CajunWin4's Blog

Impeach The S.O.B.!

WND

Burt Prelutsky

For a long time, as much as I wanted to see Obama gone, I opposed the notion of Congress attempting to impeach him. I figured that with the Senate in the hands of Harry Reid, nothing would come of it. What’s more, when it was attempted with Clinton, he came out at the other end more popular than ever, a martyr in the eyes of the left.

But I no longer care about the end result. I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions.

If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, “I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.” No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.

It was all too reminiscent of his speech after the execution of bin Laden, when his use of the personal pronoun would have led you to believe he had personally repelled into the Pakistani courtyard and stormed the villa, guns blazing, and that he’d had the Navy SEALs along just for company.

His defense of spying on reporters was that he was checking out leaks into national security matters. Eric Holder, his right-hand stooge, even boasted that this administration had set a record for prosecuting leakers. The point neither of them mentioned was that the only leaks they pursued were those that made them look bad. Apparently, the leaks to the New York Times in 2012 intended to enhance Obama’s pre-election image as a master of foreign diplomacy went no further than Dianne Feinstein’s fatuous vow to ferret out the guilty parties.

Read More Here

Reposted with permission.

Issa No Longer Pulls Punches  Issues Subpoena Of Obama State Department Over Benghazi

Some may not fully understand or appreciate just how much this move will elevate the situation between the Obama White House and Congress regarding the still ongoing Benghazi Massacre cover up.  A formal subpoena of the Obama State Department, specifically calling for cooperation from current Secretary of State John Kerry, is a bold move by Congressman Darrell Issa.  It appears the gloves are truly coming off…

(Issa wants answers while Barack Obama continues to cover them up.) 

_____________________________________

(via HotAir:)

Issa subpoenas State Department for withheld Benghazi talking point documents

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have been insisting that, despite their indignant insistence to the contrary, the Obama administration still has plenty of explaining to do and needs to release more documents relating to the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi last September and the subsequent talking-point shenanigans. Last week, Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry reminding him of his promise to run “an accountable and open State Department” and asking that he make available for questioning a list of State employees that have yet to be thoroughly cross-examined, so to speak –  and on Tuesday, Issa straight-up subpoenaed the State Department for all of the documents and communications relating to the Benghazi talking points.

continue article at The Ultsterman Report:

http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/05/28/issa-no-longer-pulls-punches-issues-subpoena-of-obama-state-department-over-benghazi/

Question Over Missing Time Deepens

By Douglas J. Hagmann

28 May 2013: I first brought it up with specificity in my article titled The Benghazi Deception on May 16, comparing Obama’s missing “18 1/2 hours” during the time four Americans were being murdered  to the 18 1/2 minute erasure of the Watergate tapes of the Nixon era. Exactly one week later, I clearly illustrated that Chris Wallace repeatedly asked David Pfeiffer, a top Obama official, “where was Obama” during the night when four American’s were murdered in Benghazi.  Mr. Wallace actually did what a good newsman should do, and repeated the question no fewer than eight-(8) times, but never received an answer or explanation.  Nothing, nada, zilch. Crickets.

Despite the professional tenacity and persistence of Mr. Wallace, Pfeiffer continually dodged the question, called his whereabouts irrelevant, and basically told the American people that where “the one” was, and what he was doing was none of our business.

The speculations rise

On May 23, a week after my column appeared, Rich Lowry, writing for Politico, asked Pfeiffer to “humor us” by merely telling us where Obama was and what he was doing on that “mystery night.” Mr. Lowry writes: “Obama’s actions and nonactions on that terrible night are a blank spot in his presidency. We simply don’t know much about them, and the White House has always been perfectly content to leave it that way.”

Anyone who has ever raised a teenager knows that a parent’s “need to know” is directly proportional to the teenager’s need to keep their silence about some event in which they have engaged. The harder the teenager fights to keep their misdeeds under wraps, the more important it is for the responsible parent to learn exactly what took place – with precision. In the case of four murdered Americans and a Commander in Chief who was obviously MIA, the American people not only deserve to know, but as responsible Americans, we need to know the location and activities of Obama during this period of murder and mayhem.

On May 26, we saw the stakes being raised in an article by Kevin DuJan in HillBuzz under the title “Barack Obama Was High on Cocaine During ‘The Missing Hours’ of the Benghazi Attack Last September.” Mr. DuJan wrote: “If you’ve ever known anyone who is a drug addict, you’d see it’s obvious that Barack Obama was high on cocaine the night of Benghazi; it is the only logical explanation for his disappearance and the White House’s refusal to comment on what he was doing at the time.  Since this was a night of great crisis for our country, the only logical reason that the White House won’t explain where the president was is if this man was high as a kite on illegal narcotics at the time.”

Mr. DuJan also commented about an e-mail he received from his friend Justine, an actress and model who ran in some interesting if not salacious circles back in the 1970′s with “closeted gay men” like Rock Hudson. According to the article, Justine’s first instinct is that Obama might have been with (and we’re talking in a Biblical sense here) Reggie Love and didn’t want to be disturbed.

Sex, Lies and Murder

Perhaps the much maligned author Larry Sinclair has some clairvoyant powers, or more likely he does speak from experience when he titled his book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair, Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder. I found it extremely interesting that Mr. Sinclair described, in graphic detail, Barack Hussein Obama’s reported cocaine use, the sex, and even murder in his book, none of it, however, related to the night of Benghazi. Such activities were reserved for the back of a car and the anonymity of hotels while serving in the Illinois State Senate.

If we follow the line of thought offered by Messrs Lowry and DuJan, the interesting insight of “Justine,” and the written and spoken claims of Larry Sinclair, are we not seeing a disturbing emergence of a possible pattern of conduct? Given the written claims of Mr. Sinclair alone, are we, as citizens, not supposed to be a bit suspicious in the absence of any substantive information pertaining to Obama’s locations and activities on the night of September 11, 2012?

Those who have raised teenagers, are your senses not a bit troubled… are you not the least bit uncomfortable?

Writing as someone who has raised four teenagers and spent over a quarter century as an investigator in the private sector, I can tell you that my parental and investigative senses are as strong as the tingle that existed in Chris Matthew’s leg, although it’s not from excitement. Furthermore, I interviewed Larry Sinclair several months before his book was published, and found him to be extremely credible and forthright. Unlike top Obama official David Pfeiffer, not once did he refuse to answer or dodge a question, regardless of how uncomfortable such questions were. And I did not have to ask one question eight times in eight different ways.

Ending the mystery

All the White House has to do is produce the authenticated logs of POTUS activities and his location that are maintained for every minute of every day within the walls of the house of the people. If he has nothing to hide, then produce the records of who he was with, what he was doing, when he was doing it, where he was during this missing time, and why.

According to my source within the intelligence community, the answer to this question is one of the most critically important and revealing pieces of information that is being deliberately hidden from the American public.

There is no need to further insult the American people with elusiveness and semantics, or add insult to the injury and death of Americans on the night of September 11, 2012.  We need straight answers, and we need them now. Stop acting like you’re teenagers who believe that they are smarter than your parents, or suspects that can outsmart the questions of professional investigators with convoluted semantics. Answer the question.

—————————

Note: Author Larry Sinclair will be a guest on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report at a date to be announced to discuss his experiences with Barack Obama and to provide his thoughts about the night in question.

 

Sign now!

To add your name to the Impeach Obama  petition, submit your email address (and, optionally, your name) and click the  button when done. Once our petition reaches 100,000 signatories, we will present  our petition to the U.S. Congress. We will also keep you in the loop on this and  other important stories by sending you newsletters from Minutemen  News and The Black  Sphere; don’t worry, you can unsubscribe at any time if you find that’s not  for you.

 

Email  Address

Full  Name (optional)

 

This is an unprecedented time in our nation’s history.  The American people  are outraged by the display of unconstitutional, corrupt, immoral, and criminal  actions by President Barack Obama and his Administration.  We, the people,  demand justice. We, the people, demand that the U.S. House of Representatives  begin impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama.

Whereas, it is the sworn duty of the Congress of the United States to defend  and uphold the Constitution, along with all the freedoms it guarantees to the  American people, we, the people, present the following:

The IRS Scandal:

• Whereas:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intentionally abused their  power by targeting conservative organizations; and
• Whereas:  These actions demonstrate that the IRS was being used as a tool  for partisan, political manipulation and advantage; and
• Whereas:   President Obama will not reveal or admit to knowledge of the  actions of his Administration, deeming him either ineffective or deceitful.  At  a minimum, this makes him guilty of betraying the trust of the American people;  and
• Whereas:   Accountability is crucial if we are to send a message to our  elected officials and bureaucrats that committing crimes against the American  people and our Constitution will not be tolerated;
• Therefore: We demand a thorough investigation and full disclosure of the  matters concerning the IRS scandal; and swift, expedient action against all  offenders, including the President of the United States, to the fullest extent  of the law.

The Benghazi Scandal:

• Whereas:   Key members of the Obama Administration, seemingly with President  Obama’s knowledge, willfully denied support to the American ambassador and other  brave Americans while they were under attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11,  2012; and
• Whereas:   The ensuing cover-up, including the intent to deceive the  American people about the nature of the attack, was politically motivated for  the advancement of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign; and Whereas: The  truths uncovered to date, which are too many to list, prove that the death of  four Americans was exploited as a tool for partisan, political manipulation and  advantage; and
• Whereas:   President Obama will not reveal or admit to knowledge of the  actions of his Administration, deeming him either ineffective or deceitful. At a  minimum, this makes him guilty of betraying the trust of the American people;  and
• Whereas:   Accountability is crucial if we are to send a message to our  elected officials and bureaucrats that committing crimes against the American  people and our Constitution will not be tolerated;
• Therefore: We demand a thorough investigation and full disclosure of the  matters concerning the Benghazi scandal; and swift, expedient action against all  offenders, including the President of the United States, to the fullest extent  of the law.

The Associated Press Scandal:

• Whereas:   The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice secretly  obtained private telephone and fax records of Associated Press reporters and  editors; and
• Whereas:   The communicated intent, once this seizure was revealed, was to  search for government leaks; the perceived intent was an attempt by government  officials to intimidate and manipulate freedom of the press; and
• Whereas:  The Department of Justice violated its own regulations which  recognize the importance of freedom of the press, and exceeded their authority  for the purposes of partisan, political manipulation and advantage; and 
• Whereas:   President Obama will not reveal or admit to knowledge of the  actions of his Administration; deeming him either ineffective or deceitful.  At  a minimum, this makes him guilty of betraying the trust of the American people;  and 
• Whereas:   Accountability is crucial if we are to send a message to our  elected officials and bureaucrats that committing crimes against the American  people, and our Constitution will not be tolerated;
• Therefore: We demand a thorough investigation and full disclosure of the  matters concerning the Associated Press scandal; and swift, expedient action  against all offenders, including the President of the United States, to the  fullest extent of the law.

Barack Obama Was High On Cocaine The Night of Benghazi Attack – Report

Two New Benghazi Whistleblowers Come Forward, Reveal Why Ambassador Stevens Was in Libya

News is breaking that could be devastating to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It seems that Ambassador Chris Stevens trip to Libya may have been a planned buyback of Stinger Missiles from Al Qaeda linked terrorists. These missiles were originally issued to these Al Qaeda groups by the State Department according to the whistleblowers. PJ Media is reporting:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

To read the full story at PJ Media, click here…

Shock! Obama Was ‘Incapacitated’ Due To ‘Staggering, inapt activities’ between the hours of 1800 and 2300 on the night of Benghazi… | RedFlagNews.com

Obama Administration Under Siege From 3 Huge Scandals: Here’s Why It Could All Come Crashing Down

Source: http://www.alnewscast.com/news/obama-administration-under-siege-from-3-huge-scandals-heres-why-it-could-all-come-crashing-down/

The Smoking Gun

        M

President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

“For me, it’s about collaboration.” — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal? Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun? The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts. March 31, 2010. According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st. The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way: Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way: April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed. In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.”

As stated by the IG report. The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates. Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country. The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails.

The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual. On yet another occasion, Kelley’s presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU — the IRS union — a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already — which was considerable. Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion: Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30 The inclusion of “FLOTUS” — First Lady Michelle Obama — and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President’s home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor “activists”: Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Six days following Kelley’s attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: “Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services” applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to: Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….

However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.

It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were being urged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups. Which, as the IG records, they did. Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU’s Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal. Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled ”IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in ‘sin’ of political targeting,” the Post quoted the following: “NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases.

We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail. A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.” The President approached things in a more evasive manner.Last Thursday at the President’s press conference with the Turkish prime minister, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked the following question, bold print for emphasis: “Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?”

The President’s response? (Again bold print emphasis.) “But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.” Take note: Goldman’s question was: “Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?” The President evaded by answering: “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report…..” The question was not whether he knew about the IG report ahead of time. The question was whether he could “assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions.” In response, the President ducked.

In other words, the IRS union chief went to the White House to meet personally with the president on March 31. The union already had Executive Order 13522 behind it, issued by the President barely three months earlier. An Executive Order directing that the IRS must “allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….”. The very next day after that March 31 meeting at the White House, the IRS, with the union involved in its decision-making, was setting up its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.” Which raises the famous question from Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know it? While potentially explosive now, in fact the Obama Administration hadn’t been in office a month before Kelley was boasting of the IRS union’s influence in the White House.

In a February 15, 2009  interview given to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh is Kelley’s home town), there was this question from the PG reporter, with the now Washington-based Kelley boasting as below, key point in bold print:Q: Has the Obama staff been receptive? A: Yes. We have worked with the transition team, given them suggestions; and throughout the campaign, President Obama talked about working with the federal employees and unions. He’s recognized the contributions federal employees make. I was just at the White House (Jan. 30) while he was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did. Catch that? The boast? “I was just at the White House…” Which is to say, the election of 2008, in which the union had endorsed Obama, was no sooner over than the head of the IRS union had “worked with the transition team” and “given them suggestions.”

Literally ten days after the Obama January 20 inaugural in 2009 — January 30 the article notes — Kelley was boasting that “I was just at the White House while he (the President) was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.” And what did Kelley see as the IRS union’s relationship with the White House she had already visited ten days into the President’s first term? Kelley responded candidly, again with the bold print added for emphasis: “We are looking for a return to what we used to call partnership. I don’t really care what it’s called. For me, it’s about collaboration.” Catch those words? Collaboration. Partnership.

In addition to Kelley’s three visits to see the President — in January of 2009, December of 2009, and March of 2010 — she is listed for three other visits, the contact names those of presidential aides: “Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 11/04/2009 10:00” “Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 12/01/2009 12:00” “Kelley, Colleen Nelson, Greg 01/14/2010 13:40”The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally — the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its “Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party”. Were the President of the United States and the President of the NTEU meeting in the White House at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 — and engaged in “collaboration” and “partnership”? A “collaboration” and “partnership” that was all about targeting the Tea Party?

And did that collaboration and partnership result in the IRS letting loose the hounds on the Tea Party and conservative groups — the very next day after the Obama-Kelley meeting? To add to the administration’s IRS-NTEU woes is the fact that beyond the Inspector General, there is another IRS-connected agency in the Treasury Department: the IRS Oversight Board. And on that board sits a presidential appointee named Robert M. Tobias. Tobias, oddly, was a Clinton appointee in 2005, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. He is still there. He is the longtime NTEU general counsel and Kelley’s predecessor as the union president. Here’s the statement, from the IRS Oversight Board, on all of this. It is headed: IRS Oversight Board Deeply Troubled by Breakdown in IRS Process in Reviewing Tax-Exempt Applications.

There was no reference to the influence of the anti-Tea Party NTEU in the statement. Why would there be when the union’s ex-president sits on the Oversight Board itself? Obama’s problem here is considerable. By not forthrightly answering Goldman’s question, he seems to be evading the issue in the manner that brought so much trouble in the form of congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment threats to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency and Clinton brought to a Senate trial. The President’s too-clever-by half evasion added to Kelley’s silence leaves open the question of whether the union and the White House, not to mention the IRS Oversight Board, are collaborating — collaborating right now — on a cover-up. Nixon looked the American people in the television eye and flatly lied about his personal involvement in the Watergate scandal, lies that came from a frantic attempt to conduct a cover-up.

Clinton looked the American people in the eye and famously wagged his finger as he lied that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” In Clinton’s case this extended to lying to a federal grand jury. For a good long while, the American people in fact believed both Nixon and Clinton. The stories are now legion of Nixon cabinet and staff believing their man, and Clinton’s cabinet and staff believing their man’s protestations of innocence as well. Finally, in both cases, the truth was out. As Washington and the country have long since twice-learned the hard way, the parsing of presidential words in cases like this, not to mention looking into the cameras and boldly lying on the prayer of getting away with the lie, always bodes ill for presidents. It leads inevitably to that simple question famously uttered by then-Tennessee GOP Senator Howard Baker and posed of Nixon at the Senate Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”Twice in recent American history the answer to this question, once for Nixon and once for Clinton, has landed popular, powerful presidents in impeachment hot water. Ending Republican Nixon’s presidency altogether and coming close to doing the same with Democrat Clinton.

Leaving the legacy of each permanently scarred. The notion that the players in the IRS scandal did what they did to get past the 2012 election will only add to an Obama presidential reputation as borrowing the Nixon playbook on skirting scandal in a presidential election year. Ironically re-casting the image of America’s first black president as the black Nixon.

With the examples of how Nixon and Clinton dodged, evaded, and lied, Obama’s non-answer to Juliana Goldman’s question at last week’s press conference comes in for much more scrutiny. Matched to the silence of Kelley it begins raising obvious questions. Such as: • Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley? • Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone? • What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting? • Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting? • Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting? • Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff? • Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees? • What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?

Doubtless there are others, considerable others and the list of questions will grow. Not to be lost sight of here is the role of the NTEU in raising money for Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles — the exact period when the IRS was busy going after the Tea Party and the others to curb any possible influence the groups could have in the elections of 2010 and 2012. The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party. So the motivations here — defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over — are clear.

What is particularly interesting here are the automatic assumptions of the mainstream media in all of this. Like this “given” from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, bold print added for emphasis. The most corrosive of the controversies is what happened at the IRS, which singled out tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. That Obama knew nothing about it does little to quell concerns that one of the most-feared units in government was operating out of control. But if in fact the President did know about it? Here’s the Washington Post’s “Journolist” Ezra Klein: The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions.… If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open.

That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here. Exactly. Which is why it will be a curious sight indeed to see the efforts the media will go to ignore/dismiss the tight, on-the-record connection between the President personally and a vociferously anti-Tea Party union. A union that has the literal run of the IRS — and whose union chief is recorded as having met with the President in the White House the day before the IRS launched “a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases.” A decision with which, according to the IG report: “The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” Check those words from Mr. Klein again: If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal.

The question now is a simple one. In 1974, “the smoking gun” was a tape recording that ended the Nixon presidency. In 1998, the smoking gun was a blue dress — and it almost undid Bill Clinton’s White House. Now the all-too-familiar pattern of scandal and its day-by-day drip-drip-drip nature has begun to set in. Newsmax is now quoting Washington attorney and conservative activist Cleta Mitchell as saying:President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

(Page 8 of 8) “There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations.” Regular American all over the country are coming forward with their stories. Understanding the relationship between the Obama White House and the IRS union will be a must for congressional investigators. President Obama is coming perilously closer to becoming the new Nixon. The next Bill Clinton. And once again, as news of exactly what a president was doing in the Oval Office on a particular day and time goes public, yet again the old question becomes new. What did the President know? And when did he know it?

US Suspends Constitution in Permanent World War on Terror

Dees Illustration

Eric Blair Activist Post

Two disturbing developments have occurred in the last couple of days that have gone relatively unnoticed compared to the recent IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals.

First, the senate is debating an expansion of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan.  Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.

Senator Angus King said this interpretation of the AUMF is a “nullity” to the Constitution because it ignores Congress’ role to declare war.  King called it the “most astoundingly disturbing hearing” he’s been to in the Senate.

Even ultra-hawk John McCain agreed that the AUMF has gone way beyond its authority.

“This authority … has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001,” McCain said.

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece describing how this hearing reveals the not-so-secret plan to make the war on terror a permanent fixture in Western society.

Greenwald writes:

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war – justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism – that is the single greatest cause of that threat.

A self-perpetuating permanent war against a shadowy undefinable enemy appears to be the future of American foreign policy.  How convenient for the war machine and tyrants who claim surveillance is safety.

But perhaps most disturbing of all of this is the military’s authority to police American streets as if it was in civil war. For all those still in denial that America is a militarized police state, this should be the ultimate cure to your delusion.

Jeff Morey of AlterNet writes:

By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

A law from 1878 called the Posse Comitatus Act was put in place to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with local law enforcement.  But now, the DoD claims they’ve had this authority for over 100 years.

“The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy,” said an unnamed defense official who also emphasized that all soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” indicating that citizens are a threat to the Constitution.

Yet, the Constitution is a document that polices the government, not the people. In other words, the only people who can be “enemies” of the Constitution are those who took an oath to defend it. Therefore, only government officials can be an enemy the Constitution.

This follows a recent West Point study that sought to define the American people as “domestic enemies” in order to justify soldiers breaking their oath to corral pesky citizens.

The West Point Terrorism Center wrote that “conspiracy theorists” who worry that local law enforcement will be steadily replaced by federally-controlled law enforcement could potentially be a domestic enemy:

Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency.

So, as the US military claims to have the authority to be a “National Police” force, researchers who claim there is an agenda to do just that are now labeled as domestic terrorists?

Does this make any sense? Will oath takers see through these ridiculous interpretations and engage the real domestic enemy to the Constitution? Or will they just follow orders when the time comes to crack down on Americans?

Read other articles by Eric Blair Herehttp://en: http://youtu.be/2A3Djgl8M7g via @youtube

New Evidence IRS Laundering Money From Veterans Disability Checks

You know what the IRS is really great at? Breaking its own laws.

In addition to targeting conservative groups, the corrupt government agency has also been singling out disabled veterans. They do this by using banks to launder and then stealing the veterans’ disability checks.

Shameful.

The Veterans Disability Act of 2010 exempts VA disability from withholding of any sort. But the IRS has been stealing disabled veterans’ money anyways.

Kevin Lake is a 60% disabled veteran of the Iraq War. He logged onto his bank account a few months ago to find that his VA disability check had not been deposited, and that his account was in the negative. Lake contacted his bank, and was told that the IRS demanded all of the available funds be taken out of his account and wired to them. A confused Lake then called the IRS, and was placed on hold for a long time (bureaucratic government agencies tend to be efficient like that!) before he was finally able to speak with an agent. The agent claimed Lake had made $157,000 in 2010 and that he owed them money. Funny, since in 2010 Lake was still in the hospital recovering from injuries he’d sustained while in Iraq — he earned less than $10,000 that year.

Lake reminded the IRS agent that VA disability money is 100% exempt. She then placed him on hold for another substantial chunk of time (surprise, surprise!) and then told him, “We do not take veterans’ disability money. We wait until the funds are deposited from the VA and then we take all of the funds from your bank account.”

Bureaucrat language for: “We stole your money.”

Lake was a contributing writer for key Tea Party personality “Joe the Plumber”. This likely played a role in Lake being singled out by the IRS and having his money stolen in complete breach of federal law. Oh, never mind — I forgot that “partisanship or the perception of politics has no place in the IRS”, as acting commissioner Steven Miller put it.

Give me a break.

Thankfully, after a lot of persistance, Lake was successful in having the IRS give back the money they stole. But other disabled veterans may be victims of this disgraceful (and seemingly partisan) crime. Vets stand up for the rights of all Americans, but unfortunately now they must stand up for themselves to ensure that the promises of being taken care of upon return are kept.

Someone must be held accountable for this obvious, disgusting government corruption.

Written by Kristin Tate.

Follow Kristin on Twitter @KristinBTate.

Related articles:

Veteran Has His Guns Confiscated After Being Forced To Take “Psychiatric Evaluation”

Jane Fonda Tells Veterans Boycotting Her To “Get A Life”

 Letter From Veteran Harold Estes To Obama 

Veteran Refuses City’s Demand That He Stop Flying Flags To Honor Troops

Read More at MrConservative.com

Source: http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/16677-new-evidence-irs-laundering-money-from-veterans-disability-checks/

By Doc Vega

A lot has been said and written, but this promises to break the case wide open!

Ambassador Stevens carried through the streets of Benghazi for 5 hours while US media alleged he was being helped to the hospital? More Obama White House lies!

There have been many theories and accusations about the Benghazi fiasco that not only cost Ambassador J. Christian Stevens his life, but the lives of his staff and one Navy Seal body-guard as well. This action which led to a complete conflagration of terrorist attacks against US diplomatic buildings throughout the Middle East and North Africa still remains largely uninvestigated by the government, unprosecuted by AG Eric Holder’s Depart of Justice, and refuses to bring the guilty parties to justice while many know the truth and are not coming forward. Even though President Obama is implicated in this oversees tragedy still the truth has not emerged.

That has all changed. Finally, an authoritative figure with the proper credentials has stepped up to the plate to tell the true story of what did happen without the lies and cover-ups that have so far kept those guilty of murder from standing trial. The admission on the part of this man will likely blow the Benghazi scandal wide open and lead to arrests if we can get our legal system to act as it should. That, however, is a big if.

Related: Read Letter: Special Ops Vets Demand Benghazi Congressional Investigation

The story as it truly unfolded

According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.

In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.

This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.

A plot of pure deception

With what should have been only a staged kidnapping of Ambassador J. Christian Stevens, instead, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty refused a stand down order and began doing their job of protecting the ambassador using force. Immediately the well-trained Seals began inflicting heavy casualties upon the terrorists who thought they were merely in a cake walk to abduct Ambassador Stevens without mishap. As a result of the plan going awry, a massive attack arose from the anger of the terrorists who felt they had been betrayed by President Obama. In the aftermath of the battle which saw Navy Seal Glen Doherty was killed after the embassy had been overrun along with the ambassador’s staff. Ambassador Steven’s whose body showed up 5 hours later at a Benghazi hospital supposedly overcome by smoke as the initial press reports indicated was, in fact, raped, tortured, and dragged around Benghazi in retaliation for the botched Obama White House plan.

Obama hands over Libya to Al Qaeda

Was this just a freak occurrence that belies the true nature of dealings in Libya with American diplomatic efforts, just one glitch in normal standard operating procedure? No, according to former Admiral Lyons and many others such as Glen Beck, who have all uncovered evidence that lead to much more sinister deeds being undertaken. Evidence of a working relationship between the US and its alleged terrorist enemies had already delivered Libya to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization through infiltration of the government, media, and general society prior to the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi that toppled the dictator last year. That the US has worked with Al Qaeda awarding them security contracts for all US embassies and consulates as well as border protection has instead allowed Libya to become a haven for numerous terrorist operators who have automatic access to Libya’s territory to carry out their training. All this with the support and blessing of the Obama administration. This is not only unthinkable, but beyond excuse or rationalization. There should already be indictments for many in the state department, in the DOJ, all the way up to the oval office, yet, so far nothing has been done.

Treason plain and simple

It goes even farther than that. Evidence indicates that Ambassador Stevens was being used as an arms dealer to supply Jihadists in the region to support yet another uprising in Syria. Just prior to the murder of our ambassador, he was trying to locate guns that had been walked across Libya’s border to other countries just as the ATF had done in operation Fast and Furious on the border of Mexico. These are not the actions of inexperience or bad intelligence. They are the actions of traitorous intention. President Obama will, no doubt, be linked to these deaths and operations if Congress will only act, and do its duty in prosecuting a treasonous president who is endangering national security.

There is no where else for a Congressional investigation to turn other than naming the conspirators, determining when officials knew, and assembling the evidence that murder was committed on behalf of the White House to silence those who knew and could testify. Through out the Obama presidency over the last four years the administration has master minded operations that have caused numerous controversies and crises.

When will the GOP take action?

The Republicans have missed opportunities to discredit the President, to impeach Obama in the wake of waging war against Libya without Congressional approval, and allowed executive privilege to  quash subpoenaed demands for evidence on Fast and Furious never released by AG Eric Holder. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has refused to exercise initiative whenever the GOP could have used much-needed momentum to stem the tide against the incessant assaults against state’s rights, constitutional rights, and the traditional institutions of America. Will the recent <snip>ing evidence now uncovered over the Benghazi fiasco thanks to Admiral James Lyons be implemented to convict the President of potential high treason, or will we see yet another case of criminal acts ignored and hidden at the expense of the American people? If you bother to take interest and act as a responsible citizens contact your congressman and demand action!

Son Was Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya

Posted on 4 May, 2013 by Amy

Read more athttp://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/british-national-archives-show-a-son-was-born-to-obama-sr-in-1961-in-kenya/

by Dr. Eowyn |

The [British] National Archives (BNA) is an executive agency of the government of the United Kingdom. Based in Kew in southwest London, the BNA is the UK government’s official archive, containing 1,000 years of history from Domesday Book to the present, with records from parchment and paper scrolls to digital files and archived websites, including Foreign Office and Colonial Office correspondence and files. The collections held by the BNA can be searched using their online catalogue. Entrance to the Archives is free.

On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya. Reporters at the UK’s The Guardian were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found that the name of Barack Obama (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States.

But it’s not just UK journalists who can access the British National Archives; anyone can. In May 2012, someone conducted a search of the Archives using the search term “Obama” and found that an unnamed son of Obama Sr. was born in Kenya in 1961. Since the POS in the White House is the only known son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before 1963 when Kenya became officially independent from the UK, it is reasonable for us to conclude that the POS is that unnamed son of Obama Sr. born in Kenya in 1961. And in fact, the claimed birth date of the POS is August 4, 1961.

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (l); Stanley Ann Dunham (r). For a couple who supposedly married and had a child together, it is odd to say the least that there is not a single photo of Obama and Dunham together. Below are excerpts from Dan Crosby’s on-site report from Kew for The Daily Pen, “Obama’s Kenya Birth Records Discovered in British National Archives,” July 18, 2012:

Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives. [...]

It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.

Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidentally paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.

Also, the presence of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent high school graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).

The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.

The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama [Sr.] are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama [Sr.] is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.

To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.

A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).

The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama [Sr.]’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama [Sr.] birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.

However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf

[...] Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of presidentwhen he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.

[...] Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.

[...] Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. [...] The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. [...]

According to Dan Crosby, the specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files (Courtesy: British National Archives):

General Register Office SERIES RG36 Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia Legal status: Public Record(s) Language: English Creator names: General Register Office, 1836-1970 Covering Birth Registration dates: 1895-1965 Physical description: 15 volume(s) Access conditions: Available in microform only Held by: The National Archives, Kew Scope and content: Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates. Publication note: Geoffrey Yeo ‘The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom’, London, 2nd edn, 1988. Related material: Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general. Place: Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 – 1963 Subjects: Birth: registration

Read more at http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/british-national-archives-show-a-son-was-born-to-obama-sr-in-1961-in-kenya/

 

Source: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2013/05/son-was-born-to-obama-sr-in-1961-in.html