As we enter the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election, new revelations about Barack Obama’s harshly critical views of the U.S. Constitution for not providing for wealth distribution have again raised concerns as to whether the American people may be about to elect the first radical Leftist if not outright socialist president in the republic’s history. This hugely troubling possibility, were it to happen, would mark yet another historical watershed that’s mentioned less often – the de facto alliance between the Left and radical Islam in American politics.
The discussion of Islam, to the extent that is mentioned at all in the campaign, has mostly been limited to a rather inconclusive debate in the blogosphere as to whether Obama is a Muslim or not, and a more substantive, if suppressed by the mainstream media, discussion of Senator Obama’s questionable ties to radical Islamists and anti-Semites. The latter has provided more than enough empirical evidence to at least give a pause to a dispassionate observer as to Obama’s pious assertions of his dedication to the struggle against Islamic extremism and friendship for Israel. Without going into too much detail, these connections include well-documented close ties with Black Panther mentor-turned-radical Muslim and Wahhabi stooge, Khalid al-Mansour (nee Don Warden); Nation of Islam hate-spewing, anti-white racist, Louis Farakhan; Columbia professor and apologist of Palestinian terrorism, Rashid Khalidi; and last, but not least, Salam Ibrahim, an alleged Taliban sympathizer and chairman of the defunct Chicago Shariah-finance company Sunrise Equities, who appears to have absconded with $80 million of his clients’ funds.
What all of these unsavory men have in common, apart from friendship with and admiration for Barack Obama, is their passionate dislike for the United States and their virulent anti-Semitism. This may not prove that Obama himself is an Islamist, an anti-Semite or an anti-American, it but it does show that, throughout his career, he has willingly associated with, and been mentored by, people who are.
As much as this should be an issue of serious concern, the growing nexus between radical Islam and the Left is ultimately of much greater systemic consequence and one that goes far beyond current election considerations to present a palpable threat to the future of this country and Western civilization itself.
To understand that, we must first look at what the two parties to this unholy alliance represent. Should Senator Obama be elected as the next president of the United States, he will come to office as the leader of a party that has changed so dramatically from its historical traditions that, today, it has little in common with the Democrat Party of old. It is a party in which the worldview of the 1960s hard, anti-American Left reigns triumphant and in which yesterday’s democratic icons such as Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would feel completely out of place.
It is thus not a huge surprise that a radical Leftist like Barack Obama would find an enthusiastic reception in a party that itself has become socialist in everything but name. And like its fellow-socialist confreres in Europe and elsewhere, it is a party that implicitly rejects individual rights, the free market system and the Judeo-Christian moral order on which they are based in favor of socialist collectivism, multiculturalism and robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistributionism. More than anything else, it rejects the imperative to defend those sacrosanct American principles against enemies foreign and domestic, as enshrined in our Constitution, in favor of political correctness, utopian pacifism and appeasement of evil.
It is these ideological propensities of the new American Left that radical Islam finds made to order for its purposes, and eager to cultivate and exploit. This is indeed a tactical alliance, a marriage-of-convenience for the Islamists, whose ultimate objective is the destruction of Western civilization, including its socialist infidels. It is, nonetheless, a critically important alliance in the meantime that serves Islamism by legitimating it within Western society, allowing it to infiltrate its political establishment and government and weakening resistance to Islamist efforts to subvert it from within. In the American context, this has led to numerous successful initiatives by the Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabi fifth column that dominates the Islamic establishment to make a common cause with the Left on efforts to stop anti-terrorism measures such as “Secret Evidence” and the Patriot Act, and various anti-Iraq war and pro-illegal immigration campaigns, among others.
None of this is particularly surprising and the imperative for Islamists to ally with the Left has long been part of the official Muslim Brotherhood strategic doctrine of waging war on the West. Less well-known is the fact that even prominent ideologues of violent jihad against the West, such as the leading theoretician Abu Musab al-Suri in his seminal work “Global Islamic Resistance Call,” lists Leftist parties with “anti-American and anti-imperialist ideology” as key potential allies for the jihadists.
A more pertinent question is what in radical Islam appeals to the Left. A messianic, totalitarian doctrine in religious garb that preaches violence against all non-Muslims and espouses the establishment of the medieval barbarism of shar’iah law as its political program, Islamism is, at first sight, as incompatible as could be with the lofty humanitarian pretenses of the Left. The more so because key constituencies of the Left, such as gays and lesbians, feminists, animal rights fanatics, atheists and Jews are among the first marked for destruction, should Shariah ever triumph.
The answer is to be sought in the common denominator and obsession of the radical Left around the world – a bottomless hatred for capitalism and America as the country that epitomizes it. A hatred as pathological as that of the Communists for the class enemy and the Nazis for the Jews. That and the documented mass appeal and murderous vitality of radical Islam made the dispirited Leftists after the fall of Communism believe that here finally was a mighty ally that could help defeat the hated capitalist system and bring down America.
It is this transcendent obsession that made a flamboyant homosexual like French post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucalt, who knew full well what Khomeini does to his kind, lionize the reactionary ayatollah as the new hope of the proletariat; British politician George Galloway claim that “progressives” like him and the Muslims had the same enemies; American greens to dream of an alliance with the Islamists to “destroy capitalism”; and assorted radicals and Communist leftovers from the 1960s to march against “Islamophobia” with terrorism accomplices from the American Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) networks. It is, of course, a pernicious illusion but a very costly one for a free society.
It has already led to electoral alliances between socialist parties and the Islamists in Europe, facilitated the introduction of shar’iah law, sanctioned appeasement of violent Islamist norms and turned a blind eye to the spread of vituperative anti-Semitism not seen since the 1930s. Should the Democrats win the White House, it will not be long before the same trends appear on American soil.
In a recent speech, Senator Obama admirably promised to go to the gates of hell if necessary to get Osama bin-Laden. He would have been more persuasive if before traveling that far he had bothered to check some of his campaign’s dubious connections and come clean on them and his own with the American public. He would have found out, for instance, that a former Muslim outreach coordinator of his campaign, one Mazen Asbahi, was a key leader of the Muslim Student Association, a radical Islamist organization on campus, which had this to say about Osama bin-Laden in an official publication: “When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid Osama bin Laden as ‘terrorist’, we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors.” This same virulently anti-American organization now advertises a “get out the vote” campaign on its website.
Barack Obama’s deafening silence on his own and his campaign’s troubling connections with Islamists does little to discourage one from believing that the loudest cheers for his eventual victory next Tuesday will be those of the sworn Islamist enemies of our civilization.
Thanks to FamilySecurityMatters.org
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Great Obama Swindle of 2008
If you are a NObama supporter, why does this not scare you?
From Family Security Matters
PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.
Why I am so sure?
I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.
In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.
Obama is tap dancing.
If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.
But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.
But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:
1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.
2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.
3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his lawyers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.
Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?
PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?
In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.
This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.
Let's do the analysis.
1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.
I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.
PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS
Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."
Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
Members of Congress take this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.
Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.
And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.
So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.
All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.
PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY
If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.
My opinion.
Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.
According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.
In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.
In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.
Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.
Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.
From Family Security Matters
PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.
Why I am so sure?
I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.
In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.
Obama is tap dancing.
If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.
But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.
But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:
1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.
2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.
3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his lawyers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.
Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?
PART TWO
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?
In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.
This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.
Let's do the analysis.
1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.
I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.
PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS
Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."
Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
Members of Congress take this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.
Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.
And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.
So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.
All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.
PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY
If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.
My opinion.
Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.
According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.
In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.
In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.
Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.
Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Exclusive: Obama’s Hope ‘n Change Smells More like Socialism
Barack Obama promises change. But can America afford the change he’s promising?
Joe the Plumber’s question to Obama about taxes, to which Obama answered “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody,” just scratched the surface of the candidate’s plans. A Chicago radio interview of Obama in 2001 has surfaced and it paints a detailed picture of Obama’s guiding political philosophy.
The most significant part of the clip is below (emphasis mine):
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.In some ways we still suffer from that.
Joe Biden wanted to know if WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West was “joking” when she asked, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” After hearing this interview, perhaps Joe might want to amend his answer.
In a nutshell: Obama thinks the Constitution stands in the way of government meddling in the way you and I live our lives.
A Gallup poll in June indicated that Americans oppose redistribution of wealth by the government 84% to 13%, preferring that the government do what it can to improve the overall economic situation. I find it hard to believe they’ve changed their minds in just a few months. So if a majority of Americans are against socialism, how would Obama enact it?
Simple: judges.
The next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court - possibly as many as three. Tommy Vietor, Obama spokesman, explained that "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." Denver Post columnist David Harnsanyi points out that
“Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Could this latest bombshell be why Americans have not been privy to Obama’s college records and writings? The Obama campaign is calling this latest revelation a distraction. I call it critical information.
Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, says, “No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as ‘early voting’ so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.”
Voters who have been enthralled by Obama’s flowery teleprompter speeches and promises of hope, change, lollipops and unicorns owe it to themselves to look beyond the information being offered by the mainstream media in this last significant week before the election.
As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.
Pam Meister is the editor of
FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Joe the Plumber’s question to Obama about taxes, to which Obama answered “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody,” just scratched the surface of the candidate’s plans. A Chicago radio interview of Obama in 2001 has surfaced and it paints a detailed picture of Obama’s guiding political philosophy.
The most significant part of the clip is below (emphasis mine):
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.In some ways we still suffer from that.
Joe Biden wanted to know if WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West was “joking” when she asked, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” After hearing this interview, perhaps Joe might want to amend his answer.
In a nutshell: Obama thinks the Constitution stands in the way of government meddling in the way you and I live our lives.
A Gallup poll in June indicated that Americans oppose redistribution of wealth by the government 84% to 13%, preferring that the government do what it can to improve the overall economic situation. I find it hard to believe they’ve changed their minds in just a few months. So if a majority of Americans are against socialism, how would Obama enact it?
Simple: judges.
The next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court - possibly as many as three. Tommy Vietor, Obama spokesman, explained that "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." Denver Post columnist David Harnsanyi points out that
“Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Could this latest bombshell be why Americans have not been privy to Obama’s college records and writings? The Obama campaign is calling this latest revelation a distraction. I call it critical information.
Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, says, “No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as ‘early voting’ so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.”
Voters who have been enthralled by Obama’s flowery teleprompter speeches and promises of hope, change, lollipops and unicorns owe it to themselves to look beyond the information being offered by the mainstream media in this last significant week before the election.
As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.
Pam Meister is the editor of
FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Where is Obama’s Birth Certificate and Why Doesn’t He Produce It?
Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home.
Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.
First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.
That took two minutes.
Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.
That took two minutes.
When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.
Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.
When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"
Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.
WHERE IS OBAMA'S?
To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.
Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.
You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!
While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was.
While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.
SLEUTH #1
The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.
Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?
Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries.
Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: www.obamacrimes.com.
"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."
The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!
Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."
An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide."
SLEUTH #2
Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or www.contrariancommentary.com - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered."
"It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."
Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts."
"Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"
Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his:
* Reed-thin résumé.
* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate).
* Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al.
* Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.
* Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status.
* Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign.
The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya.
GRAMMY DEAREST
Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign.
He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow.
Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate?
I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances.
If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility.
According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day.
Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election.
EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE
This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."
In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:
1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
The list includes 56 admissions.
The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:
1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama.
3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama.
4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
For the entire list, go to: www.obamacrimes.com
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.
Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.
Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.
First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.
That took two minutes.
Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.
That took two minutes.
When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.
Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.
When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"
Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.
WHERE IS OBAMA'S?
To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.
Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.
You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!
While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was.
While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.
SLEUTH #1
The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.
Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?
Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries.
Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: www.obamacrimes.com.
"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."
The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!
Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."
An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide."
SLEUTH #2
Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or www.contrariancommentary.com - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered."
"It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."
Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts."
"Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"
Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his:
* Reed-thin résumé.
* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate).
* Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al.
* Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.
* Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status.
* Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign.
The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya.
GRAMMY DEAREST
Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign.
He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow.
Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate?
I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances.
If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility.
According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day.
Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election.
EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE
This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."
In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:
1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
The list includes 56 admissions.
The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:
1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama.
3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama.
4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
For the entire list, go to: www.obamacrimes.com
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.
Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
John McCain and an Army of Joes
By Byron York
Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.
Munoz and the others cheering.
AP
Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for “small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government.” McCain added that Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to “spread the wealth around” — made Joe the Plumber “the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama.”
The crowd laughed and cheered. But for them, Joe the Plumber is much more than a zinger in McCain’s stump speech. In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences, for two reasons. First, he is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.
The second reason Joe the Plumber resonates with the crowds is what his experience says about the media. Everybody here seems acutely aware of the once-over Wurzelbacher received from the press after his chance encounter with Obama was reported, first on Fox News, and then mentioned by McCain at last week’s presidential debate. Wurzelbacher found himself splashed across newspapers and cable shows, many of which reported that he didn’t have a plumber’s license, that he wasn’t a member of the plumbers’ union, that he had a lien against him for $1,182 in state taxes, and that he failed to comprehend what many commentators apparently felt was the indisputable fact that Barack Obama would lower his taxes, not raise them. As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.
In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.
After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.
“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “
I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.
“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”
Photo by Damien LeVeck
Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.
Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”
The Corn confrontation.
Photo by Andrew Coyne
The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”
“I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”
“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”
“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.
“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.
That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”
And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”
I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”
Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.
“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”
“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”
“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”
“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.
“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.
And indeed they can’t.
Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.
AP
Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for “small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government.” McCain added that Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to “spread the wealth around” — made Joe the Plumber “the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama.”
The crowd laughed and cheered. But for them, Joe the Plumber is much more than a zinger in McCain’s stump speech. In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences, for two reasons. First, he is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.
The second reason Joe the Plumber resonates with the crowds is what his experience says about the media. Everybody here seems acutely aware of the once-over Wurzelbacher received from the press after his chance encounter with Obama was reported, first on Fox News, and then mentioned by McCain at last week’s presidential debate. Wurzelbacher found himself splashed across newspapers and cable shows, many of which reported that he didn’t have a plumber’s license, that he wasn’t a member of the plumbers’ union, that he had a lien against him for $1,182 in state taxes, and that he failed to comprehend what many commentators apparently felt was the indisputable fact that Barack Obama would lower his taxes, not raise them. As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.
In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.
After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.
“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “
I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.
“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”
Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.
Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”
Photo by Andrew Coyne
The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”
“I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”
“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”
“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.
“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.
That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”
And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”
I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”
Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.
“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”
“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”
“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”
“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.
“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.
And indeed they can’t.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
In case you missed this ... The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today, The National Republican Trust PAC, reveals that Hillary Clinton's hardball strategy against Obama actually worked -- though it was implemented too late.
Dick Morris says "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on election day."
Please read their full message below — and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.
Obama's Radical Agenda Exposed
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama's record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is. He even has terrorist friends he won't denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more. The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers. Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan. No one can deny hearing about Obama's relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without "preconditions" even though Ahmadinejad has promised to "wipe Israel off the map" and "destroy" America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election," Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
And then there are Obama's dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns. He originally backed Washington D.C.'s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries. How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Dick Morris says "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on election day."
Please read their full message below — and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama's record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is. He even has terrorist friends he won't denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more. The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers. Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan. No one can deny hearing about Obama's relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without "preconditions" even though Ahmadinejad has promised to "wipe Israel off the map" and "destroy" America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election," Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
And then there are Obama's dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns. He originally backed Washington D.C.'s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries. How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Let's look at what a Democratic Congress has done in the last 2 years
Just so you know, I am not a Bush fan but facts are facts. . .
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy
was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations, overseas,
living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION
DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
And NOW a BAIL OUT!!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT
IT! ...REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!
Thanks to
ronyvo3 over at JihadChat.com
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy
was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations, overseas,
living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION
DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
And NOW a BAIL OUT!!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT
IT! ...REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!
Thanks to
ronyvo3 over at JihadChat.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
