Barack Hussein Obama Legacy: Enemy to Humankind

By: Sher Zieve
Gulag Bound

In essence, Obama didn’t release 5 Islamic terrorists. It appears that he freed 6.


There are so many crimes committed by Obama and his syndicate that choosing a few for any column is–almost–a monumental task. For example, Obama does not uphold many US laws…if he doesn’t like them. In most Presidential Administrations this–in itself–would be considered a crime. In the Obama syndicate, however, it isn’t even a blip on the country’s radar…and certainly not worthy of the now Marxist Media’s attention.

Actually, almost no crime committed by Dictator-in-Chief Obama and his growing criminal syndicate appears to attract much interest–at all–from the traditional (aka totalitarian-supporting) US media. The only thing important to the media has been protecting one of their own–Obama–whom they view as being a Marxist; something the American press has strangely loved for decades and who will destroy the golden goose USA that has allowed them to spew their bile. Note: On the Left, stupidity seems to have no perceptible boundaries.

The latest Obama misadventure into the dark side involves both the US Veterans’ Administration and a documented deserter from the US military Bowe Bergdahl.

Veterans’ Lives for Dollars

VA-I-careEmployees of the V.A. were expected to make appointments with doctors for veterans (who had called in request them) within a 2-week period. If that didn’t consistently occur, these employees would not receive their bonuses for “good scheduling.“ The V.A., in multiple locations nationwide, then began to place Vets who called in on “select lists” which have now been proved to be death sentences.

Thus far, between 40-100 Vets’ deaths have been reported as likely attributed to their never being able to obtain an appointment with a doctor at the V.A.

This is the V.A.’s version of “death panels”…death panels which were, by the way, illegally added back into ObamaCare after the Orwellian bill was passed. The V.A. employees were caught placing our veterans on secret lists that disallowed them from receiving any treatment at all. Why? Because , if they hadn’t done so they might not have received those bonus checks! Veterans’ lives were lost for V.A. employees’ bonuses…and they knew it.

Muslim Deserter Hailed as a Hero

Bergdahl-BoweFirst and foremost–surprise surprise–Obama broke the law, yet again. This time, it was actually a law that he signed last year advising that he must give Congress 30 days notice of any and all prisoner releases from Guantanamo Bay. Note: I suspect as he signed the law, into existence Obama now believes he can “unsign” it.

This is bad enough but, even worse is the fact that he released the 5 worst prisoners from the prison…the cream of the Taliban Terrorist crop. And why you may ask? For the Taliban to release a US soldier whom it had “captured” and “imprisoned.” The reason for the italics is the following. The “prisoner”–aka Bowe Bergdahl–was a deserter from the US military who wanted to be recruited by and was looking for the Taliban On 30 June 2009 when Bergdahl likely hid away in a delivery truck, he left a note saying that he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He, also, is reported to have said that he relinquished his US citizenship.

Obama’s military is refusing to release the letter that others reporting on this have already seen. Bergdahl is also said to have converted–voluntarily–to Islam. However, considering his parents; performance with their good friend Obama last Saturday, its likely that he was already a Muslim. The father’s beard is long and trimmed in the manner of a devotee of an Islamic faithful and, speaking in Arabic, as Liberty News reports the elder Bergdahl stated: “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” —which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.” After Bergdahl finished his statement [which also denigrated US policies and the US military’s actions in Afghanistan] and his praise for Allah, Obama hugged him.” So, it appears that Bowe’s parents are Muslims and faithful to the Taliban cause. Can a US soldier who wants to renounce his US citizenship and leaves his post via desertion even be one of the ‘good guy’s at all, let alone the “hero“ that the Obama syndicate is working to push on us? No…not even close.

So, what do we have here? A dictator who used a willing and likely Taliban-trained Bergdahl–who had been waiting in the wings for 5 years for just this moment in time as the catalyst to trade prisoners for a soldier; albeit one who has dishonored himself. In essence, Obama didn’t release 5 Islamic terrorists. It appears that he freed 6.

Ed Begley, Jr.–recently caught in his own dishonorable and anti-American admissions by James O’Keefe–may have said it best: “Perhaps Hollywood is not as genuine as it seems. Washington and Hollywood are a lot alike; illusions, special effects, smoke and mirrors.” That certainly sums up Obama’s false flag events and the way he and his syndicate are running the country. In the end, I suspect that Obama’s legacy will be one of lies, slight of hand and as the bringer of tremendous suffering to those he was hired to serve; that and very possibly as the worst totalitarians in history. Humans are, quite obviously, not Obama’s favorite sort of beings.

“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”
–Matthew 7: 18-20


VA Scandal: How a General Lost Command:
at article.wn.com

Former Fed Prosecutor: Release of Prisoners Impeachable Offense:
at teaparty.org

NYT: Bergdahl left a note saying that he was deserting:
at hotair.com

Islam At White House: Watch Released Deserter Bowe Bergdahl’s Father Praise Allah Before Being Hugged By Barack Hussein Obama:
at libertynews.com


States Can Stop EPA’s War on Coal

By: James Simpson
Accuracy in Media

This weekend the Obama administration announced a trade for the release of Army Specialist Bowe Bergdahl, offering in exchange the five most deadly Taliban terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. This was an illegal act. The president is required by law to inform Congress 30 days before making such a decision. He did not do so, and the White House admitted it. Obama claims a signing statement made at the time this law was passed gave him a right to ignore aspects of it when he saw fit.

Similarly, on Monday the administration violated the law by announcing stringent carbon dioxide emission targets for power plants that will effectively kill the coal industry. The new regulation calls for a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030. Congress failed to pass so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would enable such a move, so Obama is using the regulatory authority he claims the EPA already has to regulate carbon. But the president cannot just ignore the will of Congress. To do so assumes that Congress is irrelevant. Apparently this is what President Obama believes.

President Obama’s Organizing for America website brags that the new EPA regulations are “the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change.” Most media outlets are echoing Obama, heralding the new EPA rule, while downplaying or ignoring the calamitous effects it will have on the economy. CBS called it “groundbreaking.” The Christian Science Monitor calls it “bold, signature, and controversial.” CNN called it “the boldest step yet,” characterizing prior U.S. positions as “hypocritical.”

ABC News cited a new poll claiming that 70 percent of Americans think something should be done about global warming. This, of course, follows numerous polls that indicate just the opposite. A Gallup poll published in The Washington Post last year indicated that most people do not consider global warming a serious threat. An ABC poll found only 18 percent ranked global warming as their highest priority. Sixty-eight percent of respondents ranked the economy as the number one priority. A Pew poll found only 42 percent believed global warming to be caused primarily by human activity.

Media outlets dismissed concerns over the rule’s impact on the economy, but it will have devastating effects. Called the “Obamacare for climate change,” the EPA rule claims huge savings down the road, but, as President Obama put it, this “will require tough choices along the way.” Tough indeed. It will raise energy costs nationwide at a time when our economy struggles to recover from the deepest recession since the Great Depression. A recent study projects the damages:

  • Average annual $51 billion reduction to U.S. Gross Domestic Product through 2030
  • An average 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030
  • U.S. consumers will pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030
  • Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030

And just as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claims Obamacare’s unstated but overt goal is to destroy the private healthcare market, this new EPA rule is ultimately designed to destroy the coal industry.

Some states have already vowed to fight against these regulations. Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) said, “Indiana will oppose these regulations using every means available.” Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett (R) promised to “fight these regulations every step of the way.” Many other U.S senators and representatives have expressed similar sentiments. West Virginia and Wyoming are considering legislation to block the regulations. As Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (R) noted, “The costs are real, the benefits are theoretical.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it “a dagger in the heart of the American middle class.”

Facing tough reelection campaigns in coal states, many Democratic politicians have also broken ranks to voice their opposition. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) called the new rules “disastrous.” Democratic West Virginia U.S. Senate candidate Natalie Tenannt stated, “I will stand up to President Obama, Gina McCarthy and anyone else who tries to undermine our coal jobs…” Running against incumbent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes promised, “I will fiercely oppose the President’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.”


Lawsuits and legislation may ultimately prevent this regulation from going forward; however, state and local governments have a simpler and more effective tool at their fingertips: “coordination.” Coordination is a little-known feature embedded in numerous environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

Coordination requires the EPA and all other federal agencies to consider all effects of environmental regulations. These effects include:

ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial. (emphasis added).

The federal agency must prepare an “environmental impact” statement that includes impacts on the human environment. This refers specifically to all those aspects listed above. According to the law, “‘Human environment’ shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment.” The agency is only exempt if the proposed regulation has “no significant impact.”

Since these new carbon regulations will have a devastating effect on multiple aspects of the human environment, the EPA cannot unilaterally apply them as proposed. The EPA must negotiate with state and local governments—they only have to ask. Not only will conventional energy sources be gravely weakened, but our nation will be set on a course to use more and more solar, wind and other exotic power generation. These are three to four times more expensive than traditional energy, and will send residential electricity rates through the roof. If you recall, candidate Obama promised this very thing back in 2008, saying that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Obama added, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can—it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Solar and wind facilities require huge amounts of space to generate even tiny amounts of electricity. For example, the Ivanpah solar farm in southern California provides 1.1 percent of California’s residential energy needs, but requires five square miles of ground. And every bit of those five square miles is filled with moving, tilting mirrors that follow the sun. High maintenance costs are assured. A solar farm scaled up to serve all California homes—never mind industry—would require 500 square miles, an area almost half the size of Rhode Island.

Both solar and wind are deadly to the environment. For environmental purposes, the Ivanpah land essentially becomes a five square mile parking lot. Focusing the sun’s rays on a single point as this facility does raises the temperature near the central tower as high as 1,000 degrees F, incinerating any birds that fly through. The Bundy Ranch showdown came about because multiple solar energy farms are planned for Clark County, Nevada, and land surrounding the ranch property is intended for “mitigation,” i.e., to replace habitat for the endangered desert tortoise destroyed by solar facilities.

Modern wind turbines slaughter more birds than Perdue. At California’s Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, one of the first major wind generation facilities constructed in the U.S., the Audubon Society estimates that 4,700 birds die annually, including 75 to 110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-tailed Hawks and 333 American Kestrels. According to Smithsonian.com, nationwide, wind turbines kill between 140,000 and 328,000 birds every year.

Solar and wind energy projects cannot survive on their own, requiring massive, unsustainable government subsidies to make them economically viable. Across the United States, 15,000 wind turbines already stand abandoned, and throughout Europe wind and solar energy are being reconsidered as problems mount and governments abandon the subsidies. In Spain, one study found that renewable energy jobs cost about 571,000 Euros, or more than $776,000 each. At the same time, for each renewable energy job generated, the economy lost 2.2 jobs elsewhere. Wind generation has failed in Denmark, Spain, Greece, Portugal and elsewhere. Stephan Kohler, Germany’s energy chief says that conventional power plants will be necessary until at least 2050 and calls Germany’s Renewable Energy Act “pure insanity.”

Fleecing the Taxpayers

While Obama, the Democrats and some Republicans have raised the specter of catastrophic global warming, the real “green” they seek is greenbacks. Even a cursory look into the backers of “green energy” projects reveals a who’s who of the Democratic Left. Everyone from Al Gore, to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and their many friends, associates and supporters have all lined up to cash in on “green” energy. The idea is to use government subsidies to make the investments viable. As long as subsidies persist, the companies make money. But this can’t last forever. Government subsidies must eventually end, as they are doing now in Europe and already did at many locations in the U.S. But by the time this happens, investors have long since cashed out, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The EPA rule, however, envisions an entirely new paradigm. Instead of subsidizing these green energy firms, the Obama administration intends to simply destroy the competition.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, Breitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook.


Watcher’s Council Nominations – Trading For Private Weasel Edition

The Watcher’s Council

(Hat Tip: Mad Magazine and Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye for the graphic.)

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News

The Council In Action

* Elise Ronan of Liberty’s Spirit, has a fine new piece up at The Times Of Israel entitled Rethinking the Definition of Autism and Aspergers.

* Dave Huber, or Hube as we like to call him, of The Colossus of Rhodeym has a hard hitting op-ed up at The College Fix, Hey Lefties – Look In The Mirror Regarding The UCSB Murder Spree.

This week, Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, The Pirate’s Cove, The Mellow Jihadi and Seraphic Secret earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an email address (which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members, while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, without further ado, let’s see what we have for you…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


How UKIP Can Win The 2015 Election Under First Past The Post

By: Chris Knowles
Aeneas Lavinium

The results of the 2014 European elections demonstrate clearly that UKIP can indeed win a national election. Many claim that this cannot be translated into 2015 General Election success due to the nature of the British voting system. However, this short paper will argue that the electoral system can be made to serve UKIP’s to the detriment of the establishment parties. This is based on 3 key facts:

  • UKIPs apparent disadvantage is based on perception rather than reality.
  • The three establishment parties are so similar they are nothing more than factions of a single Establishment party.
  • The Establishment vote is split three ways while the UKIP vote is unified.

The key to success in 2015 will be based on changing perceptions by demonstrating a two horse race and a three way split. The system cannot be changed but the way people think about it can and it is this that can make all the difference.

Only a question of perception

The 2014 poll demonstrated that in terms of percentages more people in the UK sympathised with UKIP than with any other political party. This is reality, the only reason this is not translated into General Election success if because people perceive UKIP defeat under the system as inevitable. As such they believe a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote and therefore do not vote on the basis of their political convictions. This creates a self-fulfilling prophesy that Establishment relies on to maintain its grip on power.

Under First Past the Post the only barrier that UKIP faces is one of perception. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines perceptions as follows:

“noun \pər-ˈsep-shən\
: the way you think about or understand someone or something
: the ability to understand or notice something easily
: the way that you notice or understand something using one of your senses” (emphasis added)

The 2014 election has gone some way to changing perceptions – people now know that UKIP can win a national election. The UKIP percentage of the vote is a reality, the supposed disadvantage of First Past the Post is only a perception. All that UKIP needs to do over the next 12 months is change the way the public thinks about First Past the Post and get them to practice conviction politics.

This can be achieved by giving them a simple choice between two options.

Two Horse Race: Establishment versus UKIP

The key to UKIP’s success in 2015 will be to present the contest as a two horse race, a race involving two parties – the Establishment Party and the anti-Establishment UKIP. If the public can be convinced that what are perceived as the three main parties are in reality three factions of a single establishment party First Past the Post can work dramatically in UKIP’s favour. This should not be difficult since, based on experience, it is clear that it makes no difference which one (or indeed two) Establishment factions is the party(s) currently in power. A vote for either of them is a vote for establishment interests and a policy of “more of the same”. In 1997 people were voting for change, they thought that by voting for the Labour Party they would get that change – they didn’t! Past is prologue.

The European Union is a central pillar of establishment thinking and it is inconceivable that anyone who has been allowed to rise to the top of an establishment party will be able to facilitate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. In November 2009 David Cameron repudiated his previous “cast iron guarantee” to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty after he received pressure from other European (establishment) leaders. How can we trust Mr Cameron’s supposed commitment for an in-out referendum on EU membership by 2017 after such a dramatic change of policy? The only reason for putting off a referendum on membership of the EU to 2017 is to provide more time to find ways to undermine the popular will on the subject and to devise yet more excuses for continued membership. The only things Cameron’s “cast iron” guarantees yield are piles of rust! Whatever their rhetoric the establishment parties will never give up on the EU because it is so central to their world view. Indeed, the EU is the central pillar of their world view!

The UK, like the rest of the Western world is governed by a system of “Managed Democracy”, not true democracy. Under this system the establishment effectively decides who the public is allowed to vote for. The establishment media, owned by the same people who may effectively own the politicians, acts as their cheerleaders. It is not an impartial player in events but the propaganda arm of establishment interests. It presents its favoured candidates in the most favourable light and smears anyone who is a threat to the establishment’s careful management of the system. You can’t have two masters; you cannot represent the interests of the people as a whole while representing the interests of a tiny elite.

The recent showing by UKIP in the EU parliamentary elections suggests that if people were to vote confidently with their hearts UKIP could quite easily become the largest party in the polls next May. However, in 2015 when the chips are down the establishment factions, Liberal Democrat, Labour, and Conservative “parties”, will stick together. This will prove that they, together, really represent a single Establishment party. This may make the difference between Nigel Farage being Prime Minister or being Leader of the Opposition. However, once the ingrained perception about First Past the Post is broken, all bets are off because the system itself and the rules of the game will be transformed.

The political establishment will not let UKIP run the UK even if it wins the highest percentage of votes. A coalition of Labour and the Conservatives is more likely than a coalition between either of them and UKIP. This is because UKIP goes against the grain of establishment thinking and is opposed to the central establishment interest – unwavering support for the EU. We have already seen evidence of this concept in operation following UKIP’s 2014 electoral victory.

An article in the Thurrock Gazette on 29 May 2014 entitled Labour and Tories “weigh up grand coalition” to keep Ukip at bay gives us a glimpse of the Establishment blueprint for retaining power in the event of a UKIP electoral surge. An coalition comprised of the Conservative and Labour parties in 2015 is not unlikely because as mere factions of the governing class they have more in common with each other than they do with UKIP. The Thurrock situation provides evidence for the two horse race thesis.

Three Way Split for the Establishment Vote

The Establishment’s 2015 nightmare referred to above could be worse than they currently imagine. Instead of Nigel Farage controlling the biggest party while being Leader of the Opposition they could find him as the Prime Minister with more than 50% of the vote.

Once the perception nut is cracked, the logic of the First Past the Post system swings in UKIPs favour and makes such a scenario possible. In a two horse race, people are more likely to vote on the basis of their political convictions and true interests. That could be damaging to the Establishment parties because their own vote would be split three ways. Once perceptions have been changed their apparent advantage under the system is first nullified, and then turned into a weakness.

Add to this the percentage of the population that currently do not vote and the current political system becomes very interesting indeed. UKIP mentioned in the aftermath of the 2014 election that it has secured votes from people who had never voted before. It could be argued that the non-voting public are anti-establishment by definition and therefore more likely to support UKIP. Dissatisfaction with the political establishment and a feeling that they can do nothing about the situation can be a strong motivator for not voting. Such people understand the power of the Establishment and its current grip on the system of Managed Democracy. If UKIP demonstrates that it can succeed against the establishment it is likely that more will come out to vote in the future. Even if there were members of the non-voting public whose prime preference was for Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative factions of the establishment, the three way split would make them less significant under the first past the post system.

If systemic perceptions were changed, a three way split for the Establishment vote would weaken the establishment parties and strengthen UKIP.


The First past the Post electoral system can be manipulated not only to the benefit of UKIP but also to the disadvantage of established or indeed Establishment parties. The three concepts of perception, two horse race, and three way split could form the basis of a UKIP “12 Months to make a difference” campaign to transform UK politics and restore the country’s sovereignty. This would form part of UKIP’s message that would supplement its existing strategy to focus mainly on key seats based on the “Paddy Ashdown Approach” referred to by the UKIP leader after the 2014 poll. The strategy would rest on encouraging positive rather than negative voting behaviour by restoring confidence in conviction politics. “Conviction Politics” is a political technology that can be utilised to restore power to the electorate rather those who manage the system. All UKIP needs to do is to change perceptions by presenting the Establishment parties as a single party in all but name…