Joke of the Day

A traveler was stumbling through the desert, desperate for water, when he saw something far off in the distance.

Hoping to find water, he walked towards the image, only to find a little old peddler sitting at a card table with a bunch of neckties laid out.

The parched wanderer asked, “Please, I’m dying of thirst, can I have some water?”

The man replied, “I don’t have any water, but why don’t you buy a tie? Here’s one that goes nicely with your clothes.”

The desperate man shouted, “I don’t want a tie, you idiot, I need water!”

“OK, don’t buy a tie. But to show you what a nice guy I am, I’ll tell you that over that hill there, about 5 miles, is a nice restaurant. Walk that way, and they’ll give you all the water you want.”

The man thanked the peddler and walked away towards the hill and eventually disappeared out of sight. Three hours later he returned.

The man at the card table said, “I told you, about 5 miles over that hill. Couldn’t you find it?”

“I found it all right. They wouldn’t let me in without a tie.”

Polling 101

This article was from May of this year, but it is still instructive.

Navigating the Polls in an Election Year

by: Mike Flynn at Breitbart

with comments from the Common Constitutionalist [ ] cause I just can’t help it.

As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational effect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern-day polling is more art than science. [I’ve seen many polls (most in fact) I believe are published for only one reason; to dispirit conservatives voters and hopefully cause them not to vote. They have all come from major media and polling organizations that are in the tank for Obama and the democrats. The polls you see are for public consumption and are usually not accurate. However, campaigns run their own internal polling that is usually for honest and accurate. They know they can’t afford to rely on the normally bogus public polls. We will never be privy to the internal polls.]

All polls reflect certain biases–not necessarily in the political sense–of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional “outlier” poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.

If you are reading this, you’re likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what’s called the “voter screen.” In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:

Both Pew Research and Nate Silver have each looked at the differences for different elections from 2004, 2008 and 2010; and they both came to essentially the same answer:

– Polling “adults” generally favors Democrats by a net of 7%.
– Polling “registered voters” generally favors Democrats by a net of 4%.
– Polling “likely voters” is always the most accurate.

So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5%-R46.5%, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll “adults” on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren’t registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won’t be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians. [ I sound like a broken record, but duh. The AP might as well be the Obama press office. The know when they poll adults it will heavily skew the results toward their end, which is getting “The One” relected. ]

With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won’t come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates. [ Again, duh. Any poll, at the very least, not using only likely voters is junk and is used only to influence voters.]

But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be inaccurate. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.

When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren’t representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by “weighting” the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation’s demographics. [ Or, of course, responses that skew the outcome of the poll.]

Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms “weight” their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.

In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:

  • Democrats 39%
  • GOP 32%
  • Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:

  • Liberal 22%
  • Conservative 34%
  • Moderate 44%

[ Ah, moderates, got a love um. Liberals without the courage to admit it.]

In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:

  • Democrats 35%
  • GOP 35%
  • Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:

  • Liberal 20%
  • Conservative 42%
  • Moderate 38%

So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have “tossed” certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.

So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don’t think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.

Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.

A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:

  • Democrats 40%
  • GOP 37%
  • Independents 24%
  • Liberal 27%
  • Conservative 42%
  • Moderate 32%

So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don’t think that’s likely.

Politico‘s recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:

  • Democrats 37%
  • GOP 34%
  • Independents 28%

(Note: I’ve done my own “weighting” and assigned “leans GOP” and “leans Democrat” to “Independents.”)

A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:

  • Democrats 42%
  • GOP 34%
  • Independents 20%

What color is the sky in FoxNews’ world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party? [ They’re trying to all fair and balanced, don’t ya know.]

I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the “hope and change” promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.

So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you’d be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.

Cecil Beaton’s World War

In artistic terms they were at polar opposites of the photographic spectrum.

The wanton destruction and grim resilience of war is not a subject you would associate with high fashion glamor shots of the rich and beautiful.

But when flamboyant photographer Cecil Beaton was enlisted during the Second World War, his striking collection showed the six-year conflict in a new, more graceful, picturesque light.

The photographer, whose most notable subjects included Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn, was commissioned for an altogether grittier photographic project that could be used as propaganda

Moving him away from his usual fare of royalty and fashion models, the Ministry of Information asked Beaton to document Britain’s war effort.

The renowned photographer pictured young men and women in a typically glamorous light, in spite of the ravages, destruction and chaos engulfing Britain in 1940.

His eye-catching portfolio stays away from corpses, blood and the unimaginable horror of the front line, featuring instead photogenic soldiers presenting a united front for the Allied Forces.

Even so, Beaton does tug on the heartstrings in his collection: one of the most memorable images shows wounded three-year-old Eileen Dunne at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in an evocative picture which would later grace the cover of Life magazine in September 1940.

The picture was clearly effective – as it was taken with the aim of generating sympathy for the British and helping sway America into intervening in the war.

She recognized them as being similar in style to the work of Beaton, and confirmed they were his work by matching them to his diary records.

She said: ‘The Ministry was in disarray in those days and the records weren’t kept well.

‘It was not practice to record the name of the photographer. But we always knew these images existed somewhere.’

After ceasing wartime operations, the Ministry of Information deposited Beaton’s war photos with the Imperial War Museum, London.

The photographer was briefly reunited with his vast body of work shortly before his death.

Describing the experience, he wrote in his diary: ‘Yesterday I went to the Imperial War Museum, not my favourite place, to see the collection of photographs that I had taken during the war for the Ministry of Information.

‘It was an extraordinary experience to relive those war years; so much of it had been forgotten, and most of the people are now dead.

‘It was fascinating to see the scenes in old Imperial Simla, the rickshaws drawn by uniformed servants, the grandeur of the houses, the palaces, the bar scenes, the men on leave swigging beer, I had not realised that I had taken so many documentary pictures, some of purely technical interest.

‘Looking at them today, I spotted ideas that are now ‘accepted’, but which, thirty years ago, were before their time. The sheer amount of work I had done confounded me.’

Relaxed: A soldier orders a cup of tea in the Forces Canteen at Victoria Station in 1942. The soldier pictured was the butler of a close friend of photographer Cecil Beaton

As well as glamorous portraits of British soldiers, Beaton’s portfolio also catalogues famous landmarks, such as a war-ravaged Bloomsbury Square in London

War effort: A female welder works on the deck of a new ship in Tyneside in 1943

A sailor on board HMS Alcantara uses a portable sewing machine to repair a signal flag on a voyage to Sierra Leone

A British sailor on shore leave in Harrogate looks natural in front of the camera in 1941

War heroes: Squadron Leader M L Robinson of No 609 Squadron RAF sits on the wing of his Hawker Hurricane at RAF Biggin Hill in 1941 for a relaxed portrait picture

Three men of the Long Range Desert Group enjoy a moment’s relaxation with cigarettes after returning to headquarters in, Siwa, Libya, in 1942

Battle of Britain pilot Neville Duke, who later broke the World Air Speed record, pictured with his Spitfire at RAF Biggin Hill in 1941

A woman made homeless by the Blitz receives a hot meal at a welfare centre in Bermondsey, London, in 1940

Attribution: Chris Parsons

Let My People Work

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

I believe we’ve heard many so-called conservatives claim we are in a jobless recovery.

That’s a hot one. There has been no recovery nor have there been any jobs.

We’ve also heard the democrats out on the talk show circuit and at every available podium spouting off about the 4.5 million jobs Barack Obama has created since taking office.

Well, there may have been jobs created, but a lot more have been lost.

Here’s a fun fact for you. When Obama was crowned King of the world in 2009, there were approximately 142,187,000 people employed in the U.S.

Today the number is 142,101,000. So, as Rush would say, for those of you in Rio Linda, there are about 86,000 fewer people employed today than at the time of Obama’s coronation in 2009.

Just think about that for a second. Consider the bold-faced lies the democrats and the media are foisting on the ill-informed American people. It’s actually criminal. And what of our side? Where is the well-informed conservative on the TV talking-head shows that can say, “You are lying and here is the proof? These are the facts, etc.

Where are the Paul Reveres, riding through the countryside, exclaiming these facts?

I guess, in a way, we are the virtual town criers. “It’s 2012 and all is NOT well”.

Anywho, the real employment figures are bad, but given a little more context, they become even more devastating.

One thing these talking heads never mention is the increase in the overall population growth of this country.

From 2009 to today, American population has increased by 8.8 million. So, there are over 8 million more people living here and we have 86 thousand fewer jobs than 3 years ago?

If they’re not working, what are they doing? Well, they are on some form of government assistance, like welfare, food stamps, disability, etc.

Today, approximately 45 million people are on food stamps. That’s 1 out of every 7 Americans! These aren’t just nameless, faceless strangers. They are friends, neighbors and coworkers, or maybe ex-coworkers in some cases.

People are becoming so desperate that when their unemployment runs out they are applying for social security disability. That way they at least have something to live on.  

Now, I’m not going to discuss, the fraud and abuse by many, scamming the system just to receive a government check instead of finding a job. We all know there is plenty of that. We also know that many people could more heavily rely on their own families for assistance in lieu of the taxpayers. But the number is not that great and it can’t mask the incredibly weak employment figures. Like the 8.1% unemployment number that isn’t.

That’s a fake number. Pure and simple. It’s like a 300 lb. man stepping on a scale that tops out at 200 lbs. Just because the scale only reads 200, doesn’t mean he lost weight. If you recall, there are 6 unemployment categories ranging from U-1 to U-6. The  U-3 number is the one that everyone has settled on. I frankly don’t know why the government, news outlets, et al, have settled on the U-3.  I guess it makes things appear better than they are. If that’s the case, the U-1 number is under 5%. Like magic we could have almost full employment. The fact, or myth, that the U-3 unemployment number dropped from 8.3 to 8.1% is irrelevant.

In the last month alone over 580,000 people just gave up looking for work. The Labor Force Participation Rate, the number of people employed or looking for work, dropped to 63.5%, a level not seen since September, 1981, at the tail end of, hey what do you know, the Carter administration. That’s how that 8.3 dropped to 8.1. Those, over half a million poor souls, are now not counted. Voilà, less unemployment. The real number, the u-6 is up around 15%.

And let’s not forget King Barack’s just enacted, defacto illegal immigration amnesty program . Hey, what’s a million or so more unemployed people who have no job and won’t be able to find one.

Nothing is more essential to moving a family forward, or a nation, than a job, and today America has less of them than when Obama became President. The hope and change experiment needs to come to an end.

So when you meet our conservative candidates out there on the campaign trail, ask them why they’re not pushing the real numbers and calling the fake numbers, what they are, fake. More people need to know this stuff.

Attribution: Bob Beauprez

Any Means Necessary

After reading this article, I sat back and thought, could this really happen in America? No way. This is nuts! Then I reflected on the ever-mounting evidence, not just my feelings. Knowing what I know and have learned over the years about this bunch, I can see them at least planning for something like this. Just the thought, however fleeting, that it could happen in this country is quite worrisome and sad. It’s long, but a very good read.

Obama Keeps Power ‘by Any Means Necessary’?

by: Stella Paul at The American Thinker

Let’s go there: if Obama thinks he’s losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power “by any means necessary,” as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I’m truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they’re not crazy, and I’ve got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years — the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I’ve got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise. So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1. Giuliani’s unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg. So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits? He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point? Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.

Now, let’s look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:

Super-High-Level Trial Balloons

USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] … You want people who don’t worry about the next election.” When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking. What a kidder!

Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled “Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy.” In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, “radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”

Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers. They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats held their national convention and from one of Obama’s most prominent Cabinet members. Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.

“Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?”

That’s the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.

According to Major General Curry, Social Security’s ammo spree follows the purchase by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 46,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Will they be shooting fish in a barrel?

Most terrifying of all, Major General Curry reports that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March, then subsequently ordered an additional 750 million rounds, including bullets capable of penetrating walls.

“This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen,” writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require “so many dead Americans.”

I strongly suggest that you read Major General Curry’s article for yourself, so you can appreciate the full horror of what he describes. After pointing out that Congress has done nothing to investigate these weapon purchases, Major General Curry, a 40-year veteran, concludes with these chilling words:

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

Executive Orders

Obama may not be fond of governing, but he certainly does enjoy issuing executive orders — 135 so far. As American Thinker‘s Warren Beatty points out, these little-reported edicts reveal an all-too-predictable pattern: concentrating all national power and resources in Obama’s hands, in case of “emergency.”

So far, Obama has granted himself the right to control all transportation, including highways, airports, seaports, and railroads, and all modes of communication, storage facilities, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

Should you resist any of these emergency measures, rest assured that the U.S. government is now well supplied with bullets.

Openly War-Gaming against American Citizens

A recent issue of the well-respected Small Wars Journal featured an article titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” Written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert, the article helpfully game-played, in full operational detail, how the Army would destroy a local Tea Party insurrection.

The authors claim that should Tea Party rebels take over a City Hall, “Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas”; therefore, “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment.”

The brazenness of this scheme for the U.S. military to kill Americans created a small, temporary stir. The Washington Times editorialized, “This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.” The Washington Times also noted:

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

Active Partnership with America’s Foreign Enemies

Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, “Dishonorable Disclosures,” to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden’s death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

Normally, presidents don’t want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information — but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day’s work for Obama.

And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he’ll have plenty of enemy partners to help. First, he’s got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, “This is my last election[.] … After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence. Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he’s placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government. Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.

And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns. Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama (“President Transparency”) has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.

Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol. Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!

Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups

When Louis Farrakhan met Ahmadinejad: now there’s a romance made in the bowels of hell. Toss in the head of the New Black Panthers and fifty radical imams, and you’ve got the “Beast Axis” that was forged in a Manhattan hotel on September 27, 2010, according to The Blaze.

New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz boasted on Black Panther Radio thathe “stands on solid ideological ground” with “His Excellency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” who understands “the dynamics and the politics of world revolution.”

Apparently, Obama approves of these antics, because his attorney general, Eric Holder, dropped charges against the New Black Panthers, even though they were caught on tape allegedly intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 elections. Naturally, Holder’s Department of Justice then lied about its actions, covering up its political motivations.

Holder specifically protected King Samir Shabazz, who now serves as national field marshal for the New Black Panthers. Shabazz spearheads the Panthers’ ambitious new plan to “create inner city militaries that would go into nurseries and kill white babies and murder white people in the street.”

Let’s hope this “inner city military” is not what candidate Obama mysteriously referred to in 2008 when he pledged, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security forcethat’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Imagine, for one monstrous moment, the destructive potential of this burgeoning alliance between the Obama-protected New Black Panthers, Obama’s old Chicago associate Louis Farrakhan, and the genocidally obsessed Ahmadinejad. If your blood didn’t run cold, you weren’t imagining hard enough.

A Tsunami of Voter Fraud

On June 15, 2012, Obama bypassed Congress and issued de facto amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Suddenly, whole new vistas of voter fraud opened up to the Democrats. Admittedly, they’ve got to ramp up quickly for November, but this gang should prove up to the challenge.

Helping matters along, Holder is busy suing states that require photo ID to vote and attempting to disenfranchise the military. Together, these well-coordinated efforts should provide Obama with the means to pull off staggering amounts of voter fraud.

“By Any Means Necessary”

If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power “By Any Means Necessary.” This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report. Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again.

Well over a year ahead of any other media, The Ulsterman Report was informing readers that Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing. It predicted the emergence of obscure figures — Kamala D. Harris, who’s now attorney general of California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the newly named acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice, who’s being groomed as Holder’s successor.

Most crucially, shortly after the bin Laden operation, the Ulsterman Report revealed that Valerie Jarrett had canceled three previous bin Laden raids. That information now has been confirmed by Richard Miniter in his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.

Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning. A section of their conversation follows below:

MI: Approximately two years ago…not quite two years ago…I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan. For 2012. After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives…specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership…indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama. That document’s title was…(pauses)

WSI: He can be trusted – I give you my word. Please proceed.

MI: That document’s title was “By Any Means Necessary”. It was unofficial – but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration. We confirmed that.

UM: What channels? Who are you talking about?

MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein. Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett. Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with…with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security…and…the U.S. military.

We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider’s warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria. Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I’ve described above.

The greatest asset of Obama and his investors has been their warp-speed audacity. We’re too stunned to believe what’s happening in front of our eyes, and too embarrassed to mention it. Who wants to speak up and be ridiculed as an unhinged paranoid, marching with the tinfoil hat brigade?

But our best bet — perhaps our only bet — is to frankly confront this ugly reality. As Iran prepares to go nuclear and the global economy teeters, any number of “national emergencies” can suddenly erupt, demanding unprecedented measures by Obama to “save” us. We must be prepared with skepticism, outrage, and defiance of any actions to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.

America remains the last best hope on earth. And We the People must keep our power, by any means necessary.

Note for the Common Constitutionalist: Now that you’ve digested all of that, you may want to go back and again compare the 12 original principles of Communism here.

Unfriendly Skies

British Airways passengers were left stuck without their luggage after a pipe burst in Heathrow Terminal 5 – drenching their bags in sewage.

About 100 suitcases were covered in the raw filth when a pipe in the sewage system burst in Terminal 5’s baggage hold on Monday.

Many passengers were still waiting to be reunited with their suitcases today after the airport sent them off to be cleaned.

A source told The Sun: ‘The smell was absolutely foul, as was the mood of the passengers who had to leave without their bags.’

It has been suggested the leak could be linked to the Terminal being built on a former sludge works.

A spokesman for the airport operator, BAA Heathrow, said: ‘There was a leak from the sewage system in the baggage area of Terminal 5 on Monday which affected around a hundred bags.

‘We appreciate this will be upsetting for passengers. The bags have now been cleaned and are being reunited with their owners.’

British Airways also apologized to its passengers for the incident and any inconvenience caused.

Attribution: Mail Online