More reasons not to trust the trojan horse muslim sleeper cell that calls himself Obama.  Via WND:

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Hat/tip to WND: At about two minutes into the video below, Michelle Obama says of her husband, “What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.”

The video apparently was from a Tampa, Fla., fundraiser in December 2007.

The video:

In the next video below, Michelle Obama describes Kenya as Barack Obama’s “home country.”

The video, posted April 3 on YouTube, shows Michelle Obama saying, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

The clip comes from a June 2008 campaign speech she delivered to the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City, as reported by Reuters.

And if anyone would know where one’s husband was born, it would be the wife.

And to those of you who voted for Barack Hussein Obama, the Kenyan, Jew-hating anti-American socialist marxist fraud, afro-Muslim for president of the United States, thanks a lot, assholes.

Via Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week (see trends).

Thirty-nine percent (39%) now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy while 43% say he is doing a poor job. Those are by far his lowest ratings yet on the economy Premium Members can see crosstabs, trends, and Scott Rasmussen’s Daily Briefing.

There is a gender gap when it comes to perceptions of Obama’s performance. By a 46% to 27% margin, men Strongly Disapprove. Women are more evenly divided—33% Strongly Approve and 30% Strongly Disapprove.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters nationwide say the U.S. is heading in the right direction, the lowest level of optimism since mid-March. The Rasmussen Index shows consumer and investor confidence are down again today reaching the lowest level in three months. The Discover U.S. Spending Monitor fell for the first time in three months. A Rasmussen video report notes that 46% want the government to stay out of the housing market.

Via WND:

More than eight months after Barack Obama was elected president, the mystery surrounding his precise birthplace is deepening as the myth-busting website Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and an Obama community blog – directly contradict the president’s own claim regarding the hospital in which he was born.

In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.

But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

In Snopes’ entry concerning allegations that Obama is a “radical Muslim,” the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, “Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

WND took a screen shot of the entry and highlighted the name of the hospital.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama was brought in to destroy Israel.

Israel’s chief of staff comes home early after doors close in Obama’s Washington

March 20, 2009

“Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi cut short his visit to Washington after getting an extraordinarily cool reception from the new U.S. administration.”

• Obama about to betray Israel, says former intel official 03/20

• EU’s Solana welcomes Obama message to Iran 03/20

Lawfare:  the newest tactic in singling out Israel for harassment.  If anyone has a conscience one must be adamant about decrying and documenting the hypocrisy of the global community as it holds Israel to different standards while ignoring all the crimes against humanity committed by murderous Islamists within the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Chechnya, and murderous non-Islamist dictators in China, North Korea and Russia.

Via NGO Monitor:

As part of the political war during Israel’s operation in Gaza, 50 NGOs issued more than 500 statements accusing Israel of “wanton killing,” “deliberately targeting civilians,” and “war crimes.”   Many of the documents called for boycotts and international sanctions against Israel and suspension of EU-Israel upgrade talks.  Another aspect included demands for international investigations and “lawfare“.  Although the vast majority of previous lawfare cases have been dismissed, the damage — including the public perception of Israel, the interference with Israel’s diplomatic relations, and the movement restrictions placed on Israelis singled out for this harassment — is considerable.

This NGO Monitor Report presents Frequently Asked Questions regarding NGO lawfare on Gaza.  An Indian newspaper reported on January 25, that the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) is preparing cases in six countries, targeting 87 Israelis for harassment.  In the article, PCHR’s Director claims that “dozens of arrest warrants have already been issued.” Other NGOs calling for lawfare in the wake of the Gaza war include the Alternative Information Center, Adalah, Amnesty International, Ittijah, and the Arab Association for Human Rights.

See NGO Monitor’s monograph, NGO “Lawfare”:  Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict and “Lawfare Against Israel” for more information on this issue.

General FAQs
Gaza War-related FAQs

Q:  What is lawfare?
A:  Lawfare is the exploitation of courts in democratic countries in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations using allegations of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and other alleged violations of international law.  While these cases claim to be about obtaining “justice” for Palestinian victims, they are part of the larger political war.

Q:  When did NGOs start using lawfare as a weapon in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
A:  The tactic of lawfare against Israel was adopted at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference and is an integral part of the Durban Strategy which seeks to demonize and delegitimize Israel.  Although Israel is not the only country that has been subject to lawfare (the US and England have also been subject to suits arising out of the Iraq war), Israel is a primary target.

Q:  Where are lawfare cases initiated?
A:  NGOs exploit universal jurisdiction statutes in Europe and North America to bring these cases.  These statutes allow courts to preside even though the parties and events at issue are entirely foreign.  In some countries, such as Spain, an NGO can apply to a court directly for an arrest warrant or to launch a criminal investigation without the knowledge or approval of the government.

Q:  Who are the leaders of the lawfare movement?
A:  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, FIDH, the Center for Constitutional Rights (New York), Al Haq, and Adalah.

Q:  Who funds these NGOs?
A:  These organizations are funded by the EU, European governments (Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark), and prominent foundations such as the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute.

Q:  What are the positions of NGO superpowers such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?
A:  These NGOs support lawfare against Israel by providing publicity, organizing demonstrations, and issuing reports crafted as legal briefs to coincide with court hearings.

Q:  How many lawfare cases have been filed against Israelis?
A:  Since the adoption of the lawfare strategy, at least ten cases have been filed against Israelis in England, New Zealand, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, and elsewhere.   Nine of the cases have been dismissed at the preliminary stages and one case is still pending in lower court.  Despite the dismissals, the damage — including the public perception of Israel, the interference with Israel’s diplomatic relations, and the movement restrictions placed on Israelis singled out for this harassment — is considerable.

Q:  Why don’t NGOs bring cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice?
A:   Israel is not a party to the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice due to the overtly political nature of these bodies. The UN Security Council, however, can refer a case to the ICC and the UN General Assembly can refer cases for advisory opinions to the ICJ.  In 2004, the GA referred a case to the ICJ for an advisory opinion regarding the “legality” of Israel’s separation barrier.  Advisory Opinions issued by the ICJ are not legally binding.  In the wake of the Gaza War, NGOs such as the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH (France)) are lobbying the UN for either a Security Council referral to the ICC or a General Assembly referral to the ICJ.  According to media reports, Amnesty International is transferring files to the ICC Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel.  These reports make no mention of Amnesty transferring files to the ICC Prosecutor regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.

Q:  What NGOs have been issuing calls for lawfare since the start of the Gaza War?
A:  PCHR is preparing for lawsuits to be filed abroad and appears to be focusing on filing a case for the killing of  Nizar Rayan, one of the leading architects of Hamas atrocities and who sent his son on a suicide bombing mission in 2001.  An Indian newspaper reported on January 25, that PCHR is preparing cases in six countries, targeting 87 Israelis for harassment.  In the article, PCHR’s Director claims that “dozens of arrest warrants have already been issued.” Other NGOs calling for lawfare in the wake of the Gaza war include the Alternative Information Center (“Barak and all Israeli Leaders—To the Hague“), Adalah (Statement to the UN Human Rights Council), Amnesty International (Oral Statement to the UN HRC, Open Letter to George Mitchell), Ittijah (Adalah is a coalition member — January 7, 2009 Press Release), and the Arab Association for Human Rights (“Israel is not above International Law,” January 7, 2009 Press Release).  One anonymous group established a website, entitled “Wanted,” with pictures of Israeli government and military officials.  The website asks those with “information about the suspect[s] when [they] are outside of the Israeli borders” to contact the Prosecutor of the ICC.

Q:  Are Israeli NGOs such as B’Tselem involved in lawfare?
A:  NIF- and EU- funded Israeli NGOs such as B’Tselem, Gisha, Yesh Din, Mossawa, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel are not at this stage overtly calling for lawfare, but have issued tens of statements leveling charges against Israel such as “collective punishment”, “wanton” use of force, “deliberate” and “unprecedented” harm to civilians, “blatant violation of the laws of warfare,” and “suspicion” of “war crimes.”  B’Tselem even claimed that “it is hard to think of a clear military advantage which could be accomplished” by the killing of Rayan.  These one-sided statements, the distortions of international law, and the emotive “testimonies” collected by these organizations contribute to hostility towards Israel and can underpin any lawfare cases that are filed.

Q:  What is the Israeli government doing to combat lawfare?
A:  The Israeli government is taking the threat of lawfare seriously. The IDF has established a team of legal and military experts to collect evidence which can be used to exonerate its officials.  It has appointed an inter-ministerial team, headed by Justice Minister Prof. Daniel Friedman to defend any Israeli subject to suit.  The army is also protecting the identities of battalion and brigade commanders who participated in the war.  However, the government is largely reactive and has not addressed the core role of NGOs and their funders.

Q:  Is there merit to the NGO claims against Israel?
A:  The NGOs calling for lawfare base their allegations on faulty legal premises, factual distortions, and unreliable “eyewitness” testimony.  These NGOs do not possess the military or other factual information necessary to level their charges.  Many NGOs claim Israel breached the laws of war by attacking the Hamas government and its police force on the basis that these are “civilian” entities.   There is no basis, however, for labeling the Hamas government or its police force as civilian, and there is clear evidence that members of these institutions have been involved in attacks.

These NGOs also distort international law by claiming Israel committed “war crimes” by attacking military targets located within civilian infrastructure such as homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals.  Under the Geneva Conventions, the presence of civilians does not render military targets immune, and any civilian deaths resulting from Hamas’ use of human shields in these areas are the responsibility of the terror organization and not Israel.

Many NGOs claim to have greater military knowledge than the IDF, questioning the military advantage of various targets.   In fact, former British army colonel Richard Kemp noted on the BBC that there has been “no time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the deaths of innocent people than the [Israel Defense forces did in Gaza.]“   (For more faulty legal claims against Israel, see NGO Monitor’s report: “The NGO Front in the Gaza War:  Exploitation of International Law.”)

Q:  Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim that their researchers in Gaza have found “prima facie” evidence of “war crimes”. Is this evidence reliable?
A:  No.  NGOs researchers are not trained professionals in evidence or forensic collection.  These NGOs rarely name their researchers, specify the collection methodology, or identify witnesses.  There is no way of ensuring that this “evidence” is preserved according to forensic standards or that NGO researchers have maintained a recognizable chain of custody.  Due to the absence of any standards or publication of their methods, NGO “evidence” is impossible to corroborate or verify.  The New York-based NGO Human Rights First, has criticized NGO involvement as actually being harmful to a criminal investigation because, “[m]ost NGOs do not employ trained criminal investigators” and this “untrained collection of physical or forensic evidence” can “limit its value” before a court.

Q:  Have these same NGOs called for lawfare against Hamas, Iran or Syria?
A:  No.  In contrast to the many appeals for lawfare against Israel, very few, if any, of these NGOs call for the filing of cases against Hamas.   Hamas war crimes, such as deliberately attacking Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets and mortars; the widespread use of human shields within Gaza; and the killing and maiming of Gazan civilians from premature denotation of Hamas weaponry and “work accidents” are completely ignored.   These NGOs also remain silent regarding the violation of Gilad Shalit’s rights under the Geneva Conventions as a prisoner of war.  Similarly, Iran and Syria — Hamas’ sponsors and conspirators in its legal violations — are not called to account.

For Further Background Reading:

“Lawfare,” David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2007

“Israel, Gaza, and International Law,” Alan Dershowitz, The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2009

“Amnesty International’s anti-Israel stance undermines human rights and international law,” Prof. Avi Bell, Jurist Hotline Blog, January 5, 2009

“International Law and the fighting in Gaza,” Justice Reid Weiner and Avi Bell, MESI, December 29, 2008
To read the full report, click here.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. Via JPost:

Nuaf Atar said Hamas set up rocket launchers and fired rockets into Israel from within school compounds since they knew Israel would not bomb the schools.

Zabhi Atar revealed that Hamas used food coupons to entice Palestinians to join its ranks, and Hamad Zalah said Hamas took control of UNRWA food supplies transferred to Gaza and refused to distribute them to people affiliated with Fatah.

These are examples of testimony from Hamas and Islamic Jihad men who were captured by the IDF during the recent operation in Gaza.

More about the human rights frauds at the UN, via UN Watch:

UN Watch, an independent non-governmental organization that monitors the UN human rights system in Geneva, today expressed concern over an unprecedented breach of jurisdiction by a group of UN officials who issued a statement on the Hamas-Israel war, despite having defined mandates on entirely unrelated issues.

According to UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, “The vast majority of the experts purportedly represented by the committee in its statement today have entirely unrelated mandates, including on countries like Somalia, Haiti, Burundi, Cambodia, North Korea, or on issues like toxic waste and transnational corporations. They have no legal authority to speak on issues irrelevant to the defined mandates given them by the Human Rights Council.  What one expert cannot address on his or her own does not become justiciable simply by joining others. There are grounds for concern that basic procedures at the Arab-controlled U.N. human rights council and its related entities will fall by the wayside when Israel is in the news and a potential target.”

The mandate of the representative committee of experts gives it no independent authority to issue statements on country situations.

Worse, said Neuer, the imbalanced content of the statement “seems to follow the party line of the Human Rights Council that oversees these officials, which has condemned Israel in 20 out of 25 of its resolutions on countries, while legitimizing Hamas terrorism and rocket attacks.”

“The word Hamas appears nowhere in their statement, and its responsibility for the crisis — as acknowledged by the Arab leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority — is nowhere mentioned by the UN experts. Nor is there any mention of the double war crime of Hamas’ targeting of Israeli civilians and then hiding among Palestinian civilians. UN Watch reminds the UN experts of their solemn obligation to be objective in carrying out their work.”

The messiah-elect pretends that he serves a higher order than his own political identity.  Via OneJerusalem:

Last week, President-elect Obama’s decision to use his middle name, Hussein, at his swearing in caused a slight stir. A few cynics asked, “Why did he bury his middle name during the campaign and now decide to bring it front and center?”

Undoubtedly, he felt his middle name might cost him votes, so he tried to keep it quiet.

What is more interesting than this minor disturbance are reports that Obama is moving ahead with plans to journey to a Muslim land and deliver a major speech on Muslim/Western relations. Obama mentioned this idea on the campaign trail and now the question appears to be which Muslim nation will he choose.

One would hope that Obama revisits this idea and questions its value.

Amir Tahari analyzes the upsides and the downsides of such a speech. The symbolism of an American President using one of his first speeches to address the Muslim world would be historic. Of course, whatever country he chooses will raise questions as to why he didn’t choose another country. But setting that aside, what message does he have to deliver?

Don’t believe Barack Obama’s grandmother? Don’t believe the ambassador to Kenya? How about Barack Obama’s own Cabinet member? That’s right – former presidential candidate and Obama’s choice for secretary of commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, slipped up. In an effort to reach out to the Hispanic community, he admitted what Barack Obama has been trying to hide all these months: “Barack Obama is an immigrant.” See it for yourself:

Via WND:

Heard the rumors about Barack Obama’s citizenship?These are the facts:

The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen.

Text of Article II, Section 1.

Obama’s grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya.

Two tapes of Obama’s paternal grandmother:

1. “Native of this village” in Kenya

2. Phone conversation about visiting birthplace

Affidavit of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931

Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate.

Obama’s birth certificate sealed … – Article by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Oct. 26

Instead of a birth certificate, Obama’s campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad.

The alleged “Certification of Live Birth”

A document on Hawaii’s official website stating “Certificate of Live Birth” is better than the “Certification” for native Hawaiians to obtain certain benefits

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd409.htm

Experts have called even that document an “obvious forgery.”

Detailed Report by “Dr. Ron Polarik”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZwON6dKHks&feature=channel

Obama attended school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, when only Indonesian citizens were permitted to attend.

Obama’s school records list his father as Lolo Soetoro and Obama’s citizenship as Indonesian.

For both of the above statements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&feature=channel

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656

Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when it was illegal to enter as a U.S. citizen.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-says-he-visited-pakistan-in-1981

http://www.pak-times.com/2008/07/10/obamas-larkana-cnnection/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656

Sixteen lawsuits in 12 states and two cases before the Supreme Court now challenge Obama’s citizenship.

Tulsa Today article listing many of the individuals and organizations who are challenging Obama’s eligibility

Fact: Our Constitution still matters. www.obamaforgery.com

Help us get this ad on television: Go to www.f2a.org and every dollar of your donation will go to airtime from now until Dec. 15 (when the Electoral College voters cast their ballots).

Then let Fox know what you think about the censorship of this ad: 212-301-3000. You can also call CNN and encourage them to take the ad and cover the critical citizenship story: 404-827-1500.