Obama and His Socialist Goons has Forced Blogger to Remove
our Original Blog! See
for Yourself!
AP- WASHINGTON D..C.
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's
qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of
Information" has released copies of President Obama's college
transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript
indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial
aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the
school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance
with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court
of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied
for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from
the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the
scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document
would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors
have been seeking.
Along with the evidence that he was first born in
Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship,
this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the
White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's
legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for
comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.
Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in
a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading
some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on
Obama's first official visit to the U.K.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from
several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court
agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility
to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey
...
This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship
disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one
of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship
or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation
has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign
spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000
in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states
for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Mr.
Kreep indicated that the investigation is still
ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney
General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS THAT THE MEDIA WON'T
EMBRACE!
What do Osama and Obama have in common?
They both have a friend that blew up the Pentagon!
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.
Obama "Electric Slides" to the middle? Maybe there
IS HOPE! It appears Obama has lied to the liberals as
well. Obama has modified some campaign promises. He now
says he won't push for the instant repeal of the Bush tax cuts
because of the recession. He has said it will take time to
withdraw from Iraq and shut down the prison for terrorism
suspects at Guantanamo Bay. And the liberals thought the lies
were limited to defeating the Republicans for the Whitehouse.
When
the Hoopla Is Over Will Obama Let Down Mexicans?
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?
Doesit
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.
Obama's main concerns
By Al Pessin Washington 18 January 2009
President-elect Barack Obama at
Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, 17 Jan 2009
President-elect Barack Obama has said that very soon after his
inauguration on Tuesday he will meet with top U.S. military leaders to
discuss priorities. During the election campaign he said he would give
the military a new mission in Iraq. But priorities have changed since
then and now the meeting may focus more on Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama
is expected to implement a troop increase that President Bush promised.
The president-elect had said he wanted most U.S. combat troops out of
Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. But late last year, the Bush
administration signed an agreement with Iraq that takes a different
approach, requiring the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities
by June, and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire country
by the end of 2011.
It is not clear exactly what orders Obama will give, but he has said he
will listen to the concerns of top military officers before making any
final decisions.
One of the main concerns he will hear relates to Afghanistan, where the
U.S. commander has asked for 14,000 more combat troops and several
thousand more support troops. The new president's appointee for
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, was asked about
that at her Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday. "I actually think
the intent of both President-elect Obama and (Defense) Secretary
(Robert) Gates is to move as quickly as possible. I have not yet been
briefed on the details in terms of what would be required to do that.
But I do believe that in principle we should be moving as quickly as
possible," she said.
But Pentagon officials say moving quickly to add troops in Afghanistan
means reducing troop numbers in Iraq. General David Petraeus, the former
U.S. commander in Iraq who now has responsibility for the entire Middle
East and Central Asia region, says he, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan
Crocker and the new U.S. Iraq commander, General Ray Odierno, believe
the United States needs to be careful about removing troops from Iraq
too quickly. "The ambassador and General Odierno and I have reminded
everyone, it is our view that the progress does remain fragile. It does
remain reversible," he said.
And some experts warn against adding too many foreign troops to
Afghanistan. Among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor at Johns
Hopkins University who was President Jimmy Carter's national security
adviser in the 1970s when the Soviet Union invaded and occupied
Afghanistan. "This runs the risk of gradually turning the Afghan
population against our efforts. The enterprise thus, paradoxically, is
turning in the direction painfully reminiscent of what the Soviets
experienced," he said.
Brzezinski says any troop increases should be relatively small, and
focused on particular problem areas in Afghanistan, where Taliban
insurgents who support the country's former government have been
particularly active in recent months.
Michele Flournoy says the Obama Administration will be careful in
implementing the expected troop increase. "The key principle is to shift
the emphasis, but to do so in a very responsible manner," she said.
Aside from troop numbers, civilian and military officials agree there
needs to be a strong parallel effort to improve Afghanistan's economy
and the quality of its government, and to end corruption and fight the
narcotics trade. And many experts, including Zbigniew Brzezinski and
General Petraeus have called for local political accommodation, perhaps
even with reconcilable elements of the Taliban.
That kind of strategy worked in Iraq, where General Petraeus engineered
a series of agreements with previously hostile tribal leaders. Petraeus
is quick to point out that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different, but
he also says many of the approaches he used successfully in Iraq will
likely work in Afghanistan. Among them are the needs to establish better
security, provide government services, put military and police posts out
among the people and to get local residents involved in providing for
their own security. "The lines of operation exist. The question is how
to achieve greater unity of effort among all of the different partners
in this effort, and with our Afghan partners as well," he said.
That concept of "unity of effort" is frequently mentioned but difficult
to implement, particularly in Afghanistan, where more than 40 nations
provide troops and assistance.
The White House and the Pentagon recently completed reviews of the U.S.
strategy in Afghanistan, and delivered them to the Obama Transition
Team. The top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said in
December he did not expect any major strategy change. "At this point,
anyway, I don't expect any radical changes. I think emphasis is going to
be important. Clearly, we'll see where we go with a new administration
with respect to that, and clearly part of the discussion will be how the
strategy gets resourced," he said.
Like other military officers and civilian officials, Admiral Mullen says
the Afghanistan war will not be won by military power alone, adding that
Afghanistan also needs a variety of civilian aid and advice. And the
admiral also says the United States and NATO need a regional approach,
taking into account the situation in Pakistan, where Afghan insurgents
take refuge, and the role of other nearby countries, including Iran.
That kind of regional approach is what General Petraeus is working on in
his own Afghanistan strategy review, and he has a 200-member team
working on it. His report is expected in February.
Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
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.
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 VOIDab 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.
"Smears" about Obama Largely True 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.
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.
Barack Tells Acorn they will Shape
His Domestic Policy
Obama's Online Birth
Certificate Verified a FAKE by Hawaii "CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign
exposed as liars"
(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.
Why I am Voting for McCain
Obama Mocks the
Holy Bible!
The Obama's on
Hillary and Her Supporters
Must View: Obama and His Radical Friends!
Be sure to watch ALL SIX EPISODES
Farrakhan calls Obama 'the Messiah'!
Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
This election isn't just about whether America is to be
ruled by a political party a little to the right or the
left of center. This is a uniquely dangerous election in
all of our history. The issue is whether we elect a
president and a party that will destroy America as we
know it and so weaken America's economy, national
defense, national security and foreign policy that
others will destroy us first.
I have been writing about Sen. Barack Obama five days a
week, because I was so appalled at what I found out
about him. And the more I investigated his background,
associates, collaborators, friends and positions the
more frightening the prospect of Sen. Obama in the White
House became. Based on everything I've learned, and
based on all my instincts and intuition about Sen. Obama
and what the mainstream media has been hiding from
voters, I'm convinced Sen. Obama would be an unmitigated
disaster. I'm convinced if the full truth were known, he
would look at least 100 times more dangerous than he
does now.
These are the factors that make the future look
catastrophic if Sen. Obama is elected:
1. We might well say, "Barack, we hardly know you." The
mainstream media has not vetted him. We are essentially
buying a cat in a bag. Even the wildly liberal Los
Angeles Times, almost totally supportive of Sen. Obama,
had to run a story saying reporters who cover him don't
even know him or what to expect from him. He is usually
scripted (and when he is not he makes horrendous
mistakes, as when he finally admitted his socialistic
objectives). He is kept from the press. He avoids news
conferences. His campaign ignores tough questions.
That's bad enough, but what we do know about him
suggests he's a far left liberal extremist and radical
and has flown with a platoon of racists, bigots,
America-haters, socialists, anti-capitalists and even
terrorists. It is inconceivable that such a man would
even be considered for the nomination, let alone win the
Democratic Party nomination, and be leading in the polls
with the days dwindling down to a precious few.
2. If he wins the White House, it is likely that he will
have a Congress controlled by the same radical liberal
wing of the Democratic Party that he represents - Sen.
Harry Reid in the Senate with a filibuster-proof
majority and Rep. Nancy Pelosi holding sway in the House
also with a supermajority. Already they are talking
about taking us down the most radical path in history
with more spending bills in the works, with tax hikes of
all kinds likely to kill business, with the "spread the
wealth" philosophy in the air and with the standard
Democratic Party cry of cutting defense spending.
They represent the old Democratic Party's approach of
endless taxing, spending, expansion of government,
limitation of freedom, and a feeble military and foreign
policy. But the Obama presidency would take that all to
a power of ten, and would add on a stream of radical
liberalism that we've never seen before.
3. This also means Sen. Obama, if elected, will be
naming perhaps three or more justices to the Supreme
Court. And he is already on record as favoring a living
constitution - code words for forgetting the intent of
the Founding Fathers and legislating from the bench. He
has also said he wants judges who empathize with the
single mother, the disabled and other vulnerable people.
This is his way of saying he wants judges who decide on
emotions and sympathy rather than on the rule of law.
That means there will be an explosion of far-out radical
liberal laws and regulations, coming from all three
branches of government. This means that the courts will
be able to legislate the far-left liberal agenda Sen.
Obama represents. That triumvirate is so far out that
they make people like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and
George McGovern look like conservatives. It is important
to observe that even Mr. McGovern, former presidential
nominee, has taken to the air to oppose proposed
legislation backed by Sen. Obama, the Democratic Party,
and labor bosses that in effect kills the secret ballot
for union elections. Unions will be organized by workers
just signing cards, subject to intimidation and
harassment, and unprotected by the secret ballot. I've
also detailed in earlier columns the anti-Democratic and
sometimes even Storm Trooper mentality of Sen. Obama and
his campaign. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama and the
Democrats are more committed to power and winning
elections that obeying and protecting democratic
principles.
4. And this barrage of radical liberalism will not just
be an updated version of the New Deal or LBJ's Great
Society. It will be a new form of radicalism that up to
now would not even be dreamed of. We will see "spread
the wealth" and "redistributive justice" on the face of
legislation rolling through Congress and being signed by
the president, without any checks and balances from a
minority party, without any veto, and without any
filibuster.
We will see even more radical ideas that will change the
face of America. As Rush Limbaugh reported on Oct. 29,
Sen. Obama and the Democrats have big ideas for changing
the very face of the nation. Sen. Obama has advocated
citizenship for all 12 million of the nation's illegal
immigrants. Sen. Obama has said, "... We cannot ...
deport all 12 million people. That's why we need to
offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to
citizenship. That way, we can reconcile our values as
both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."
The Democrats will rush that citizenship, as they want
to permanently tip the balance of power in favor of the
Democrats. There has been a fine balance of power
between the two parties, which will be ended by 12
million new voters who will favor the Democrats. That's
because minorities and immigrants tend to like the big,
benevolent, tax-and-spend governments that hand out
welfare, benefits and cradle-to-grave security. Dick
Morris, in his book Fleeced, points out how Sen. Obama
wants to include even illegal immigrants in his
universal health-care system. He argues that is sure to
overload the system and create such new demand for
health care that rationing will be in order. He goes on
to point out that means that our senior citizens will
probably have to be turned down for the most expensive
treatments and surgeries, taking a back seat to younger
immigrants and insureds, as their will not be the
medical resources to go around.
Senior citizens don't fair well in a system applying
rationing of medical care. What 47 million new insureds
will do to the cost, inflation rate and quality of
health care is too frightening and too obvious to even
need further explanation. Sen. Obama, by his tax plans,
his socialistic schemes, and his new welfare programs,
will destroy the health-care system and the economy in
short order. Small businesses, subjected to tax
increases probably even far in excess of those talked
about during the campaign, will be dead as a dodo. The
only question is whether we will be thus destroyed by
Sen. Obama's domestic policies, or whether we will be
first destroyed by his foreign policy that will weaken
our national defense, demonstrate weakness too our
enemies and invite attacks and the destruction of
America.
5. This all is more problematic in view of the
demonstrated dishonesty of Sen. Obama in explaining his
associations and positions. For more details see my
column, "Obama Tells the Greatest Lies Ever Told, Even
Before Beings Elected" (Oct. 30,) at www.thebulletin.us.
Further adding to the grim picture is the whiff of
corruption involving Sen.Obama and his campaign due to
both of their connections to ACORN and its furtherance
of voter fraud. During the debates, he said his only
connection with ACORN was as a lawyer, but he omitted
the more than $800,000 his campaign gave to an ACORN
subsidiary and his work as an organizer for ACORN. It
should also be noted Sen. Obama would have trouble
getting a security clearance if he were applying for a
federal job, due to questions about his loyalty and
reliability flowing from his long standing association
and collaboration with terrorists, subversives, radicals
and hate-America types.
6. The best demonstration of how Sen. Obama's foreign
policy would destroy America comes from Melanie
Phillips, who wrote the classic book Londonistan, on the
ongoing conquest of the United Kingdom by Islam. She
writes in The Spectator, a British publication, that the
impact of the financial crisis has obscured the most
important issue facing America. She says if Sen. Obama
becomes president, "U.S. defenses will be emasculated at
a time of unprecedented international peril and the
enemies of America and the free world will seize their
opportunity to destroy the west."
Ms. Phillips writes that to understand the choice
between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Obama you have to view
each man in the round, and get a total picture of each
man's world view, philosophy and values.
Here is some of Ms. Phillips' reasoning:
* "McCain believes in protecting and defending America
as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America
and wants to change it into something else. McCain
stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that
American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands
for the expiation of America's original sin in
oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."
* "Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west's
fault, and so it must right the injustices it has
inflicted. That's why he believes in 'soft power' -
diplomacy, aid, rectifying 'grievances' (thus
legitimizing them, encouraging terror and promoting
injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a
result, he will take an axe to America's defenses at the
very time when they need to be built up. He has said he
will 'cut investments in unproven missile defense
systems'; he will 'not weaponize space'; he will 'slow
our development of future combat systems' and he will
also 'not develop nuclear weapons,' pledging to seek
'deep cuts' in America's arsenal, thus unilaterally
disabling the nuclear deterrent as Russian and China
engage in massive military buildups."
Sen. McCain knows we have to fight Islamofascism and win
that fight. Sen. Obama sees the source of evil in the
world as America. He has said, "A lot of evil's been
perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting
evil." He has said Iran is a tiny country and not a real
threat. He quickly reversed himself but that tells you
something about his worldview. He said Hezbollah and
Hamas, the terrorist organizations that have murdered
Americans and are now doing so, have "legitimate
grievances." Ms. Phillips doesn't know what those
"legitimate grievances" are and I'd venture to say no
other rational man does.
To solve the conflict, writes Ms. Phillips, "Obama
places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny."
Sen. McCain knows better, and also knows Israel is the
victim rather than the victimizer. Sen. McCain knows
that Israel is surrounded by genocidal enemies that just
want to destroy the Jewish state. He also knows Israel
is the first line of defense of the free world and that
Israel is the first target in the Islamofascists attack
on the free world.
Sen. Obama's incredible naïveté is demonstrated many
times, but no more dramatically than by his willingness
to negotiate without preconditions with such genocidal
maniacs as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by his opposition to
declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist
organization. A move to so declare it passed the Senate
by a wide margin.
His statements (often quoted in this column) show he
believes "Islamic terrorism is driven by despair,
poverty, and inflammatory US policy and the American
presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf." Thus he
adopts the agenda of the Islamofascists.
This drift of his thinking should surprise no one as he
has closely associated with those in the Islamists'
camp. He has multiple links to anti-Americans,
terrorists, and subversives. The latest such association
involves Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for a
terrorist organization. Mr. Khalidi, Sen. Obama, and the
unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
all attended an Israel-bashing party when Mr. Khalidi
left Chicago to go to Columbia University. What's worse,
most of his foreign policy advisers have that typically
radical liberal view of blaming the ills of the world on
Israel and America. He brought in a few for cosmetic
purposes, such as Dennis Ross, but his initial selection
and his circle of collaborators and friends show where
he really stands.
Ms. Phillips summarizes her views of the meaning of a
Sen. Obama presidency for the future of America:
"There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is
music to their ears. Whether through wickedness,
ideology, stupidity or derangement they firmly believe
that the ultimate source of conflict in the world
derives at root from America and Israel, whose
societies, culture and values they want to see
emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling
at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that
about. The rest of us can't sleep at night."
But we can still vote. And we better consider that vote
carefully and not vote for a charismatic demagogue, who
gives pretty speeches, but whose reality is the opposite
of his rhetoric, who is inexperienced and shows it every
time he gets off his teleprompter, who has a razor-thin
resume, who has never done anything but run for office
and self-promotion, and whose policies, advisers, and
philosophy would destroy America as we know it.
Courtesy of William Long
I've been a Christian for 37 years. Before that I
was a radical. I was tear-gassed 5 times in Chicago in 1968 as a
Vietnam Veteran Against the War. I came back from Chicago and was
co-founder of an anarchist club on campus called 'CHAOS' Committee
for the Humane Appreciation of Students. After I became a Christian,
I became more or less politically inactive except for voting and
trying to stay informed.
A few weeks ago I watched
"Obsession", a DVD about Islamic terrorism. That led me to read
Brigitte Gabriel's book "Because They Hate". I've just finished
David Horowitz's book "Unholy Alliance" about the alliance between
radical Islam and the American Left. I decided to find out as much
as I could about Barack Obama, just researching the internet. What I
found is deeply disturbing. Any candidate who can support
Odinga in his campaign
promising Sharia in Kenya is
someone I don't want as president. Here's some more of what I
found.. I think it lays out a fairly complete picture of the
underlying dynamic for this election.
Start with the Big Picture.
Read Andy Martin’s expose of the Obama Ayers relationship
going back to 1987 and watch the documentary on we
will not be silenced
about the fraud and abuse in the Democratic primaries. The financial
crisis is influencing a lot of people to vote for Obama. So be sure
to check out the links under ‘Financial Crisis’ to find out who and
what really caused the
crisis. Note the part
that Barack Obama played, as a trainer for ACORN, as
a lawyer suing Citibank
to force it to make bad loans, and in his promise to let
ACORN help shape his
agenda. Read the
cult of personality
and listen to the 1985 interview with Yuri Bezmenov
about ideological subversion. Also, note what Yuri Bezmenov and the Cloward Piven Strategy
say about manufacturing a crisis. This election is so very
important.. Look over some of the other links.
The MSM has a blackout on
any negative information on Obama. The average American doesn't
listen to or read conservative channels of communication. The best
organized, and most knowledgeable, group I’ve found so far is
PUMA
(Hillary supporters who won’t vote for Obama). The average American
doesn't even know about PUMA much less visit any of their websites.
The fact that Shelly Mandell, President of the Los Angeles chapter
of the National Organization For Women, introduced and endorsed
Governor Palin at a rally in Los Angeles County is encouraging. Even
so, there’s still so much ignorance among the general population of
this nation.
The question is, how does a person get enough
information to vote intelligently?
Finally, (and most important) for those of us who
believe in a living God who is actively involved in the affairs of
men and nations – pray. And join together with others in prayer.
Bill Long
Stow, OH
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!)
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.
Is Barack Eligible to be President?
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor:
Larry JohnsonName:
Larry Johnson Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net Site:http://NoQuarterUSA.net 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.See
Authors Posts (664)
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.
Now, I had always assumed that a
naturalized citizen (like Arnold) could not be President.
but the clause, “or a citizen of the United States,” seems
to open the door for people who become citizens. Any lawyers
out there?
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 (If his own running
mate has doubts about whether he's ready for the job... shouldn't you?)
Quote of the Year: "communities
are terrorized by ICE immigration raids" - Senator Barack Hussein Obama
(Federal Agents are compared to Terrorists? Barack, try showing some
support for law enforcement.)
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
(This is not a shocker!)
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 (Again, not a shocker!)
Democrats Didn't "GET IT" about
Freddie & Fannie 4 Years Ago!
Obama was PAID OFF
by Fannie Mae
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates
membership
Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal
blog)
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen.
Barack Obama
belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members
to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far
leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist
agenda.
Several blogs,
including Powerline, previously documented that while running
for the Illinois
state Senate
in 1996 as a Democrat,
Obama
actively sought and received the endorsement of the
socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a
member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for
America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was
an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's
aim was to help elect
politicians
to office who espouse its policies.
Among New
Party members
was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky. Obama's
campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential
candidate was ever a member of the New Party. But the
New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the
party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party
leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.
The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won
three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State
Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia
Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these
victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not
members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
Barack Obama pictured in New
Party publication
(Courtesy New Zeal blog)
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for
America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama
attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he
expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged
NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter
Education and
Voter Registration."
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the
politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political
committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they
will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known
as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two
tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the
New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by
the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in
the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist
Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his
former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with
ACORN. "[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d
democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage
and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only
operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was
ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote
Davidson.
But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its
old website. Among the New Party's stated objectives were
"full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum
income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such
basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and
lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of
comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity." The New
Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and
financial system – including popular election of those charged with
public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over
their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial
institutions." Many of the New Party's founding members were
Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees
of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama
attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored
town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival
in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the
DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to
promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide
voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over
the presidential candidate's ties to the group. In 1995, the
DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's
biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN. "Like most
organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN
is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed
communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers
for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas
for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that
depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find
burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had
the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until
recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
* Yesterday, Nevada officials raided ACORN’s
Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of
submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate
names. Among the bogus monikers: names of former Dallas Cowboys
players.
* Lake County, Ind., election officials this
month rejected thousands of registration forms ACORN had turned
in from its drives this summer. On a conference call yesterday,
GOP officials noted that up to 11,000 of the applications were
no good - tying up election officials and jeopardizing the
voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been
stolen.
In what seems to be ACORN’s standard
operating procedure, vote canvassers had pulled names and
addresses from phone books and forged signatures. According to a
local paper (the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times), “Large
numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the
same apparent handwriting style” and “apparently the
organization’s canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter
registration quotas to get paid.” The fake registrants include
dead people and underage kids.
* Milwaukee, Wisc., officials last month
discovered at least seven felons employed as voter-registration
workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. (State law bans
felons from such work.) They also uncovered a raft of
problematic voter-registration cards. The state GOP accuses the
group of trying to get dead, imprisoned or imaginary people on
the voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN’s Milwaukee chapter
since the last election cycle.
* In Florida, in Orange County alone, ACORN
workers turned in multiple, copycat forms for six separate
voters over the summer. The Miami Herald reports: “One
individual had 21 duplicate applications.” Election officials
had flagged ACORN’s negligent practices months ago. But it may
be too late: In Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, ACORN
has signed up 135,000 new voters, nearly 60 percent of them
registered as Democrats - a fifth of all new voters in that
region.
* In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people
got free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a
reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling in some
prospects. She told me she spoke with one homeless woman who
said ACORN “told her who to vote for if she wanted a ‘better
life,’ and told her not to worry about jury duty (one of the
reasons this homeless woman didn’t want to register) because the
government probably wouldn’t be able to track her down. She was
registering with a temporary address.”Holliday interviewed
another homeless man targeted by the registration drive who
exulted that he was voting for Obama because “I want him to do
his thang. You know, do his thug thizzle.”
“Thug thizzle” is street slang for performing
your trademark move. Obama and ACORN have practiced their thug
thizzle together for years: Organizing an ever-expanding
community of ineligible and marginal voters to expand the
Democrat power base. Rules be damned.
Obama: Most Secretive
Democratic Presidential
Candidate Ever
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 has not released
his client list as an
attorney or his billing
records. Obama has
maintained that he only
performed a few hours of
legal work for a nonprofit
organization with ties to
Tony Rezko, the Chicago
businessman convicted of
fraud in June. But he has
not released billing records
that would prove this
assertion.
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.
Major Obama Campaign
Donors are Fictional Characters
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy,
Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and
Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the
exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson,
they also are fictional characters. And
yet, all of them gave money earlier this
month to the campaign of Barack Obama,
without any apparent effort by the
campaign to screen them out as suspect
donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe
its sensational success in part to a
relaxation of standard online merchant
security practices, which has allowed
illegal donations from foreign donors
and from unknown individuals using
anonymous “gift” cards, industry
analysts and a confidential informant
tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into
the Obama campaign’s finance reports has
exposed multiple instances of campaign
finance violations and has been cited in
a formal complaint to the Federal
Election Commission filed by the
Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations
include donations in excess of the
$2,300 per election limit on individual
contributions and contributions from
foreign nationals, the extent of the
amount of fraud is hidden because of a
loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to
disclose contributors who donate less
than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses
to release their names, addresses, and
donation amounts. Obama has collected a
staggering $603.2 million. Most of the
money — $543.3 million — has come from
individual contributors, half of it from
“small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
The Obama campaign has turned a blind
eye to the possibility of donor fraud.
Reportedly, during the heated primary
battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama
campaign “turned off” many of the
security features on its online donor
page, allowing any person with a valid
credit card number to donate using any
name or address.
Typically, card merchants require a
cardholder’s name to match critical
personal details, such as an address or,
at the least, a ZIP code.
Though in recent months the Obama
campaign has tightened up security and
restored some of the security features
used by merchants to weed out fraud, it
still has left open easy ways for
potential credit card fraud, including
techniques similar to those employed by
terrorists and drug traffickers to
launder illicit funds.
For example, on Oct. 14, an
individual using the name “O.J. Simpson”
participated in Obama’s latest
small-donor fundraising drive, making a
$5 donation through the campaign’s Web
site.
Giving a Los Angeles address, he
listed his employer as the “State of
Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.”
The donor used a disposable “gift”
credit card to make the donation.
The Obama campaign sent O.J. a
thank-you note confirming his
contribution, and gave him the name of
another donor who had agreed to “match”
his contribution.
Four minutes earlier, an individual
using the name “Raela Odinga” also made
a $5 contribution, using the same credit
card.
The real Raela Odinga became prime
minister of Kenya in April and has
claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s
through a maternal uncle.
Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his
address as “2007 Stolen Election
Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit
card donation raised no alarm bells in
the Obama campaign.
A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck”
gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign,
listing his address as “124 Wacky Way,
Beverly Hills, Calif.”
But just as with Odinga’s address,
the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise
any alarm bells or security traps on the
Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the
same credit card.
Within the hour, three other new
donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign.
They were:
Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate,
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews
Alley, Gaza, GA.
King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street,
Capitol Heights, Md.
Newsmax learned of these
contributions, which were all made on a
single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the
total was $30), from a source that
requested anonymity.
Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the
tipster said he had been following the
Newsmax investigation of Obama’s
campaign finance irregularities “with
great interest,” and believed that some
of the small donations were coming from
gift cards — “you know, the type of
disposable debit card you can pick up at
Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
“I tried it myself a few days ago,”
he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of
the contributions I made in the names of
Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga,
and Family Guy.
“What this means is that the Obama
campaign does no verification of the
name of the contributor. With a normal
credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but
with these disposable debit cards, no
problem!
“This needs to be exposed,” he said.
The tipster attached the confirmation
pages from the Obama Web site showing
the names of the donors, and in some
cases, the names of other Obama donors
who had agreed to “match” their
contributions.
None of the matching donors’ names
appears in the Obama campaign’s public
disclosures to the FEC.
Other donors with clearly fictitious
names revealed previously by Newsmax,
The Los Angeles Times, and blogger
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include
“Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari
USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Five major companies process the bulk
of all credit card transactions made in
the United States, industry insiders
tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid
one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over
$2 million to process its online
transactions.
“We never discuss our relationships
with any of our merchants, or customers
we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman
for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.
Newsmax asked whether Chase
Paymentech had any security feature that
would allow it to identify individuals
making contributions using gift cards,
but Wester declined to comment.
But other industry analysts, who
asked not to be identified by name
because of the sensitive nature of the
issue, told Newsmax that processors
could track gift cards and debit cards
“only by the numbers on the cards.”
“There are no names associated with
these cards, so as a processor, you have
no way of knowing who made the
transaction,” one industry analyst said.
Anyone can go into a supermarket or a
Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards
with cash, so there is no trace of the
transaction, he added.
“It’s like walk-around money. They
could be handing these things out as
perks” to newly registered voters or
others, “and there’s no way of tracing
who is using them.”
Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of
experience in campaign finance law, said
that such contributions were clearly
illegal.
“Making a contribution in the name of
another person is the only part of
federal election law that actually
carries a criminal penalty,” he told
Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the
National Legal and Policy Center, a
conservative think tank in Washington,
D.C.
The Obama campaign has paid Synetech
Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va.,
close to $2 million to compile all of
the campaign contribution data from
online contributors, bundlers,
telemarketers, campaign events, and
direct-mail campaigns, and process it
for submission to the FEC.
The sheer scope of the Obama
fundraising juggernaut was “never
contemplated by the FEC,” a company
official told Newsmax, asking not to be
quoted by name.
“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7
million contributions,” he said.
The campaign itself is responsible
for screening out fraudulent donors, not
Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this
for 30 years, and this is as
well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s
just huge. When it’s this big, any
little thing becomes something more than
it is.”
One of the biggest problems the
campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s
a colossal problem. They’re paying the
campaign with other people’s money.”
Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and
“Good Will” who made hundreds of
contributions to the campaign in excess
of the legal limits were not working for
the campaign, but for themselves, he
insisted.
“It’s all fraud. They do it for
kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The
campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth
do they want to have all these messy
little transactions? It’s a colossal
pain.”
However, the campaign itself has
solicited these “messy little
transactions” in numerous e-mails to
supporters.
For instance, just days before the
Democratic National Convention in
Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe
sent an e-mail to supporters, asking
them to “make a donation of $5 or more
before midnight this Thursday, July
31st, and you could go backstage with
Barack.”
Since them, the campaign has run
several small donation drives, claiming
to “match” donations of $5, $10, or $25
with an equal amount for a previous
donor.
Newsmax put a series of questions to
the Obama campaign more than a week ago
in preparation for this article, such as
whether its Internet contribution system
automatically matches donors' names and
addresses to their credit card numbers,
as is common industry practice with
online stores.
Newsmax also asked if the campaign
uses a similar security screen to match
a donor’s name and address to the card
number when the donor uses a debit card
or a gift card.
Despite multiple requests from
Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to
comment for this story.
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
PART THREE: BARACK OBAMA IS NOT BARACK OBAMA
"OBAMA'S FATHER WAS FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS. OBAMA IS REALLY FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS,
JR.," SAYS ANDY MARTIN
OBAMA'S 'DREAMS FROM [HIS] FATHER] WAS REALLY A BOOK ABOUT HIS REAL FATHER,
FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
OBAMA WAS THE VICTIM OF A HISTORICAL ANOMALY, AND ROBBED OF HIS BIRTHRIGHT AS
THE SCION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ROYALTY
OBAMA'S ORIGINAL "VAULT" BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS EITHER INCOMPLETE OR TAMPERED
WITH, WHICH IS WHY IT HAS NEVER SURFACED.
MARTIN SAYS OBAMA SHOULD SUBMIT TO DNA TESTING WITH HIS BROTHERS
WAS OBAMA THE "VICTIM" OF A PRO-LIFE MOTHER?
(HONOLULU, HI)(October 22, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin told a Honolulu
news conference today that after an intense international investigation he is
convinced that Barack Obama, Junior, the presidential
candidate is really the son of Obama's controversial mentor Frank Marshall
Davis.
"Mendacious adults 'switched' Obama at birth. That is why he has refused to
allow access to the original or 'vault' birth certificate," Martin told a
Honolulu news conference. "We believe the original certificate did not list a
father. Barack Obama became the father as a result of an agreement between Ann
Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama, Sr.
"Davis was already married to a White Woman. He did not need a nonmarital
child by a second one. Ann probably refused to have what was then called a 'back
alley' abortion. Davis may have felt that 'Obama' would face less stigma with an
'African' background than a Negro one. The civil rights revolution, of course,
turned that gambit upside down. In discovering and understanding what happened
we cannot forget we are dealing with events in 1961, not 2008.
"The irony in all of this is that Obama once stated he did not want his
daughters to be 'victimized' with a child. And he is alive because his mother
took the contrary view.
"Barack Obama has known this since adulthood, and the shock of this discovery
still reverberates in his psyche.
"Ironically, what I have to say today dilutes the 'Muslim' theory that has
propagated. Davis was not a Muslim. If Obama had told the truth at some point in
his life, instead of living endlessly with the lies that were imposed on him by
the adults in his life, we would have avoided a great deal of
confusion. I, for one, have deep compassion for Mr. Obama. He is not the first
person in history to be caught up in this kind of family fraud.
"The disclosure by the two women in his life that he was not the 'son' of his
'father' also explains why he manifests such extreme ambivalence to both his
mother and grandmother. He is angry because he was cheated of his real father.
"Obama was robbed of his birthright of being the son of civil rights royalty,
and of a father with whom he was completely simpatico. He could have grown up
the son of Frank Marshall Davis, civil rights pioneer and activist, cutting-edge
journalist, poet and man of letters. Mr. Davis was an extraordinary man in a
dark period of this nation's history, the pre-dawn of the civil rights era.
"Obama has probably suspended his campaign and is flying to Honolulu because
he is deathly afraid his grandmother may make a 'dying declaration' and blow
the whistle on his family fraud. Dying people often blurt out the truth. The
true facts of Obama's parentage also reflect why there has been so much tension
and alienation, as well as genuine love, in Obama's relationship with
his grandmother.
"There has been a great deal of confusion and misconception about Frank Marshall
Davis. A brief history lesson is essential to understanding the bizarre facts of
Obama's provenance.
"During the 1920's and 30's many Negros (African-Americans) became 'communists'
because the Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA promised to end racial
segregation and Jim Crow laws in the United States. The Democratic Party, of
course, was the powerful force behind segregation and Jim Crow. So
it is a twist of fate that the same party that oppressed Blacks has now
nominated one for president.
"Madelyn Dunham is the last surviving person who knows the truth about the
switch. That is why as we closed in on Dunham, Obama went ballistic, cancelled
his campaign and came to Hawai'i to head us off.
"I actually carry an official, certified pocket-sized birth certificate on me at
all times [Andy shows a copy to media]. But this is NOT my 'birth certificate.'
The original certificate is held in the City Clerk's vault in Middletown,
Connecticut. That is what has come to be known as the 'vault copy.'
"Likewise, the document that Obama has plastered over the Internet is NOT his
original birth certificate or even a copy of his original certificate. It is a
computer generated facsimile of an official record and nothing more. The
original certificate was either handwritten or typewritten, not
computer-generated in 1961. No one has ever seen that original certificate
except the people that are working so hard to keep it hidden from the American
people.
"I am asking Judge Ayabe to impound the value certificate and have the court
hold it for safekeeping.
"By the time Barack Obama learned who he was, it was too late to change his
identity. He was who he was, so he continued the ruse of being the son of an
'African herder,' which was yet another lie. 'Dreams From My Father' bears no
connection to dreams from Barack Obama; there were none. It was Frank Marshall
Davis who communicated his dreams to his secret son.
"There is a simple way for Obama to resolve this controversy: he can either
admit the truth of these facts and order the immediate release of his vault
certificate; or he can submit to a DNA test. We can conduct a Maury Povich-style
DNA test to determine filiation between Obama and his brothers,
one of whom blogs at
BarackObama.com.
"In closing, I can only say that we used the fictional 'Hawai'i Five-O' as our
dramatic template for this investigative operation. We could have as easily used
the great, real-life Hawai'i detective Chang Apana as our polestar. He was
featured in yesterday's newspaper.
"As for Mr. Obama, all I can say is 'Book'em Danno." Case solved. Barack Obama
the presidential candidate is the son of Frank Marshall Davis." Martin stated.
"I bear Mr. Obama no ill will and no animus. I have only been a faithful servant
of the search for truth, and I believe we finally know the secret truths about
who Barack Obama really is: the son of Frank Marshall Davis."
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
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.
Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get
Citizenship
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:18 PM By: David
A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation
killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the
Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration
warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12
million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon
as he can — an amnesty program that would make them
legally entitled to full government benefits,
including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh,
N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
(ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it
politically impossible to secure America’s borders.
He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as
a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration
security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,”
Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken
advocate for stronger border control policies, tells
Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a
year. That means in the next presidential election,
you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million
illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in
the Southwest United States, would be enough to take
full control of most city, state, and county
governments, thus destroying any future hopes for
immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely
confronted Obama during the campaign over
immigration — presumably to avoid alienating
Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear
focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented
workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example,
Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM
Act, which allowed youngsters in the country
illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later
supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the
North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the
children of illegal immigrants should have an
opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college,
even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least
as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how
we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain
campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the
statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or
benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has
consistently opposed giving amnesty or public
benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his
pro-immigration positions as politically motivated
“distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence
to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would
include coverage for illegal immigrants, according
to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick
Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals
“adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health
care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate
amendment that would support the withdrawal of
federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore
the immigration laws of the United States and create
safe havens for illegal aliens and potential
terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration
reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since
then, McCain has taken the position that securing
the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama
continues to support a process to “bring people out
of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status
(at which point they would be eligible for the
federally mandated benefits available to anyone,
such as Social Security). Obama also calls for
enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports,
in principle, providing state-funded welfare
benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator,
Obama supported allocating state funds to provide
Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants,
according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of
work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa,
especially for applicants with specialized skills.
According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored,
along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill
that would provide federal funding to help states
provide health care and education to non-U.S.
citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American
children to become bilingual and, at one point in
the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be
mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate
provision that would declare English the national
language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit
U.S. Border Control organization, warns that
“Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful
inducements to illegal immigration, as are free
medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both
Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and
border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately
favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s
licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,”
Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then
give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
Bank whistleblower alleges Rezko
property value altered
Rick Moran This is something of a complex story
so bear with me.
When Obama purchased his house, the back and side yards were
sold as a separate piece of land - ostensibly at the request
of the seller but it may very well have been Rezko's idea to
help Obama and allow him to be able to afford the $1.9
million asking price for the house.
That land was valued at $625,000. Rezko's wife put a
downpayment of $125,000 (where she got the money when Rezko
was pleading poverty to the court at the same time is
unknown) on the yard, paying full asking price, while the
sellers lowered the price of the mansion to $1.6 million,
thus allowing the newly elected senator to afford the house.
A few months later, Obama agreed to help Rezko by buying a
strip of that land for a "garden." A Mr. Kenneth J. Connor
reappraised the land and found that it had been overvalued
at the time of sale - by a whopping $125,000!
Now Connor is suing because the bank made his lower
appraisal disappear.
A former
Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower
status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal
that he prepared for a Chicago property that was
purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko,
part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor
Barack Obama.
In
a complaint filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Kenneth J. Connor said that his reappraisal of
Rita Rezko's property was replaced with a higher one and
that he was fired when he questioned the document.
Mr.
Connor, a real estate and commercial credit analyst at
the Mutual Bank Corp. in Chicago, also noted in the
complaint that the bank received a grand jury subpoena
in October 2006 requiring it to produce information
concerning Mrs. Rezko's purchase, including the bank's
files on the property.
The
complaint also said that the grand jury wanted
information on Mrs. Rezko's checking account and loan
file and that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC)
had audited the Rezko file - although Mr. Connor's lower
reappraisal had been replaced with a higher amount.
"Connor's internal whistle-blowing activity at Mutual
Bank implicates Mutual Bank and the potentially guilty
officers thereof to prosecution under federal and
Illinois statutes," said the complaint, filed by
attorney Glenn R. Gaffney.
The
complaint said Mutual Bank officials could be guilty of
making false statements, willfully overvaluing property,
bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a
lawful subpoena, FDIC violations, and state banking
regulations.
This, from what
I understand, is highly unusual. First, the size of the
lower appraisal is incredible - 20% errors are just not made
in that business. If the bank were in on this, that would
mean that it is possible that the sellers - a doctor who
worked at University of Chicago hospital where Michelle
Obama worked - were in collusion. The higher appraisal of
the empty yard meant that they could lower their asking
price for the house.
The 10 foot parcel of land that Obama paid more than
$100,000 for was worth nowhere near that amount (one real
estate expert thought it would be worth about half that).
Now it could be that Obama was just helping out a buddy in a
financial bind by paying twice what the property was worth.
But there is also a possibility that it was Obama paying
Rezko back for his buying the vacant yard at the inflated
price.
The whole transaction stinks of manipulation, cronyism, and
collusion to possibly defraud. It should be interesting to
see where this investigation leads as well as how Mr.
Connor's lawsuit progresses.
Here's the clip
of Obama telling a plumber he's going to take his money and
"spread" it around.
PLUMBER: “Your new tax
plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”
OBAMA: “It’s not that I
want to punish your success, I just want to
make sure that everybody that is behind you,
that they have a chance for success too. I
think that when you spread the wealth
around, it’s good for everybody.”
Spread it to WHO?
Ladies and Gentlemen, the last time I
checked, this strategy was defined as
Socialism!
Why we run this site
Dear sir, madam,
What a great site is
dontvoteobama.net. I hope millions of American will be wise enough not
voting for Obama.
I live in Europe, but my family in Kurdistan (Northern Iraq). We are to America
and especially George Bush so thankful for helping us get rid of dictator Saddam
Hussein. No matter what the world says, we (the Kurdish and Iraqi people) are so
thankful that we can leave in freedom now.
In Europe (Netherlands) where I live, the people are so against the US,
especially George Bush.
They are so limited in their head, they don't know anything about what he means
to Iraqi people.
Nobody would have given us freedom, if the US didn't help us.
Now the Europeans are all positive about Obama and negative about Mc Cain. They
are so stupid to think that is it the best option to withdraw from iraq. If the
US leaves, the terrorists will
find their way to come in and it will be worse.
I really hope that Americans are wise enough to vote for Mc Cain. I will pray
for him, because if he is the president, I know that I can visit my family the
next 4 years in Iraq in peace.
God bless Mc Cain and may he be the winner. And great job to summarize why one
should not vote for Obama.
Best regards
Sara
(Isn't this what America is all about! Helping those in need that cannot help
themselves. If we lose GOD in this country, we will also lose our desire to help
others. GOD has blessed America because of our faith in Him. This election is
WORTH THE FIGHT!)
Late-Term
Abortion Survivor Bashes Barack Obama on Infanticide
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new pro-life
group that features a late-term abortion survivor is
running a national television advertisement against
presidential candidate Barack Obama. The ad takes Obama
to task for his votes against a bill to care for
survivors of such abortions when he was in the Illinois
legislature.
The new group, BornAliveTruth.org is a joint effort
between Gianna Jessen, who survived a saline abortion
decades ago, and pro-life blogger Jill Stanek.
Stanek is the former Chicago-area nurse who exposed the
practice of live-birth abortions, where doctors
purposefully cause the premature birth of an unborn
child for the sole purpose of letting her die.
Her exposure of the practice led to the Illinois bills
Obama opposed and a national law President Bush signed
requiring medical centers and personnel to provide such
babies with adequate medical care after birth.
"I'm a survivor, as are many others...but if Barack
Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here," Jessen says in
the ad.
"Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to
protect babies left to die after a failed abortion.
Senator Obama, please support born alive infant
protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right
to live," Jessen adds.
Stanek tells LifeNews.com that Obama's campaign is not
officially responding to the ads.
"We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling
them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama
didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine
Roe," she said.
"Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing
Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would
otherwise interfere with legalized abortion?" Stanek
added.
The $350,000 ads are airing currently in New Mexico and
Ohio, two key tossup states that could determine the
outcome of the election between Obama and Senator John
McCain, who opposes abortion.
Obama has
said he voted against the Born Alive bill in
Illinois because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade
and the so-called right to abortion, but
documents
from the Illinois legislature show he voted for an
amendment to rectify that issue and still voted against
the bill.
The ads are run by the new group, a 527 organization
known as
BornAliveTruth.org and the ads are financed by
Raymond Ruddy, a Mississippi pro-life activist who was a
supporter of Mitt Romney during the Republican
primaries.
The group says its mission "is to educate the public on
the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Senator
Obama's record opposing this act.
Barack Obama's Fundraising Hypocrisy—a
Lobbyist by Any Other Name...
The latest
campaign finance figures show Sen. Barack Obama's pledge not
to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a
difference.
He clobbered
Sen. John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more
than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. From Bloomberg:
Obama took in $51.9 million in
June, including $1.4 million from a joint
fundraising committee with the Democratic National
Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5
million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising
effort with the Republican National Committee.
But consider whence much of Obama's
money comes. While donations to his campaign are not
accepted from lobbyists per se, they are proffered by
corporate executives. These same executives face a
mountain of federal issues on which they will most
surely need Obama's help, should he win the White House
in November. So what's the difference?
To wit. Bloomberg reported that
donors to Obama's joint fundraising committee included
Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of
Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave
$10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook,
Ill.-based McDonald's Corp., who gave $28,500, the
maximum.
As I've noted
before, Sen. Obama's fourth-largest corporate donor is
Exelon, the nation's largest provider of nuclear power.
Did he take donations straight from
the pockets of the company's lobbyists? No. But did he
accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter
million dollars from Exelon's CEO and top executives?
Yes. In the process, he watered down to oblivion an
antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to
force nuclear power producers to report even the most
negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell
mesmerized campaign audiences he had "passed" his
antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, the
Obama campaign
disinvited
Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to
appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month.
Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.
John McCain
openly accepts
lobbyists' donations.
And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because
Senator McCain has his name attached to the most
important campaign finance reform bill of the last two
decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on
this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take
lobbyists' donations. He has only pledged to fight to
make the process as transparent as possible.
Malik Obama Confirms
Brother Barack Obama IS MUSLIM
Malik Obama Holding Picture Of Barack(far
left) with family members
Malik Obama confirms his half-brother
Barack grew up a Muslim
Barack Obama’s half brother claims that his brother, Democrat
Presidential candidate Barack Obama, was raised as a Muslim. Contrary to
the Obama campaign’s assertions otherwise. Malik says he will make a
good president despite his Muslim upbringing.
Apparently the Obamas of Kenya have been reading those scurrilous
emails to which Barack likes to refer, because they have no doubt —
contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign, that the presidential
candidate was raised a Moslem. They take that as a given.
As the Jerusalem Post reports, “Barack Obama’s half brother Malik
said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for
the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background. In an interview with
Army Radio he expressed a special salutation from the Obamas of Kenya.”
The Obama brothers’ father, a senior economist for the Kenyan
government who studied at Harvard University, died in car crash in 1982.
He left six sons and a daughter. All of his children - except Malik —
live in Britain or the United States. Malik and Barack met in 1985.
In a remarkable denial issued last November that still stands on the
official campaign website, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a
statement explaining that “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was
not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.”
Apparently Malik Obama, himself a Muslim, had not read the press
release.
Melanie Phillips is the most recent commentator to draw attention to
the massive body of evidence that leaves no doubt that Barak Hussein
Obama was born a Muslim (Islam is patrilineal) and raised a Muslim (so
registered in school, acknowledging attending Islamic classes, reported
accompanying his step-father to the mosque, and able to recite the Koran
in the original Arabic).
Reuven Koret,
Aaron Klein and
Daniel Pipes
have previously pointed to the attempts by Obama and his campaign to
conceal the candidate's Muslim background. The well documented evidence
draws upon the on-the-ground interviews by researchers in Indonesia and
Kenya, published quotations of Obama's childhood friends and his school
records, as well as the candidate's own autobiography.
It is not clear whether Barack Obama will now disown his half-brother
Malik, or throw him under the campaign bus, for acknowledging that
shared family background. In any case, some one should notify "Fight the
Smear" tout de suite. Perhaps they can get him with the program.
What if I told you that Barack Obama plans to
dismantle our US Military by cutting funding, would you believe me?
What if I stated that he plans to dramatically
reduce spending on nuclear defense systems, would you call me crazy?
Finally, what if I told you that Obama refuses to
develop nuclear weapons and plans to eliminate our nuclear weapons
arsenal, our last line of defense in desperate times, would you call me
a liar?
For all the reasons stated above, I refuse to tell
you those things about Barack. I am going to let HIM tell you.
Critic
and author of Obama Nation arrested in Kenya. Jerome Corsi author of The Obama
Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality was arrested and detained
in Nairobi, Kenya. A country run by Raila Odinga a man who claims to be a
cousin of Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama.
Corsi was grabbed by Odinga thugs as he entered a room to give a press
conference about his book and to discuss his visit to Kenya. Corsi was then
driven off to an undisclosed location and held for several hours on either an
immigration violation or failure to obtain a work permit, official accounts
vary.
Corsi’s publicist refutes the validity of the charges saying “His papers were
found to be in order. His passport was fine, his visa was fine, … but the
government did not want him to launch his book on Kenyan soil. That’s why he has
been deported.”
An invitation to the book launch said the event would expose Obama’s “deep
secret ties” to mafia-like groups in Kenya.
Barack Obama campaigns for opposition leader Raila Odinga.
Barack Obama has previously stated his support for Raila Odinga when he was an
opposition leader to the former Kenyan government. Barack campaigned for Odinga
in 2006, unfortunately transcripts of Obama’s speeches are not available.
Odinga loses election and the
violence begins.
Both Obama and Odinga are from the Luo, a Muslim tribe in
Kenya who are involved in a clashes with other tribes. A month after Odinga lost
the election for Prime Minister to Mwai Kibaki in December of 2007 a group of
ethnic militia sympathetic to Odinga burnt down a Christian church of Kikuyu
tribesman murdering 50 people.
Children were burnt alive in broad daylight, family members stood by as the
flames and screams of the dying engulfed the church.
“What I saw was unimaginable and indescribable,” said the director of the Kenyan
Red Cross, Abbas Gullet, after visiting several of the worst hit areas of
western Kenya. “This is a national disaster.”
Engulfed by 2000 raiders loyal to opposition leader Odinga, George Karanja an
uncle to one of the dead says, “They started burning the church. The mattresses
that people were sleeping on caught fire. There was a stampede, and people fell
on one another.”
Mr
Karanja said he helped pull out at least 10 people, but “I could not manage to
pull out my sister’s son. He was screaming ‘uncle, uncle’… He died.”
“They hacked my father. He is a 90-year-old man. My sister is a widow.” He said
the attackers had seen him saving people and began stoning him. He managed to
hide by submerging himself in a pit latrine.
On April 17, 2008 Raila Odinga was sworn in as the Kenya’s Prime Minister to end
the deadly violence. More than 1,000 people were killed and 300,000 displaced
following the December elections that both Odinga and President Mwai Kibaki
claimed to win.
Odinga’s first promise after taking office is to “crack down on crime and
corruption.”
Corsi’s deportation.
Given the history of Kenya’s new Prime Minister to use
violence Mr. Corsi should be grateful his only punishment is deportation and not
a beheading. Corsi was taken under duress in an armed convoy to a departing
British Airways plane bound for London by soldiers with automatic weapons and
told, “See you in Hell.” He was warned to never return to Obama’s homeland of
Kenya.
This news will no doubt thrill some of Barack Obama’s more ardent followers.
Political coercion a family tradition.
There seems to be a family tradition of using strong-arm tactics to gain
political office as Barack Obama has been deploying “Truth
Squads“ in Missouri, Illinois, and Vermont.
These self proclaimed Ministers of Truth are comprised of district
attorneys and senior law enforcement officers and threaten to arrest and
prosecute anyone who does not support the Obama campaigns version of
reality.
Democrats' single most important
domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may
blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed
to the deadly details.
Obama has said, proudly and often, "I
am going to give health insurance to 47 million
Americans who are now without coverage." But are they
"Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes
illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In
fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is
here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in
need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining
uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed
up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they
do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab
for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80
percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home
care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the
medical needs of the poor.)
The rest of the uninsured pool?
Virtually all the children are eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't
enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most
are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured
adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There
are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn
our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegal's is the biggest
unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program
targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them
federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get,
as Obama proposes?
Covering illegal's adds dramatically
to the cost of any program - and would encourage more
folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a
horrific effect on some local health-care systems.
Illegal's now get free emergency-room
treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other
American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of
illegal's recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the
illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five
states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and
Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the
entire range of medical services, all free of charge.
That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats
deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an
MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die
for lack of it.
These decisions would be made not on
the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of
triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole
life to live before you spend scarce resources on an
overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high
blood pressure who smokes.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue,
perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But
polling suggests the case against rationing of health
care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American
citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die
waiting in line - especially not behind someone who
snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to
hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to
free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it
hard.