Based on all of the relationships we already know about, is this one really that much of a stretch? After all, it has been confirmed thanks to Trevor Loudon and New Zeal blog that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis and Valerie Jarrett's Father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett were colleagues in Chicago before Davis moved to Hawaii.
So is it really a reach to believe that Tim Geithner's father, Peter F. Geithner and Barack Obama's mother crossed paths in Indonesia? According to CHINA DAILY:
Geithner's paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from Zeulenroda, Germany to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1908. His father, Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by S. Ann Dunham-Soetoro, President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once. Timothy Geithner's mother, Deborah Moore Geithner, is a pianist and piano teacher in Larchmont, New York where his parents currently reside. Geithner's maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and served as Vice President of Public Relations from 1952-1964 for Ford Motor Company.
Really. What are the odds that Barack Obama's mother and Timothy Geithner's father knew each other and met at least once in Indonesia? Given that reality, what are the odds of Barack appointing Timothy being pure coincidence and having nothing to do with that relationship?
As for the FORD FOUNDATION, I don't know much about them but their search engine turned up a lot of hits when I entered Peter Geithner's NAME.
As if we need another scandal. Yet, the one involving former NBA star / Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, AmeriCorps (Obama's pet project), and a cast of shady characters continues to develop new plot lines. Turns out accusations that Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS) head, Alan Solomont had conversations with First Lady Michelle Obama's office are true despite his claims to the contrary. CNCS is the parental entity over AmeriCorps.
When Investigator General Gerald Walpin insisted on pressing an issue involving Johnson's misuse of taxpayer dollars, he was abruptly fired by the White House, even though the law states he must be given 30 day notice and congress must be involved. Johnson is a buddy of Barack Obama.
This scandal has many layers but the purpose of this post is to reveal a new one. Specifically, regarding Alan Solomont, Byron York has REPORTED:
Congressional investigators looking into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin have discovered that the head of AmeriCorps met with a top aide to First Lady Michelle Obama the day before Walpin was removed.
According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady's chief of staff. But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California.
What? Another Lie? Say it ain't so.
Don't you just love this explanation?
After being presented with the visitor logs, investigators say, Solomont explained that he met with Norris to discuss Corporation business but did not discuss the Walpin matter. When pressed, Solomont said he might have made an offhand comment, or a mention in passing, about the Walpin affair, but that he and Norris did not have a discussion about it.
Meeting with Jackie Norris would have been equivalent to meeting with Michelle Obama, which is why Solomont might not want to list his meetings, of which there three that have been confirmed. These meetings would indicate that the First Lady's interest in AmeriCorps may have been strong enough to reasonably question her level of involvement in the Walipn firing.
Here comes the most unbelievable story.
...Solomont denied talking to Norris. Then, in November, White House visitor logs showed that Solomont had been to the White House 17 times between President Obama's inauguration and the July 15 interview, and had met with Norris on three of those occasions, including June 9. In a follow-up interview conducted December 8, Republican investigators asked Solomont why he had not previously disclosed his meetings with Norris.
So the head of CNCS and by extension, AmeriCorps. met with Michelle Obama's Chief of Staff one day before Walpin was fired and we're to believe the subject never came up?!
Boy, that Joe Wilson character is aging like a fine wine.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has some interesting information via an inside source behind the scenes of the healthcare debate taking place on Capitol Hill this week. It's looking more and more like Harry Reid was simply trying to portray optimism in the hopes it would actually rub off and give his diabolical plot a boost.
Here is the exchange:
John: Hey, if this latest Medicare/healthcare bill goes down in flames, will Reid go for reconciliation? Also, I assume if this fails, we're into January, right?
Senate Aide X: Yes, January and I doubt if they'll go for reconciliation.
John: Why do you doubt reconciliation? I ask because I am thinking it won't get 60.
Senate Aide X: I just haven't heard any talk of it.
John: Do you think it will get 60? I am thinking, no.
Senate Aide X: I don't doubt the Dems may do anything to pass it, so I'm not ready to declare it dead.
John: But still, it's looking grim right?
Senate Aide X: They are in much worse shape now than a week ago. If the bill dies this week, it will be because Dems just let it crumble through infighting and the Tea Party/American people standing up in August and demanding through weeks of recent phone calls and protests that it be stopped.
John: If it were to pass somehow, do you think it could die going through ping pong, back and forth between the House?
Senate Aide X: No! Pelosi will rubber stamp whatever the Senate passes.
John: So, you think all these demands from the Left about the public option and the Blue Dogs saying they have to have the Stupak Amendment in there are all for show?
Senate Aide X: No, the left-roots passion is real, but if you are Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, you know this is a one shot deal. This moment won't happen again soon and it's better to cut any deal you can to socialize health care as much as you can now. Take the win, go for more later.
John: One last thing: Chances of passing a health care bill? Give me a percentage.
A few years old but worth the watch. Sent in by Webmaster Mitch, take a walk down memory lane with Bob and Doug McKenzie. Also take note of the Canadian health care system. Weird Al Yankovic doesn't do a bad job with this one. Go ahead an hit "play". You know you can't help it.
Heck, what else are you going to do for the next two minutes.
Seventeen-year old Rifqa Bary is currently in Columbus awaiting her fate. As she does, it appears we have some very interesting developments. The Columbus Dispatch's Meredith Heagney has been suspected of being sympathetic to Bary's Muslim parents and the larger Muslim community in Columbus in general. Now it looks like the Barys conducted media interviews in the offices of CAIR with the CAIR representative likely counseling them on how to respond.
Not only that but the interviewers, including Heagney, seemed to parrot the talking points spouted by the Barys and sanctioned by CAIR.
a source who was inside a secret strategy meeting conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) earlier this week has conveyed the strategy that the media's favorite Islamist group has devised to respond to the ongoing public relations crisis. According to my source who attended the strategy session, CAIR officials handed out copies of this Orlando Sentinel article and want supporters to push the meme that Christians have brainwashed and abducted this gullible teenage girl. They have also instructed supporters to circulate rumors that Rifqa had been carousing with infidel boys and engaged in acts of immorality. This CAIR strategy takes the focus off the near-universal Islamic legal precepts and Quranic injunctions that demand death for apostates and impugns the character of the innocent girl at the center of this controversy who appears to be in genuine fear for her life if she is returned to her parents.
That media narrative of Rifqa being brainwashed and abducted by a Christian cult was one that was carried by many media outlets, most notably Meredith "Hijab" Heagney of the Columbus Dispatch, Michael Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times, among others. In all their reporting, however, they carefully left the connections of the terror-tied CAIR out of their stories.
But from my source inside CAIR comes new information indicating media complicity with respect to concealing CAIR's backstage management of the case on behalf of Rifqa's allegedly abusive parents.
These reporters are too cowardly to be complicit in this absurdity. Again, it would appear that a more likely answer would be STOCKHOLMSYNDROME.
As Allegory arrived in Copenhagen, journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer attempted to challenge him on what Allegory has maintained in interviews, that the most recent emails in climategate are 10 years old. Considering that is flat out wrong and likely a conscious lie, it's really no wonder his entourage masquerading as U.N. thugs were a little irritable. Then again, maybe allegory was acting vicariously through them out of anger at having to cancel is $1209 per person event that allowed ticket holders to shake his hand while being given a snack.
Keep watching as one of the light blue shirted thugs rips the microphone cord from McAleer's microphone. McAleer was also the same guy who challenged Gore a couple of months ago about the abundance of polar bears - a direct contradiction to Allegory's claims.
At another event in Copenhagen, McAleer asks a Stanford University professor to comment on climategate. Watch as the professor becomes more emotional than necessary.
I find it amazing that these U.N. thugs not only act just like ACORN and SEIU but like to bully people that pose no threat to them. I wonder how that guy would have reacted if five Imams had done the same thing.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is officially championing a view that is incoherent. This is what happens when you double down on something as absurd as climategate. As a result of the CRU emails being exposed, Blair has apparently decided that he must concede that the science of man-made global warming is not proven. However, in the same breath, he says the movement to cut back on energy should continue forward.
Following the ‘climategate scandal’, Mr Blair said the science may not be “as certain as its proponents allege”.
But he said the world should act as a precaution against floods, droughts and mass extinction caused by climate change, in fact it would be “grossly irresponsible” not to.
By calibrating his position like this, Blair is exposing himself as someone willing to perpetuate an agenda based on an unproven set of premises and he is apparently willing to do it at the peril of his own country, which is a developed nation that would have to cut back on its emissions in order to help poorer nations.
What does this reality say about Blair? Does it say he's willing to sell out his country? If he truly believed the world was in trouble as a direct result of man-made global warming and was willing to lead his nation in the "sacrifice" of cutting back on emissions, wouldn't he be using the occasion of climategate to get angry at those who have been perpetuating the fraudulent science?
Instead, he is still siding with them and in doing so, is aligning with a global organization (UN) against his own country. By taking this position on climategate, Blair has portrayed himself in a potentially treasonous light. Blair is quoted as saying:
“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.”
Based on what? Where is this "huge amount of scientific support"? If Blair wasn't part of this fraud, wouldn't he be outraged at its being exposed?
Have you ever considered applying Obama's economic principles to those who rely on the "comb-over", Hair Club for Men, or in Joe Biden's case, hair plugs? This 30 second video does a pretty good job of doing it. I guess there would be fewer "bald-faced" lies in such a world but gosh dog, everyone is sure to look uglier than they otherwise would.
About one year ago, then president-elect Barack Obama found himself a little too close to a Chicago scandal involving Governor Rod Blagojevich and Obama's soon to be vacated senate seat. Candidate #1 to fill Obama's seat was allegedly Valerie Jarrett, who may be doing more damage to the country as a senior White House adviser to the president than she would have as a senator.
Obama's now Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may have felt the most heat when it came to Obama's inner circle as speculation that his phone calls with Blago were recorded. In the weeks following the announcement by Patrick Fitzgerald that Blago was being arrested, the FBI conducted interviews with Obama, Jarrett, Emanuel, et al.
Rod Blagojevich's lawyers want the FBI to give up details of interviews conducted last year of President Obama, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and others as part of the investigation into the former governor.
In a Friday filing, Blagojevich attorneys also asked for information regarding first lady Michelle Obama. However, a source said late Friday that the FBI never interviewed the first lady.
Blagojevich's attorneys are asking for the FBI to release the transcripts / recordings of those interviews. If Blago gets his wish and can unequivocally prove that any or all of the three were lying, this could get very interesting.
Yesterday, Obama found himself at a new low in the passion index at -19 (gap between those who strongly approve and disapprove of his performance). While he's at a -18 today in that index, he has achieved a new low when it comes to his overall performance. That number is now at 44% and all signs point to that slide continuing. It looks like the "at least somewhat approve" camp got a little crowded when a significant percentage of "strongly approvers" began showing up.
A consequence may have been that a contingent of "somewhat approvers" moved on down to the "somewhat disapprove" category. Keep an eye on this one. We may be witnessing the beginning of a serious shakeup in support for this president. The "strongly disapprove" camp appears to be the only that hasn't really seen a shift yet. However, if there's a number being watched closely by this president, it's that one. Of the four categories, it is one he definitely doesn't want to see grow.
Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton does it again! While in Copenhagen, he confronts a woman from Greenpeace about global warming. In defense of the lady, she seems very nice and appears to have been unfortunately brainwashed. Monckton hits her with fact after fact that she can't refute. She simply says she's going on "faith" when asked why she believes what she does without having looked at the raw data for herself.
Possibly the most telling portion of this exchange comes at the end when Monckton asks her if she would still hold the views she currently does if he were able to prove to her that the facts he claims he has on his side are indeed true.
Her response? You have to see it to believe it. Video courtesy of LoudStudios with h/t going to HA.
By the way, LoudStudio's page has an interesting quote below the video of Monckton and this lady from Greenpeace. It is from Hitler's, "Mein Kampf". In light of this exchange, it would seem this entire Environmental movement may be explained thusly:
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf , vol.1, ch. 10, 1925
Now as you let that Hitler quote sink in, take a look at this and see if it doesn't give you a few chills (pun intended).
"Evil can only succeed when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
