Clinton's Immigration Dept Chief to tell  her boss that I've saved Bill Clinton's life by refusing to work for CIA. After that Hillary Clinton helped me.
  Later  Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand refused to look into CIA/FBI anti-American conspiracy and both informed me that "national security is not their business".
 On July 2, 2008, Barack Obama, who was running for the U.S. President,  made a statement: “We can’t rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We got to have a civilian national security force that just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”. Since then he is the target of the "Millenium Hilton" program.   
  I had a possibility to neutralize Barack Obama. On March, 20, 2010, I’ve received an invitation for a dinner with President  Obama and Speaker of the House  Pelosi from DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) signed by Ian Sugar, Director of Development. Sugar sent to me couple of personal e-mails and  explained  that I pay $15,999 (credit card) and on May 13, 2010 at 6.00 PM I  come to St. Regis Hotel, New York and enjoy a dinner with Obama.
 On June 8, 2010, I got the letter from the US Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzerald: "Mr. Kryzhanovsky, You allege that CIA Director violated the Hatch Act through his role in the "Millennium Hilton" operation. We reviewed this matter, and as explained below, we are closing our file without further action. The Hatch Act prohibits government employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. Your allegation that Mr. Panetta is involved in a CIA-FBI conspiracy, which you call the "Millennium Hilton" operation, even if true, is not activity that falls within the prohibitions of the Hatch Act. Therefore , we are closing the above referenced file. Erica S. Hamrick".                       
  On October 12, 2010 I had a meeting with U.S. Secret Service agents who informed me that I'm still on CIA program as "Filament" and I could work for Secret Service too. We talked about the vulnerability of Obama's security - the agents got pretty nervous and blamed Rahm Emanuel for that.
  On January, 20, 2011 I talked to FBI agent Eric Perry. He said I talk too much and I made "high authorities, people on the very top extremely nervous". He didn't explain if it was FBI Director Robert Mueller, the White House Chief of Staff or  somebody else.
  On August 30, 2012 I had a meeting with another Secret Service agents , who asked me again if I can and if I want to kill President Obama.
 Looks like President Barack Obama is really CIA/FBI/U.S. Secret Service  next target.I ask you, Mr. Rogers, to investigate this case.
 
Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
a former KGB spy and CIA "Filament"

   The Secret Service professional killers team which was ordered to assassinate me.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-30/googles-eric-schmidt-invests-in-obamas-big-data-brains

Wonder why no one is talking about the google ceo starting company with team Obama campain data staff to shape all future elections with data?

Gee now that we know they are collecting data in NSA do we think that it might be connected?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/san-francisco-airport-uses-public-money-to-construct-prayer-space-for-muslims.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s

You might want to watch before they take it down!

Why won't Nancy Pelosi go away? You would think that someone who's done that much damage to this country would hide her Botox riddled face in shame. But no, she's back trying to defend the monstrosity that she helped force on the American people in the form of the Patient Persecution and Unaffordable Care Act, commonly known as Obama-don't-care. CNS news reports that Pelosi was questioned about the rising cost of health insurance in a recent press conference (link provided below). Her answer, "Well, some of the people don't have health insurance, and they certainly will have their premiums go up. But for anyone that that is a challenge there are subsidies in the exchanges...but if you don't have health insurance and you don't qualify for a subsidy, and you're mandated to have health insurance, yes, you will have an increase." Amazing, so you're saying that buying something carries a higher price than not buying it? So insightful, this woman should really be teaching economics.

     But that's only the beginning. She goes on, "It's also what you get for the money. In other words people will be getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of a preexisting medical condition. It has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation." Yes, it's all about the quality. And somehow that quality won't diminish because of the shortage of doctors that's already being reported? Due to such a shortage California recently lowered the standards needed to give medical care. You can now get a prostate exam from an eye doctor, or open heart surgery from a dentist. What could possibly go wrong?

     Pelosi continued, "I don't remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium," well I don't remember you saying anything that was even remotely true. She goes on, "because everybody in the country doesn't have health insurance. So how could it be lower? But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction in cost to you." So by paying more I'll somehow be paying less? Those pearls around her neck must represent her little pearls of wisdom. Although she conveniently ignores that people who do have insurance are seeing their premiums rise by as much as 400%. But by her crazy new math that's a reduction in cost, too.

     Pelosi went on, "But for everybody it's going to be, again, a liberation, a freedom." Ah, the glorious new age. Now we have the freedom to have the government decide what medical care we receive. The freedom to have the government decide if we should be treated at all. Soon we'll have the freedom to have the government decide when and what we eat, when we use the bathroom, when and for how long we sleep. Oh, and don't forget, the freedom to have the IRS delve more deeply into our personal lives. Isn't that wonderful? How did we manage to live before the government gave us all this freedom?

     I think I'm going to buy Nancy a dictionary for Christmas. This woman obviously has no idea what the word freedom means. Governments, by there very nature CAN NOT provide freedom, they can only restrict it. They can only trample over it. The recent parade of scandals and government abuses proves that. Freedom is only nurtured when government is restrained within it's constitutional limits.

     Furthermore, if Obamacare is such a liberation why did congress exempt themselves and their families from it? If it's truly so liberating, why isn't Pelosi the first in line to sign up at the government exchange? And why did the Senate, earlier this year, vote down a bill that would force on congress and the president the same health insurance that they forced on us? I guess some people just refuse to be liberated.

     Pelosi added that, "under Obamacare young people could pursue careers as writers or photographers." They can't write or photograph something without government mandated health insurance? Again, how did we manage to live before government gave us all this freedom? She went on, "But you just see, I mean, be optimistic about it. It's a very, very exciting enterprise."

     WOW, the same idiots that run the DMV, the same incompetents that run the post office, and the same crooks that run the IRS are going to provide my health care. How exciting. I think I'm going to be sick.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-you-re-mandated-have-health-insurance-yes-you-will-have-increase

And the hits just keep on comin’…

By Daniel Greenfield

Well this is really good news... for Iran. Also Hamas. And really bad news for the 99 percent of Americans who oppose invading Israel.

President Barack Hussein Obama has named former aide Samantha Power as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Power will replace Susan Rice, who will take over as Obama’s national security adviser.

If you thought Susan Rice was bad, just wait till you get a load of Samantha Power.

The chair of President Obama’s new Atrocities Prevention Board once called for the United States to force troops into Israeli-controlled territory in order to end abuses she said were being committed by both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Having placed Israel’s leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel’s security to the upkeep of a “mammoth protection force” and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our “principles.”

Just the perfect person to represent the US at the UN. Or represent the UN at the UN. I think Obama has finally topped Carter’s appointment of Andrew Young as UN Ambassador.

In the video at the link below, Samantha Power calls for the U.S. to provide "..billions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority for a military and state of the art defense system, and then assist them at invading Israel"

continue reading here...

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/another-obama-anti-semite-at-the-helm-the-samantha-power-appointment-to-the-u-n/

The outrage is palpable and the sudden realization by the average American that they really, truly are now living in an Orwellian surveillance state has been an eye-opening experience for many across the fruited plain. The once mocked conspiracy theory of the all-knowing Big Brother state has shown itself to be far more of an ugly reality than a silly fantasy. He who has called the War on Terror basically over has now been forced to admit that his administration has vastly expanded the concept of the security state in the name of 'public safety.' The 'trust us' stance of government is no longer a working defense for such actions as this administration, and the federal agencies under its control, have shown that they simply cannot be trusted. Therein lies the true dilemma for the Obama administration as it seeks to calm the rising storm.

We already have proof that powerful agencies of the federal government deliberately, under orders from Washington, harassed and targeted specific people and groups that were ideological opponents of the current administration. The vast powers of the state were used as political weapons against its enemies on a wide scale and possibly affected the outcome of the last presidential election. Such things should not be taken lightly.

The fact that basically every phone call, FB post, internet search, website visit, email written, and picture posted online is being sucked up by Big Brother without regards to privacy concerns, constitutional protections, or the concept of personal liberty goes against everything America should stand for. It is state of affairs that should raise a cry of outrage in every throat and force a fundamental change in what we will tolerate from our government. The fact that leading tech companies including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple were participating in a secret surveillance program on the citizenry known as PRISM should (but will not necessarily) lead to a complete collapse of public trust in the current administration and our current concept of government in general. What has not been explained away is why the administration has assembled the most powerful and intrusive systems of surveillance ever conceived. The Founding Fathers would not have stood for such things for one second and neither should we.

Such policies can have a chilling effect on political speech and free speech in general. There are those who argue that liberals have successfully seized the State just as they have academia, education, the media, the entertainment industry and increasingly the military. And this may be just another tool and tactic for those seeking to monitor, track, and eventually silence those who oppose their utopian, socialistic, nanny-state agenda.

Mr. Obama stated "I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.” But if it comes down to a choice between the two I choose privacy. We should always, always choose a free state over a police state even if the latter provides slightly more security from the random Boston bomber or occasional crazy. As Americans we should not be forced to live with a camera on every pole, a bug in every phone, and an internal security officer on every corner. That illusion of safety in reality then merely becomes the mask for eventual tyranny and oppression in the name of the 'common good' and societal safety. For as Ben Franklin put it, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty should be the goal of government, not the antithesis of it. The Republic exists to secure such liberties for its citizens, not to be the opponent of such. We've now traveled far down the wrong path and we may have to pay a high price to restore the Republic and regain true liberty for our children, and our children's children.

Below are a few videos that cover the 'interesting' related events of the last week.

Rush Limbaugh: "We are in the Midst of a Coup Taking Place" - Audio 6/7/13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2BT8HZoAfs&feature=player_embedded

The Obama IRS Targeting Scandal in Five Minutes - Unbelievable Abuse of Power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSVnat0tvdY&feature=youtu.be

Obama: If you can't trust us, we're going to have some problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ibc6QSV5ftw

And frankly, you are right Mr. President. The fact that we can't trust you, your cronies, the agencies under your control, and the "oversight" of stacked secret courts or the congress who has been complaining, but doing nothing, about such policies means we are going to have some serious "problems."

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/blog/view_my/

By Rebecca M

Islamic law continues to threaten America with their attempts at free speech and blaspheme laws. Sharia Law requires submission of all infidel lands and is their goal for the world. The Islamic culture presses an influx of demands perpetrated against women as a force of patriarchy. And the world powers continue to bow to the Islam culture, although primitive, with the assassination of their own countries due to the suicide of political correctness.

The Miss American Beauty Pageant was yesterday, June 7, 2013, in Indonesia which is the largest populated Muslim country in the world. Whoever thought this was a prime location to bring women needs their heads examined. A world beauty pageant held in a country where women are regarded as 1/2 human and abused like animals to men who shudder at the sight of a woman without a veil. What a callous and preposterous decision. Thus, catering to the Muslim culture and shying away from offending them, the contestants for the beauty pageant were forbidden from wearing bikinis and told to wear a wrap-around sarong styled one-piece style garment, all to appease the Muslim elitists as the world blindly submits to Islam.

Accordingly, the enforcement of Muslim women to shroud themselves in hijab is to prevent the gaze of the male species and prevent him from uncontrollable lust. Evidently, Muslim men are like savage wolves that have no self-control. It is the woman's fault, always, in Islamic culture if a man is a lust-crazed rapist even if the woman did nothing to provoke it - other than she glanced upward from staring at the ground or her veil accidently slipped off of her head! The man is rarely held accountable. That is why when a female is raped - the female is punished and the rapist goes free. Four male witnesses have to attest to the rape and other than the gang-rapists, which are common, none of them will attest to anything.

In some Muslim countries 65% of the women in prison awaiting sentencing, or execution in Arab countries, are there because they were raped. A raped female is labeled as a fornicator and worthy of death; in many cases an "honor killing" is done by close family members including Fathers, Uncles, Cousins, Brothers, Mothers and even Sisters.

In the early 1970's, the Belgium parliament banned the burqa. The repercussions of violence by Muslim men was purposely done as they crawled out of the woodwork, sexually harassing and raping the women as a form of punishment for daring to go unveiled in public. The French parliament went so far as to completely ban all hijab and burqa coverings in the public school systems, in 2004, and has continued to enforce this policy. Too bad they didn't ban the burqa permanently across the land! However, this bylaw is only in the French school systems and once the young women exit the doors, they must be covered. Therefore, the shadow of the veiled culture of Islam that is penetrating Western civilization can be seen in every country and increases each year.

This intimidation procedure by the Muslim male population is intentional to press the governments to protect the women and even to enforce a form of 'non-discrimination law,' that only throws the ball in the Sharia ball court to be used against that nation - thus forcing the women to veil, rather than convict the perpetrators.

The continued abuse of women eventually puts them at such high risk many women choose to veil rather than be abused and raped, Muslim or non-Muslim alike. There are areas in Europe that are so threatening and highly populated by Muslims and patrolled by Sharia morality advocates - that woman who are not veiled are considered easy prey and regarded as "easy whores." In France many non-Muslim women are choosing the veil over the harassment of possible rape. The Qur’an teachings permanently stain the Muslim male’s mind-set with a 'booty' license to rape and abduct women, especially young girls under age 16. The fear the Europeans harbor, in their originally non-Islamic cultures, may eventually cause a war to break out in these countries as they fight for their homelands and freedoms; and, if they do not stop the oppression of Islam's attempts to conquer their lands, soon the entire world will be shrouded in Islamic hijab darkness.

Many scorn the imposing threat of "the religion of peace," but they are living in a cocoon and are not aware of the travesties occurring in Europe due to Muslim immigration. Europe is warning America to stop the invasion of Muslims into our country. All of Europe, as well as America, need to take a stand against this infringement of humanity and women's rights because it is the possible future of your wives, daughters, nieces and granddaughters. If something isn't done soon, all of Europe will be forced to veil in subservience, or will be so threatened that if they do not veil - there will be no safety anywhere for an unveiled woman in the near future.

And the threat to American civilization will be following soon, thereafter . . . . .

Although the burqa is a looming oppression, the Western world is embracing the culture of Islamic style without even realizing it. The Islamic globalization of the world is happening. Yes, the fashion trend is leaning to the culture of Islamic-Egyptian style ......

Have you noticed this? Are you supporting it? Are you even aware of it? The globalization to impute Sharia Law is manifesting before our eyes. The question is.... will we continue to tolerate it and support it.

Sometimes I take a good hard look at the past and I can see how it can repeat itself. Where I was born and growing up in a city and province where I experienced a strange pattern of events and normalcy.

I am an American citizen by choice. I took the test and aced it. I wanted to have the right to vote in this nation that is now home to me.

Being born in Montréal, Québec, Canada as an English and school taught French person can give someone a strange sense of reality. While growing up, my city was under the war measures act of Canada; the first ever in its history.

It started with the ‘Fronte de Libération du Québec’ (FLQ) wanting to take over the province. The terror ran from approximately 1963 to 1970. Bombs in mailboxes were common and influential English speaking people were targeted.

They kidnapped two influential people. One was British Trade Minister James Cross who was eventually freed in a deal with the kidnappers, while the other hostage was Pierre Laporte who was executed. It was ironic that the French person lost his life.

I have seen and lived through armored tanks on the streets and curfews. I have seen fear on the faces of people and terror in their eyes.

The Parti Québécois eventually replaced the FLQ because more people thought that a peaceful political party could be more effective than the violent FLQ. Then, the Bloc Québécois became the official party of Québec’s predominately French population. There are other variations to political groups now in Québec, including the Québec Liberal Party.

The English population in the province of Québec has been cut more than in half over the past thirty years. The English speaking are now bi-lingual and signs are all in French. Many of the English have migrated to the neighboring province of Ontario.  

Now, in 2013, I am faced with being an American (for many years now) and seeing signs of people wanting to fight for freedom, which seems to me, to be dwindling in the USA.

There are constant threats as to the constitutional rights of citizens. America is badly divided.

I can relate to the situation here in the US easily. I have endured a very evolving situation in the country of my birth; particularly in Montréal.

There are major differences between the parties in America. The Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative. At least, that is what they are perceived to be.

There are only the two significant parties and an option to be an Independent voter. I am a registered Independent.

In Canada there are many parties and I believe there should be more options in the US, however, not yet. That could spread the vote out between Republicans and Conservatives. There really is a difference. I can see it with the people I interact with.

This country must have a leader who will stand for the freedoms of the Constitution of the United States. We need a change of power and it must be a change that rules against the NWO and Islamists trying to take over our country.

There are camps in many states that let Jihadists practice to kill us. That should be abolished or we will become as other countries have. Islam brought them backwards. Change is supposed to make things better. I no longer like that word. 

The dealing of the IRS is a disgrace to modern America. I say, abolish the IRS in favor of a ‘fair tax’.

I was born with a Jewish father and a Christian mother who converted to Judaism and then went back to her Christian upbringing when my dad died. I am not religious. I am kind of an in between person who grew up thinking that religion was parties at relative’s houses. I celebrated both. I believe that this nation was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and certainly not Muslim based beliefs.

My conviction is that Muslims have no right to practice in Jihad camps in America. They want this country to be a Sharia law (Islamic law) based Muslim country and will stop at nothing to try to do it. I am committed to stopping this. 

If everything that I have witnessed while networking and watching conservative news happens according to the possibilities I see, Islam or the NWO will be our choices. Starving sick people will make a choice. To stop this from happening, the people of America cannot be divided.

I lived through political unrest during my life and never thought that when becoming an American citizen, I would live to see a country rumble again. I am feeling it in my bones. I will be relentless in trying my best to make America whole and free once more.

We are not a free people when government spies on us and lets our Constitution be decimated.  

I am only human but I know right from wrong. The theme in this country is wrong. We must change that. We must unite or divided we will fall. Let us take back America!

Daveda Gruber

Obamacare failed when a court overturned Kathleen Sebelius at HHS and allowed Sarah Murnaghan to be placed on the lung transplant list.  The lower court ordered that Obama and Sebelius take Sarah Murnaghan off the Obamacare death list.  Sarah Murnaghan succeeded where Obamacare and the Supreme Court failed.  Best wishes, Sarah Murnaghan.  The Supreme Court should review and change its politically biased decision and rightfully declare Obamacare unconstitutional.   

Young Obama in 1981 during his first year at Columbia University.

What would you do if you knew the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine and long-standing.

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.

The Obama I knew was nothing like the life-long, pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. – completely divorced from the profit motive – which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.

Although I was surprised by Barack Obama’s insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama’s Marxism failed to gain any media traction during the 2008 presidential campaign with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs.

Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register. I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the folks behind the Swift Boat ads, and the McCain campaign.

I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News - someone, somewhere – and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation. I understand I did not have audio tape of young Obama. I did not have any photos or home movies. Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s.

As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama’s ideological convictions. I quickly saw other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles. It seemed to me I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing it against the facts.

In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times. My expectation was someone from the Times would call me and follow-up on the leads I was sending out. Here is a sample of what I was doing in October 2008 to get the word out about Obama’s Marxist ideology.
I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club. Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign.

What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my background as a Williams College political science professor, as a small business owner, and as a visible presence in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign. I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News.

Since then, things have slowly gotten better. My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage’s Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief and Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.

Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system. I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democrat party. It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner while routinely elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.

If Republicans are going to win in 2012, I think they need to make some changes so that they are friendlier to the whistle-blowers bringing them bad news about the Obama administration. Personally, I would like to see Republicans create new ways to collect negative news stories on liberals by 1) including web pages requesting opposition research from leakers, 2) establishing guidelines for leakers that help them give campaign decision makers the confidence to pursue appropriate leads, and 3) instituting feedback mechanisms so leakers have some minimal assurance that they have been heard by top campaign managers and that their information has been discarded for technical or strategic reasons and not simply because it was overlooked by a careless staff member.

I think recognition of this problem should be the first step in taking systematic action to prevent flawed Democrat candidates from winning office. In the meantime, I predict we will see more examples of media failure as the left dominates the muckraking journalism profession while the right seems too dependent on a small handful of seemingly obscure, over-worked journalists and – as my case illustrates – unconnected and often baffled citizen activists.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

I watched Mitt Romney dominate the presidential debate immediately after viewing the time travel movie, Looper. If I had access to time travel, I would use it now to leverage my role as the only person on Earth willing to testify that young Obama was a genuine Marxist socialist in 1980. Energized by Romney’s performance, I am asking myself what can I do - right now - to forestall a real life enactment of the future imagined by Rian Johnson, writer and director of Looper. After all, Johnson’s vision looked so bleak that my wife’s reaction was to say: “Looks like Obama won.”

If I had the advantage of time travel, I would go full on Bruce Willis right now. I would go to 2008 and introduce myself to the television studios of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

I believe public knowledge of my face-to-face confrontation with young Obama’s ideological extremism in 1980 would have helped prevent Obama’s election in 2008. My account of Obama’s anticipation of a Communist revolution would have alerted voters to the reality that Obama was not a bipartisan politician, but rather a long-standing advocate of class warfare and other hateful ideas promoted earlier by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis. My story would have highlighted the real Obama, the Obama who asserted, as he did at a at a Martin Luther King Day speech at the University of Chicago in 2002, “that rich people are all for non-violence” simply because “they want to make sure people don’t take their stuff.”

I would share with the people of 2008 that Obama is stuck in the ideological past. He is a partisan extremist who cannot imagine doing what Clinton did to save the American economy or uplift the black urban underclass. Obama is the sort of ideological purist who would never pivot to the middle. I would tell the people of 2008 that Obama’s lack of bipartisan skill would blow a perfectly good deal with House Speaker John Boehner for reducing the federal deficit. Instead of cutting the deficit in half, I would tell them Obama will increase the deficit more than all the presidents before him. I would alert the people of 2008 to the fact that Obama would be eager to weaken the previously rock solid work requirements of welfare reform. I would repeat a key line from the movie: “Trust me, I’m from the future.”

Lacking the option of time travel, I still think my story helps explain why it was fairly easy for Mitt Romney to defeat Barack Obama in an informal debate. I can report that young Obama was no genius. I saw signs of that young Obama last week when Romney pointed out that in 25 years in business he had never seen a special tax break for corporations who send jobs overseas. Obama - without his teleprompter and entourage of liberal sycophants – is apparently incapable of reacting forcefully to a verbal punch from a true business and political heavyweight.

Temperamentally, I remember young Obama treated my more accurate understanding of world history with an abrupt, even demagogic hostility. I distinctly remember young Obama’s dismissive, arrogant attitude even as I was presenting him with compelling evidence that Marxist theory was dead wrong at predicting the path of European social and economic events. I remember schooling young Obama so thoroughly in just one evening myself that he left my girlfriend’s house agreeing with my more moderate neo-Marxist perspective.

Culturally, I can report that when I debated young Obama in 1980 he talked like a white guy. I did not see a trace of the phony, accent that highlighted Obama’s shocking comments regarding the redistribution of the wealth to a conference of black ministers at Hampton University in Virginia in 2007. In fact, the young Obama I met in 1980 talked like a wealthy, privileged white guy. It never occurred to me to think of young Obama as African-American. After all, the African-American students at Occidental College were largely uninvolved in radical campus politics. They were more likely to be active in the Gospel choir than the Democrat Socialist Alliance. Instead, young Obama seemed more like a foreign prince visiting in the United States.

While I cannot enjoy the benefits of time travel, I do live within six hours of Las Vegas, NV. I suspect my Bruce Willis moment will come when I share my story of debating young Marxist Obama with swing voters in the nearby Silver State. My wife and I have signed up to spend a weekend in Las Vegas walking precincts for the Romney/Ryan campaign. We will enjoy some meals, hotel accommodations, a night on the town and an opportunity to impact this historic election. I have my tagline ready: “Trust me, I’m from the past.”

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Jack Cashill voices the pain of those of us who are doing the journalistic work we once thought was the sole responsibility of CBS’s 60 Minutes.  You can catch his appearance on CSPAN2 by clicking here.  I identify with Cashill. In his newest book, he indicates it is not so easy to balance his efforts to save Western civilization with his concurrent responsibilities for bagging leaves in time for the city leaf collectors. In my case, I have sought to expose President Barack Obama’s intellectual roots as a revolutionary Marxist while addressing my nagging doubts about the necessity of rinsing dishes prior to racking them up in the dishwasher. If you understand that neither Cashill or me are kidding about our lives, then you will be thrilled by the tone and fresh insight in Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America's First Postmodern President.

As an eye witness to young Obama’s Marxist ideology, I was excited to see Cashill busting up the myths surrounding Obama and replacing them with a simpler, easier to believe story that is a much better fit with accessible, on-line evidence. Cashill’s results are politically significant because President Obama's charisma is dependent on the images Obama created about his early life in his first book, Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s new insights about the real Obama should be particularly relevant to the sort of swing voters who tell survey researchers that they do not care for Obama’s results even thought they still like Obama as a person. After reading Cashill’s book, I suspect these swing voters will be disappointed by the titanic gap between Obama’s all-American myth and the cold facts of his real life.

One of the coldest facts is that there are now nude photos on the Internet of a woman who looks exactly like Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. This news was so unpleasant to me that I was nervous about checking up on Cashill’s report by searching for these photos through Google. (To my relief, the samples I found are clear enough to show the girl’s face, but cropped tight enough that I did not feel I violated any laws.) Along with Cashill, I see these photos as evidence of a much larger pattern of unfortunate mistakes made by the young Ms. Dunham. These photos are politically significant because they offer a convenient segue into a larger discussion of an unwholesome side of the young Obama story - the odd, deviant, dysfunctional world of Frank Marshall Davis. Davis, as readers may know, was a member of the Communist party and also handy in the craft of producing pornographic literature and photography.

Cashill reframes the Obama story by pointing out that Frank Marshall Davis and his friend Paul Robeson were Stalinist Communists, a political label which is shocking to most Americans and yet useful to me in understanding the roots of the Marxist ideology and earnest revolutionary fervor I observed in the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College in 1980-1981.

Cashill adds to the sheer seediness of the world surrounding little Obama plenty of new evidence that infant Obama had no conscious contact with his birth father. This unpleasant reality is an abrupt challenge to Obama’s claim, in Dreams, that his father left him and his mother behind in Hawaii after two years of dutiful fatherhood. Here, Cashill leverages the outstanding reporting done by one of our nation’s most intelligent and charming citizen journalists - Michael Patrick Leahy. Leahy interviewed a few of Stanley Anne Dunham’s childhood friends and reported the results in his book, What Does Barack Obama Believe? Leahy’s research shows Anne Dunham took infant Obama with her to Seattle, Washington in the summer of 1961 and did not return with her baby to Hawaii until Obama, Sr. was long gone from the island. Leahy, in my view, has been doing the hard work I assumed New York Times reporters should have been doing including interviewing members of the extended Dunham family, sharing freely available information from the Internet, and combing over public records to determine the precise details of Barack Obama's birth and early childhood.

Even as somebody who met young Obama in the early 1980s, I'm was still startled by Cashill’s most controversial argument – the theory that Bill Ayers was the ghost author of Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s thesis was supported, of course, by the independent reporting of a liberal author, Christopher Andersen. Andersen unwisely confirmed Ayers’ participation in creating Dreams in an otherwise flattering book called Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage (2010). The weight of Cashill’s argument, however, rests on his careful textual analysis of the striking similarities between the language used in Dreams and the language used in Ayers’ own writing. Here, I’m most convinced by Cashill’s description of how Obama correctly applies nautical images to his life story. The accuracy of the nautical language in Dreams strikes me as much more consistent with Ayer’s experience as a merchant marine than with Obama’s experience as a community organizer.

I would like to add more details that support the idea that Ayers was a major player in drafting Dreams from My Father. The young Barack Obama I knew, for example, displayed absolutely no hostility to white people. He appeared to be culturally and emotionally white. The young Barack Obama I knew was not particularly close to the African-American students at Oxy either, but was - instead - deeply involved in the lives and political activities of the most radical foreign and Muslim students. The young Barack Obama I knew would have been excited to meet Bill Ayers, would have been comfortable with Ayers’ anti-American hostility, and would have been more than capable of persuading the jaded ex-terrorist that he was a sincere believer in the necessity of a socialist transformation of the U.S.

My only difference with Cashill is that I’m not impressed with the quality of Dreams from My Father.

This is true even after Cashill’s book single-handedly improved my taste as a consumer of contemporary literature. My reading of Dreams did not leave me with any useful paradigm shifts, any evidence of encyclopedic knowledge or any immediately relevant information. I think it is more accurate to assert that President Clinton’s book, My Life, articulates the insights and raw memory capacity of a true genius. In comparison to My Life, I found Dreams dull and boring - except for the parts tangentially related to my own intellectual development or linked to my nearly insignificant participation in what Obama reports were the pivotal, life-changing moments of his sophomore year at Occidental College.

Aside from this relatively minor disagreement regarding the quality of Dreams, I whole-heartedly agree with Cashill’s take on the challenge of confronting Obama’s charismatic power: The alarming sense that media elites greet one’s modest, factual, painfully obvious news tips with an astonishing lack of appropriate attention. I have come to believe there is something broken in American journalism. I would think a healthy, well-functioning democracy would include mainstream media outlets that would snap open the delightful fortune cookies Cashill has set out for them. For now, my confidence for winning our future rests in the outspoken courage of Jack Cashill, a writer who is willing to go to extreme lengths – short of leaving his home surrounded by leaves - to make sure that his fellow citizens learn the truth about President Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

I grew up poor and I thought it was unfair for me to be held back simply because of the mistakes of my parents. It drove me nuts, for example, to think that kids less intelligent, hard-working, and moral than me enjoyed vacations in Europe while I lived in a home with raw sewage in the backyard. I thought Marxist socialism would give young people in similar situations a more equal opportunity to enjoy the good things in life.

In retrospect, however, I didn't have anyone in my life to explain compound interest, or how to write a business plan, or how to apply computer technology to the most interesting questions. I think if my family had been part of a contemporary Christian church, then I would have had my questions answered and I would have made better decisions.

I got a track scholarship to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles. All the folks around me at Oxy seemed to think the best thing on earth that you could do with your life was to become a college professor. So I went with the program. I got a scholarship to attend graduate school where I got to study with the some of the best professors in the nation in American government and public policy.

My commitment to Marxist socialist thought, however, gradually came to an end by the summer of 1982 when I began to notice that there was a larger spiritual world which did not fit the materialistic atheist models of modern social science. It was a world of intuition, coincidence, and syncronicity which Marxism saw as only an illusion used to lubricate the workings of capitalist exploitation. I also figured out that my empathy for others was not a weakness...it was an extremely useful tool for generating guesses about how the world really worked.

As I became more spiritual I also started to have an unusual amount of success intellectually and academically. My thinking, writing, and observations knit together and I started to attract positive attention with my research on the causes and timing of welfare programs in the U.S.

In my case, I remember where I was the exact moment I realized I no longer believed in the ideals of Communism: I was walking through the basement of McGraw Hall at Cornell University in September 1983. I had just finished an argument with my radical thesis advisor. As I recall I began to believe that the problems associated with child abuse and neglect might be easily first through the use of European-style visiting nurse program. As best I can recall my thesis advisor, however, saw child abuse as a larger problem caused by the necessity to invest in the reproduction of social capital under conditions in which children were mistakenly seen as elements of private property as part of the larger cultural and legal structure which maintain the reproduction of oppressive class conflict. The solution to child abuse would involve paying attention to much greater issues involving the distribution of power and wealth in a modern industrialized society. (Or something like that...) Whatever the details of that argument, I remember the encounter left me  me thinking he was ideologically blinded and alarmingly out-of-touch with reality.

I inadvertantly discovered a bizarre failing in modern political science. I was able to show that much of what we consider our modern America - schools, parks, Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs, and aid for families with dependent children - were largely a consequence of the earlier effort to enforce child labor laws. I know this sounds completely obvious...but the social science development literature of the 1960s and 1970s had been written without any reference to the role of child labor law enforcement as a key step in the modernization process.

Based on my historical research, I disconfirmed the Marxist hypothesis that welfare programs arose out of class struggle. My research showed they arose as an unintended consequence of the completely independent prior decision to stop child labor.

I ended up teaching at Williams College in MA, the nation's top rated liberal arts college. I won an award from the American Political Science Association for my thesis. It is now published in book form.

Today, I'm married. I'm proud that I attend a Baptist Church that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. I have my own management consulting business. Right at this moment, I'm struggling to get up to speed on this new social networking technology...and I'm excited that it provides a way to get around the mainstream media. For a brief overview of my Life of John compared to the more famous Life of Julia, please click here.
 
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

http://blackroberegimentpastor.blogspot.com/2013/06/isnt-it-time-to-abolish-irs.html

“ Isn't It Time To Abolish The IRS ? “

“ Isn't It Time To Abolish The IRS ? “

Welcome to the question many are asking themselves these days. In light of all the crazy and insane things that our Federal, State, County and local Government's are doing to us, including violating nearly every aspect of our United State Constitution, there is no doubt in my mind as well as well as the mind of many Americans, it seems high time we start to disassemble our government and “default” to year 1776. In all honesty, I couldn't think of a better government agency to begin with in regard's to disassembling the Federal Government than the Internal Revenue Service. In talking with both “Liberally” and “Conservative” minded as well as politically inclined folks on each end of the spectrum, most all agree with me--- it's time to say “bye-bye” to the IRS.

Let's discuss why here....

The Internal Revenue Service was and is to this very day being used as a agent to bully people. As it has also been brought to light in the course of this nation's history from time to time, once again we see and read in the media that the IRS was targeting “politically conservative groups as well as Tea Party's groups.” It appears that applications for IRS Tax Exempt Status for 501c3 and 501c4 during years 2010, 2011 and 2012 were largely either held up and or strange and unconstitutional questionnaires from the IRS were sent to the groups seeking the Tax Exempt Status and were used to solicit information not required or just plain illegal in the asking by the IRS. I want to make it quite clear, the Obama Administration of using the Internal Revenue Service as a agent of bullying is not the first to do so. As a reminder to those with short memories and or have forgotten, it was Bill Clinton who was also caught using the IRS to bully his political enemies as well. “At least a dozen Clinton witnesses-including Sexgate accusers Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen and Juanita Broaddrick-were targeted by audits during the 1990's. Conservative groups critical of the Clinton Administration were also audited, including the Christian Coalition, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Freedom Alliance, the Heritage Foundation, the NRA and others” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390217/posts. Make no mistake about it, sending the IRS to bully people is not just a Democrat problem. In fact, it was none other then George W. Bush who could have stopped the attacks on some peace loving Mennonite friends of mine in New York State in the 1990's but instead, let the IRS attack- dogs do their worse to this very loving and kind family. Because of all the government abuse and injustice, the Lapp Family no longer are citizens of the USA. They have instead migrated to Costa Rica where they live, work and help others. Make no mistake about it, Republicans as well as Democrats have used their power to utilize the Internal Revenue Service to harm those whom they see as their “political enemies.” The Lapp Family is just one of many families who have been abused by such powerhttp://corruptgenesee.com/lapps.html.

The Internal Revenue Services violates the US Constitution by putting people in prison. The United States Government had eliminated putting people in “debtors prison” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/return-of-debtors-prisons.html?_r=0) but routinely incarcerates those who owe back taxes whether they have means to pay or not. Most of our Federal and State Government as well, both routinely extort money from it's own citizens for matters those citizens object to. Important and conscientious as well as moral decisions are made on behalf of citizens whether they agree or object. The vast majority of US Citizens have no say so when it comes time to having a say so in regards to how their tax dollars are spent. Since our so called “elected representatives” are in the pockets of corporations and self serving lobbyists, he wishes of the majority of tax payers are often just plain ignored and “political and elected representatives” do as they like instead. Some examples of what the IRS forces citizens to pay for are matters such as that of the killing of children through abortion. Also, the waging of what is seen as an unjust war, or the use of extorted tax funding in clear violation of US Constitutional Rights such as the freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, or even the freedom to own and use a firearm. The Internal Revenue Service is being used over and over again to forcibly collect money from good people who do not agree with using their hard tax revenue for “blood money” and to harm others who are also peace loving people.

The IRS will be overseeing “Obama Care.” If that wasn't bad enough, the Federal government will soon begin to newly hire thousands of IRS employees to oversee and to insure you are paying “your fair share” towards your Obamacare “benefits”(including shaking you down with fines and or jail if you don't). Get this though... the IRS is also overseeing your medical health records ! Think that's insane ?!?, wait, it get's worse.... the Internal Revenue Service is now stock piling shotguns and ammunition. What the heck for I ask ???http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-agencies-stockpiling-ammo . Do we really want the IRS making our health decisions for us and if we don't like their answers or decisions, should we have to live in fear that armed IRS agents will come crashing through our front door at 3am hauling us all off to some FEMA Camp in the middle of the night ? Sound Orwellian to you ? It sure sounds that way to me ! Isn't it bad enough we have to be concerned about our local and state police beating us up and or handing us some sort of unconstitutional traffic violation “ticket” without the Fed's(IRS) also giving us a hard time or trying to kill us also ?

Again, I couldn't think of a better Federal agency to start dismantling then the Federal Government by beginning with the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, we need to collect taxes, I know the basics of having a government. You know what though, instead of keeping around a government agency that is so corrupt, so arrogant in throwing away our hard earned tax dollars, so eager in wishing in putting us all in jail(well many of us anyway), let's just get rid of the IRS. A flat tax can and should be implemented. We can do this... the fewer people wanting to abuse me or kill me, the better off I and may family are. I believe most of you would agree, right ?

Rev. Paul P. Waldmiller~Black Robe Regiment Pastor

Kerry is forcing Israel to meet with Palestinians for peace talks; it's the Palestinians who've been refusing to talk.  It's the Palestinians that refuse to make peace.  Missile attacks never stopped.  Attacks on Israeli civilians continue.  Obama supports the Palestinians and condemns Israel. The stupid Jews of America who supported Obama may not regret any of this; unfortunately, many others will have to suffer.

Damn this Obama.

Murders per 100,000 people:

#1 Honduras at 91.6 per 100,000 people....to

#110 United States of America at 4.2 murders per 100K people.

ALL 109 countries before America have 100% gun bans!

Switzerland has no murders.

Switzerland's law requires EVERYONE to:

1. Own a gun.

2. Maintain Marksman qualification regularly.

3. "Carry" a weapon.

What a week this has been.  But not for Fox News, we would not know the depth to which this administration has fallen in deceiving the people they were elected to serve.  If these incidents had taken place under a Republican administration, it makes my blood run cold to think how fast the left would demonize and ultimately “throw the bum out”.

I was going through some old photos and found this picture of a much younger John Drew graduating from Occidental College back on June 9, 1979. As you can see, I'm wearing a red arm band. I was doing this to protest Occidental College's investments in South Africa. The fellow handing me my diploma was Occidental College president Richard C. Gilman. As I've written before, I was one of the founders of the anti-apartheid group that President Obama mentions in his book, Dreams of My Father.

From what Obama writes, I guess I had the unusual opportunity to meet the young Barack Obama at a turning point in his life. In Dreams of My Father, Obama writes he got one of the early signs of his interest (and ability) in public speaking during his participation in an anti-apartheid rally at Occidental College in Los Angeles in the spring of 1981.

I met him for the first time in late December 1980. By then, I was in my second year of graduate school at Cornell. I was visiting a girlfriend who was still attending Occidental College who introduced me to him and his friend Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a wealthy Pakistani student.

John Drew graduates from Occidental College as a fully trained Marxist in June, 1979.

My most vivid memory of my time visiting with Obama was the way he strongly argued a rather simple-minded version of Marxist theory. I remember he was passionate about his point of view. As I remember, he was articulating the same Marxist theory taught by various professors at Occidental College. Based on my more detailed studies at Cornell, I remember I made a strong argument that his Marxist ideas were not in line with contemporary reality - particularly the practical experience of Western Europe.

I went on to become an assistant professor of political science at Williams College in MA, and won the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association for my doctoral dissertation. See,

http://anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/2010/01/victory-is-so-sweet-for-those-who-have.html

Obama, of course, became President of the United States in 2009. I cannot help but wonder if my common sense arguments ended up impacting his decision-making and career planning.

Nevertheless, I think my experience with the young Barack Obama is useful evidence of why he was able to win the trust and support of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Alice Palmer. In 1995, as you may know, Alice Palmer represented the state of Illinois' 13th District. After she decided to run for the United States Congress she named Obama as her hand-picked successor to replace her. In June 1986, Palmer wrote an article for the Communist Party USA's newspaper, the People's Daily World, now the People's Weekly World. Amazingly, it detailed her experience at the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Regarding Rev. Wright's affection for Marxism and socialism, please view the YouTube video below:

My gut feeling is that Obama won the trust of folks like Palmer because he never surrendered that tough, Marxist socialist ideology I saw in him as a sophomore at Occidental College. All in all, it takes me back to remember my days as a young revolutionary, the moments when - like Barack Obama - I sincerely believed a Marxist socialist revolution was coming to turn everything around and to create a new, fairer and more just world.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.