By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
At the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s, many Americans fighting for survival ended up living in crudely built shantytowns known as "Hoovervilles," in humiliating honor of President Herbert Hoover, who many blamed for the economic distress.
Sacramento, Calif., was home to one of America's "Hoovervilles" in the mid 1930s during the Great Depression
Now in 2010, radio giant Rush Limbaugh is declaring the United States has become one giant "Obamaville," thanks directly to the policies of President Barack Obama.
"The whole country is Obamaville," Limbaugh said on his program today. "Obama is Herbert Hoover. You know they used to call those unemployment camps Hoovervilles. Well, now we're going to see Obamavilles springing up all across the nation."
"Hoover was trying to fix things. Obama's not. The only difference is Obama is doing this on purpose. Hoover wasn't."
Limbaugh took direct aim at the president's comments yesterday when Obama insisted, "The economy is strengthening, we are into recovery."
"It's the summer of recovery. How's that working out for you?" Limbaugh asked facetiously. "Thirteen thousand, 13,000 private-sector jobs added in June. If you divide 13,000 by 50, just for illustration purposes, you get 260 jobs created in the private sector per state. Two hundred sixty jobs per state. This is Herbert Hoover-type stuff."
Obama made his statement shortly after new figures indicated consumer confidence tumbled in June, sending stock markets worldwide plummeting.
"We have gone from losing 750,000 jobs per month to five months of job growth now – private-sector job growth that is obviously so important to consumer confidence and the well-being of the economy overall," Obama said.
"According to Obama, this is progress, because we're not losing 700,000 jobs a month," Limbaugh noted. "Now, consider how stupid that is. We were never going to lose 700,000 jobs per month for years and years, because we don't have enough people working age to lose 700,000 jobs every month for years and years."
The conservative host reminded listeners about "massive tax increases hitting next January."
"People are still not sure how much it's going to cost them, particularly businesses. That's why there's no hiring," Limbaugh explained. "I took heat, and in some sectors, ladies and gentlemen, I'm still taking heat for saying I wanted Obama to fail. But I wanted him to fail because I want the nation to succeed. We now see that Obama succeeding does not equal the nation succeeding, and that is a major, major thing for people to have to come to grips with."
As the U.S. heads toward a weekend celebrating its 234th anniversary since its official founding in 1776, Limbaugh lamented the political party currently in charge was "happily, apparently" presiding over the nation's decline, "which in fact may be one of the purposes."
"The 'can't dos' from our elected and appointed officials, both at the federal and state level, are piling up," he said. "Consider the following:
"'I can't suck the oil up with a straw,' said President Obama when asked what he was doing about the BP spill that began April 20. Nor could he approve the building of sand berms, or the suspension of the Jones Act, which would have let foreign skimmers into U.S. waters to help with the oil cleanup.
"'You're never going to totally seal that border,' said Janet Napolitano, making excuses for why Homeland Security has essentially ceded entire parts of Arizona to violent Mexican smuggling rings while still seeking 'comprehensive immigration reform,'" and suing the state of Arizona and joining boycotts, the federal government. That's really confidence inspiring.
"'I think the world understands now that growth in the future around the world cannot depend as much on the United States as it did in the past,' opined Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in a defeatist interview with the BBC before the G-20 summit.
"'There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession' was how Vice President Joe Biden put it at a fundraiser for Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. But wasn't that the reason for the $862 billion stimulus package, the $700 billion in bailouts and the takeover of the auto industry and Wall Street? Wasn't it to get back the eight million jobs that were lost?
"And now this inspiring regime says, 'Ah, sorry, can't happen, can't close the border, not gonna lead the world, not sure we want to win in Afghanistan, screw the oil leak, and not going to get those 8 million jobs back.'"
Limbaugh concluded, "This is the can't-do administration. This is the won't-do administration. This is unparalleled. Never in my lifetime has there been an administration that is so filled daily with depression, negativism, can't-doism. There is nothing that is reflective of American exceptionalism, of the great American spirit represented anywhere in this regime. It's all malaise."
As WND reported in December, residents of Colorado Springs, Colo., saw a sign reading "Welcome to Obamaville" on the site of a homeless tent camp in the city.
The sign, which was visible from the Cimarron Street ramp to Interstate 25, clearly conveyed a political jab at rising unemployment under Obama, as it read in full, "Welcome to Obamaville – Colorado's fastest growing community."
Public reaction on a local TV station's website was mixed over the sign's message:
"Lay the blame where you will, I think it is a hoot and a great historical throwback to Hooverville," wrote a reader named daman in an online comment. "These are the worst times I've seen in my 40-plus years, and I am glad my kids get to see it early. Maybe they'll learn to grow and be compassionate, yet personally fiscal conservatives."
A poster named Nick, however, was critical: "That is pretty low to use a right-wing political agenda and attack the homeless during the worst recession in a generation and especially during the holiday.
--------------
Joe Kovacs is executive news editor for WorldNetDaily.com and author of the No. 1 best-seller that champions the truth of Scripture and reveals your spectacular, ultimate destiny that's far more glorious than just floating on clouds: "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told."
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Why Obamanomics Has Failed
Uncertainty about future taxes and regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth.
By ALLAN H. MELTZER
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready" projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right, but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.
Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.
That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth.
------------------
Mr. Meltzer is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).
By ALLAN H. MELTZER
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready" projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right, but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.
Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.
That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth.
------------------
Mr. Meltzer is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Hawaii elections official victim of vicious smears
BORN IN THE USA?
Honolulu clerk alleging cover-up: 'They have failed quite miserably'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The former Honolulu elections official who alleges Barack Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii and that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate even exists for the president in the Aloha State now says he's the victim of a vicious smear campaign, threatening his position as an instructor at Western Kentucky University.
"There have been attempts by various parties, some bloggers and others to attempt to discredit [my] claims, but none of them has held up to any scrutiny or rebuttal," Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk in 2008 for the city and county of Honolulu, is now telling WND.
"My university was deluged with phone calls and e-mails, many of which were either supportive or neutral, but some folks took it upon themselves to actively try and smear or oust me."
He also says he's experienced "some minor inconveniences."
"My computer, e-mails, financial records and school records have all be subjected to fishing expeditions by various authorities. Strange, I'm still here."
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii, and a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not exist in the state.
Adams, 45, a Hillary Clinton supporter who now teaches English while he works on his master's degree, burst onto the national scene in a WND story June 10 in which he asserted Obama was not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains.
"There is no birth certificate," he said. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."
Yet Adams also believes Obama is a U.S. citizen who is eligible to be president.
Since WND's original story, Adams has said he's willing to testify in court about the matter, and he appeared on an ABC television affiliate to reiterate his claims.
He also says he's been contacted by Fox News about a possible appearance.
His direct contradiction of the White House storyline that Obama was born in Hawaii has sparked detractors to attack him personally online and on the air.
Adams explains: "I was, among other claims made by these 'concerned citizens,' a Nazi, a skinhead, a racist, and a host of other epithets, yet they could point to nothing in my writing or statements that would give credence to their claims; and trust me, they tried their best to find something. In doing so, they overlooked any and all evidence that might not be useful to their desires – the very thing they love to accuse conservatives of doing constantly. I have never been a part of any racialist group, nor espoused any racist doctrines, not that that matters to them."
In just one flagrant example, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann actually branded Adams as a "white supremacist" as he gave his nightly honor of "Worst Persons in the World" to the "fine fantasists at WorldNetDaily" for its original report about Adams' claims. Video of the show is embedded here:
"Oops! You're quoting white supremacists about a black president," Olbermann said. "Well done, WorldNetDaily!"
WND's story from which Olbermann was reading quoted Adams only based on WND's own, exclusive, hour-long phone interview with the former elections official, and mentioned no one else making any similar claim about Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate being non-existent.
Adams, did, however, initially make his allegation June 5 on a show hosted by James Edwards of WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tenn. The show's website describes Edwards – not Tim Adams – as having an "unapologetically pro-white viewpoint."
But if anyone is racist against blacks on this issue, Adams says it is those who suggest Obama is not eligible to hold office.
"They don't like having someone who's not white," he told Kentucky's WBKO-TV, "or they don't like someone who's from such a different heritage as President Obama, because his family has ties to Africa. His family also has ties to middle America, so to me it's also a non-issue."
"I'm hardly the typical paleoconservative," he now tells WND. "Things have reached the point in our society that anyone who is seen as supporting conservative, traditional or Christian views is immediately painted as either an extremist or racist. I find it strange no one complained about my supposed radicalism for talking with and doing research on the Native Hawaiian Secessionist Movement, or La Raza, or when I hung out with members of the Vicelords or Latin Kings. Only when I appeared on a pro-white political activism site was I suddenly suspect."
Regarding his attackers, Adams says, "They have failed quite miserably, despite some going so far as too attempt to backtrack blog entries attributed to me from several years ago in other states and lacking my name. Others have looked at my small amount of undergraduate work, and since they could find no racist or other derogatory statements there, simply tried to denigrate the material. They, too, have failed."
Adams is now reiterating his three basic claims, none of which he finds "particularly groundbreaking or unusual:"
"I was employed as a senior elections clerk in charge of the absentee-balloting office in Honolulu during the initial part of the last elections cycle.
I was told by my superiors during the time of the original controversy surrounding President Obama's birth, that a long-form birth certificate is not filed at the HHD (Hawaii Health Department).
It is my opinion, despite this fact, that President Obama was born a citizen of the United States, and is indeed eligible to hold office."
Regarding Adams' last point, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution says to be eligible for the presidency, a candidate must be a "natural born citizen," not merely a citizen of the country. While the Constitution itself does not define the term, some legal experts contend "natural born" means being born on U.S. soil, as well as being the child of two U.S. citizens.
"My offense seems to be having offended both extremes of the Left and the Right," Adams told WND.
"The Right doesn't like my opinion that once certified by the government like any other candidate, President Obama was legally able to hold office. The Left doesn't like the notion that there was a cover-up of President Obama's birth. So I get it from both sides, some of whom simply lie, and some of whom go so far as to try and find anything I've stated over the past decade that might discredit me. Why? Nothing I've said is outrageous or hard to verify."
WND confirmed with Hawaiian officials that Adams was indeed working in their election offices during the last presidential election.
"His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu. Takahashi indicated Adams was in charge of verifying voters' identity, especially those involving absentee ballots.
Some of Adams' critics have derided him online as being just "a temp" at the elections office.
"The temporary status of my GS-15 level contract was not some temp agency worker," Adams explains. "The current manager of the office [is] a lady who has worked there for about a decade – eight of those years she was on the same contract I possessed – [as] they are renewed annually following performance reviews. Getting a permanent, civil-service position is something that requires lots of hard work and time in a city like Honolulu, where everyone is competing for these secure, well-paying jobs. Glen [Takahashi] won't say I'm a liar, but I have inadvertently caused him quite a bit of trouble."
Adams stresses he was a manager at the elections office.
"I had a secretary, private office, two assistants and about 50 temp workers [under me]."
He also notes he had access to numerous government databases, including police, Social Security, driver's license bureau and voter's registration, not to mention "unfettered Internet access, something else the workers didn't possess."
During the summer of 2008, there were conflicting reports Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, also located in the capital city. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.
"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."
"In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state."
To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation that Obama was born at its facility.
WND's original report about Adams' claims has already been made into a YouTube video, now getting some 400,000 hits:
To date, Obama himself has still not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.
The White House has only proffered on the Internet a "Certification of Live Birth" to assert he was born in Hawaii, but that document was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth.
Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. State law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.
"Anyone can get that [Certification of Live Birth]," said Adams. "They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population [in Hawaii]. It's quite common for people to come back and get that."
As WND reported last July, the Kapi'olani Medical Center trumpeted – then later concealed – a letter allegedly written by President Obama in which he ostensibly declares his birth at the facility.
"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.
This excerpt (below) from the alleged Obama letter is perhaps the first formal declaration from the president about his exact birthplace. The White House has still not confirmed if the letter or its contents are authentic.
"the Kapi'olani Medical Center - the place of my birth"
This excerpt from the alleged Obama letter is perhaps the first formal declaration from the president about his exact birthplace. The White House has still not confirmed if the letter or its contents are authentic.
But the authenticity of that letter remains in doubt. Since WND raised questions about the veracity of the letter itself and its content, the White House has refused to say if the message is real and if its text originated with the president.
Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Honolulu clerk alleging cover-up: 'They have failed quite miserably'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The former Honolulu elections official who alleges Barack Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii and that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate even exists for the president in the Aloha State now says he's the victim of a vicious smear campaign, threatening his position as an instructor at Western Kentucky University.
"There have been attempts by various parties, some bloggers and others to attempt to discredit [my] claims, but none of them has held up to any scrutiny or rebuttal," Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk in 2008 for the city and county of Honolulu, is now telling WND.
"My university was deluged with phone calls and e-mails, many of which were either supportive or neutral, but some folks took it upon themselves to actively try and smear or oust me."
He also says he's experienced "some minor inconveniences."
"My computer, e-mails, financial records and school records have all be subjected to fishing expeditions by various authorities. Strange, I'm still here."
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii, and a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not exist in the state.
Adams, 45, a Hillary Clinton supporter who now teaches English while he works on his master's degree, burst onto the national scene in a WND story June 10 in which he asserted Obama was not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains.
"There is no birth certificate," he said. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."
Yet Adams also believes Obama is a U.S. citizen who is eligible to be president.
Since WND's original story, Adams has said he's willing to testify in court about the matter, and he appeared on an ABC television affiliate to reiterate his claims.
He also says he's been contacted by Fox News about a possible appearance.
His direct contradiction of the White House storyline that Obama was born in Hawaii has sparked detractors to attack him personally online and on the air.
Adams explains: "I was, among other claims made by these 'concerned citizens,' a Nazi, a skinhead, a racist, and a host of other epithets, yet they could point to nothing in my writing or statements that would give credence to their claims; and trust me, they tried their best to find something. In doing so, they overlooked any and all evidence that might not be useful to their desires – the very thing they love to accuse conservatives of doing constantly. I have never been a part of any racialist group, nor espoused any racist doctrines, not that that matters to them."
In just one flagrant example, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann actually branded Adams as a "white supremacist" as he gave his nightly honor of "Worst Persons in the World" to the "fine fantasists at WorldNetDaily" for its original report about Adams' claims. Video of the show is embedded here:
"Oops! You're quoting white supremacists about a black president," Olbermann said. "Well done, WorldNetDaily!"
WND's story from which Olbermann was reading quoted Adams only based on WND's own, exclusive, hour-long phone interview with the former elections official, and mentioned no one else making any similar claim about Obama's hospital-generated birth certificate being non-existent.
Adams, did, however, initially make his allegation June 5 on a show hosted by James Edwards of WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tenn. The show's website describes Edwards – not Tim Adams – as having an "unapologetically pro-white viewpoint."
But if anyone is racist against blacks on this issue, Adams says it is those who suggest Obama is not eligible to hold office.
"They don't like having someone who's not white," he told Kentucky's WBKO-TV, "or they don't like someone who's from such a different heritage as President Obama, because his family has ties to Africa. His family also has ties to middle America, so to me it's also a non-issue."
"I'm hardly the typical paleoconservative," he now tells WND. "Things have reached the point in our society that anyone who is seen as supporting conservative, traditional or Christian views is immediately painted as either an extremist or racist. I find it strange no one complained about my supposed radicalism for talking with and doing research on the Native Hawaiian Secessionist Movement, or La Raza, or when I hung out with members of the Vicelords or Latin Kings. Only when I appeared on a pro-white political activism site was I suddenly suspect."
Regarding his attackers, Adams says, "They have failed quite miserably, despite some going so far as too attempt to backtrack blog entries attributed to me from several years ago in other states and lacking my name. Others have looked at my small amount of undergraduate work, and since they could find no racist or other derogatory statements there, simply tried to denigrate the material. They, too, have failed."
Adams is now reiterating his three basic claims, none of which he finds "particularly groundbreaking or unusual:"
"I was employed as a senior elections clerk in charge of the absentee-balloting office in Honolulu during the initial part of the last elections cycle.
I was told by my superiors during the time of the original controversy surrounding President Obama's birth, that a long-form birth certificate is not filed at the HHD (Hawaii Health Department).
It is my opinion, despite this fact, that President Obama was born a citizen of the United States, and is indeed eligible to hold office."
Regarding Adams' last point, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution says to be eligible for the presidency, a candidate must be a "natural born citizen," not merely a citizen of the country. While the Constitution itself does not define the term, some legal experts contend "natural born" means being born on U.S. soil, as well as being the child of two U.S. citizens.
"My offense seems to be having offended both extremes of the Left and the Right," Adams told WND.
"The Right doesn't like my opinion that once certified by the government like any other candidate, President Obama was legally able to hold office. The Left doesn't like the notion that there was a cover-up of President Obama's birth. So I get it from both sides, some of whom simply lie, and some of whom go so far as to try and find anything I've stated over the past decade that might discredit me. Why? Nothing I've said is outrageous or hard to verify."
WND confirmed with Hawaiian officials that Adams was indeed working in their election offices during the last presidential election.
"His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu. Takahashi indicated Adams was in charge of verifying voters' identity, especially those involving absentee ballots.
Some of Adams' critics have derided him online as being just "a temp" at the elections office.
"The temporary status of my GS-15 level contract was not some temp agency worker," Adams explains. "The current manager of the office [is] a lady who has worked there for about a decade – eight of those years she was on the same contract I possessed – [as] they are renewed annually following performance reviews. Getting a permanent, civil-service position is something that requires lots of hard work and time in a city like Honolulu, where everyone is competing for these secure, well-paying jobs. Glen [Takahashi] won't say I'm a liar, but I have inadvertently caused him quite a bit of trouble."
Adams stresses he was a manager at the elections office.
"I had a secretary, private office, two assistants and about 50 temp workers [under me]."
He also notes he had access to numerous government databases, including police, Social Security, driver's license bureau and voter's registration, not to mention "unfettered Internet access, something else the workers didn't possess."
During the summer of 2008, there were conflicting reports Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, also located in the capital city. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.
"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."
"In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state."
To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation that Obama was born at its facility.
WND's original report about Adams' claims has already been made into a YouTube video, now getting some 400,000 hits:
To date, Obama himself has still not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.
The White House has only proffered on the Internet a "Certification of Live Birth" to assert he was born in Hawaii, but that document was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth.
Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. State law specifically allows "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.
"Anyone can get that [Certification of Live Birth]," said Adams. "They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population [in Hawaii]. It's quite common for people to come back and get that."
As WND reported last July, the Kapi'olani Medical Center trumpeted – then later concealed – a letter allegedly written by President Obama in which he ostensibly declares his birth at the facility.
"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.
This excerpt (below) from the alleged Obama letter is perhaps the first formal declaration from the president about his exact birthplace. The White House has still not confirmed if the letter or its contents are authentic.
"the Kapi'olani Medical Center - the place of my birth"
This excerpt from the alleged Obama letter is perhaps the first formal declaration from the president about his exact birthplace. The White House has still not confirmed if the letter or its contents are authentic.
But the authenticity of that letter remains in doubt. Since WND raised questions about the veracity of the letter itself and its content, the White House has refused to say if the message is real and if its text originated with the president.
Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The Manchurian President...
Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists
By Aaron Klein with Brenda J. Elliott
Product Description of Book's Content
Tens of millions of Americans sense there is something very wrong with the president of the United States, but they don't know exactly what. "The Manchurian President" answers that question. In writing this exhaustively researched book—which is thoroughly documented with over 800 endnotes—Aaron Klein, with Brenda J. Elliot, definitively exposes just how dangerous Barack Obama really is as America's president and commander in chief. Among the book's chilling findings:
Obama's deep ties to an anti-American fringe nexus instrumental in building his political career, some members of which are helping draft White House policy
Obama's extensive connections to ACORN and its union affiliate, including much new information not previously documented elsewhere
Extremists exposed in the White House, including top czars and communist-linked
Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod
Obama's healthcare policy pushed and crafted by extremists
Obama’s deep association with the Nation of Islam
Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers much more extensive than ever previously disclosed
About the Authors
Aaron Klein is an American journalist, author and radio host. He serves as senior investigative reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief for online news giant WorldNetDaily.com and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. Known for his regular appearances on top U.S. radio talk shows and television news broadcasts, especially Fox News, Klein is also the author of "Schmoozing with Terrorists" and "The Late Great State of Israel." Klein currently hosts his own program on WABC, the nation's largest talk radio station.
Brenda J. Elliott is a historian and author known for her dogged blogging during the 2008 presidential election about Tony Rezko, William Ayers and other criminals in Obama's clique of cronies.
By Aaron Klein with Brenda J. Elliott
Product Description of Book's Content
Tens of millions of Americans sense there is something very wrong with the president of the United States, but they don't know exactly what. "The Manchurian President" answers that question. In writing this exhaustively researched book—which is thoroughly documented with over 800 endnotes—Aaron Klein, with Brenda J. Elliot, definitively exposes just how dangerous Barack Obama really is as America's president and commander in chief. Among the book's chilling findings:
Obama's deep ties to an anti-American fringe nexus instrumental in building his political career, some members of which are helping draft White House policy
Obama's extensive connections to ACORN and its union affiliate, including much new information not previously documented elsewhere
Extremists exposed in the White House, including top czars and communist-linked
Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod
Obama's healthcare policy pushed and crafted by extremists
Obama’s deep association with the Nation of Islam
Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers much more extensive than ever previously disclosed
About the Authors
Aaron Klein is an American journalist, author and radio host. He serves as senior investigative reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief for online news giant WorldNetDaily.com and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. Known for his regular appearances on top U.S. radio talk shows and television news broadcasts, especially Fox News, Klein is also the author of "Schmoozing with Terrorists" and "The Late Great State of Israel." Klein currently hosts his own program on WABC, the nation's largest talk radio station.
Brenda J. Elliott is a historian and author known for her dogged blogging during the 2008 presidential election about Tony Rezko, William Ayers and other criminals in Obama's clique of cronies.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Can America Survive?
by Pastor John Hagee
Description
Can America Survive? is a riveting description of the perfect geopolitical and economic storm that now threatens America’s future. Pastor John Hagee asks the gripping questions that must be answered by our generation; Can America Survive?…
• The impending nuclear war in the Middle East
• The coming death of the dollar
• The consequences of rejecting Israel
• The absolute accuracy of biblical prophecy
• The coming Fourth Reich
• The year 2012: The Beginning of the End?
In this provocative book, Pastor Hagee delves into such hot-button topics as the nuclear capabilities of Iran, the global status of the American dollar, Israel—the only nation created by an eternal covenant with God; and the coming of Armageddon.
As a candid conservative Christian leader, New York Times bestselling author, and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, Pastor Hagee courageously sounds a warning alarm to awaken the American nation from the slumber of political correctness. Using carefully documented facts and powerful biblical teachings, Pastor Hagee illustrates the relationship between current newspaper headlines and biblical prophecy.
This book is about more than politics, economics and prophecy. This book is about America’s very survival!
Description
Can America Survive? is a riveting description of the perfect geopolitical and economic storm that now threatens America’s future. Pastor John Hagee asks the gripping questions that must be answered by our generation; Can America Survive?…
• The impending nuclear war in the Middle East
• The coming death of the dollar
• The consequences of rejecting Israel
• The absolute accuracy of biblical prophecy
• The coming Fourth Reich
• The year 2012: The Beginning of the End?
In this provocative book, Pastor Hagee delves into such hot-button topics as the nuclear capabilities of Iran, the global status of the American dollar, Israel—the only nation created by an eternal covenant with God; and the coming of Armageddon.
As a candid conservative Christian leader, New York Times bestselling author, and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, Pastor Hagee courageously sounds a warning alarm to awaken the American nation from the slumber of political correctness. Using carefully documented facts and powerful biblical teachings, Pastor Hagee illustrates the relationship between current newspaper headlines and biblical prophecy.
This book is about more than politics, economics and prophecy. This book is about America’s very survival!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Sad Day (General Stanley McChrystal's Resignation)
by Thomas Sowell
The flap about General Stanley McChrystal's "resignation" was nobody's finest hour. But there are some painful lessons in all this that go beyond any of the individuals involved-- the general, the president or any of the officials at the Pentagon or the State Department.
What is far more important than all these individuals put together are the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans fighting in Afghanistan. What is even more important is the national security of this country.
It is certainly not politic for a general or his staff to express their contempt for civilian authorities publicly. But what is far more important-- from the standpoint of national security-- is whether what those authorities have done deserves contempt.
My hope is that General McChrystal will write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan-- and in Washington. The public needs to know what is really going on, and they are not likely to get that information from politicians.
This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal's urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually-- and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.
In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world-- including our enemies-- when our troops would be leaving.
Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies.
But the worst aspect of the national security policy of this administration is its clear intention to do nothing that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. This may be the most grossly irresponsible policy in all of history, because it can leave this generation-- and future generations-- of Americans at the mercy of terrorists who have no mercy and who cannot be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred.
All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.
There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."
Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier-- someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.
Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?
Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.
MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.
If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?
_______
Thomas Sowell's Biography
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
©Creators Syndicate
The flap about General Stanley McChrystal's "resignation" was nobody's finest hour. But there are some painful lessons in all this that go beyond any of the individuals involved-- the general, the president or any of the officials at the Pentagon or the State Department.
What is far more important than all these individuals put together are the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans fighting in Afghanistan. What is even more important is the national security of this country.
It is certainly not politic for a general or his staff to express their contempt for civilian authorities publicly. But what is far more important-- from the standpoint of national security-- is whether what those authorities have done deserves contempt.
My hope is that General McChrystal will write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan-- and in Washington. The public needs to know what is really going on, and they are not likely to get that information from politicians.
This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal's urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually-- and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.
In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world-- including our enemies-- when our troops would be leaving.
Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies.
But the worst aspect of the national security policy of this administration is its clear intention to do nothing that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. This may be the most grossly irresponsible policy in all of history, because it can leave this generation-- and future generations-- of Americans at the mercy of terrorists who have no mercy and who cannot be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred.
All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.
There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."
Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier-- someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.
Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?
Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.
MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.
If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?
_______
Thomas Sowell's Biography
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
©Creators Syndicate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)