Monday Is Crunch Time?

---

We know more about Herman Cain than even Herman knew about himself yet we know really nothing about President Obama. He went to several colleges yet we know nothing about his friends, room mate(s), girls he may have dated. etc. We know nothing about his grades, anything he may have written while on The Harvard  Law Review and that is just about his youth. What subjects did he take?  Who were his professors other than Said at Columbia?

Who paid for his tuition, his subsistence while a  student?  Was it the Russian Government?  Who knows.

Then we don't know a great deal more about his life after graduation that really defines him and this is where "The Roots f Obama's Rage" comes into play and why it is so revealing.

Is it possible the press and media folks are not interested in telling us about the man they helped anoint president?

Now we have a sheriff in Arizona giving us some interesting information which has been reported on before but again the media and news folks ignore it because it raises questions they prefer not be raised.

But then this sheriff is considered a nut case by the same media and press folks because he runs a prison that is not your typical prison. It is a prison that teaches discipline and responsibility and makes those incarcerated perhaps think twice about recidivism.(See 1 below.)
---
One of my dear friends and fellow memo readers sent out the D'Souza video I posted in a previous memo with this comment: "This is the first "must watch" video I've ever sent out.  It is a speech by Dinesh D'Souza, President of King's College and author.  It is an excellent explanation of what drives Obama and where he wants to bring America.  Every American regardless of party affiliation should watch it."
---
Netanyahu to Obama - are you going to just sit there as you have been doing with respect to  Syria?  (See 2 below.)


With gas prices soaring and tensions rising vis a vis Iran, Obama may feel the need to become macho.  I have been suggesting no less for months. 


The problem is, his heart is not in doing so for after all he has a history of ducking and falling short as he did when Gen. McChrystal asked for more troops than he got and the list is endless.. (See 2a below.)
---
Tom Sowell lays it out clearly and his assessment of Gingrich is loud and clear but I believe he is too myopic when it comes to believing Newt's debating skills will carry the day. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
"President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public," Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference today in Phoenix. 

This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president. 

Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history. 

Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting: 

• President Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; 

• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961. 

Beginning in October 2011, the Sheriff's Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, examined dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents, as well as taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world. 

In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake the investigation. 

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. 

The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in what Sheriff's investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession. 

"Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have," said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse. 

The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged, but investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed. 

The Cold Case Posse investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers most likely committed two crimes: first, in fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represented as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. 

"A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery," Arpaio said. 

Among the evidence released at the press conference were five videos the Cold Case Posse produced to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. 

The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. 

The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document. 

The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators' conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized. 

Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. 

"That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself," Zullo said, stressing that if the Registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery. 

The investigators also chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health. 

"As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession." 

Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. 

Arpaio went on to say the President should also authorize Kapiolani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any and all hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, in order to provide additional corroboration for the original 1961 birth records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault. 

"Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Zullo said. 

"In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States." 

Arpaio concluded the press conference by suggesting a congressional investigation might be warranted and asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Netanyahu will ask Obama to threaten Iran strike

Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.

By Barak Ravid

d

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli officia Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threats.

	Netanyahu, left, meeting with Obama at the United Nations last September.
	Photo by: AP

What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

The White House proposed to the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.

According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.

Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu's, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign - and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu. Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is "weak on Iran."

The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. Other senior Israeli officials - such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) - have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.

The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. "The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully," he said. "A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what's the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?"

The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama's opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey's statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks. Dempsey reportedly said, "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and added that a strike "would be destabilizing" and "not prudent." But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.

Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey's backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu's view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.

The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some." The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.

Netanyahu also believes that Obama's scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel's internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu's suspicions were apparently heightened by last week's report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran. Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of "business as usual," according to a source.

Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.


2a)U.S. Considers New Message on Iran

By CAROL E. LEE and JAY SOLOMON

• Large

WASHINGTON—Complaints from Israel about the U.S.'s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more forcefully outlining potential military actions, and the "red lines" Iran must not cross, as soon as this weekend, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Enlarge Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Iran's navy fired a missile during exercises in the Strait of Hormuz.

President Barack Obama could use a speech on Sunday before a powerful pro-Israel lobby to more clearly define U.S. policy on military action against Iran in advance of his meeting on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these people said.

Israeli officials have been fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state's threat to use force against Tehran by publicly questioning the utility and timing of such strikes.

The Israeli leader has told U.S. officials that he wants Mr. Obama to outline specifically what Washington views as the "red lines" that Iran cannot cross, something the administration is considering as it drafts the president's speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and sets the agenda for his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu.

Senators' Letter to Obama

View Document

Some administration officials said that if Mr. Obama decides to more clearly define his red lines, he is likely to do it in private with Mr. Netanyahu, rather than state it in his AIPAC speech.

Mr. Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials also are pressing for Mr. Obama to publicly clarify his insistence that "all options are on the table" in addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.

Mr. Netanyahu recently conveyed his displeasure with the administration in separate meetings in Jerusalem with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and a group of U.S. senators, said people involved in the meetings.

He complained that comments by senior U.S. officials have cast Israel as the problem, not Iran, and only encouraged Tehran to press ahead with its nuclear program by casting doubt over the West's willingness to use force.

Enlarge Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Iranian soldiers performed exercises in the Sea of Oman in December.

Israeli officials were particularly alarmed when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Iran as a "rational actor" in a CNN interview after a recent visit to Israel.

The Israelis made clear in these meetings that Mr. Netanyahu intends to press Mr. Obama on the two points as the two allies more closely try to align their strategies to contain Tehran's nuclear threat.

"The Israelis are unnerved," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), who was one of five U.S. senators who had lunch with Mr. Netanyahu last Tuesday in Jerusalem. "They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and I do too."

Related Video

Iranian women call for better representation ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections. (Video: Reuters/Photo: Getty Images)

Mr. Graham, a staunch Israel supporter, added: "The president needs to be reassuring to the Israelis that the policy of the United States is etched in stone: we will do everything, including military action, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. I hope the administration when they talk about 'all options' will better define what those options are. We're getting too far into the game to be overly nuanced now."

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who also was in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu last week, said he had never seen an Israeli leader "that unhappy."

"He was angry," Sen. McCain said. "And, frankly, I've never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point."

The March 5 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama is part of a critical week of diplomacy and politicking in Washington that could affect not only the standoff with Iran, but also Mr. Obama's re-election campaign. U.S-Israel relations have been rocky since both leaders took office in 2009. Mr. Obama's often frosty relationship with Mr. Netanyahu has degenerated at times into public spats between the two sides, raising concerns among the president's Jewish supporters.

The annual AIPAC conference, which comes just days before a series of state votes on Tuesday in Republican primaries, is seen as a crucial venue through which to win Jewish support. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have all been invited to address the group, and Mr. Netanyahu will speak the day after his meeting with Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama will use his AIPAC speech to stress that his administration has developed deeper defense and intelligence-sharing ties with Israel than any other U.S. president, administration officials said. Seeking to build on his speech at the United Nations General Assembly last September, as one senior administration official put it, Mr. Obama will also remind Jewish voters at AIPAC that the U.S. stood up for Israel when the Palestinians sought to unilaterally claim statehood through a vote at the U.N. Security Council last fall.

The president also will outline the significant steps Washington has taken in recent months to increase Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation through sanctions, officials said, and stress both the need to give those efforts time to work and the administration's belief that there still is room for diplomacy.

Mr. Obama will repeat that his policy of also leaving all options on the table, including military force, remains, officials said. Aides are discussing what it would mean to go into greater detail. They are expected to make a decision later this week.

Administration officials acknowledge that Republican candidates believe they have an opening to attack Mr. Obama as weak in support of Israel as well as soft on confronting Iran. And because of the recent tensions in U.S.-Israel relations, the president's aides are approaching this moment carefully.

"We have more to prove," said one senior administration official.

Iran has proven to be a divisive issue for the two allies for months. Mr. Netanyahu was skeptical about Mr. Obama's initial efforts to engage Iran's theocratic government diplomatically in a bid to contain its nuclear program. And the U.S. and Israel have developed differing red lines to gauge the nuclear threat.

Israel has defined its red line as Iran's development of a nuclear weapons "capability," rather than the actual assembly of an atomic weapon. The U.S. has cited the latter and American officials continue to argue that the West still has a few years to dissuade Tehran from developing a bomb.

Last week, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog announced that Tehran had more than tripled its monthly production of the purer form of enriched uranium that is closer to weapons grade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)'Super Tuesday'
By Thomas Sowell


Many people are looking to the many primary elections on March 6th -- "Super Tuesday" -- to clarify where this year's Republican nomination campaign is headed.

It may clarify far more than that, including the future of this nation and of Western civilization. If a clear winner with a commanding lead emerges, the question then becomes whether that candidate is someone who is likely to defeat Barack Obama.

If not, then the fate of America -- and of Western nations, including Israel -- will be left in the hands of a man with a lifelong hostility to Western values and Western interests.

President Obama is such a genial man that many people, across the ideological space, cannot see him as a danger.

For every hundred people who can see his geniality, probably only a handful see the grave danger his warped policies and ruthless tactics pose to a whole way of life that has given generation after generation of Americans unprecedented freedom and prosperity.

The election next November will not be just another election, and the stakes add up to far more than the sum of the individual issues. Moreover, if reelected and facing no future election, whatever political constraints may have limited how far Obama would push his radical agenda will be gone.

He would have the closest thing to a blank check. Nothing could stop him but impeachment or a military coup, and both are very unlikely. A genial corrupter is all the more dangerous for being genial.

The four remaining Republican candidates have to be judged, not simply by whether they would make good presidents, but by how well they can cut through Obama's personal popularity and glib rhetoric, to alert the voters as to the stakes in this year's election.

Ron Paul? Even those of us who agree with much of his domestic agenda, including getting rid of the Federal Reserve System, cannot believe that his happy-go-lucky attitude toward Iran's getting a nuclear weapon represents anything other than a grave danger to the whole Western World.

Rick Santorum has possibilities, but can he survive the media's constant attempts to paint him as some kind of religious nut who would use the government to impose his views on others? And, if he can, will he also be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama in debates? I would not bet the rent money on it. And what is at stake is far bigger than the rent money.

Mitt Romney is the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has always looked for, a moderate who can appeal to independents. It doesn't matter how many such candidates have turned out to be disasters on election night, going all the way back to Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.
Nor does it matter that the Republicans' most successful candidate of the 20th century -- Ronald Reagan, with two consecutive landslide victories at the polls -- was nobody's idea of a mushy moderate.

He stood for something. And he could explain what he stood for. These may sound like modest achievements, but they are very rare, especially among Republicans.

Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.
Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.

Does Gingrich have political "baggage"? More than you could carry on a commercial airliner.

Charges of opportunism have been among the most serious raised against the former Speaker of the House. But being President of the United States is the opportunity of a lifetime. If that doesn't sober a man up, it is hard to imagine what would.

Do any of the Republican candidates seem ideal? No. But, the White House cannot be left vacant, while we hope for a better field of candidates in 2016. We have to make our choice among the alternatives actually available, of which Obama is by far the worst.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------