story, and that cover story is part of Georges Sada's claims as well. In late summer 2002, we know from the Saddam tapes, from multiple mainstream media interviews with former Iraqi generals, and from the ISG reports that Saddam stunned his general staff by announcing to them that he was letting the UN inspectors back in because there were no longer any "special weapons" in the country.

Other shipments went by truck and storage payment was made to Syria through an arms smuggling front company run by Syrian Intelligence: SES International. That it did exist, was A Syrian Intel front company and was corrupt is not at all in dispute. SES Intl was one of those blatant Oil-For-Food cover companies used by Saddam to buy conventional weapons in exchange for UN oil vouchers. The Duelfer Report is ridden with information about SES International's illegal sales-sales that Saddam was using to break his conventional arms containment. SES was cited by the Treasury Department as being a front for Syrian Intelligence, a sanction-breaking company, and was being used by Syria's family to launder money. Assad's family has also been caught by the UN using the collapsed bank of Al Madina as a similar front company involved in the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister.

Why believe General Sada? As a pilot himself and an investigator respected by Saddam himself, Sada was the general in charge of interrogating and guarding downed Coalition pilots during Desert Storm. Retired USAF Col. David Eberly (the ranking Coalition POW pilot) writes the introduction to Sada's book and vouches for his credibility. Two British airmen vouched for his credibility in a book they co-wrote about their experience as POW's at his hands. In fact, Sada dared to argue with Saddam's insane son, Uday-who wanted the pilots executed, and Sada was jailed as a result. Opponents to the war should respect his opinion as he was given multiple awards for his peaceful efforts to prevent a war by anti-war groups prior to the invasion. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, affirms Sada's story. ("Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator. Units under his command dealt with chemical and biological weapons"). Perhaps most importantly, the details of his story-as well as all the stories in his book-are well-corroborated by mainstream media reports. Few details are not-except the contents of the planes and trucks that went to Syria. Sada says he knows what was in them, but the ISG, and mainstream media don't. It's sad they don't have one of Sada's pilots doing the cable news talkshow circuit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In December 2002, Russia's Middle East envoy, Yevgeny Primakov (former Russian Intelligence Chief), flew to Baghdad under the front of making one last chance for peace with the dictator. As soon as his plane landed, it was allegedly loaded with "sensitive materials" and flown directly to Belarus. People speculate as to whether or not it was WMD, WMD equipment, documents, people, or things the Russians didn't want the US to get their hands on, but in any event...the plane was loaded with things the US wanted. He also allegedly brought Russian GPS jammers to confuse American satellite-guided bombs, night vision goggles, special anti-tank missiles, and Russian advisors.

American forces found the jammers, and that's no secret since the Air Force was happy to boast that the jammers were ineffective (USAF just boosted the signal from their satellites so that it was "louder" than those from the jammers).

Syria and Russia both sent night-vision sights and goggles to Iraq, and they were recovered by American forces.

The anti-tank missiles did stop an Abrams tank and kill its crew. Others reportedly were ineffective, but evidence of their use is indisputable given the unique signature that their shaped charge left on the tanks that were hit.

Two Russian Generals, Gen. Vladimir Achalov, a former commander of airborne and rapid-reaction forces, and Gen. Igor Maltsev, a leading expert in air defense systems were reported in Baghdad up until 6 days before the war. During their "visit" they were photographed being given medals by Iraqi Defence Minister Sultan Hashim Akhmed. Other smiley photographs include the two Russian Generals standing with head of the General Staff of the Iraqi Army Izzat Ibragim between them. Upon their return to Russia, the generals were asked why they went on a "last-chance" diplomatic mission. They replied, "We didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee." One wonders if all the elements of the story were proven true, could the claim of "special weapons" being moved out be less true than the other elements?

Immediately after the arrival of the Russians in Baghdad, retired USAF Lt Gen. James R Clapper Jr-then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency-monitored an increasing flow of traffic and communication from Iraq to Syria. Former head of the UN's WMD inspection group, UNSCOM, Richard Butler, was asked to review the imagery. He agreed that Iraq appeared to be moving weapons out of Iraq, but did not think that "the Iraqis wanted to give them to Syria, but...just wanted to get them out of the territory, out of range of our inspections." Syria was prepared to be the custodian of them." The entire idea was nearly identical to when Saddam sent his entire air force to Iran for safe-keeping during Desert Storm.

Israeli intelligence (flush with human intelligence sources in the region-particularly in Syria, and Lebanon) reported that the increased traffic was Saddam's repositioning of WMD to Syria. On December 23, 2002, Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli channel 2 television, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." About three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation. The U.S., British, and Australian governments issued similar statements.

Opponents to the war like to point to the 1000+ pages of the Duelfer Report and summarize it as "NO WMD," but there's a lot more to Moby Dick than 5 letters. Not even an elementary school student would dare turn in a 5-letter book report on Melville's epic. Similarly the ISG's report contains a lot more than just "NO WMD." It is a resounding verification that, yes, there was a great deal of 'something' secreted out of Saddam's Iraq into Syria. While the ISG doesn't claim that it was in fact WMD in those trucks, it does leave that door open because of the clandestine nature and the assembly areas for the convoys that left Iraq for Syria would be consistent with WMD, WMD equipment, documentation, and even personnel.

Given that there is so much evidence that Saddam's illegal weapons, programs, documents, and equipment existed and were moved rather than did not exist and were destroyed, it seems that logic has turned. There's simply more evidence it was moved than there is any evidence of WMD destruction. Yet, the debate from those who oppose prefers to ignore evidence and pretend that fictional evidence of destruction exists. That door to reality is creaking open for the opposition, and as such it's no wonder that the anti-war movement is shattering, the Democratic Party is spinning, and opponents to the war are confused.

The 1990-2003 War Against Saddam has millions of untold stories. Perhaps one of the most important happened at the onset of the invasion. On the evening of March 22 there are several reports that Russians were witness to an American airborne assault near the Syrian / Jordanian  / Iraq border, on or near Highway 11, and in the vicinity of Akashat. Allegedly American airborne troops and/or Special Forces were trying to seize WMD. They were detected by Iraqi forces,  surrounded, and as many as 30 were killed or captured. Forces from Jordan were sent to provide air support and rescue for the survivors.

There are no reports of this incident in the mainstream media, but Russian intelligence reports that were published on the internet during the invasion were generally close to the mark in accuracy (albeit embellished with a distinct political slant), and the Department of Defense has said affirmed that the reports do seem credible and accurate-particularly the ones that reference radio intercepts. This report of the border incident stems from such radio intercepts. It's also echoed in Yossef Bodansky's book, The Secret History of the Iraq War, but he cites several Russian eyewitnesses as well.

That the casualties are not listed in the DoD's casualty list is not unusual since the words "Ranger" and "Green Beret" are missing from that list entirely. It seems Special Forces casualties are not generally reported in the same manner as conventional forces. If true, the presence of American forces captured and taken into Syria perhaps might be one of the reasons why more pressure hasn't been exerted on the Assad Regime. In any event, on March 24th President Bush called Russian President Vladamir Putin and there can be no doubt that the issue of Russian support for Saddam's regime was discussed. That the phone call (widely reported by the press at the time) came immediately in the wake of the border incident is interesting and poignant.

On March 29 and 30, Saddam contacted Belarus. The former Soviet Republic had been one of many that offered Saddam exile in the days just prior to the war. Instead of accepting the offer, Saddam had a Belarusian IL-76 transport plane flown to Baghdad, allegedly loaded with "sensitive cargo" and immediately flown back to Belarus. In December, Yevgeny Primakov's plane had been reloaded with "sensitive cargo" (ie cargo the Americans would want-like WMD, WMD equipment, documents, and people), and flown to Belarus. All flights in and out of Saddam International were monitored closely by the USAF, British Intelligence, and a list of other foreign intelligence services.

Many of the Russian-made weapons procured through Syria's front companies-like SES International-had come from Belarus. After the fall of Saddam's regime, it was found that many of the senior leaders who had fled went to Syria and Belarus (sometimes in that order). If one asks, "What happened to all that WMD?" Then a finger can be pointed towards the former Soviet Republic at the very least for enabling the former leaders of Saddam's regime to escape and orchestrate an insurgency, clearly for removal of "sensitive items" from Saddam's regime, and very likely for accepting Saddam's WMD, WMD equipment, documents, and people.

On April 5th, CENTCOM reported spotting a large column of Iraqi vehicles, and braced for a possible counterattack. Rather than race south to certain defeat and death, the column slipped into Syria. Russian intelligence reports reiterate this event as do Lebanese sources. Mainstream media reports only confirm the convoy's sighting. Allegedly the convoy included Russian-made mobile rocket launchers some with chemical weapons.

The exodus from Iraq to Syria by Saddam's allies and the highest ranking members of Saddam's regime didn't end on April 9th, but it was fully brought to the attention of the world when American Special Forces intercepted a Russian convoy headed into Syria. The Russians said that the convoy was on a diplomatic mission following a convoy that carried Primakov himself. To this day no one knows for sure. Some reports claim that Primakov's convoy carried Russian WMD people, documents, and equipment that could not be left to fall into the hands of the Coalition. The contents of the convoy that American commandos attacked remain classified, but former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology and security, John A Shaw, reports that American intelligence has documents confirming that Saddam's Regime paid Russia to provide security forces for Iraq's Russian-made arms and paid Russia to conduct counterintelligence activities that would prevent the Coalition from discovering the illegal arms supply line from Russia through Syria. "An Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003." Other intelligence officials confirm the possession of these documents and more. "The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said."

One wonders how differently the war in Iraq would look if American commandos had been able to seize elusive WMD and present it to the world? As more and more captured documents are being released every day, why not present these documents as well? That answer will come later.