Sponsorship opportunities are available.

To learn about advertising with The Crossbow, click here.


Click here to
choose a feed

[What is a 'feed'?]

Click this for other subscription options.

Books by Tom Kovach

Dec 2006

Aug 2008
Tribulation: 2008

About the author

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. In December of 2006, he published his first book, Slingshot. Tom's second book, Tribulation: 2008, was released in August of 2008.

Tom is also
an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal, and a former network talk-show host. (He would like to lauch another talk show -- perhaps on your station.)

One highlight of Tom's career in the Air Force was serving on a protection detail for US President Ronald Reagan. Tom has also run for Congress (and might run again).

Join the group

Click the link to visit
Tom Kovach's
official Web site

Public Speaking

To book Tom for a speaking engagement, please contact the 1SG Agency.

(When you contact them, ask what Tom Kovach has in common with Chuck Norris. Click here for a hint.)


You can help Tom to change things by using this "donate" button

via your secure
PayPal account

NOTE: if the PayPal button does not work, then you can always mail a contribution. See this page for contact info.

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Sunday, 11 January 2009, at 1817 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

The Obama Oxymoron

ox-y-mo-ron : (noun) a combination of contradictory or incongruous words; (broadly) something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.  (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)


At the gut level, there is something inherently incongruous about the terms "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Commander-in-Chief" being in the same sentence.  And, I'm far from the only one that feels this way.

Having served as, among other things, a military law-enforcement supervisor, I am familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  That is the primary set of laws under which the military operates.  (And, they are indeed "laws" in the dictionary sense, because the Code is part of a larger set of laws passed by Congress regarding the operation and maintenance of our military forces.)  The UCMJ is a finely-crafted balance -- between military discipline and personal initiative, between historic tradition and youthful exuberance, between necessary military operations and greedily voracious rampage.  In much the same way that a helicopter manages brutally opposing forces of gravity and wind to fly gracefully and with precision, the UCMJ manages the above-described opposing forces of human behavior to build the wall between militarism and murder.

The mortar that holds together the bricks of the UCMJ is honor -- a concept that seems uniquely foreign to the man scheduled to soon become the commander-in-chief of the military that conquered three evil empires in one century.  Without honor, it is far too easy to turn our nation into the next evil empire.  Honor is the pure wool from which the mantle of military leadership is woven.  Command without honor is, at best, mere brutishness.  It is also honor that causes a wise subordinate to -- rarely, and with reasonable trepidation -- rise up to disobey an order that is unlawful.  Or, in the potential case of a soon-to-become President Barack Hussein Obama II, an order given by a person that is unlawfully in a position of command.

Enter:  an honorable man.

Gregory Hollister is a retired US Air Force colonel from Colorado Springs.  He is the plaintiff in a recently-filed lawsuit against "Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama", the ostensible president-elect of the United States of America.  Colonel Hollister's lawsuit, like several others, alleges that Obama was born in Kenya.  Thus, the usurper-in-waiting is not eligible to become president, because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution of the United States.  But, the lawsuit by this retired military officer goes in a different direction than previous lawsuits.  Colonel Hollister raises the question -- finally... and officially -- of whether military personnel under an Obama administration would be required to obey the orders of a commander-in-chief that has obtained that position by fraud.  In fact, the suit also raises the question of whether said military personnel would have "an affirmative duty" to actually disobey orders that they believed to be unlawful.  This is no trifling matter, no mere intellectual exercise.

The strategic military capabilities of this country are guarded by some of the most highly-trained personnel in all of the military.  Conventional soldiers are trained to attack and overcome an organized enemy force.  The enemy wears a recognizable uniform that is different from ours.  They engage in warfare on a battlefield.  Even in the counter-insurgency environment of Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy usually has certain generally-recognizable features.  But, for those that guard the nuclear arsenal of the United States, a potential enemy could be "one of our own".  Thus, the training includes deterring, detecting and defeating ruses and diversions.  Many of the nuclear weapons, and nuclear-launch command posts, are protected by those that wear the Blue Beret.  "Our" duties (after all these years, it's still in my blood) are different.  To protect strategic resources, and the president, I've pulled weapons on members and employees of my own Air Force.  And, if I had not, then my career would've been in trouble.  The short version is that I was a "paid, professional paranoid for Uncle Sam".  And, without people like that, our most dangerous weapons systems would be horribly vulnerable.

Now, it might fall upon some young Air Force SP (or a Marine MP, or a Navy MA, or a joint-communications officer, or a White House Fellow, etc.) to protect a military command post from the president.  What an oxymoron!

For those that have not served in such a high-stakes environment (and, that even includes many military veterans -- especially those in non-combat jobs), a little explanation is needed.  The rules for the security of locations that store or control strategic military resources are more strict than the rules for other parts of a military base.  Most of the high-priority areas contain "no-lone zones" -- areas where no one can enter by themselves.  The sentries that control no-lone zones do so under rules where "use of deadly force is authorized".  In the world of nuclear security, it is still "shoot first, and ask questions later".  It must be that way.

But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?

And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully?  Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief?  This is a real and legitimate question.

For the uninitiated, the best example of a nuclear-security environment gone awry is the 1995 movie Crimson Tide, which starred Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.  Hackman's character (Capt. Ramsey) believes that a nuclear launch from his submarine is warranted while on patrol off the Soviet coast.  Washington's character (Lt. Hunter) is Ramsey's executive officer, and he does not believe the launch is warranted.  Under the rules of nuclear security, Lt. Hunter is warranted to seize command from Capt. Ramsey to prevent the start of a needless nuclear war.  But, if his decision turns out to be wrong, then Hunter will be guilty of mutiny and sedition (which is leading or inspiring others to commit mutiny).

STANDOFF -- Capt. Ramsey and Lt. Hunter

Standoff -- who is right?

Lt. Hunter challenges an irate Capt. Ramsey, in an attempt to avoid nuclear war.

(photo copyright:  Buena Vista Pictures)

Rule 916 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), "Defenses", especially subsections (c) and (d), makes clear that not only should a military member not be charged with a UCMJ offense for not obeying an unlawful order, but also that said military member does, indeed, have an "affirmative duty" to disobey an order that he knows -- or, "that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known" -- to be unlawful.  The commentary of Rule 916 also cites Rule 801(e), stating that the question of whether the person giving the order was in a lawful position to give said order becomes an interlocutory question.  The brilliant men that wrote the Constitution of the United States did so in a manner that "a person of ordinary sense and understanding" could properly interpret the entire document.  Nowhere is that more clear than in the clause requiring the president to be "a natural-born citizen".

Thus, at any time after the soon-scheduled inauguration ceremony of Barack Hussein Obama II, if a military sentry should deny the incoming president access to a command post or other strategic military resource, a key question will arise.  That question will be whether the sentry was disobeying an order or enforcing a higher order.  (The long-standing rules of military security, especially in the nuclear world, go far beyond the tenure of any one particular occupant of the White House.)  In such a standoff, will the sentry's superiors back him?  Every military member takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  The Constitution overrides the authority of any specific president.  (And, if modern politicians truly understood that concept, then the question of whether Obama can be a real president would never come up, because the Congress would have challenged his qualifications long ago.)  Thus, if a sentry declares that he is enforcing the Constitution by denying Obama access to, for example, the White House Situation Room, then how can the sentry be charged with a UCMJ offense?  The fact is that the sentry would be protecting the facility from penetration by an illegal alien, as the text of Colonel Hollister's lawsuit makes quite clear.

It matters not that people like "Peggy the Mooch" believe in the Obamessiah, that he will buy them gasoline and pay their mortgage.  It matters not that, somehow, an illegal alien has occupied a seat in the United States Senate for four years.  It matters not that this illegally-seated senator has managed to conduct a presidential campaign -- despite clearly illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources, and despite not being eligible for the office of president.  It only matters that somewhere, someday, someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post.  Or, hopefully, the officer in charge of the "nuclear football" will simply refuse to hand it over to Barack Hussein Obama II.  I was there the 1983 day that Col. Rodney Cox said, "The fate of Western Europe lies in the hands of an 18-year-old Air Force Security Policeman standing in a weapons-storage area somewhere."  It was true then.  A similar situation may become even more true in the near future, if some military sentry (probably wearing a Blue Beret) confronts a person purporting to be the next President of the United States.  (The starry-eyed idealist that still resides in this 50-year-old body hopes that the incident would be investigated by Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, of the TV series "NCIS".  Then, charges would not be brought, because Gibbs would conclude that no offense occurred.  The realist that also resides in this body worries that some career-happy officer would throw that young sentry under the political bus.)

Any way you slice it, at some point very soon, the world will face The Obama Oxymoron.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Monday, 05 January 2009, at 0409 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Help keep me out of jail

This blog entry is short and simple.

Please help me to stay out of jail.

This is being typed at 0300 (that's 3am, for civilians) on Monday, 05 January 2009.  I've already been awake for almost two hours, and didn't sleep much before that.  At 0900 this morning, I must be in court.  The topic is a follow-up hearing, after the dismissal last year of my lawsuit against Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen.  The topic is the so-called Bredesen Bunker.

For those that don't know, the Bredesen Bunker is a planned $19-million underground party hall at the Governor's Mansion in Nashville.  Out of eleven million citizens in the State of Tennessee, I'm the only one that tried to take the governor into court to block that wasteful and arrogant project from getting started.  The state sent a senior attorney from the Attorney General's Office to face me in court.

The suit was dismissed on a technicality.  There is a law on the books in Tennessee that says a plaintiff can only sue the state in Davidson County (the county that surrounds Nashville, the state capital).  That law is unconstitutional, and I made that argument in court.  (I live in neighboring Wilson County, and had filed the action in my home venue.)  I also cited several cases, which had survived appeal, in which plaintiffs in other parts of the state had sued the state in their various home counties.  The judge dismissed my case anyway, and also decided that the first lady is "an official of the state, and therefore cannot be sued".  (The first lady, who is the driving force behind the Bredesen Bunker, was a co-defendant in my lawsuit.)

Now, the court wants me to pay court costs.

Imagine that:  being required by a court to pay money to come into court to defend the Constitution by airing a "redress of grievances" to stop an arrogant move to waste taxpayers' money.  Imagine that nobody else in the entire state filed a similar lawsuit.  (There are about a half-million citizens living in Davidson County alone.  Why didn't one of them simply copy my papers -- which I had posted on the Internet for that reason -- and then sue the state in that county?)  Imagine that only one person (yep, me) drove in circles for four hours around the State Capitol, honking a car horn to protest the Bredesen Bunker.

2001 -- Tennessee Tax Revolt

In 2001, thousands surrounded the State Capitol and honked their car horns for several weeks.

Well, guess what?  I'm not gonna pay!

Never mind the fact that I can't afford it.  Never mind the fact that the wealthy neighbors that live near the Governor's Mansion spoke on talk radio about raising $30,000 to fight the Bunker, but then only spent it on a flimsy Web site and some glossy brochures.  And, despite my several written requests, multi-millionaire car dealer Lee Beaman (the guy that put up most of the $30,000) has not sent me one penny.  His phone number is in the Nashville phone book, along with the numbers to his several dealerships.  (or, click the above link)  Feel free to call him, and remind him that the Bible says "the workman is due his wages".  The legal work that I did would've cost a paying client thousands of dollars.  (Even Judge Smith said in court that not even most lawyers know about the law that caused my case to get dismissed.)  Never mind the fact that I injured my back at a job in early September, and have not found another job since.  I'm not gonna pay today.

So, you're wondering, "What can be done to help Tom Kovach?"

The answer is simple.  You see, I don't like asking people for money.  (If I were any good at that, then I'd already be the Congressman for this area, and then I wouldn't need to write this to ask for money.)  I prefer to actually earn my money.  So....

Please purchase, for only one dollar, a copy of my spoof song, "The Battle of Bredesen's Bunker".  And, please send that link to all of your friends, and ask them to also buy a copy.  That way, I'm not asking to "mooch" even a dollar from anyone in these difficult times.  (Admittedly, I don't sing well.  But, then again, I'm not selling it for ten dollars.)

The song is done to the music of the Charlie Daniels hit song "Simple Man".  And, I sent a copy of it over to him.  I didn't get to talk with Charlie directly, but his manager told me that they played it on the tour bus, and Charlie liked it.  That was good enough for me.

Hopefully, I can make a good argument in court today, and convince the judge to waive the court costs.  But, if not, I have no money to pay them.  Theoretically, he could send me to jail for contempt for not paying.  Then, in order to get out, I would need to "remedy the contempt" (legalese for pay the costs).  If the judge does send me to jail, then selling that spoof song will be my primary means of earning money to get out of jail.

Thank you, in advance, for your support.

(I have some topics planned for this blog for the next few days.  If you don't see them posted, then that means I'm in jail.)

Hosting by Yahoo!

Wednesday, 24 December 2008, at 0011 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Blagojevich -- the two-tiger theory

News reports recently revealed the details of clandestine audio recordings by the FBI of deal-making conversations in the political scandal du-jour involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his alleged attempts to sell the US Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Here's where it gets strange.

One of the people named as a possible Obama replacement is Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.  She is the one prosecuting Blagojevich for corruption and possible impeachment.  (And, in a truly bizarre twist, Blagojevich recently asked her to appoint his defense lawyer as a deputy attorney general.)

This reminds me of a children's story with a now-politically-incorrect name.  The story had a moral that applies.  A young boy is confronted by tigers, who demand his clothes as extortion in return for not eating him.  He gives up the clothes.  But, then, the tigers fight among each other.  They chase each other around a tree -- faster, faster, faster -- until they turn into melted butter.  Then, the boy picks up his clothes and walks away.

Questions have come up regarding the timing of the original news conference that revealed the Federal investigation into the Blagojevich-Obama scandal.  Now, the tapes reveal that the state's attorney general was one of the people being considered to replace Obama in the US Senate.  Certainly, the United States Attorney for the Chicago area would be well acquainted with the Illinois Attorney General.   Some have questioned whether the revelation of this investigation -- prior to the inauguration, and prior to any seat-sale deal being consummated -- was timed to protect Obama.  But, with the new revelation that Attorney General Madigan was being considered to replace Obama, one must wonder whether one powerful government attorney might have pulled the lid off the investigation before another powerful government attorney got caught by a mousetrap in the cookie jar.

And, will this new fact enable Gov. Blagojevich to watch all the government lawyers chase each other around a tree, and turn to butter, so that he can pick up his "emperor's new clothes" and walk back into the governor's office without a scratch?

Hosting by Yahoo!

Thursday, 18 December 2008, at 0436 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Arctic oil BOOM, or cosmic quake?

In a recent blog entry, Divine deadline for destruction of Damascus?, I mentioned that I would soon write more about the possibility that comet debris could contaminate one-third of the waters of Earth.  Such contamination would fulfill the Bible prophecy that describes the blowing of the first of the famed Seven Trumpets described in the eighth chapter of Revelation.  Although the information available is sketchy, it appears that the event may have occurred.

Back in October, to describe how debris from a comet could fulfill the prophecy of the first trumpet, I wrote God does not slumber.  That entry contained NASA charts that show how Earth can pass through the debris trail of a comet that has crossed Earth's orbital path.  I also described that NASA did not discover the approach a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid until only a few hours before it came only 37,000 miles from Earth.  (In the world of astronomy, that is a very close shave.)  That asteroid could have knocked bits of debris from the trail of Comet Boattini/Barnard down to Earth.  Some might think that such a scenario is a high degree of speculation on my part.

Oh, yeah?  Well, explain this.

In the icy waters off the northern coast of Siberia, on the 23rd of November, there was a concentration of nine magnitude-five earthquakes in a single day.  Those earthquakes occurred at a point where the continental shelf drops down to the deep ocean floor.  What caused those seismic events?

USGS graphic of Arctic quake events

USGS graphic of quake cluster off the Siberian coast

(What caused nine Mag-5 quakes in a single day?)

Another blogger has suggested that Russia actually detonated several nuclear bombs at the bottom of the ocean, in an attempt to shake loose a deep oil deposit.  But, I could not find any evidence to support that scenario.  (Nor could I find any evidence to negate it.)  Although that might seem like a foolhardy scenario, keep in mind that we are talking about a country that runs truck engines all winter long on vodka.  And, we are talking about the country that produced "Tzar Bomba" -- the largest man-made explosion in history.  The seismic wave from the Tzar Bomba blast completely circled Earth three times!  (Not to throw stones from a glass house, keep in mind that our own country has done some rather foolish things in the name of science -- including the Tuskeegee Experiment and the MK-Ultra program.)  So, admittedly, I cannot rule out the possibility that Russia would risk creating a massive tsunami and geological instability in a pursuit of potential petroleum.


The location, concentration, intensity, and timing of these seismic events suggest to me another possibility.  And, that possibility is "fueled" by an idea that I wrote about several years ago.  What if this cluster of nine earthquakes was caused by ... comet dust?  Absurd, you say?  Read on.

If the impact of an asteroid with air can produce a 1.8-kiloton explosion (equal to a tactical nuclear weapon, and one-seventh the size of the bomb that flattened much of Hiroshima), then what could happen if comet debris landed in the ocean, fell to the bottom, and then was ignited by an undersea volcano?  The answer to that question would, of course, depend upon the chemical makeup of the comet debris.

The possibility of such an intense reaction is suggested by, of all things, my work to uncover the cause of the downing of TWA Flight 800.  Among other things, it turned out that metal-alloy shrapnel found in the bodies of the Flight 800 crash victims is consistent with highly-specialized oxidizer pellets used in missile warheads to intensify the explosive effects.  What if the comet debris at the bottom of the ocean contains a compound that has the same explosive-enhancing effects as the oxidizer pellets used in missile warheads?  What if the comet debris fell to Earth back in October, struck the polar ice off the Siberian coast, melted through, and then settled upon the ocean floor?  What if, a few weeks later, an undersea volcano (not an unusual event at the border of a continental shelf) ignited the debris that was lying dormant there?  What if, upon being ignited by the volcano, the compound produced such an undersea explosion (actually, a series of explosions) that it was registered as nine separate earthquakes by United States Geological Survey seismographs located thousands of miles away?  And, what if, after detonation, that dormant compound changed into something so toxic that it could contaminate one-third of Earth's total water supply?  (For an example of how a chemical compound can change after detonation, I again rely upon the research done on the Flight 800 disaster.  Military-grade conventional explosives leave a distinctive residue called PETN, which was found on the beams of the Flight 800 wreckage.)

Not only does the above scenario follow a logical progression, but it also matches the Biblical description of the events that follow the sounding of the first of the Seven Trumpets.  As my book, Tribulation:  2008 reveals in detail, I believe that the seven-year Tribulation period started this past September, on the Hebrew Feast of Trumpets.  According to a variety of signs (some of them astronomical, and thus beyond human control), I believe that the angel blew the first trumpet in Heaven at the same time that the first trumpet was blown in Jerusalem to begin this Feast of the Lord.  The prophecy in Revelation 8:7 uses distinctive language -- not used in any of the other prophecies of the trumpets -- that a series of events followed the blowing of the trumpet.  The original Greek word used suggests events unfolding over a period of time.

Regardless of whether the undersea explosions were caused by comet debris, or by Russian nuclear weapons, the question remains whether the trigger for the seismic events produced any toxic effects upon the waters.  If it did, then it matches the description of Revelation 8:7.  As for me, I'm leaning in the direction of comet debris, because it follows a logical progression from the near-pass by Comet Boattini/Barnard back in October.  That event matched, to the day, the Biblical formula for the decompression of time between Heaven and Earth, as explained in my book.  What are the chances that such an event could match -- in precise detail, including the day of its arrival -- descriptions predicted almost two thousand years prior by a fisherman living alone on a Greek island?  The only explanation that makes logical sense is that John's prophecies in Revelation are true to the N-th degree, and that they are now unfolding before our eyes.

Besides, I believe that another Bible-predicted event will be connected to a nuclear disaster.  Keep in mind that the Ukrainian word for Wormwood happens to be chernobyl.  Hmmmmm.

With all of these facts in mind, were the Arctic undersea events a Russian "oil boom", or were they cosmic quakes?

Hosting by Yahoo!

Wednesday, 03 December 2008, at 0107 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

DelGiorno digs deeper ditch

 This blog entry was originally written on the 20th of November.  I have purposely withheld its publication, in hopes that it would not be necessary.  Sadly, it is.

Because of the delay, all time-related terms in the below entry (such as "last week", or "less than a month ago") should be mentally adjusted accordingly.

The subject of this blog entry is married to an attorney.  He tried to tell me that my previous blog entry on this topic was not true.  I told him that he was bluffing, because if it had actually been untrue then he would've threatened a lawsuit.  He hasn't, nor can he.  Legal doctrine"truth is an absolute defense to a charge of libel".


Believe it or not, I don't like fighting.  But, I like bullies even less.  That is why I spent a good chunk of my adult life wearing a uniform and carrying weapons to prevent terrorism and other bad things from happening.  There is a quote on my Web site from philosopher John Stuart Mill, who wrote, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things."  (For the rest of the quote, feel free to visit my site.)

Here's some good advice for any situation:  "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."  It is especially unwise to start the gunfight if one doesn't have a gun, or has a gun but can't shoot very well.

Such is the case with "live and local" Nashville talk-radio host Michael DelGiorno, who recently made the mistake of starting a feud with me.  And, of all things, he has picked the topic of "credibility" as the basis for the feud.  He should've done his homework.  I have.  One of the things that Michael should study is the origin and meaning of the intelligence term "blowback".

The fuse was lit — on my end — when DelGiorno jerked me around last week, after inviting me to call his program to discuss my recent book.  As documented in a recent blog entry, instead of living up to his word, Michael spent a huge chunk of the final hour of his program that day by repeatedly telling listeners that "Faith Hill smells like toilet paper".  (Then, after that blog appeared, he tried to say on-air that tens of thousands of people heard wrong, and that what he really said was that she smells like "baby powder".  Hey, paisano, "I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.")

The above might seem like a small thing, but it's the tip of an iceberg.  Michael has jerked me around for months, and I've been as gracious as possible under the circumstances.  As I said, the fuse was not lit on my end until recently, but the fuse has been lit on his end for a long time.  I'm not being "overly sensitive", either.  For about a year, friends have asked me why DelGiorno treats me so rudely on his program.  He doesn't treat other callers or guests that way, especially considering that we are both "standing up for what's right".

After my previous blog about him appeared, Michael sent me an e-mail.  The timing was quite ironic, because the week prior he had told me to "direct all further communication" to the acting program director of the station.  He wanted me to respect his boundary, but it was OK for him to trample over the boundary that he had just set ... as long as the trampling was done in my direction.  In other words, "It's all about Michael."

Well, unfortunately, Michael has some credibility problems.

In our e-mail exchange, Michael stated that "many" people had "warned" him not to give me "extended air time".  I challenged him to name even one of those people, and/or to describe what their warning said would happen.  He never replied.  And, that seems to be a pattern.

Other people have tried to rattle Michael during his program with regard to the reason that he left his previous radio station, in Tulsa, in such a hurry.  To his credit, Michael handled those cheap shots fairly well.  (Speaking of cheap shots, the publicity agency that put out my previous blog has suddenly been hit with hundreds of spam e-mails almost simultaneously.  That has never happened before this week.  The company has several e-mail addresses, but the one that was hit was the one that went out in the cover e-mail publicizing my blog about DelGiorno.  Mere coincidence?)  I knew about some of those job-destroying circumstances before he ever got on the air in Nashville.  Why?  I had applied for that same job, and I wanted to know about my competition.  (And, for the most part, his show has gone fairly well.  But, recently, there has been a noticeable decline in quality.  I have attributed the problem to his consumption of a certain caffeine-laden beverage with a bovine mascot.)

In the 19 months that Michael has hosted a program in Nashville, I have never mentioned what I knew from the beginning.  Why?  I didn't want to take any personal shots at him.  I'm an "issues oriented" fighter.  And, I had no fight with him.  But, apparently, Michael decided to pick one with me.  Well ... OK, Michael ... if you insist.

When the publicity went out about my previous blog on this topic, it included a link to an Inside Radio report.  That report quoted a newspaper article from the Tulsa World, which detailed how Michael had been banned — for the second, and final, time — from a Tulsa casino.  There are several Web pages that bash Michael for an apparent problem with compulsive gambling.  Again, I knew about those pages before he even arrived in Nashville, but I've never mentioned them.  When others have mentioned them to me, I have tried to sidetrack the topic.  Why?  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  (That quote certainly applies to me.)  But, when his arrogance got to the point that Michael seems to think that there is a special set of rules that allows him to trample on other people, then it's time to teach him otherwise.  (Any regular listeners to WWTN will tell you that I've turned the other cheek far more times than most people would.  Even in the best of families, sometimes the wise older brother needs to simply knock the #&*%! out of a pestering younger brother.)  In this case, my weapon of choice is a metaphorical "mirror".

Recently, I began a series of e-mail exchanges with Ziva Branstetter, who wrote the newspaper article about Michael being banned from the Creek Nation Casino — Tulsa.  Michael prompted my curiosity by telling me in his e-mail that I was spreading "lies and distortions" with regard to the casino incident.  So, just as I did with Michael in the first place, I went directly to the source.  She was cooperative and factual in documenting her experience with Michael.

When she confronted Michael about the incident, at first he denied that it happened.  Then, she told him about the casino's surveillance video.  Immediately, he switched to "no comment" mode.  Ziva related to me that she had never even shown him the video!  As soon as he heard that a video even existed, he clammed up.  (What?  He didn't think that casinos have surveillance?  Duh!  They had surveillance long before VCRs were invented.)  Ziva had been allowed to view the video at the casino's security department, but not to keep a copy.

In keeping with journalistic standards, I didn't merely accept the reporter's word.  I contacted the casino's security department for myself.  They, in turn, had to make an official request with the Oklahoma Gaming Compliance Unit.  After two days, someone from the unit called me back with their official decision.  They would not allow the casino to release the video to me, because I was planning to post it on this blog for public viewing, and the video was so detailed that it would reveal the casino's surveillance capability.  But, by their reply, that outside government agency had confirmed that such a video did actually exist.  And, Ziva had obtained affidavits from several witnesses at the casino before running the newspaper story.  (Originally, the Web version of the story also had included the security report from the casino, but that document is no longer posted.)

So much for me spreading "lies and distortions".

Speaking of distortions, Michael's program recently took a peculiar turn.  Listeners might not realize the "story behind the story".  Two days ago, on-air, Michael mocked another radio host — John Moore, a former Green Beret — who has said on his program that there is a tenth planet in our solar system.  Moore has gone on to say that the CIA is moving its headquarters to Denver, because of concerns about the sudden rise of ocean levels in the near future.  While poking fun at Moore's report, DelGiorno had the theme music from the TV series The X-Files playing in the background.  DelGiorno repeatedly emphasized the folly of there being a tenth planet in our solar system.

Here is the official NASA Web page documenting their discovery of a tenth planet in our solar system.  (Michael seems to think that, if he hasn't heard of it, then it can't exist.  Oh, yeah, I forgot – "It's all about Michael DelGiorno.")

Interestingly, that tenth planet is larger that Pluto.  Astronomers have scanned the skies for five hundred years.  But, it was only three years ago that this tenth planet was discovered.  John Moore claims that his well-placed confidential sources have told him that the yet-unnamed planet will soon cause disastrous effects upon Earth's ocean levels, etc.  The headquarters of the CIA is at Langley, Virginia, more than 30 miles inland from where the Potomac River meets the Atlantic Ocean.  A sudden and catastrophic rise in ocean levels would accompany the impact of an asteroid or comet in the Atlantic.  That precise scenario is described in my recent book.  And, another celestial event described in my book has already occurred — on the exact date when my interpretation of the Bible formula said that it would occur.  John Moore relied upon confidential government sources.  I relied upon the Holy Bible.  Moore and I have never met, nor have we exchanged e-mails.  Yet, we both seem to be predicting a similar event for the near future.  (Is it possible that scientists will name that tenth planet Wormwood?)

And, now, for the "story behind the story".  You see, John Moore happens to be a talk host on the Republic Broadcasting Network.  And, earlier this year, I also hosted an RBN talk show.  (And, out of professional courtesy, I did not call in to Michael's program during the time when I hosted one of my own.)  So, by attempting to discredit one host on RBN, it appears that Michael was attempting to set the stage to discredit me.  Oops.

But, DelGiorno's blunder doesn't stop there.  You see, RBN is owned by John Stadtmiller.  He happens to also be a principal in a company that sells gold.  John can afford his own radio network.  Michael doesn't even own one station.  So, if there were a lawsuit for slander, it appears that Michael would be seriously outgunned.

Speaking of being outgunned, there is another aspect to consider.  John Moore was a Green Beret.  The station that carries Michael's program, WWTN-FM in Nashville, has a signal the reaches well beyond Fort Campbell, 60 miles away.  Fort Campbell is home to the 5th Special Forces Group.  (You know, the group that operated in Vietnam, where Moore served.)  Every special operator that I ever met was a straight shooter, both literally and figuratively.  It's not smart to insult the integrity of someone that wears one of those "funny-shaped hats" with their military uniform.  (I was capable of a head shot from a half-mile away, and Green Berets train even more extensively than we did.)

My beret is Air Force blue.  The WWTN signal also reaches down to Arnold Air Force base, approximately 70 miles in the opposite direction as Fort Campbell.  In prior applications to host a talk show on WWTN, I've included the selling point that my military background would appeal to audiences at both installations.  Perhaps, after realizing that Michael DelGiorno has insulted the integrity of a former Green Beret (while simultaneously undermining his own credibility), the station might reconsider putting this former Blue Beret on the air.  (You can help that process along by e-mailing:  Charley.Connolly@cumulus.com, or by calling him at 615-321-1067.)  And, if WWTN asks nicely, there might be a way to simulcast my show on RBN to expand the audience.  (Perhaps, if the station asks very nicely, then John won't sue them for slandering his host and his network.)

This isn't the first time that DelGiorno has put his employer into jeopardy of a lawsuit.  He jeopardized his employer last week by insulting Faith Hill.  He did it two days ago by insulting RBN and John Moore.  And, the reason that Michael is in Nashville in the first place is because he jeopardized his former employer in Tulsa.  In short, it seems that Michael DelGiorno is a loose cannon with a short fuse and a growing credibility problem — much like host Kevin Miller that WWTN had to fire just before DelGiorno came to Nashville.  (And, less than a month ago, Miller jeopardized his new employer in Pittsburgh by "pretending" to have been "scolded" on-air for negative remarks about Barack Obama.)  Two years ago, when I was on the Republican ballot for the 5th Congressional District, Miller was also very rude to me on-air when I would call.  He seemed intent on discrediting me.  Did anyone pay Miller to undermine my campaign for Congress?  And, why would someone who claims to stand for certain staunch principles undermine a candidate that stands for the same things?

By contrast, my investigative work has been above reproach.  I have exposed political frauds, gone after corrupt officials (including a retired two-star general), found important evidence at a bombing scene, helped to unravel a cover-up that involved the FBI and the news media, and investigated aviation disasters.  When I still lived in Upstate NY, I organized that state's first anti-Hillary rally.  (In 2006, I did the same for Tennessee.)  Last year, I sued the governor of Tennessee.  I've gone after some powerful people, and I've never even been sued, much less had to forfeit a settlement.  (DelGiorno e-mailed me to say that my previous blog was "slander".  I replied that his wife is an attorney, and that if I had truly slandered him, then he would've threatened a lawsuit.  He didn't, and neither did any of the corrupt officials that I've confronted.  I back up what I say, and I don't suffer well with people that can't.)  I've interviewed country music stars, government officials, and TV producers without insulting any of them.  (And, I'm available immediately, in the event that WWTN finds itself in sudden need of a replacement talk-show host with experience.  As I said in my previous blog, I would start the job at half of the $150-K/year that a host in Michael's market situation typically makes, until I can prove my real worth.  Now, there is a truly conservative idea in this difficult economy.  Competition helps businesses, including talk-radio hosts, to improve.)

As an example of the declining quality of the program, here is a direct quote from one of Michael's disjointed e-mails to me.  "This may come as a surprise to you, but caller interaction is NOT the highest priority of mine, or most talk shows."  (That is an actual quote.  I have the e-mail.)  I'm sure that his operating philosophy would also come as a surprise to all those people on hold each day.  Hello?!  It's called "talk" radio.  (Perhaps we should start using the British name, "chat radio", which keeps the perspective that the talk is supposed to go in both directions.)

In short, I have much more credibility than the person that started a feud by attacking my credibility.  He doesn't look so good in the "mirror" of facts, truth, and logic.  Attacking my truth by telling lies and half-truths wasn't a very good idea on his part.  Diverting conservative voters by being a Relief Valve hurts, not helps, our society.

Here's another old saying that Michael DelGiorno should heed ... while he still has a job:  "When you're in a hole, stop digging."  Put another way, "When you're outgunned, disengage."  The reason I don't like fighting is because it's messy and painful ... for everyone involved.  But, that doesn't mean I won't fight when it's necessary, nor does it mean that I'm not good at it.  It just means that I don't go looking for a fight.  I've finished a lot more fights than I've started.  And, I didn't start this one.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 2354 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Kenyan Embassy lied to Obama researchers

background — Part One

In recent days, there has been a lot of Internet attention given to a Detroit rock-shock-jock radio interview with Peter Ogego, the ambassador of Kenya.  (Instead of listening to the entire 19-minute rambling segment, click this link for my 3:18 edited version.)  Two days after the American presidential election, the "Mike in the Morning" rock-radio team decided to have some fun by calling the Embassy of Kenya to "congratulate" that African country on "becoming the 51st state" via the election of US Senator Barack Obama to become our next president.  The receptionist transferred the radio ruffians directly to the ambassador, and that led to the opening of a political Pandora's box.

Toward the end of the interview, co-host Marc Fellhauer asked this question, apparently intending it as a joke, "One more quick question:  President-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?"  The announcers were not expecting Ambassador Ogego to reply, "It's already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive."

To clarify that the ambassador really meant what he had just said, Fellhauer altered and restated the question.  "His birthplace, they'll put up a marker there?"  The ambassador replied, "It would depend on the government. It's already well known."


The ambassador of Kenya said that the birthplace — in Kenya — of United States President-elect Barack Hussein Obama II is already a well-known attraction!  If that same statement had been made by John Doe the hotel clerk (the disc jockeys also called a hotel in Kenya), then that would be inconclusive.  But, as the official representative of a sovereign government, every public statement that an ambassador makes is the official position of that government.  Therefore, the government of Kenya has now officially stated that Senator Obama was born in Kenya; and, he has stated that said fact is "already well known" in Kenya.

Because the Constitution of the United States requires that the president be "a natural-born citizen", and because the official position of the government of Kenya is that Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya, the ambassador's interview instantly nullified Obama's chances of becoming president.  Well ... sort of.

In order for Obama to become disqualified for the presidency, Democratic Party electors would need to turn their backs upon party loyalty, which greatly resembles African tribal loyalty, and take an action for the greater good of America as a whole.  Imagine that.

background — Part Two

For a moment, I need to flash back a few months.

Although much of my writing focuses upon politics, I also write about Christian topics.  Perhaps nowhere else do my writings contain so much energy as where politics and religion intersect.  (My first talk-radio program was called "PR-Squared", for that very reason.)  And, perhaps nowhere else do politics and religion intersect with more power than where the topic surrounds Senator and President-elect Barack Hussein Obama II, and his role in End Times prophecy.  (For the specific details, read my book, Tribulation:  2008.  Hint:  It's not what you first think, but that would be close.)

As a result of my study of the Bible and of its application in modern politics, earlier this year I researched the meaning of Obama's last name.  At that time, most other writers were fixated upon his middle name, and clamoring about that fact that it is Arabic.  Although that is important, I find more prophetic significance in his family name.  This is especially true because "last" names are a relatively new concept in Kenya.  (The professor of linguistics that explained this to me had thirteen names, but he used the English two-name convention in his public life.)  As one part of that research, I made several phone calls to the Embassy of Kenya.  And, during those phone calls, a staff member of the Embassy of Kenya plainly lied to me.

The person that lied to me was a woman, and she would only identify herself to me as "Trudy".  The woman that lied to me was not the receptionist; it was someone else to whom the receptionist connected me.  Thus, the liar was a woman in some position of authority at the Embassy of Kenya.  There is only one woman listed on this roster of Kenyan embassy staff members.  I do not know if Felicina W. Ndwiga goes by the nickname "Trudy", but perhaps someone in the Kenyan news media will pick up this story and run farther with it.  Keep that name "Trudy" in the back of your mind, as it will appear again shortly.

What was the lie?  I had asked "Trudy" if there was anyone on the embassy staff that speaks Dho-Luo.  That is the language of the Luo tribe of western Kenya.  That is the tribe from which Barack Obama's paternal ancestry comes.  I wanted to get an official translation of the word "Obama" from someone at the embassy.  (But, I never got far enough to tell anyone that.  All I told "Trudy" was that I wanted to get the translation of a specific word; but, not which word.)  The first time that I called, Trudy told me that there was a person on staff that speaks Dho-Luo, but that he was not available.  I asked when he might be available.  She said to call back after lunch.  I did.  She said that he was not there.  I called back an hour later.  This time, the same Trudy told me that no one on the embassy staff speaks that language.  But, as it turns out, Ambassador Ogego himself is a native Dho-Luo speaker.  Surely, an embassy staff official would know which languages the ambassador can speak, and which one is his native language.  This was no mere mistake, especially given that I had three different telephone conversations with "Trudy".

Side note:  Some scoffers have tried to claim that the Detroit shock-jocks made up the whole thing, and that they made a phone call to a team of character actors.  That claim falls apart on its face, because I got the same voice-mail recording that one can hear in the audio file on their Web site.  And, there is another independent confirming factor.

background — Part Three

Fast-forward from my phone calls last summer to the present.  The telephone interview with the Detroit shock-jocks is gaining attention.  People are beginning to realize that this was an official pronouncement of the government of Kenya.  People are beginning to realize the implication of that pronouncement with regard to the outcome of our American presidential election.  Ambassador Ogego's words could have torpedoed Obama's chances of becoming president.

Now comes the back-pedaling.  WorldNetDaily (one of several publications for whom I have written) has picked up the Detroit angle of the story.  A staff writer contacted the Embassy of Kenya to confirm the story.  An embassy staffer told WND that Ambassador Ogego's words were taken out of context and that Senator Obama was not born in Kenya.  That article appeared on the morning of Wed, 26 November.

That same morning, I was scheduled for a brief guest appearance on the G. Gordon Liddy talk-radio program.  The guest host was Joseph Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.  (Mister Liddy was on Thanksgiving vacation.)  The topic was the Ogego radio interview.  Farah has kept the WND spotlight focused upon Obama's questionable eligibility.  To prepare for my interview, I checked for the latest news on the topic, and found the above-linked WND article.  The embassy staffer that issued the denials to WND was none other than "Trudy".  Immediately, I thought back to my own conversation with "Trudy", and knew that she must be the resident spin-doctor for the Embassy of Kenya.

Seeking independent confirmation for what I already knew in my gut, I made a phone call to Kenya.  I chatted with a newsman with many years of experience in following Kenyan politics.  (For his safety, I shall not identify him further.)  The conversation started out as a yes-or-no question:  Does Ambassador Ogego speak Dho-Luo?  The answer, of course, was "yes".  Dho-Luo is his native language.  Ambassador Ogego is also fluent in English and Swahili.  (Many people wrongly believe that Swahili is a "native" African language.  It is not.  It is a synthetic language, which is blended to help people of many African tribes and countries communicate.  Swahili is to the African continent what Esperanto is to the merchant seamen of Europe.)

Given that the ambassador is fluent in three languages, and given that he spent several years as a consultant in Canada before his assignment to the United States, it seems nearly impossible that he got linguistically "ambushed" by the Detroit radio team.  It seems much more plausible that, in a moment of great ethnic (and Socialist) pride, the ambassador was totally candid.  If the ambassador was ambushed in any way, it was not into the weeds of being "out of context".  Instead, it was that he was ambushed into the daylight of telling the whole truth.  (To totally rule out the idea that Ambassador Ogego was "ambushed" by the English language, read his fluent comments in this interview with The Washington Diplomat.  Then listen to his fluent description of the elder Obama at 1:57 of the edited Detroit clip.)

Lest anyone think that I'm merely grabbing at straws with regard to Ogego, consider the ambassador's background.  He grew up in the same village (Siaiya) as the senator's father (Barack Hussein Obama I).  He is from the Luo tribe.  (The Luo Union tried for many years to implement Socialist policies in the Kenyan government.)  He served for several years as the personal assistant to Odinga Odinga, the father of Prime Minister Raila Odinga.  The elder Odinga was a key member, along with the elder Obama, of the Socialist-connected Luo Union — an ethnic-based political association that was banned in 1980, along with all other tribal-based political organizations.  Despite that ban, which was part of an attempt to modernize the country, corruption and tribal politics are still very much a part of the Kenyan political landscape.  Tribal politics are so endemic that, when the younger Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004, Kenyan Luos fully expected that Obama would order roads and airports to be built in Nyanza Province!  Of course, they also expected it to be done with American taxpayer money.  (Note that this actual African Socialist article on the younger Obama's roots has been blanked-out.  Socialist strategy apparently overcame Socialist pride, so the article was spiked ... but not completely.)  Ambassador Ogego was intimately familiar with the Odinga and Obama families.  The ambassador knew that he was speaking about Senator Obama, and not the senator's late father, when he said that the senator's "paternal grandmother is still alive" at the senator's birthplace.  Again, this was no mere mistake.  Ogego knew exactly what he was saying and about whom he was saying it.

The day after "Trudy" told WorldNetDaily that the ambassador's words were "taken out of context", the ambassador told the same WND writer that he was 'misquoted'.  It cannot be both.  Either the quote was accurate, or it was not.  A misquote cannot simultaneously be out of context, because a misquote involves the wrong words.  "Out of context" means to impart the wrong meaning to the right words.  Given that it is an audio recording of a live radio broadcast, it would be difficult to have the wrong words.  Given the ambassador's fluent command of English, it would be difficult to take the right words out of context.  The only other option is that the ambassador is quite ashamed of having been caught telling the truth, and he is now trying to get out of it.  But, as the old saying goes, one cannot unring a bell.

Notably, the same person at the Embassy of Kenya lied to WND's Chelsea Schilling and to me.  Those lies all hinged upon the purported linguistic weakness of a man fluent in three languages and with many years of foreign service.  Also notably, those lies by an official of a foreign government were to protect US Senator Barack Hussein Obama II from his own past.  And, that protection appears aimed at influencing the American electoral process into choosing a president that is disqualified by our Constitution.  This scenario reads like a role-reversed script from the 1960s TV series Mission: Impossible, with some faraway country using trickery to change the course of American history, instead of the Americans being the agents of "change".  Ironic humor aside, the bottom line is that both an embassy staffer and the ambassador himself lied to researchers trying to get at the truth about Barack Obama's background.

analysis and potential effects

Unfortunately, lies by political officials seem to be par for the course in any modern country.  Still, some lies have more effect than others.  Even in the jaded and lie-saturated environment of modern foreign relations, attempting to influence the outcome of another country's presidential election is considered a "biggie" by most definitions.  Will our current president and his State Department take the actions of Kenya seriously?  Don't hold your breath.

Regardless of what the current administration does, there are three government entities that can take action.  One is the Electoral College, which is scheduled to convene on the 15th of December.  The second is the Supreme Court of the United States, which has set a "discovery conference" for the 1st of December and a "certiorari conference" for the 5th of December.  The discovery conference (with Justice Souter) is set to review Senator Obama's actual birth certificate (versus the forgery that was posted on his presidential campaign Web site).  The certiorari conference (with Justice Thomas) is set to decide whether the Supreme Court will hear the appeal arising from a New Jersey case that was dismissed.  That case, like more than a dozen others, sought to block Obama from the presidency because of his refusal to prove that he is a natural-born citizen.

If the members of the Electoral College take their duty seriously — by moving beyond party loyalties, and putting the good of our nation first — then they are the final check in the "checks and balances" of the presidential election process.  Keep in mind that the electors pledged to Barack Obama come from the ranks of Democratic Party activists.  If that party has so far shirked its Constitutional duty by ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room, then what expectation do we have that those electors will have a sudden attack of conscience on the 15th of December?  (Perhaps the Democrats agree with the rant of Republican President George W. Bush, who declared three years ago that our Constitution is, "... just a God-d---ed piece of paper!")

Enter the third option:  the lawsuit filed by presidential candidate Alan Keyes in the California Supreme Court.  The lawsuit by Keyes seeks to avert a crisis by getting the court to issue an order that the California meeting of the Electoral College may not cast any votes in favor of Barack Obama until his Constitutional eligibility has been confirmed.  Why California?  First, that state has the largest affiliate of the new America's Independent Party, which had nominated Keyes for president.  (When the state-level American Independent Party switched its affiliation from the Constitution Party to the national AIP, the latter instantly became the third-largest party in America.)  Second, that state also has the largest number of Electoral College votes (55).  If the Keyes lawsuit succeeds, and if similar lawsuits were to succeed in only four other states (New York, Michigan, Florida, and Illinois), then courtroom action could block Obama's path to the White House.  (For all those pseudo-conservative pundits that parroted the 'Keyes doesn't have a chance' mantra, what are you doing to stop Obama?)

Although I'm not a lawyer, I have spent more time in courtrooms and law libraries than the average citizen.  In my opinion, the fact that two officials of a foreign government have been caught in a pattern of lies that appears designed to protect Obama from questions about his eligibility is a serious case of political "blowback".  The fact that an ambassador publicly stated that Obama's birthplace in Kenya is "already well known" should be prima facie evidence in any courtroom.  When coupled with the lies told to spin Kenya away from that statement, it rises to a level that I believe would convince most jurors — and, hopefully, most members of the Electoral College — that Obama is not eligible to become president.

And that, dear readers, is why it matters who told what lies to whom.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Wednesday, 19 November 2008, at 1548 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Obama -- what are the chances that he is "The One"?

Recently, I put out a blog entry that 666 was the winning number for the Illinois state lottery on the day after Election Day.  Illinois, of course, is the home state of US Senator Barack Hussein Obama II, who has (ostensibly) become our president-elect.

So, what are the chances that Obama really is "The One"?  (In an increasing number of columns, blogs, and letters to the editor, that is the term by which Obama is referred:  The One.)

Obama supporters have criticized me for daring to even imply that there is any connection between the election of Barack Obama and the prophecies in the Holy Bible regarding the seven-year period known as The Tribulation.

Imply?  I wrote an entire book about The Tribulation!  And, sadly, I wrote that Barack Obama plays a prominent role in fulfilling the prophecies about this period of time.  (Which, by the way, has already begun.)  The book spells out that role quite plainly, and everything that Obama does confirms that the book is correct.


Was I merely grasping at straws to smear Obama, as critics claim?  Or, was it more than mere coincidence that the number 666 made headlines in Obama's home state the day after the election?  Let's do the math.

Regular readers know that I don't like math.  However, I do like precision, and math is an expression of precision.  And, no one is more precise than God.  Recently, I used math to show that God has given a simple but precise mathematical formula to help us understand the truth of His Word regarding the future of our world.  Through that formula, I was able to demonstrate that events in outer space last month took place on the exact day when the Bible formula said they would.  Nobody could've made a prediciton like that, with that level of precision, except God.

do the math

So, let's see what the numbers have to say about the "coincidence" of the Illinois Lottery picking 666 on the day after Election Day in the home state of the (purported) president-elect.

The chances of picking that number on any given day are one in a thousand.  Multiply that by 365 days in a year, times 4 years in a presidential election cycle, times two candidates likely to win (in our media-steered election process that ignores better-qualified candidates), times 50 states from which the president-elect could have come, times 42 states that have a lottery.  The resulting odds are one in 6,132,000,000 (yes -- more than six billion to one) for that event to happen as it did.

but, wait, there's more

If the number "six billion" rings a bell, it's probably because -- only a few years ago -- it was in the news quite a lot.  In 1999, scientists and the news media proclaimed that the population of Earth had exceeded six billion people.  So, does it seem "more than coincidence" that this one person -- out of more than six billion -- is called "The One"?  What are the odds of that?  A little more than six billion to one?

Only God knows exactly how many people are on Earth at any given moment.  (For example, I think that the figure shown by the US Census Bureau world population 'clock' is somewhat inflated.)  My personal feeling is that the odds of Barack Obama being "The One" precisely matched the number of people on  Earth at the moment when a specific event occurred.  What event?  Just like the exact population of Earth, only God knows the answer to that question.

Given the fact that Obama's home state had a prophetic number on his first day as "president-elect", it certainly seems that God is dropping us some major hints that events are lining up precisely as He predicted centuries ago.  What are the chances that people will pay attention?

Hosting by Yahoo!

Monday, 17 November 2008, at 0503 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Obama draft scandal deepens

Millions of American citizens — regardless of political party affiliation — are concerned that Barack Hussein Obama is disqualified from becoming president because he is not a "natural born citizen", as the Constitution requires (Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5).  But, even if he were a citizen, there is a strong possibility that the next commander-in-chief of our military violated the law regarding the military draft.  And, new evidence suggests that there could have been a cover-up effort to prevent the public from learning about the draft irregularities.

The newly-formed America's Independent Party, which endorsed Dr. Alan Keyes in the recent presidential election, has led the way by filing lawsuits to block Obama from becoming our next president.  (In 2004, Keyes ran against Obama for the US Senate seat that the latter now occupies.  If conservatives had supported Keyes in 2004, or during this recent election, then we wouldn't be fretting about a President-elect Obama now.)  The legal actions are based upon a growing body of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as his campaign has claimed.  Foreign birth would automatically disqualify any candidate for president.  Despite months of inquiries from multiple sources, which come from across the political spectrum, the Obama campaign refuses to produce a valid Hawaii birth certificate.


During an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, 07 September 2008, then-candidate Obama said that he had considered joining the military when he "had to" register for the draft when he graduated from high school in 1979.  But, as was reported the following morning by the premiere edition of The Crossbow, that statement was not correct.  There was no mandatory draft registration in 1979.  (Voluntary registrations were accepted then, but those were scant.)

In order to practice journalistic fairness, The Crossbow e-mailed the Obama campaign's media department for a clarification.  Despite having used the "media form" on their Web site, no reply was ever received.  (However, this writer's e-mail address was added to an Obama fundraising e-mail database, without even asking permission.  Those fundraising e-mails have come in two or three times per week ever since.  Given that the "media form" contained no mention of being added to such a database, that practice would seem to be a violation of "anti-spam" laws.  But, if the campaign has no compulsion about trampling the Constitution — or worse — then why would they care about anti-spam laws?)

Despite the lack of a direct reply to the direct request for a copy of Obama's draft registration, it seems that the Obama campaign did take some action as a result of that request.  A few days ago, blogger Debbie Schlussel revealed a copy of Obama's draft registration.  She had a trusted source, retired Federal agent Stephen Coffman, obtain and examine the registration form.  That form, which should have answered the lingering questions, raised more questions of its own.

 purported Obama draft registration form -- obtained by Debbie Schlussel

Some of those questions were also raised by the follow-up column in The Crossbow, which documents the extant request for the Obama draft registration.  In her blog, Schlussel questions why the Selective Service System's own computer data log shows that the Obama draft registration form was requested from their Data Management Center in Chicago on the 9th of September, when Schlussel's FOIA request was not written until the 13th of October, and was not mailed until the 25th of October.  The timing of that access of the file on the 9th seems to indicate that the Obama campaign took seriously the allegations made on the 8th by The Crossbow.  Although they took the allegations seriously, the reaction seems to have been "spin control" instead of forthrightness.  That, of course, leads to other questions, including the question of a cover-up.

The follow-up column in The Crossbow pointed out that it would've been impossible for Barack Obama to register for the draft in Hawaii, because he was attending college in Los Angeles at that time.  That assertion was based on the inquiry results published on 12 August 2008 by Pajamas Media blogger Bob Owens.  Those results stated that Obama had registered on 04 September 1980.  But, he had been required by law to register during the last week of July, after President Carter had revived mandatory draft registration retroactively.

new info

In the wake of Ms. Schlussel's blog revelations, via an e-mail exchange, Mr. Owens told The Crossbow that the Selective Service System had not provided him with a copy of the registration form.  (Ms. Schlussel has not replied to a separate e-mail inquiry from The Crossbow.)  Oddly, the Selective Service System in Washington, DC, had previously told Mr. Owens that Obama's draft registration form could not be accessed.  He had to make several information requests before getting an e-mail reply.  And, that reply was only a summary, which did not include the actual form.  Retired ICE agent Coffman also had to make several FOIA requests, over the course of a year, before obtaining the form.  But, in the wake of The Crossbow's allegation that Obama lied, somebody accessed that "inaccessible" record.  The Selective Service computer printout shows that the form was accessed on 09 September, one day after the original allegations by The Crossbow and the request for an Obama response.

 Selective Service System document management printout

That same computer printout shows the last "action" with the record to have been on 04 September 1980.  That was the date that the Selective Service spokesman told Mr. Owens was when Obama registered for the draft.  The form shows that Obama signed the registration on the 30th of July, which was during the week required for him to register.  But, the official stamp on the form was dated the day before.  Having worked in a Post Office on two separate occasions, I know that the routine is for the clerks to change the dates on all the stamps before opening the locked window at the customer counter.  So, even if young Barack Obama had been the first person in line that morning (not likely for a college student on summer break), the dates still should have matched between the signature and the stamp.  Retired ICE agent Coffman pointed out that anomaly via the Schlussel blog.

Here, the tale takes another strange twist.  As pointed out in the previous editions of The Crossbow, Obama claimed to have been actively considering military service at the time that he registered for the draft.  But, on the registration form, the box is not checked for the military recruiters to contact Obama.  If he were truly considering an "ennobling" service in the Armed Forces, then wouldn't he have taken that opportunity to be contacted by the recruiters?  This aspect of the examination is exclusive to The Crossbow.

Another exclusive angle is the fact the Selective Service laws require that even illegal aliens must register for the draft.  Really.  (Of course, if they broke the law to get here in the first place...)  The real irony here is that, given that Obama's draft registration form states that he showed "no ID", it is possible that the reason for the lack of ID is his lack of American citizenship.  I'd much prefer to see Obama deported to Kenya than imported to the White House.

The Schlussel blog points out irregularities with the postal date validation stamp.  And, readers of that blog have posted comments similar to my assertion above.  Some of those readers went into detail about the fact that the "round dater" stamps come with a four-digit block for the year.  The stamp on the Obama draft form shows only two digits, and the digits seem to be damaged.  A comment from Schlussel reader "Vicki551", who claims to be a retired Postal Service clerk, goes into detail about the format of the date stamp.  That sparked independent research by The Crossbow, which agrees that the date stamp on the Obama draft form does not seem genuine.

Searches of several philatelic Web sites showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the United States postal system (whether as the "Post Office" or the "Postal Service") has used four-digit year blocks for at least a hundred years.  It was not a recent "Y2K" change, as some Obama supporters have claimed on various political Web sites.  The four-digit year block remains consistent regardless of the location of the postmark, and regardless of whether it was civilian or military.  Some examples are shown here.

 1907 Postmark with 4-digit year

1930 Postmark with 4-digit year

1942 Postmark with 4-digit year

The Crossbow also researched the Web site of a company that manufactures the "round dater" stamps, and found that the blocks for the year are, in fact, a separate and removable unit of the stamping device.  Therefore, it is possible that someone could have removed the four-digit block "2008" from a round dater, cut off the first two digits, turned the block upside-down, and then inserted it back into the date stamp to produce the two-digit "80" year stamped on the Obama form.  The condition of the numerals is consistent with such tampering.  And, the numeral "8" does appear to be upside-down.  A normal "8" in a rubber-stamp machine has a bottom loop that is larger than the top loop.  The "8" on the Obama form has a top loop that is larger than the bottom loop would be, were it not for the fact that part of the bottom loop has apparently been cut away.  This portion of the analysis moves the situation away from merely tinkering with the filing system and into the possibility of an outright forgery of the source document itself.

The timing of the FOIA-initiated computer printout also inspires questions.  If any other blogger had been pursuing this same story, and had obtained the Obama registration form, then they would've posted it as Schlussel did.  But, no one else posted it until Schlussel's blog in mid-November.  The Crossbow raised the questions in early September, and made a request to the Obama campaign on the 8th, but did not make a FOIA request to the Selective Service System.  So, who did make such a request on the 9th of September?  And, if the request was made by the Obama campaign, then is the document given to Schlussel by SSS the same document that was originally placed into their file 28 years ago?  Or, did someone remove the original, forge a backdated copy, and then place that one into the Selective Service System file?

What difference do the dates make?  Plenty!  If the signature date on the published form is correct, then Obama is in the clear.  But, if Obama did not register until the 4th of September, as the official Selective Service System spokesman told Pajamas Media back in August, then there is plenty wrong.  First, it would mean that Obama was in violation of the law for not registering in July when he was required.  Second, it would raise the question of who actually filed the original SSS registration in Hawaii, because Obama was attending college in Los Angeles at that time.  (If he was poor enough to need student loans, then he could not have afforded to jet-set over to Hawaii just to sign a form.)  Thirdly, the form specifies Obama's "current address" as being in Honolulu while he was living in Los Angeles.  Did he give the SSS his former address as a way to avoid being drafted if a war had started in the Middle East?  (The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the main reason that President Carter revived the draft, although the Iran hostage crisis was certainly another factor on Carter's mind.)  Could it be that Obama was dodging even the possibility of going to war against his "Muslim brothers"?

The hinge pin in this story is now the postal date stamp.  It is a felony to falsely postmark any document with any date other than the current date.  That would be the case if a Postal Service employee had done the date stamping in a Postal Service office.  If the stamp were created for the purpose of producing a forged document, then that would be an additional felony offense.

Were it not for the apparent forgery of the document, logic could have given Obama a way out of this mess.  The draft had been curtailed for five years.  Then, President Carter revived it.  There must have been a backlog of data entry as large numbers of young men registered in a short period of time.  Thus, an argument could have been made that the date on the SSS computer printout is the date that the registration was entered into their database, versus the date that Obama signed the form.  (And, several Obama supporters have already tried to use that scenario to explain away these questions.)  The problem is:  If the discrepancy was caused by a data backlog, then how does one explain the forgery of the date stamp?  And, how does one explain the documented access to the file at a time when there was no FOIA request for Obama's information?

It does appear to this writer that the date stamp is a phony creation.  Besides the problem of the two-digit year versus a four-digit year, the stamp also specifies the abbreviation "USPO", for United States Post Office.  The problem is that President Nixon in 1971 changed the name to United States Postal Service, or "USPS".  Below is a postmark from 1980 that clearly shows a USPS on the round postmark.  It is highly unlikely that the post office in Honolulu — a state capital, and home to several military bases — would have still been using an obsolete round dater nine years after the name change.  One questionable aspect of a date stamp could be a mistake.  Three such aspects on the same date stamp, on a questionable form, in a case that is so politically sensitive, is no mere mistake and no mere coincidence.

1980 Postmark shows USPS, and not USPO

Dodging the draft, or forging a document to make it appear that one did not dodge the draft, might be considered a case of "misguided youth" for the average hard drinking, dope-smoking, coke-snorting college ne'er-do-well.  (There is no slander here, because Obama admits in his memoir to being such.)  But, when that intoxicated college kid has been raised by politically-active parents, and has trotted around the globe at a young age, and has been mentored by a Communist Party organizer during his adolescence, then the situation cannot be overlooked as some mere faux pas.  This point is now exacerbated by the fact the college kid in question has gone on to (ostensibly) win an election to become the next president of the United States.  Thus, the fake draft registration form must be considered an intentional act.  The key question becomes:  Who committed the act?

That, sadly, is not the only question.  Given the obviously Socialist nature of Obama's presidential policies, and given his apparent goal of bringing America down economically in order to accept Socialism, and given the fractured nature of military organizations in Socialist countries, and given the polarizing effect that Obama has on the population, one must wonder how the election of such a man will affect our military.  President Bill Clinton also dodged the draft.  But, he at least went through some of the motions of trying to comply with the law before finding a way to pass through the eye of a legal needle.  And, rightly or wrongly, Clinton dodged the draft during the height of an unpopular war.  If it is proven that Obama dodged the draft when there was no war at all, then what does that say about the man's courage to face our nation's enemies — even if it is only from across the conference table?  The fact that such a man could get elected president brings a new level of meaning to the word "audacity", while simultaneously draining American patriots of much "hope".

Will the United States soon become like many countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East — where the military has entire bases and units that are described as "loyal to the president" or "disloyal to the president"?  Will it come down to the point where a military commander, or entire unit, might refuse a presidential order to prove a political point?  If that happens, would a President Obama dispatch his "loyal" troops to somehow corral the "disloyal" troops?  And, if he would send American troops en masse against other American troops, then would he also send American troops against American civilians?  And, if he would not send American troops, then is this the intended function of his proposed new "civilian national security force"?  If those questions don't get answered now, then it might become illegal to ask them later.  That is, if the people prone to ask such questions are still alive and free during an Obama regime.

Regardless of whether a court proves that Barack Hussein Obama is unqualified to become our next president, this writer asserts that Obama has already proven himself unfit.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Friday, 14 November 2008, at 1254 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Conservatives should beware of political "Relief Valves"

Here is an example of media bias against conservatives.  But, the bias comes from a source that many conservatives overlook.  That would be a person that advertises himself as a conservative talk-radio host.  Yet, that person also tries to convince his listeners to ignore truly conservative choices.  For example, he told listeners to vote for phony conservative John McCain.  That would be like a fitness trainer telling his students to eat a "healthy" brand of doughnuts.

I refer to such Republican shills as "relief valves".

In the wake of the presidential election last week, many callers to various talk shows expressed their worry that we are indeed entering a political disaster "of Biblical proportions".  Given that I recently released a book that details that very thought, and which predicted (months in advance) that Obama would be elected (and that a comet would pass near Earth shortly after this year's Feast of Trumpets), it seemed like a good idea to call in to one of the local talk shows and mention my book.  This is especially true considering that the host has been supportive of some of my activism in the past, and that we have been on friendly terms for the most part.  That is, until I began steering people away from the Republican Party.

Yet, even I didn't expect what happened, or how it happened.

A little background is needed.  Whenever I call in to the Michael DelGiorno show, it is routine for me to be put on hold for anywhere from 45 minutes to two hours.  Yet, once on the air, my call-ins have mostly been positive exchanges.  (There was one very notable exception, a few months ago, when I expressed my desire for "equal time" to discuss the new America's Independent Party.  The host routinely interviews the chairmen of the state's Republican and Democratic Parties.  As the state AIP chairman, I asked for equal time.  DelGiorno was very rude to me that day, interrupting me more often that usual, and even trying to shout me down ("Don't push a pusher, 'cause I can push back!").  People even asked me later about his level of rudeness.  I wrote it off to the fact that he was taking strong cold medicine, and had made several out-of-character remarks on-air that day.)  As the months went on since his arrival in Nashville, though, DelGiorno began playing little electronic tricks on me.  While I would chat with him on-air, there would be very loud music playing in my telephone earpiece.  The music was distracting to me, but the radio listeners could not hear it.  Thus, it made me seem stupid.  Another trick was to do the inverse.  He would ring a little bell at certain points in our conversations.  I could not hear the bell through the phone, and my radio was turned down, but listeners could hear it.  (A friend told me about it, so I began wearing a headphone radio while talking on the phone.  I then chided Michael on-air for "ringing that tacky little bell".  Until the day that I called him on it, I was the only caller that he treated that way.  After I pointed it out, he gave a few other callers "equal time" with it.)  The bell gave an implication that, "This caller is a putz."  Despite all of that, I have been able to get a lot of good information out to the Nashville-area listening audience.  Examples include my lawsuit against TN Gov. Phil Bredesen, my creation of a group to stop student-upon-staff school violence, my research into the meaning of Obama's last name, and the significance of Obama's phony draft registration.  (All of those examples were "exclusives".)

But, then...

Last week, on the morning of Thursday, 06 November 2008, I was listening to the show.  So many callers brought up the topic of Obama potentially being The Antichrist, etc., that DelGiorno dropped all other topics and discussed that one.  (Most listeners admire him for discussing Christian topics on-air; but, there must be enough negative e-mail that station management gets after him about it.  So, some days it's OK to discuss the Bible, and other days it is not.  I strongly support discussing Bible topics.  My first talk-radio program was called "PR-Squared", because the main topics were "politics and religion".)  By the time I got on the air (after being on hold for a relatively short half-hour that time), it was almost time for the noon newsbreak.  (DelGiorno routinely bumps my calls to the end of the line, so that I won't have time to fully explain important details before an "automatic break" cuts me off.  It's one way to make sure that no caller sounds smarter than the host.)  On this occasion, however, he told me to call back at 1220, after Paul Harvey News, and we would discuss the book in more detail.

I did call back, on time, as instructed.  But...

During the extended newsbreak, host Michael DelGiorno had accomplished one of his stated goals since moving to Nashville in April of 2007.  He met music star Faith Hill, who was in the Cumulus Radio building for some other event.  (The facility is otherwise nicknamed "The Valentine Building")  In his typical boyish style, DelGiorno routinely goes ga-ga over Faith Hill on-air, and that day was the epitome.  But, to assuage his guilt for lusting after Faith Hill, he had to come up with something negative to say about her, so that he would not need to spend the night in the family doghouse.  So, he spent most of the next half-hour talking about how Faith Hill was wearing some perfume that smelled like the scented toilet paper often found in public restrooms.  I am not kidding!

Of course, during that time, I was still waiting to discuss Bible prophecy.

When I finally did get back on the air, he only gave me a few seconds to mention the topic of the book.  There was no mention of my last name, nor the title of the book, nor my Web site address, nor any other way to find the book; nothing.  After less than thirty seconds, he went to another caller.  The caller after that one got the "final say" for that day.  He opined that at least DelGiorno had not said that Faith Hill smelled like used toilet paper.  (Again, I am not kidding.  DelGiorno might need to worry about a libel lawsuit from Faith Hill, but I think that maybe he should worry even more about a couple of fists from her husband, music star and movie actor Tim McGraw.  After all, that caller must've told the call screener what he wanted to say, unless DelGiorno doesn't have control of his program.)

After the program, I e-mailed Michael and said that he should not waste my time jerking me around as he did.  If he wants me to discuss the book on his program (and, he said so on-air), then he should schedule me for a real segment, during which I could field questions from callers, just as he would for any other author.  Instead of responding on-topic, DelGiorno went into a diatribe in which he mocked my current lack of a job, mocked my vocal quality, and claimed that my calls are "divisive and distracting" (after telling listeners just a few days prior that I'm "skilled enough" to get my point across quickly and effectively before a newsbreak).  The bottom line of our several e-mails back and forth is that DelGiorno banned me as a caller or guest on his program.

In this tacky situation, there's a lesson for conservatives.

Beware of anyone — journalist, politician, party leader, or talk-radio host — that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.  That person is likely a Republican "relief valve".  The mission of a Relief Valve is to give true conservatives a means for venting their righteous anger, but without doing anything that would cause actual change in the overall situation.  So, for example, if a talk-radio host tells you that his program is popular with little children, and then three minutes later says, "I would give my left testicle to debate Barack Obama," then that person is likely a mere double-minded Relief Valve.  If a talk-radio host frequently tells listeners about how stable his marriage is (including details that most people would think are quite private), and then almost as frequently tells listeners about his lusts for a married celebrity, then that person is likely a Relief Valve (or, just plain insane).  If a person tells you that he really supports the views of Alan Keyes, but then repeatedly says "Keyes doesn't stand a chance", and tells listeners to vote for a RINO such as John McCain, then that person is likely a Relief Valve.  If a talk-radio host frequently touts his Christian faith, and frequently encourages listeners to "be aware of the times in which we live", but then actively prevents listeners from knowing anything about a book that says we are currently living in The Tribulation (with many facts to support that view), then that host is likely a Relief Valve.    If a talk-show host says that he would do any job to support his family, but has never done any job but radio, then that person is likely a Relief Valve.  (Especially if that host also makes fun of someone that actually has done a variety of unpleasant jobs to pay the bills, and simultaneously has done conservative activism without pay for many years.)

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Conservatives can do better than to put all their trust into some mere Relief Valve.  It's one thing to make those calls to talk-radio programs (and, those calls are important), but it's more necessary to back up those calls with real action.  An example of "real action" would be for conservatives (especially in Tennessee) to switch to America's Independent Party, instead of remaining stuck with either of the Big Two political parties that collude to diminish America's sovereignty and give illegal aliens a free ride on the backs of American workers.  Real action would be supporting a candidate that knows how to deliver fundamental changes, and has a track record to prove it, instead of supporting the choice of wealthy party insiders.  Real action would be filing lawsuits against elected officials that trample citizens, promote tyranny, and violate the Constitution.  But, sadly, all that most people do is call and vent their emotions to a handy Relief Valve.  And, that is all that the Big Two parties want you to do!

By the way, if a talk-show host tells listeners that he is a "trained professional", but then says on-air that Faith Hill smells like toilet paper, that host is simply proving his lack of professionalism.  In that particular case, it is the listeners that need relief.  When the local station dropped the G. Gordon Liddy show in favor of this guy, I worried that this day might come.  (In his tacky series of e-mails, which showed some disconnect from reality, DelGiorno mocked my talk-radio skills.  But, my last talk-radio program started on 19 stations, and quickly went to 51 stations nationwide.  How many stations has a DelGiorno program ever been on at one time?)

If you agree that Tom Kovach would make a much better talk-show host than Michael DelGiorno, then contact the new Program Director of WWTN-FM in Nashville at (615) 321-1067 and tell him so.  (If you prefer e-mail, his address is:  Charley.Connolly@cumulus.com.)  You can also tell him that, for the first three months, I'll work for half of what they're currently paying DelGiorno.  (I'd even consider hosting a mere one-hour "Nashville Nooner", if WWTN would bring back Gordon Liddy.)  That would be plenty of time for me to prove that I deserve a raise and a contract renewal.  It would also be plenty of time to show listeners how Nashville talk radio should sound.

Regardless of whether I get another talk-radio program, the big lesson here is that true conservatives — nationwide — need to focus their energies on making real changes, and should not dissipate that energy via some shill called a Relief Valve.

Spread the word, while you are still free.
Hosting by Yahoo!

Thursday, 06 November 2008, at 1905 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Obama's winning numbers: 6-6-6

As my wise old Rusyn grandmother often warned me, "Be careful what you pray for, because you might get it."

For most of this year, I have prayed for God's wisdom and guidance as I researched the material for the book that eventually became Tribulation:  2008.  (The original working title was Are We Already in the End Times?  The research for the book was sparked by a friend's question, "Could it be that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?)

According to my book, he is not.  (Are you surprised?)

But, that does not mean that Obama is entirely off the Biblical hook.  For the details of what I mean by that, I suggest that you read the book.  In the meantime, confirmation of everything that I wrote in the book is coming from many directions.

Illinois Lottery winning numbers, the day after Election Day

One direction that I did not anticipate was a State of Illinois official Web page.  Specifically, it is the Web page for the winning lottery numbers for Wed, 05 Nov 2008.  (I captured the page, and stored it on my Web site, because the original page will eventually change as new numbers are posted.)

Illinois Lottery numbers, day after Election Day -- ZOOM


This is a zoom of the captured area.  Please pardon the sloppy highlighting.  (I'm more into "substance" than into "form".  Those that have heard my talk-radio programs know that I was not blessed with a "real radio-announcer voice".  But, nobody has ever called me a bad host, because the substance of the content overrides the form of the voice.)

Even those that know very little about the Bible still understand the significance of the number "666" (which I hate to even type on my computer).  They know that it is associated with absolute evil, albeit perhaps wearing a benevolent mask.  (just as "Satan transforms himself into an angel of light" -- 2nd Corinthians 11:14)  Hopefully, the fact that the very first sunset on a president-elect Obama included -- in his home state -- the number 6-6-6 as Obama's "winning numbers" is a fact that will get the attention of even the most hardened scoffer.

I wonder what "Peggy the mooch" thinks of this major-league hint from God.  (I heard that nickname, and the audio clip, from statewide talk-radio host Steve Gill this morning.)

"Peggy the Mooch" is quite emblematic of many Obama supporters.  Recently, I passed along to friends a forwarded e-mail story called "It's all about the ice cream".  The story describes a third-grade class that takes an interest in the presidential election.  The teacher decides to offer a practical lesson by staging a mock election in the classroom.  But, the teacher didn't anticipate little Olivia's one-sentence campaign speech:  "I will give everybody ice cream."  The class immediately forgot about little Steven's well-researched campaign speech.  And, despite teacher prompting, the class ignored questions about who would pay for the ice cream, etc.  Olivia won by a landslide.

One of my friends is a NY liberal.  I debated about whether to even send her the story, knowing that I would get a backlash.  What surprised me, however, were the purported "facts" that my friend used to justify her support of Barack Obama.  She claimed that Obama was the epitome of the American Dream, because he came from a "poor family" and rose to get elected president.

However, she has totally ignored the following real facts.

  • Barack Hussein Obama I was a Harvard-educated economist from a politically-connected family in Kenya.
  • Barack Hussein Obama II got substantial financial backing from Dr. Khalid al-Mansour in order to go to Harvard Law School (after attending two other colleges, in different parts of the country, and admittedly blowing a lot of money on booze and drugs).  How many products of "a poor family" can afford to do that?
  • Barack Hussein Obama II was, by reliable accounts, born in Kenya of a Kenyan father.  Under the British law that was in effect at the time of his birth, that makes the younger Obama a natural-born citizen of Kenya.  (Thus, not only is he Constitutionally disqualified from becoming president, but he is also illegally occupying an office in the United States Senate, unless he can prove that he legally entered this country and became a naturalized citizen within the qualifying dates.)
  • Barack Hussein Obama II is not even 100 percent Black.  (He is 50 percent White, 34 percent Arab, and only 16 percent Black.  He is, however, 100 percent Socialist.  That, of course, would be just fine with Peggy the Mooch and Olivia the Ice-Cream President.)
  • Kenya's current prime minister, Raila Odinga, is the cousin of Barack Hussein Obama II, who campaigned for him during a trip to Kenya.  (Is is legal for a sitting United States senator to attempt to sway a foreign election?)
  • Prime Minister Odinga received higher education in East Germany when it was still a Communist country.  Prime Minister Odinga named his son "Fidel" -- not a typical Kenyan name.

I could go on, but that would take away from the prophetic "hint" that God has allowed the Illinois Lottery provide to anyone that will pay attention.  To people such as Peggy the Mooch, it might seem as if Obama is an "angel of light".  But, don't worry, that illusion won't last much longer.  "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."  (Matthew 11:15)

Hosting by Yahoo!

Thursday, 02 October 2008, at 0710 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

The smoking guns of Islam

Having studied foreign languages and cultures, I'm often ashamed of the "ugly American" attitude.  I saw it a lot when I was stationed in Korea for a year.  But, even though I try to be culturally aware, it still amazes me how much information is right before our faces, but we don't see it because of our myopic American view of the world.

Such is the case with certain dates on the Islamic calendar.  Those dates are the "smoking guns" of Islam.

During my investigation of the Flight 800 disaster (Wed, 17 Jul 1996 -- an airliner exploded in midair of the coast of Long Island), I became aware of just how seriously the Islamist terrorists consider their calendar when planning their attacks.  And, from their viewpoint, that makes perfect sense.  Their calendar is based upon their religion.  And, their attacks are part of a jihad -- a never-ending religious war to convert the entire world to Islam.  Therefore, they view their attacks upon America as religious events, and plan them accordingly.

We ignore that point at our peril.

Several years ago, I wrote a column (that, alas, did not get published) in which I correctly predicted the date of a terrorist attack three months in advance.  The only thing I used to do that was the Islamic calendar.  And, in retrospect, we might have been able to predict (and prevent?) the "9-11" attacks if our government would have used this same lens to examine terrorist trends.  (But, of course, using the Islamists religion against them would be "politically incorrect".)

Consider this.

On the 9th of January, 1991, US Secretary of State James Baker met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.  The talks broke down.  Baker returned to the United States with his report.  Three days later, on 12 Jan 1991, a joint session of the United States Congress approved a "resolution on the use of force" -- the closest we have come to a Constitutionally-required "declaration of war" since December of 1941.  Three days after the resolution passed, the sun set on the last day of Operation Desert Shield.  When the sun rose the next morning, Baghdad had experienced the first "thunder and lightning" of Operation Desert Storm.

But, from an Islamic point of view, the war began on the day that the talks broke down.  From the point that Baker and Aziz failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution, the Islamic mindset is that the two countries were at war.  The resolution from Congress was, in the Islamist mind, a mere rubber-stamp formality.  On the Islamic calendar, the talks broke down on the date 22 Jumada t-Tania 1411.  Now, fast forward to the date 22 Jumada t-Tania 1422.

Or, on the Gregorian calendar, 11 September 2001.

But, as I began to write in my never-published book on the "9-11" attacks, (the title was Business as Usual, from the post-attack speech by President George W. Bush), that date was also the 60th anniversary (on the Gregorian calendar) of the groundbreaking ceremony for a building that was one of the engineering marvels of its day:  The Pentagon.  And, keep in mind that Osama bin-Laden is a civil engineer by training and by trade.  (He comes from a family of civil engineers; one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia.)  One of the key sentences from that book was, "Osama bin-Laden is not a stupid man; he is an evil man."  The terrorist mastermind took into account -- albeit, from an Islamist viewpoint -- a date that should've been a resounding insult to Americans.

Apparently, bin-Laden underestimated our lamentable American penchant for historical nonchalance.

So, let's see if we can spark some interest.  Put on your thinking caps.  Follow the dominos.  Lets see if we can learn to avert disaster.  We must learn the lessons of history, or be doomed to repeat them.

Recent news from WorldNetDaily reports that terrorists have apparently accuired the capability to build a thermobaric bomb.  So, you might ask, "What is a thermobaric bomb, and why should I care about it?"  To understand the future of terrorism, you need to look to the past.  And, to understand what happened last month on the ground in Pakistan, you need to understand what happened last decade in the air off Long Island.

The type of thermobaric bomb described in the above-linked WND report was, by American munitions standards, fairly crude (but effective).  The bomb in Pakistan apparently used an aluminum powder to create a cloud of flammable dust immediately ahead of the blast wave from the bomb.  When the bomb's fireball caught up with the blast wave, it ignited the dust, and created an even larger explosion.  This is the same concept behind the fuel-air MOAB -- nicknamed "the Mother of All Bombs", in mocking reference to Saddam Hussein's threat to give the United States "the mother of all battles" if we invaded Iraq.  (Historical note:  after his capture by American commandos, Hussein received "the mother of all trials" in an Iraqi court, which then sentenced him to "the mother of all hangings".)

The official myth of the Flight 800 disaster is that a "random spark" in the center fuel tank caused the airliner to be cleanly cut into two major sections by a jet-fuel explosion.  The fact that jet fuel is not explosive (except under very specific condidtions) seems to have escaped FBI investigators, who were busy looking for a way to save President Bill Clinton's political skin in an election year.  The fact is that Flight 800 was brought down by a missile strike.  (Actually, the 747 was hit by three missiles, according to a detailed engineering report that I have in my possession.)  One of the missiles that intercepted Flight 800 contained a type of fuel-air explosive in its warhead.  The presence of oxidizer-pellet shrapnel in the bodies of crash victims proves this point.

So what?

The recent bombing in Pakistan was apparently the work of al-Qaida.  Why would they attack their Muslim brothers?  Because, from the Islamist viewpoint, Pakistan was a traitor.  In the current (never-ending?) war against terrorism, Pakistan has cooperated -- albeit reluctantly at times -- with the United States.  The hotel that was bombed in Islamabad was owned by an American company.  (And, not just any company.  The hotel chain's founder, J. Willard Marriott, was personal friends with President Ronald Reagan.  Terrorists had a lasting fear of "President Ray-Gun", who ordered the Navy F-14 jets that bombed Muammar Qaddafi's tent.)  The terrorists wanted to send a message to their betrayers.

The message was in the date.

The bombing took place on the 21st of September (Pakistan time), and the hotel was apparently a known meeting place for American intelligence agents.  Back in Washington, it was still the 20th of September when the bomb exploded.  And, on the Islamic calendar, the 20 September 2008 came on 19 Ramadan 1429.  The 19th of Ramadan is a sad day on the Islamic religious calendar.  It marks the anniversary of an attack upon the first Imam, the prince Ali Abu-Hasan.  He was stabbed while praying in a mosque, and he died two days later.  (Interestingly, he was born on Friday the 13th.)  The attacker was considered a man that had access to the mosque; thus, a traitor to Islam.  That was the message:  Pakistan is a traitor to Islam.

As has been pointed out by intrepid investigative author Jack Cashill, the downing of Flight 800 coincided with National Liberation Day in Iraq.  On the Islamic calendar, Flight 800 was downed on 01 Rabi al-Awwal 1417.  Perhaps not merely coincidentally, 01 Rabi al-Awwal is also the annual National Day of the Islamic government of The Maldives.  If I were to research the official calendars of the "57 states" belonging to the Organization of Islamic States, I would probably find national holidays on all of them.  The date 01 Rabi al-Awwal is the start of the Islamic calendar.  It marks the Hijra -- the migration of Muhammed from Mecca to Medina.  To the devout Muslim, the Hijra would be an approximate equivalent of the Epiphany (the baptism of Jesus) to the devout Christian.

And, there is a definite message there.

The downing of TWA Flight 800 was, in the minds of Islamist terrorists, a "migration" of sorts.  The title of Cashill's book on the topic, First Strike, asserts that the missile strike was the actual beginning of a holy war against America.  All other attacks -- such as the 1993 vehicle bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center or the bombing of Philippene Airlines Flight 434 (which also affected the center fuel tank of a 747), both carried out by Ramzi Yousef (the understudy of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) -- were merely "probe" attacks in preparation for the jihad.  And, given the dramatic increase in the severity of subsequent attacks, history has proven Cashill correct.

There is more -- much more -- to this connect-the-dots view of Islamist war against America.  For example, just prior to the downing of Flight 800 was the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks complex in Saudi Arabia (25 June 1996; 08 Safar 1417).  The Saudis were viewed by the Islamist radicals as double-minded for hosting the Americans that had attacked Iraq.  So, just like their counterparts 1380 years earlier, on the same date (08 Safar, at the Battle of Siffin), the Islamists attacked those that they considered to be "impure" Muslims.  And, if I can come up with this information while typing a blog (for free, I might add) in my home-office, imagine what I might discover if the government actually hired me to use my military experience to do this type of analysis full-time to prevent such attacks.

Then again, it might not work out if they "can't handle the truth"*.  For example, the government claims there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the sudden crash of an Alabama Air National Guard F-16 fighter on 11 Sep 2002.  The cause of the crash was a jet engine turbine blade that suddenly came loose during flight.  The crash and fire were made worse because the pilot could not jettison his external fuel tanks -- due to a faulty control switch that can only be accessed by removing the control panel inside the cockpit.  The switch had been routinely checked not long before the crash.  There is no evidence of sabotage -- because the unit commander never called in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) or the FBI to augment the crash investigation.  (The official crash report says so, and I have a copy.)  The jet belonged to the same unit as a young lieutenant named George W. Bush three decades prior.  That same unit, on the same day as the crash, did a flyover of the Alabama State Capitol to comemorate the "9-11" attacks.  Of course, the date and the unit are all "mere coincidence", and any talk of sabotage is merely "right-wing conspiracy mongering".  Right?  Of course, right -- just like it was "not an act of terrorism" when a Muslim college student suddenly drove his car onto a sidewalk and ran over more than a dozen fellow students ... while shouting anti-Israel slogans.  A mere coincidence -- just like when Flight 800 blew up all by itself ... on one of the highest dates on the Islamic calendar.

Mere coincidence, or are all these calendar anniversries the smoking guns of Islam?


*  Of course, one way to avoid being suddenly fired for telling the truth about Islamist terrorism is for me to get elected to Congress.  Hmmmmmm.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Thursday, 25 September 2008, at 0327 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Beware the Bush bailout

A couple of days ago, my good friend -- truck-driving blogger, and fellow talk-radio junkie, "Transporter" -- said it very well, "Welcome to the USSA."  And, last night, President Bush confirmed it.  Although the president certainly didn't use these words, the fact remains that -- if his plan is enacted -- the United States will essentially become a Socialist country.

Perhaps you're thinking, "That's impossible, this is America!"  Wake up and take a look around.  This is not the America that was designed by the Founders of the Constitution.  This has become, by the steady and determined collusion of the Big Two political parties, a land of government entitlements.  Or, as we used to say in the Air Force, "The Land of the Big BX".

Perhaps you're thinking, "That's impossible, I voted Republican!"  Wake up and take a look around.  The Republican Party, especially at its highest levels, does not even follow its own platform.  Consider, as one example, the fact that former GOP chairman Halley Barbour later became a paid spokesman for Planned Parenthood, even though he headed the "pro-life" Republican Party.  Consider, as another example, the waffling ill-logic of so-called "conservative" (but, in reality) globalist, CFR member Fred Thompson.  If you are a Constitutional conservative, but still a member of the Republican Party, then you really need to wake up and smell the "Kool-Aid" before it's too late!

Most taxpayers will never get an opportunity to learn anything but the highlights of the bailout plan.  Why?  Because they are too busy working -- and paying taxes -- to read the details.  Last night's televised speech by President Bush contained "one little detail" that is a Poison Pill for anyone thinking about trying to work themselves up and out of the economic lobster tank.

That detail was Federal Reserve oversight.  When I heard him speak the words, my jaw dropped.  My wife looked at me, and asked, "What's wrong?"  I was beyond words to explain it, and knew that I would need to sit down and type this column.  The Bush bailout plan, as bad as it is, contains a hidden element that is even worse.  You see, there is nothing to directly connect a bailout -- or, as President Bush called it, a "rescue" -- to any oversight by the Federal Reserve.  Consider the president's analogy of a "rescue".  After a firefighter rescues a person from a burning house, does he later go live with the family for awhile to make sure that they are living safely?  If the president gets this detail enacted into law, then expect the entire company of firemen to take up residence ... and, dictate to you what will be on the menu at each meal.

Here are President Bush's own words.  Keep in mind that, only a few weeks ago, he forcefully chided the American sheeple by stating, "We are not in a recession."  But, last night, with as much drama this time as swagger the last time, he opined, "We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis..."  The problem is that the crisis has been brewing for ten years!  (Caused by President Clinton's mandates to provide home loans to illegal aliens.  Some of us warned Americans when he was elected that Clinton's "legacy" would be a Socialist America.  Few listened then.)  How, then, did Bush go from "not a recession" to a "serious financial crisis" in about a month?  (In the seventh paragraph of his speech, President Bush plainly says that the crisis has been brewing for "more than a decade".  Didn't that decade include last month?!)  Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the Russian people had a saying when the newspaper arrived:  "New lies for old."

In the 25th paragraph of President Bush's speech (long after most dumbed-down sheeple have changed the TV channel to feed their sports addiction), we discover that, "For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability."  Oh, really?!  What, exactly, does "take a closer look" really mean?  And, who decides what is a threat to overall financial stability?  Puh-lease don't tell me that the same people who put us into this crisis, and then said there was no crisis, will be the ones to decide whether someone else is a threat to financial stability!

If you own a small business, then perhaps your company's very existence could someday be considered to "threaten overall financial stability" -- even if you voted Republican the last time.  (And, if you don't believe me, then consider all of the "strawberries" that Stalin planted in his "fields".  If you don't know what that means, then read a history book!  Otherwise, you could end up as a "useful idiot" for tyranny in Amerika!)  If you are a labor organizer, then perhaps your activites could someday be considered to "threaten overall financial stability".  If you are a housewife, and don't use a government-approved recipe, then perhaps you could someday be considered to "threaten overall financial stability".  (Oh, so you don't believe me?  Well, who gets to write the definition?  Oh, yeah -- the people that put the hole in the boat to begin with!)

As readers can see, this column equally bashes Republicans and Democrats, because both are equally responsible for the mess into which they have dragged the rest of us.  What, then, is the solution?  I tried to tell people, months ago, that the solution could be found in the collective wisdom of my 'dream team' for the White House.  But, as long as the American sheeple are stuck in the rut of only voting for "the Ds and the Rs", then we will continue to get more of the mess that they have dumped upon us.

Only when the politicians fear two things -- their own unemployment, or an armed revolt -- will they become "bound by the chains of the Constitution", as the Founders had intended.  That is why the Founders wisely put only a two-year term on the House of Representatives.  And, in case the "revolution at the ballot box" somehow failed to clean the House completely, they also wisely put the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights as an insurance policy against lying politicians and fraudulent elections.  (So... how did we get into this mess?)

Of course, there is one other way that Americans can ensure that our elected officials will obey the Constitution.  It's so simple that many people refuse to see it.  We need to elect people that have already promised to obey the Constitution; and, who have demonstrated by their actions that they will keep that promise.  Where do we find such people?  How about in a political party where one must take such a pledge in order to even become a member?  If the process of filtering begins -- quite logically -- at the beginning, then we can have a reasonable expectation that the "final product" candidates of that political party are actually serious about the Constitution.  (As compared to, for example, our current president, who thinks that the Constitution is merely, "... a God-d---ed piece of paper!")  Americans need to invest a little time, effort, and -- yes -- money into a new political party that understands it is better to avoid shooting holes in the boat than it is to develop a bailout plan.

Fortunately for most of America, a few of us have already been digging the foundation.  And, recently, we began putting up the framework.  So, that new political party is already taking shape.  It is called America's Independent Party.  You should click the link and join it right now.

And, you should beware of Bush's bailout plan.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Friday, 12 September 2008, at 0127 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

A recipe for "The Ultimate 'Anchor Baby'"

Some people just don't understand politics, until they read a recipe.

Into a bowl of gullibility, pre-warmed in Hawaii, start with one Guilty White Liberal egg, beat in some Angry Black Radical sperm, leaven with Islamist fervor, transfer it to Kenya to be well-kneaded (and then secretly return it to Hawaii), and then cover the mixture for several years with a forged birth certificate.

Separate out the influence of the foreign Muslim father from Africa.  Mix in the influence a foreign Muslim stepfather from Indonesia.

Remove the mixture entirely from American concepts of justice, and toss it into the world's most populated Islamic country -- Indonesia -- where the government still sends in the army to slaughter entire provinces (remember East Timor?) for the crime of being Christian.  Allow the mixture to generate its own heat until it begins to rise.  Add half-siblings to taste, and keep in a Muslim school for several years until it begins to take form.

Take the warm mixture, return it to Hawaii, and then remove the Indonesian stepfather's influence.  Replace it with a Black mentor that is a Communist Party organizer.  Mix it up again, using drugs as needed.

Add two heaping measures of Communist underground networking during adolescence.  (One measure from Hawaii, and one measure from Chicago.)

Spice it up with a blend of "Mansourian"* anti-Semitism and Black separatism.  (Thanks to Jack Cashill for the new word.)

Temporarily transfer the mixture to Los Angeles, adding fruits and nuts to taste.

Send the mixture to New York for the addition of locally-flavored United Nations globalism.

Moisten well by pouring in Arab oil money.

Mix again for several years at Harvard Law School.

Allow to chill in Chicago for awhile until the dough settles in.

Place on a higher shelf at the State Legislature until a hard shell forms.

Package it up, and send it to the United States Senate for final preparation.

Slather the final product with sticky campaign contributions, and then sprinkle "liberally" with contacts.

Put it in a fancier package, and send it to the 2004 Democratic Party national convention.  There, place it under a warm spotlight until it rises to several times its original height.

Allow it to bask in the spotlight until it begins to negotiate with the leaders of Islamist terror-sponsoring nations.

Then, place it in the White House, and let the country partake of it until we all become deathly sick.

That is the recipe for the ultimate "anchor baby" -- an illegal alien that is smuggled into our country from Kenya, illegally bypasses the requirements of our Constitution, becomes president of the United States under our very noses, and then gives away the country to our enemies.

No wonder that Jack Cashill referred to Barack Obama as "The Mansourian Candidate".

That's a great tag line.  I like and respect Jack.  But, I think it's a lot easier for voters to remember to think of prsidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama as "the ultimate anchor baby".

Will conservative voters get active and do anything to "abort" this nightmare scenario?

Hosting by Yahoo!

Wednesday, 10 September 2008, at 2100 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

What is Obama hiding about his draft registration?

This past Sunday, on the ABC-TV News program "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", presidential candidate Senator Barack Hussein Obama lied about his registration for the Selective Service.  This was reported in the previous edition of The Crossbow.  But, information has now been discovered that shows the lie goes deeper than previously reported.

This writer was invited to be a call-in guest on today's edition of The Michael DelGiorno Show, heard "live and local" on Nashville's SuperTalk station, WWTN-FM.  The topic was the report noted above.  At first, the host seemed dismissive of the report, almost defending Obama for "a bad recollection" of the date so long ago.  (Click to hear the three-minute audio clip of the interview.)  But, despite numerous interruptions, which dragged out my presentation, I was able to get the host to see the real problem with the purported "facts" of the candidate's story.  (Michael can't seem to help himself.  He interrupts his co-host, Gwen Freeman, constantly.  Listeners chide him for it daily.  He admits to drinking too much Red Bull before the program.)

The problem is multi-fold.  First, if candidate Obama really did seriously consider joining the military -- as an "enobling" career option (the military topic is the final minute of this five-minute ABC-TV video) -- then why is it that he never mentions it in two autobiographies?  Second, even though it has been a long time, couldn't Senator Obama remember whether he was in high school or college when he "had to" register?  (The reality is that he did not "have to" in 1979, when he claimed to have done it.)  But, even if Obama did register for the Selective Service, could there be other problems with his story?

Oh, yes.

One question stands above all.  If he did not have a valid birth certificate, then how did he register?  So far, despite numerous reporter inquiries, the Obama presidential campaign has not released a verified birth certificate.  Given that there is an iron-clad requirement in the Constitution for a presidential candidate to be a "natural-born citizen", one would think that the Obama campaign would be eager to reveal his birth certificate and thus put the question behind them.  The Crossbow has submitted a request to the Obama campaign's media department for copies of both the birth certificate and the Selective Service registration certificate.

Bob Owens, writing on 12 August 2008 for Pajamas Media, claimed that his column "puts to rest another rumor claiming Obama is ineligible for the presidency".  The Crossbow finds that the information does the opposite.  Owens cites a FOIA request that revealed Barack Hussein Obama's registration number and date of registration.  The column cites Presidential Proclamation 4771, dated 02 July 1980 (see Page 7 of this official compilation of the Military Selective Service Act).  Section 1-103 of the Proclamation requires men born in 1961 (as Obama was) to register during the week beginning on Monday, 28 July 1980.  But, according to Owens' column, the young Barack Hussein Obama did not register until 04 September of that year.  Thus, even while giving the appearance of being a good citizen, Barack Hussein Obama was in violation of the law.  To clarify this issue (and to verify the Pajamas Media column, which did not provide a copy of the SSS registration certificate), The Crossbow has submitted a request directly to the Obama campaign for a copy of that certificate.

Some might write off the registration delay to youthful distractions, especially given Obama's autobiographical admissions of illegal drug use during his college years.  (If he remembered to write about drug use, then why did he not remember to write about considering an "enobling" career in the military?)  But, what happened between June of 1979, when Obama graduated from high school, and September of 1980, when Obama registered for the draft?

As noted in the previous edition of The Crossbow, college-age radicals in Iran had taken over the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran.  And, given that Obama's main mentor in Hawaii during his teenage years was an organizer for the Communist Party of the USA, and given that mentor Frank Davis was involved in meetings with Communist activists from other countries -- including Iran -- the previous edition asked whether it was possible that a young BHO might have met and befriended a college radical named Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad.  With that question in mind, and considering that Operation Eagle Claw (the failed American commando raid into Iran to rescue the hostages) had taken place in April of 1980, might that event have given young Barack Hussein Obama pause with regard to military draft registration?  (NOTE:  Because of my military dutes, I have very specific recollections of certain aspects of the Iranian hostage crisis.)

But, even if Obama's delay in registering for the Selective Service System had no nefarious motive, do the facts known so far present any other problems?  Once again, the unfortunate answer is "yes".

Assuming that the Owens report of the registration in September of 1980 is accurate, there remains a question of location.  At that time, young BHO was attending Occidental College in Los Angeles, California.  But, the registration was in Hawaii.  So, who filled out the registration?  And, what document was shown?  And, given that the very purpose of Selective Service registration is so that a young man can be located and then inducted into the military, was Obama's registration in Hawaii a subtle way to avoid any impending draft?  (Keep in mind that President Jimmy Carter -- the same one that had pardoned the draft dodgers -- reinstituted the draft shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.)  Logic tells us that, if Obama was living in Los Angeles, and the registration was done in Hawaii (during the beginning of his college semester), then either:  a) Obama could afford to jet-set around to conduct routine errands, or b) he had someone else fill out the paperwork for him.  If the former, then he is too foolish with money to be qualified as president.  If the latter, then he violated the law in order to shirk military service.  Either way, Barack Hussein Obama has no business becoming the next president of the United States.

Hosting by Yahoo!

Monday, 08 September 2008, at 1108 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Obama lied about draft registration

United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, in an interview yesterday with ABC News political correspondent George Stephanopoulos, on his program This Week, lied about his registration for the Selective Service military draft.  This is only the latest in a series of falsehoods and outright lies by Senator Obama and his campaign.  But, knowing that his name means 'crooked', does this move actually surprise anyone?  And, could this latest lie be an attempt to mask something even more sinister in Obama's past ... or America's future?

The interview took place "from the campaign trail" in Terre Haute, Indiana.  Stephanopoulos asked a question from a woman viewer from Georgia.  The question was whether Senator Obama had ever considered military service; and, if not, why.

"You know, I actually did," the senator answered, with a tone indicating that he thought this revelation might shock people.  Calming down a bit (see for yourself in this ABC News video interview segment), Senator Obama continued, "I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school."

There is only one problem.  In the Spring of 1979, there was no requirement for Selective Service registration.  That requirement had been curtailed in March of 1975 by President Gerald Ford as the military brought back troops from the Vietnam War.  (I was keenly aware of that presidential action.  As a senior in high school at that time, I had come of age expecting to serve in Vietnam.  The week before President Ford ended the requirement for draft registration, I had signed my "delayed enlistment" papers for the Air Force.  I missed a day of classes to go out of town for my military induction physical examination.)

Those of us that lived through the post-Vietnam "drawdown" of our military (that was the trendy name for what we now call "downsizing") remember that the late 1970s was a tough time to get into the military.  The administration of President Jimmy Carter was characterized by high rates of unemployment, "double-digit inflation", exhorbitant loan-interest rates, and military pay rates so low that large portions of our American enlisted troops became eligible for food stamps.  (I was not a parent at that time.  Had I been, then I would've been eligible ... as a Sergeant!)  That was the economic and cultural climate at the time that young "Barry" Obama -- who came from a family that could afford to live in Hawaii and send him to Harvard -- was purportedly considering military service.

But, wait, there's more.

Explaining his purported thought processes from that time, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama continued, "But, keep in mind, I graduated in 1979.  The Vietnam War had come to an end.  We weren't engaged in an active ... uh ... uh ... military conflict at that point.  So, it's not an option that I ever decided to persue."  (His very telling pauses are a signature trait that talk-radio hosts Michael DelGiorno and Gwen Freeman have nicknamed "the Obama comma".)  So, the candidate claims that he did not join the military because there was no war.  But, he simultaneously claims that, even though there was no war, there was a requirement to register for the draft.

Oh, really?

For starters, there was no mandatory military draft registration at the time that Obama graduated from high school.  In fact, during the late 1970s, there was some discussion about whether the Selecitve Service would be abolished altogether.  Why?  Well, for one, there was the new concept of the "all-volunteer military".  That was born out of frustration by military leaders in Vietnam, who sometimes got lackluster performance from draftees that claimed, "I never signed up for this."  Also, as those of us patriots from the Vietnam generation will vividly recall, President Jimmy Carter had already pardoned all the "draft dodgers" that fled from America to avoid military service.  With a legal precedent for a presidential pardon from any penalties for draft dodging, questions arose regarding whether there was any point to keeping the Selective Service alive without teeth.

But, then...

At approximately noon Eastern Time (here in America) on Sunday, the 4th of November 1979, hundreds of college-age radicals stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran.  Using firearms and firebombs, the purported 'students' overwhelmed the Marine Corps embassy security detachment.  (There is reason to believe that the Marines had been under orders to not fire on civilians.  That policy likely enabled the Iranians to take over the embassy.  As I wrote in December of 2003, after the fact had been declassified, the Marines stationed as peacekeepers in Beirut, Lebanon, in October of 1983 had been prohibited by their field commander from having a magazine in their rifle while guarding the USMC compound.  The seconds required for a Marine sentry to pull the magazine from its belt pouch, load it into the rifle, jack a round into the chamber, take the selector lever off "Safe", and begin firing were the seconds that cost the lives of 283 Marines in their barracks.)

So, at the time when Barack Obama graduated from high school, the United States had been engaged in a long-running "Cold War" with several Communist countries.  In early February of 1979, right during the time when Obama would've been considering his post-graduation plans, the Islamic Revolution booted Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi from the Peacock Throne of Iran, and installed the Ayatollah Khomeini as leader of that country.  (I remember that day well.  It was the first day of my combat training.  And, because I spoke a little Farsi -- from having befriended members of the Royal Iranian Air Force -- there was reason to expect that I could be sent on a "forward" assignment to Iran.)  Although the embassy takeover did not occur until several months later, it was openly discussed from the beginning that the Iranian Revolution could lead to a confrontation between Iran and the United States.  Keep in mind that Ayatollah Khomeini was the man that coined the nickname "The Great Satan" for the United States.

A few years before Obama graduated from high school, there was an event that came to be known as "the second Cuban missile crisis".  American strategic B-52 bombers, using an innovative technique in order to double as reconnaissance aircraft, took aerial photographs of Soviet freighters carrying missiles into Cuba.  (The bomber that took the photo that became front-page news came from the base where I was stationed at that time.)  The situation was resolved diplomatically, but was yet another example of Cold War toe-to-toe stress with Communsit nations.  Also during the late 1970s, American troops clearing vegetation along the border between North Korea and South Korea were attacked and killed by North Korean troops.  (Not to mention several sparsely-reported Special Operations missions to close North Korean tunnels into South Korea.)  All of this was a part of Barack Obama's high school years.

President Jimmy Carter, during his last year in office, reinstituted the military draft in early 1980.  Why?  Because it became apparent that the Islamist threat was not going away.  Military and intelligence analysts saw that a full-scale war with Iran might become possible.  The embassy hostage crisis in Tehran spawned the ABC-TV news program Nightline, whose nightly reminders of the number of days of the crisis (444) were an ongoing embarassment to President Carter.

So, although there was no military draft when Barack Obama graduated high school, the draft was reinstated as Obama began his college years.  Did this purportedly patriotic young man put off his college to take up arms to defend against a possible Islamist terror threat?  Nope.  Why?

Keep in mind that, during his formative years, Barack Obama was influenced by "father figure" Frank Marshall Davis -- who was involved in anti-American activities by the Communist Party of the USA.  (This is heavily documented by journalist Cliff Kincaid.)  Part of those activites involved telegrams and meetings with college-age Communists from ... Iran.  (Using FOIA requests, Kincaid has amassed FBI surveillance documents that prove this point.)  Given that Barack Hussein Obama was born to a Muslim father, raised by a Socialist mother that converted to Islam at some point between bearing two children to two different fathers, was heavily influenced by a Muslim step-father while they lived in the Muslim country of Indonesia, and was influenced by a Communist activist (hand-picked by Barack's maternal grandfather to be a "father figure" for Barack), is it any wonder that Senator Barack Hussein Obama has never publicly renounced Islam or Communism?

And, if it is true that Obama registered for the draft, then where is the birth certificate that was used to perform such registration?  (During the high unemployment of the Jimmy Carter years, the military stopped accepting anyone without a high-school diploma, or any number of other questionable points in their background.  The lack of a birth certificate -- at least, one that was not forged -- would've become an instant barrier to Selective Service registration.)

So, why did Barack Obama claim to have "had to" register for the military draft if it was not true?  And, why didn't Barack Obama join the military -- especially if he knew that it would "look good on a resume" for any future political ambitions?  And, why hasn't he publicly renounced Islam?  (Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has already shown that Obama lied to cover up his childhood association with Islam.)  Speaking of childhood associations, did young Barack ever accompany Frank Davis to any Communist meetings with Iranian college radicals?  (And, if so, did he ever befriend Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad at those meetings?)  Obama's associations -- with Islam, with Communism, and with anti-American activities; and, his ongoing attempts to cover up those associations -- cause one to wonder what plans Barack Obama has when he claims a desire to "change" America.  (For details on the meaning of Obama's "plans for a 58th" state, see my new book, Tribulation:  2008.)

Hosting by Yahoo!

Saturday, 06 September 2008, at 2031 hours
Central Time -- Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Initial entry -- link to original archive

This is the initial entry of my blog:  The Crossbow.

My first several columns were done on separate HTML pages.

 The original archive for The Crossbow may be accessed at:  http://tomkovach.us/Columns/Crossbow/000--CB--Archive.html

Assuming that all of the techical setup stuff goes as planned, all future editions of The Crossbow will be found on this blog site.

Hosting by Yahoo!