
you'll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
Quote of the Millennium: "...John
McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." - Senator Barack
Hussein Obama
(Muslim Faith? WTF? Freudian Slip!)
Quote of the Decade:
"I
think he can be ready, but right now, I don't think he is.
The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job
training." - Senator Joe Biden
Quote of the Year: "communities
are terrorized by ICE immigration raids" - Senator Barack Hussein Obama
Quote of the Month: From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will
stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly
direction."
-
Senator Barack Hussein Obama
Quote of the Week: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites" - Senator Barack Hussein Obama
NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view the news conference at this online location.
PHOENIX – An investigative “Cold Case Posse” launched six months ago by “America’s toughest sheriff” – Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County – has concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery. The investigative team has asked Arpaio, who is at a news conference in Phoenix live-streamed by WND TV that began at 3 p.m. Eastern time, to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
The posse says it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate. Arapaio, known for his strict enforcement of immigration laws, commissioned the investigative team after local citizens presented him with a petition expressing concern that Obama might not be eligible for Arizona’s presidential ballot.
In addition to the live-streaming, WND is making available to the public a report distributed to media today by Arpaio’s investigators. GET A FREE COPY OF THE ARPAIO REPORT THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO PRESS TODAY The posse, comprised of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, has interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. It also has taken numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world. Mike Zullo, Arpaio’s lead investigator, said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.
“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.
The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The investigation was launched after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arpaio in August 2011 asking him to undertake the investigation.
The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. Arpaio believes a congressional investigation might be warranted and has asked that any information relevant to the investigation held by other law enforcement agencies be forwarded to his office. The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said. Among the evidence released at the press conference are five videos – which can be seen at the end of this article – to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The videos consist of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The investigators contend the videos illustrate their conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan is enhanced by Optical Character Recognition, OCR, and optimized. Additionally, the posse says, the videos demonstrate that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. “That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said, emphasizing that if the registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.
The investigators also chronicled a series of allegedly inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding any original birth records held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
“As I said at the beginning of the investigation, the president can put all this to rest quite easily,” Arpaio said. “All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession.”
Arpaio emphasized that the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm and electronic records to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. The sheriff said the president should also authorize Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, to provide corroboration for the records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.
“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”
In addition, investigators say they have developed credible evidence that President Obama’s Selective Service card was a forgery, based on an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Also, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.
Article courtesy of WND.com
The Master of the Flip Flop!
Barack Obama, the first black president, proved to millions this
year that he is either trying his best to lead the nation during the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression, or he is the modern-day
incarnation of Adolph Hitler pushing his Socialistic agenda. One of the two.
In 2010, Barack Obama made a number of political compromises while still trying to pursue many of the reforms laid out during his 2008 campaign. Also, he was a totalitarian monster comparable to the perpetrator of one of the worst genocides in history.
Barack is either a president who passed a comprehensive health care measure despite staunch opposition from powerful private interests, or a radical-Islamist sympathizer bent on systematically dismantling American democracy and eradicating all human liberty. (he successfully socialized healthcare against the will of the people)
Barack either assisted all Americans by lowering taxes while failing to communicate that effectively, or he is pure evil destroying our government from the inside out with insurmountable debt.
Barack Obama, IS TWO of the most important people of 2010: the one who was elected to be president of the United States and execute laws to the best of his ability, and the one who murders senior citizens (government healthcare) murders babies (abortion) and hates all white people (his own book). Only history will say which he is for sure.
After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.
WASHINGTON -- After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.
It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.
Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.
While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.
Harkening back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition, Obama said: "Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today."
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."
But some Republicans were quick to pounce.
"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."
Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines in the U.S. but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner in the State Dining Room included ambassadors and officials from numerous nations where Islam is observed, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.
While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.
Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks.
LETTER FROM THE BOSS.....
As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact
that Barack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government
fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases,
our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot
increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the
economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This
has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and
I didn't know how to choose who would have to go. So, this is what
I did. I walked through our parking lot and found six 'Obama' bumper
stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be
the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach
this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them. I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
By Ali Sina 8/09/22
I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident – a wholesome presidential package. It is so instinctive for most people to want to see blacks succeed. It is as if all humanity is carrying a collective guilt for what the ancestors of blacks endured. However, despite my initial interest in him, I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words.
It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics.
Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, “I love you.” Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.
When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found their error when it was too late.
By Allan Wall
• The hope in Mexico is that Obama will grant an amnesty to Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S.
Tomorrow, January 20th, 2009, is the scheduled inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States. What does this mean for the U.S., and the world?
Does it mean the departure of the wicked George W. Bush, and his replacement with the marvelous Barack Obama who will bring peace, put an end to fear, and stop global warming?
That’s the sort of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve been hearing. Many Obama supporters display a disturbing cult-like fervor, and the mainstream media didn’t even bother to hide its pro-Obama bias during the election.
Nevertheless, the “Bush-as-root-of-all-evil” crowd is in for a real letdown when they discover that Barack Obama can’t deliver all that’s been promised.
Certainly the Bush administration has a lot to answer for, and its incompetence helped pave the way for Obama’s victory. But after January 20th, it’s time for Obama to actually deliver something concrete.
Disappointment is inevitable. In fact, Obama is not even president but some of the sheen is already wearing off.
Ludicrously enough, Obama has already been blamed for the fighting in Gaza. In Iran, his posters have been publicly burned and he’s been ridiculed by the chief of the powerful Council of Guardians. Who can doubt that Obama will not satisfy everybody in the Middle East. After all, who could?
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, who was supposed to get on famously with Obama, has already turned against him. Bigmouth Hugo has accused Obama of meddling in Venezuela, and says Obama has the same “stench” as President Bush. (The “stench” part likely alludes to Hugo’s calling Bush the devil in a speech to the United Nations.)
Obama isn’t even president yet and already he has international critics. After his administration gets rolling, how can he avoid offending more people? For a U.S. president – any U.S. president – that must be impossible nowadays.
The truth is, we don’t know for certain how Obama will govern. Will he follow his far left background, or govern from the middle? How will he get along with Congress? Neither Obama’s detractors nor his supporters can really tell us.
Nor is there much in Obama’s biography that can enlighten us. Except for a short stint as editor of Harvard Law Review, Obama has zero experience as a public administrator.
And despite all the calls for “hope” and “change,” what objective observer can doubt that Obama will continue many Bush policies, just as Bush continued some Clinton policies?
In Mexico there are some great expectations about the new Obama administration. Polling indicates that among Mexicans who had an opinion (because all didn’t) most preferred Obama over McCain.
Last summer I heard a Mexican talking who thought Obama already was the president! Given the media coverage, that’s understandable.
The hope in Mexico is that Obama will grant an amnesty to Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S. However, those who think that may be disappointed.
In the first place, a U.S. president can’t simply snap his fingers and grant an amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Although he doesn’t get credit for it in Mexico, George W. Bush tried repeatedly to give illegal aliens an amnesty. Bush failed, not for lack of trying but because illegal alien amnesty is quite unpopular, and the legislation was stopped by grassroots opposition.
The same thing could happen to Obama if he tries.
In the Senate a new bill that could provide an amnesty has already been introduced, but who knows what will become of it?
Furthermore, despite lip service, illegal alien amnesty is probably not near the top of Obama’s priorities.
If reactivating the economy and creating jobs are Obama’s priorities, then how keenly are American voters going to view amnesty or a guest worker program?
In fact, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told an Hispanic activist that he does not foresee “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty) during Obama’s first administration.
Not only that, but according to a Pew Hispanic Center poll, for U.S. Hispanics, immigration is not even their most important political issue. It came in at #6, with the economy at #1.
Therefore, enacting an amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens may not be any easier under Obama than it was under Bush. Which means that, eventually, after all the hoopla and euphoria wears off, it’s quite possible that Barack Obama is going to disappoint Mexicans.
| Washington 18 January 2009 |
![]() |
| President-elect Barack Obama at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, 17 Jan 2009 |
By BEN EVANS – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.
Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a
Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in
defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant
questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s
highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have
failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is
routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S.
Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his
own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office
of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce
evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay
the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the
office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to
proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as
explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state
and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of
sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as
President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of
Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis.
Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our
Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this
escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents
establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the
Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from
the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request
that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself
at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday,
November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version)
birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth
certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry
Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age
of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental
College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents
changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the
existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to
observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches
the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it
invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
anarchy.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for
Constitutional Education, Inc.
By: Lowell Ponte
The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.
But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.
Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.
These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.
FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”
In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.
The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”
This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.
Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:
Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.
“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.
“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”
Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.
“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”
However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.
McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.
Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.
Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.
It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.
Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)
There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”
“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.
Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.
Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?
Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.
“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.
But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”
Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.
Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.
And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.
Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.
Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”
In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.
As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,"] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.
ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.
As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”
Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.
The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”
Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.
Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.
“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”
But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”
Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,"] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”
Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.
The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”
But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.
Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.
Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”
True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.
How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.
Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.
A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”
Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.
Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.
Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.
Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.
FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.
In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.
His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.
Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined "Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid." Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.
It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.
Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.
Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.
Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.
The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.
What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.
“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”
During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.
He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.
Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.
The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”
As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.
No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.
Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”
Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.
If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
(HONOLULU)(November 1, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin has
ignited a firestorm in Hawai'i over Barack Obama's bogus
"original" birth certificate. Martin won a stunning victory
Friday afternoon (October 31st) when the State of Hawai'i backed
his assertion that there was an original, "typewritten, 1961"
birth certificate, called a "Certificate of Live Birth" or
"COLB" in Hawai'i, that no one has previously seen. Hawai'i
officials retrieved and examined the
document
after Martin filed a lawsuit seeking access to the historic 1961
original.
Obama has falsely claimed to have placed the "original" on the
Internet. Factcheck.org has falsely claimed to have seen this
document and posted it on the Internet; that is not true. CNN
has falsely ridiculed Martin.
Hawai'i officials have now refuted Obama's false assertion.
Martin's victory in Honolulu will roil the final weekend of the
presidential campaign. Internet chatter is expected to explode
as the issue moves to the front page over Saturday and Sunday.
Swing voters may be swayed by the exposure that Obama has
brazenly been lying to the American people. "We just lobbed a
grenade into the final weekend of the presidential campaign,"
says Andy.
"I am ecstatic. I called Obama a liar. I called Factcheck.org
'ObamaLies.org.' I said CNN was sloppy and lazy and wrong. And I
was right. The State of Hawai'i has now backed me up. Whew. I
knew I was right, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that
I have started to get the machinery moving in state government.
The original document is now obviously protected and safe from
any tampering by Obama.
"My lawsuit started a firestorm in Hawai'i. The circuit judge
has set a hearing for November 18th (a report in the Honolulu
Advertiser for November 1st for an earlier hearing date of
November 7th is inaccurate; that date was cancelled).
"CNN also has egg on its face, because, once again, Hawai'i
backs my contention that the original document has never
surfaced in public. CNN tried to demean me by contradicting my
accurate claim.
"Now Obama, Factcheck.org and CNN have been exposed as liars. I
said there was a 'secret,' original, typewritten birth
certificate that had never been disclosed, and that document was
the original COLB, not the phony 'original' that CNN placed
before its viewers.
"Why would Hawai'i officials review the vault document at the
Eleventh Hour if my lawsuit wasn't causing a furor in Hawai'i
state government? Why? The Friday before the election?
"Mine is the only logical, rational, properly prepared lawsuit
that has been filed to open Obama's secret records. I sued in
the proper state in the proper court against the proper
officials for the proper remedy. And they are responding
properly. The judge has properly, although not as quickly as I
would have preferred, set a hearing to consider my claims. I
have not filed outrageous or exaggerated pleadings.
"I merely sought access to a document based on its scholarly and
news value and because I had been tipped by my sources inside
state government that Obama was lying. My network of informants
within state government helps me and guides me. Others filed
lawsuits outside Hawai'i that have either been dismissed or
discredited. My 'little engine that could' is chugging along.
"I have an outstanding record of high-profile public interest
litigation, as recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court five
years ago when they allowed me to represent a U. S. Marine in a
landmark lawsuit." See www.AndyMartin.com and
www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
In a Honolulu news conference on October 22nd Martin disclosed
that Frank Marshall Davis was the biological father of Barack
Obama, not Barack Obama senior. The Obama campaign has not
denied Martin's claim.
"Over the past month I have been on combat patrol from coast to
coast for the truth and for the United States Constitution,"
says Andy. "I have not the slightest link to John McCain. I am
connected to the Constitution and nothing else. I have waged
relentless war against Barack Obama's lies. And on the eve of
the final weekend in the presidential campaign Hawai'i
government has backed me by confirming that officials have
examined the original, typewritten 1961 document, and confirmed
that the document released by the Obama campaign was a
facsimile, not the original.
"I have won a major victory: I proved Obama was lying about what
he had posed on the Internet and falsely portrayed as 'the
original.' 'Barry, we caught you with your pants down. We caught
you lying, again.
"Saturday it will be my pleasure to return home to Chicago after
one of the most successful independent political battle
operations in media history, to wage the final weekend of war
for the truth and Constitution and against the Daley Machine and
Obama Gang. I have successfully been exposing and fighting Daley
Family corruption for over forty years. Barry Obama is part of
the second generation Daley Machine. He is a member in good
standing of this criminal operation.
"The Machine doesn't like me. But I have a history of coming up
with the truth, and a history of embarrassing powerful people.
In retaliation, they try to smear me. The disclosure that
Hawai'i officials have examined the true original COLB, and that
Obama lied to the American people by falsely claiming he had
posted the original 1961 document, is going to spread like
wildfire between Saturday and Tuesday night.
"This election is bizarre because the presidential candidate of
the Democratic Party, the Party's leader, is from the Daley
Machine in Chicago. And the leader of the Internet Army opposing
Obama and
working
to defeat him and the Daley Machine is also from Chicago. My
Senator would be proud.
Martin is expected to announce Saturday that he is suing Fox
News as well as the New York Times, for defamation of character.
The lawsuit will be released Monday morning.
"For Fox News to treat me as they did is beneath contempt," says
Martin. "I am respected around the world for accuracy, honesty
and integrity. We know the New York Times is a corrupt media
operation. But Fox News? Well, Ruppert Murdock may want to
kow'tow to Barack Obama, but I will not kow'tow to Ruppert
Murdock. The crass executives deserve to be sued for their
malicious attacks on me. Someone ought to stand up for me: I
helped expose Bill Ayers and Khalid Al-Mansour. A slimy 'vice
president' that probably never worked a case or a story had the
nerve to demean me. What a compete corporate moron.
"How dare these media imposters and blowhards smear me with
lies, when I have worked tirelessly to expose the truth about
Barack Obama-and succeeded," Martin will charge. "I'll be happy
to face the Fox jerk, Vice President Bill Shine, in court and
defend my good name against Obama's mud merchants, the New York
Times and Ruppert Murdock. Ruppert Murdock's daughter is backing
Obama, for Chrissake.
"I also plan Saturday to thank Dr. Chiyome Fukino for confirming
my factual allegation that there was/is an original, typewritten
1961 'vault' COLB that has not been made public and that the
true 'original' COLB is in official files. That confirmation
makes Barack Obama a liar, on the last weekend of the campaign.
Thank you, doctor.
"Now you know why Obama and Axelrod and Gibbs call me the
'Internet Powerhouse' that can't be stopped. Barack Obama will
be bleeding through election night because of this massive lie
exposed on the eve of their election. I work for the American
people, not John McCain or the Republican Party. Friday, truth
arrived in Honolulu, and in the remaining 100 hours that truth
is going to be spread from coast-to-coast.
"Obama lied." Again!
Martin lands in Chicago at noon, and will proceed to his office,
for an afternoon news conference.
Martin is also soliciting financial support to fund his
litigation in Hawai'i.
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20
months'
(The real reason Barack is going to Hawaii to see Grandma!)
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
![]() Philip J. Berg |
The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.
The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii.
But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release. "This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States." He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."
Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution.
"Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."
Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.
WND reported earlier this week Berg's claim that Obama has legally "admitted" the accusations included in his lawsuit, including that he was born in Mombosa, Kenya, by not responding to the allegations. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.
His lawsuit is demanding that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate. Berg has cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama filed only motions to dismiss the case and did not actually answer the claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen., asserted Berg, who has taken his information public through his website. Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961.
But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement. Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election. The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place." Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.
The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available. Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of the Hawaii certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II. The Washington claim states, "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of 'natural born.'"
Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.
When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen. "If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said. Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign. "I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said.
"I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor:
Larry Johnson
About:
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC,
an international business-consulting firm with expertise
combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr.
Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism
exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover
investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money
laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central
Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of
Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of
terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr.
Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media
including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's
Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News,
and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for
publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New
York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on
terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the
Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole
Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S.
Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna,
Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a
Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter
Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist
incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct
the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and
Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations
following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also
participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of
Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and
pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar
reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for
the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished
career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked
in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s
Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific
analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year
with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr.
Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial
Security. He taught at The American University’s School of
International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in
political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development
from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received
his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta
Kappa in 1976.
on June 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM in
Current Affairs
I must admit I initially thought this was a farfetched question. But there is a significant body of evidence, some circumstantial, that suggests the answer may be “no.”
An internet friend (Katherine) has pursued this relentlessly. She sent me the following:
According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.
But only Barack’s mom was a U.S. Citizen. Papa Obama was a citizen of Kenya.
Well, the Hawaiian law stipulates:
…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”
It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At what point was Barack Obama Jr., son of Barack Obama Sr., recognized by the U.S. Government as an American citizen? When he moved to Indonesia with his mother and step-father in the mid-1960s I am assuming he had a U.S. passport.
There is a law suit in the works. Of that you can be sure. As was noted in an early post today on No Quarter, Barack’s stubbornness on the birth certificate issue is keeping the matter alive. Not a good idea going into the General Election.
I am not a Constitutional scholar (nor is Barack for that matter). The relevant clause of the Constitution stipulates that:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Wednesday, October 22,
2008 7:58 PM
By: David
A. Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending. But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an "F" grade. During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules. Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background -- leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information. And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available. And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling. A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.
Among the examples:
Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.
Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.
Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)
Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”
The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.
Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.
Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.
Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.
On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so. When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser). Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign. Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them. But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”
The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
"Change" A Double Edged Sword!
I have been comparing the Obama campaign to pre World War II Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler for many weeks. Of course my claims have been dismissed by Obama supporters and many times I have been personally attacked for asking simple questions about Obama. I am a student of history and have read a great deal about the era leading up to the second world war and also during and after. The more I observe and think about it, the closer the parallels are.
The rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany.
The people of Germany got caught up in the euphoria of the changes that Hitler promised.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts.
The Nazis bullied Jews and other segments of society.
The Nazis were elitists with talk of the Arayan Race.
Adolf Hitler had many people fooled including many Jews that never thought all of that evil could happen in their country. moinansari reminded me of this important point. Thank You!
The Barack Obama Campaign The perceived economic conditions are bad. The economic conditions are perfect here compared to post War War I Germany.
Obama worked on his oratory skills. He is a superb speaker with the ability to mesmerize his followers.
Obama has been surrounded by racists, anti semites, criminals and drug users.
Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and others have blamed white people and Jews for their problems.
Obama constantly speaks of change.
Obama supporters are caught up in the euphoria of the moment and Obama’s promise of change.
Obama has denied having records, not provided records and been extremely evasive when asked to supply records.
Obama supporters have bullied bloggers when questions about Obama or his past are asked. Some of these attacks are clearly orchestrated by the Obama Campaign. Some of these bullies have attacked family members of bloggers.
Obama has recently shown his elitist attitude during his speech in San Francisco. His arrogance parallels Hitler’s Aryan race comments in regard to Obama’s God Like omnipotence in regard to having the answers to problems.
Obama has many people fooled including many Jews that are ignoring all the evil and anti semitism surrounding Obama. Thanks moinansari and God bless you.
The parallels are clear and they are scary! What is the lesson to be learned?
The German people blindly followed Hitler with his promises of change. Hitler and his cohorts were not scrutinized by enough people. Barack Obama is promising change and many are blindly following in a similar euphoric state. All candidates for the presidency must be questioned and carefully scrutinized.
"OPERATION ALOHA OBAMA" YIELDS UP THE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA
|