Dont Vote Obama Banner 

 

Love us or Hate us? Don't forget to view and post comments on our NEW Blog

 

Obama and His Socialist Goons has Forced Blogger to Remove our Original Blog! See for Yourself!

New Obama Radical Administration

 

Spreading Obama's Wealth Around

 

Obama: Islamic Speech in First 100 Days

Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:14 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days as president in an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Helene Cooper of The New York Times spoke to several sources, including diplomats, about which Islamic capital Obama might choose, and the consensus was Cairo, Egypt.

The reason: Process of elimination.

A speech in Baghdad would appear to validate the Iraq war, which Obama opposed. A visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, “would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, told Cooper.

Asali also ruled out:
Ramallah on the West Bank, noting that “Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital.”
Tehran in Iran. “Too soon for that.” Amman, Jordan. “Been there, done that.”
Islamabad, Pakistan. “Too dangerous.”
Ankara, Turkey. “Too safe.”

As for Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth, “people would yawn about that,” said Asali.

One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf.

Cooper concluded: “It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold.”

Whatever capital Obama might choose, press reports don’t explain why the new president feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration.

During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration.

He was also dogged with claims that he was a secret Muslim, an accusation he denied.

In fact, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.

Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather.

The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student.

Earlier this year, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

But in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." Obama’s campaign web site later removed the claim made by Gibbs that Obama was never a Muslim.

reprinted courtesy of © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Barack Obama and Andy Martin Collide in Hawaii!

(The truth about Obama is soon to be revealed)

 

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

By BEN EVANS – 11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

 

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

 

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

 

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

 

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

 

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

 

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

 

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

 

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

An Open Letter to Barack Obama:

Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

 

Dear Mr. Obama:

On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.

In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”

Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”

Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.

Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.  

Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.

As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.  

Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences.  For example:

·         Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;

·         As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;

·         Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;

·         as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;

·         No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;

·         Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;

·         Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;

·         As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.

As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance.  It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.

As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College.  No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.  

No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty. 

As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.

Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.

With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:

(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
      Barack  Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama,  Barack Dunham
      and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
     University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
     from Barry Soetoro.

In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.

“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.   For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.  Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely, 
 

Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.

 

 

"Smears" about Obama Largely True
 By: Lowell Ponte

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.

These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

 

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

 

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

 

Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,"] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

 

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,"] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

 

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

 

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

 

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined "Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid." Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

 

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

 

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

WARNING - Scary Video about Obama

  

Why Harlem Voters are

Voting for Obama

 

Barack Tells Acorn they will Shape
His Domestic Policy

 

Democratic Traditional Holiday Halloween

 Obama's Online Birth Certificate Verified a FAKE by Hawaii "CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars"

(HONOLULU)(November 1, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin has ignited a firestorm in Hawai'i over Barack Obama's bogus "original" birth certificate. Martin won a stunning victory Friday afternoon (October 31st) when the State of Hawai'i backed his assertion that there was an original, "typewritten, 1961" birth certificate, called a "Certificate of Live Birth" or "COLB" in Hawai'i, that no one has previously seen. Hawai'i officials retrieved and examined the document after Martin filed a lawsuit seeking access to the historic 1961 original.

Obama has falsely claimed to have placed the "original" on the Internet. Factcheck.org has falsely claimed to have seen this document and posted it on the Internet; that is not true. CNN has falsely ridiculed Martin.

Hawai'i officials have now refuted Obama's false assertion.

Martin's victory in Honolulu will roil the final weekend of the presidential campaign. Internet chatter is expected to explode as the issue moves to the front page over Saturday and Sunday. Swing voters may be swayed by the exposure that Obama has brazenly been lying to the American people. "We just lobbed a grenade into the final weekend of the presidential campaign," says Andy.

"I am ecstatic. I called Obama a liar. I called Factcheck.org 'ObamaLies.org.' I said CNN was sloppy and lazy and wrong. And I was right. The State of Hawai'i has now backed me up. Whew. I knew I was right, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that I have started to get the machinery moving in state government. The original document is now obviously protected and safe from any tampering by Obama.

"My lawsuit started a firestorm in Hawai'i. The circuit judge has set a hearing for November 18th (a report in the Honolulu Advertiser for November 1st for an earlier hearing date of November 7th is inaccurate; that date was cancelled).

"CNN also has egg on its face, because, once again, Hawai'i backs my contention that the original document has never surfaced in public. CNN tried to demean me by contradicting my accurate claim.

"Now Obama, Factcheck.org and CNN have been exposed as liars. I said there was a 'secret,' original, typewritten birth certificate that had never been disclosed, and that document was the original COLB, not the phony 'original' that CNN placed before its viewers.

"Why would Hawai'i officials review the vault document at the Eleventh Hour if my lawsuit wasn't causing a furor in Hawai'i state government? Why? The Friday before the election?

"Mine is the only logical, rational, properly prepared lawsuit that has been filed to open Obama's secret records. I sued in the proper state in the proper court against the proper officials for the proper remedy. And they are responding properly. The judge has properly, although not as quickly as I would have preferred, set a hearing to consider my claims. I have not filed outrageous or exaggerated pleadings.

"I merely sought access to a document based on its scholarly and news value and because I had been tipped by my sources inside state government that Obama was lying. My network of informants within state government helps me and guides me. Others filed lawsuits outside Hawai'i that have either been dismissed or discredited. My 'little engine that could' is chugging along.

"I have an outstanding record of high-profile public interest litigation, as recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court five years ago when they allowed me to represent a U. S. Marine in a landmark lawsuit." See www.AndyMartin.com and www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

In a Honolulu news conference on October 22nd Martin disclosed that Frank Marshall Davis was the biological father of Barack Obama, not Barack Obama senior. The Obama campaign has not denied Martin's claim.

"Over the past month I have been on combat patrol from coast to coast for the truth and for the United States Constitution," says Andy. "I have not the slightest link to John McCain. I am connected to the Constitution and nothing else. I have waged relentless war against Barack Obama's lies. And on the eve of the final weekend in the presidential campaign Hawai'i government has backed me by confirming that officials have examined the original, typewritten 1961 document, and confirmed that the document released by the Obama campaign was a facsimile, not the original.

"I have won a major victory: I proved Obama was lying about what he had posed on the Internet and falsely portrayed as 'the original.' 'Barry, we caught you with your pants down. We caught you lying, again.

"Saturday it will be my pleasure to return home to Chicago after one of the most successful independent political battle operations in media history, to wage the final weekend of war for the truth and Constitution and against the Daley Machine and Obama Gang. I have successfully been exposing and fighting Daley Family corruption for over forty years. Barry Obama is part of the second generation Daley Machine. He is a member in good standing of this criminal operation.

"The Machine doesn't like me. But I have a history of coming up with the truth, and a history of embarrassing powerful people. In retaliation, they try to smear me. The disclosure that Hawai'i officials have examined the true original COLB, and that Obama lied to the American people by falsely claiming he had posted the original 1961 document, is going to spread like wildfire between Saturday and Tuesday night.

"This election is bizarre because the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, the Party's leader, is from the Daley Machine in Chicago. And the leader of the Internet Army opposing Obama and working to defeat him and the Daley Machine is also from Chicago. My Senator would be proud.

Martin is expected to announce Saturday that he is suing Fox News as well as the New York Times, for defamation of character. The lawsuit will be released Monday morning.

"For Fox News to treat me as they did is beneath contempt," says Martin. "I am respected around the world for accuracy, honesty and integrity. We know the New York Times is a corrupt media operation. But Fox News? Well, Ruppert Murdock may want to kow'tow to Barack Obama, but I will not kow'tow to Ruppert Murdock. The crass executives deserve to be sued for their malicious attacks on me. Someone ought to stand up for me: I helped expose Bill Ayers and Khalid Al-Mansour. A slimy 'vice president' that probably never worked a case or a story had the nerve to demean me. What a compete corporate moron.

"How dare these media imposters and blowhards smear me with lies, when I have worked tirelessly to expose the truth about Barack Obama-and succeeded," Martin will charge. "I'll be happy to face the Fox jerk, Vice President Bill Shine, in court and defend my good name against Obama's mud merchants, the New York Times and Ruppert Murdock. Ruppert Murdock's daughter is backing Obama, for Chrissake.

"I also plan Saturday to thank Dr. Chiyome Fukino for confirming my factual allegation that there was/is an original, typewritten 1961 'vault' COLB that has not been made public and that the true 'original' COLB is in official files. That confirmation makes Barack Obama a liar, on the last weekend of the campaign. Thank you, doctor.

"Now you know why Obama and Axelrod and Gibbs call me the 'Internet Powerhouse' that can't be stopped. Barack Obama will be bleeding through election night because of this massive lie exposed on the eve of their election. I work for the American people, not John McCain or the Republican Party. Friday, truth arrived in Honolulu, and in the remaining 100 hours that truth is going to be spread from coast-to-coast.

"Obama lied." Again!

Martin lands in Chicago at noon, and will proceed to his office, for an afternoon news conference.

Martin is also soliciting financial support to fund his litigation in Hawai'i.

Why I am Voting for McCain

Obama Mocks the Holy Bible!

The Obama's on Hillary and Her Supporters
 
Must View: Obama and His Radical Friends!

Be sure to watch ALL SIX EPISODES

Farrakhan calls Obama 'the Messiah'!
Why The Election Of Obama Would Mean The End Of America
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
This election isn't just about whether America is to be ruled by a political party a little to the right or the left of center. This is a uniquely dangerous election in all of our history. The issue is whether we elect a president and a party that will destroy America as we know it and so weaken America's economy, national defense, national security and foreign policy that others will destroy us first.

I have been writing about Sen. Barack Obama five days a week, because I was so appalled at what I found out about him. And the more I investigated his background, associates, collaborators, friends and positions the more frightening the prospect of Sen. Obama in the White House became. Based on everything I've learned, and based on all my instincts and intuition about Sen. Obama and what the mainstream media has been hiding from voters, I'm convinced Sen. Obama would be an unmitigated disaster. I'm convinced if the full truth were known, he would look at least 100 times more dangerous than he does now.

These are the factors that make the future look catastrophic if Sen. Obama is elected:

1. We might well say, "Barack, we hardly know you." The mainstream media has not vetted him. We are essentially buying a cat in a bag. Even the wildly liberal Los Angeles Times, almost totally supportive of Sen. Obama, had to run a story saying reporters who cover him don't even know him or what to expect from him. He is usually scripted (and when he is not he makes horrendous mistakes, as when he finally admitted his socialistic objectives). He is kept from the press. He avoids news conferences. His campaign ignores tough questions.

That's bad enough, but what we do know about him suggests he's a far left liberal extremist and radical and has flown with a platoon of racists, bigots, America-haters, socialists, anti-capitalists and even terrorists. It is inconceivable that such a man would even be considered for the nomination, let alone win the Democratic Party nomination, and be leading in the polls with the days dwindling down to a precious few.

2. If he wins the White House, it is likely that he will have a Congress controlled by the same radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party that he represents - Sen. Harry Reid in the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and Rep. Nancy Pelosi holding sway in the House also with a supermajority. Already they are talking about taking us down the most radical path in history with more spending bills in the works, with tax hikes of all kinds likely to kill business, with the "spread the wealth" philosophy in the air and with the standard Democratic Party cry of cutting defense spending.

They represent the old Democratic Party's approach of endless taxing, spending, expansion of government, limitation of freedom, and a feeble military and foreign policy. But the Obama presidency would take that all to a power of ten, and would add on a stream of radical liberalism that we've never seen before.

3. This also means Sen. Obama, if elected, will be naming perhaps three or more justices to the Supreme Court. And he is already on record as favoring a living constitution - code words for forgetting the intent of the Founding Fathers and legislating from the bench. He has also said he wants judges who empathize with the single mother, the disabled and other vulnerable people.

This is his way of saying he wants judges who decide on emotions and sympathy rather than on the rule of law. That means there will be an explosion of far-out radical liberal laws and regulations, coming from all three branches of government. This means that the courts will be able to legislate the far-left liberal agenda Sen. Obama represents. That triumvirate is so far out that they make people like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern look like conservatives. It is important to observe that even Mr. McGovern, former presidential nominee, has taken to the air to oppose proposed legislation backed by Sen. Obama, the Democratic Party, and labor bosses that in effect kills the secret ballot for union elections. Unions will be organized by workers just signing cards, subject to intimidation and harassment, and unprotected by the secret ballot. I've also detailed in earlier columns the anti-Democratic and sometimes even Storm Trooper mentality of Sen. Obama and his campaign. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama and the Democrats are more committed to power and winning elections that obeying and protecting democratic principles.

4. And this barrage of radical liberalism will not just be an updated version of the New Deal or LBJ's Great Society. It will be a new form of radicalism that up to now would not even be dreamed of. We will see "spread the wealth" and "redistributive justice" on the face of legislation rolling through Congress and being signed by the president, without any checks and balances from a minority party, without any veto, and without any filibuster.

We will see even more radical ideas that will change the face of America. As Rush Limbaugh reported on Oct. 29, Sen. Obama and the Democrats have big ideas for changing the very face of the nation. Sen. Obama has advocated citizenship for all 12 million of the nation's illegal immigrants. Sen. Obama has said, "... We cannot ... deport all 12 million people. That's why we need to offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to citizenship. That way, we can reconcile our values as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

The Democrats will rush that citizenship, as they want to permanently tip the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. There has been a fine balance of power between the two parties, which will be ended by 12 million new voters who will favor the Democrats. That's because minorities and immigrants tend to like the big, benevolent, tax-and-spend governments that hand out welfare, benefits and cradle-to-grave security. Dick Morris, in his book Fleeced, points out how Sen. Obama wants to include even illegal immigrants in his universal health-care system. He argues that is sure to overload the system and create such new demand for health care that rationing will be in order. He goes on to point out that means that our senior citizens will probably have to be turned down for the most expensive treatments and surgeries, taking a back seat to younger immigrants and insureds, as their will not be the medical resources to go around.

Senior citizens don't fair well in a system applying rationing of medical care. What 47 million new insureds will do to the cost, inflation rate and quality of health care is too frightening and too obvious to even need further explanation. Sen. Obama, by his tax plans, his socialistic schemes, and his new welfare programs, will destroy the health-care system and the economy in short order. Small businesses, subjected to tax increases probably even far in excess of those talked about during the campaign, will be dead as a dodo. The only question is whether we will be thus destroyed by Sen. Obama's domestic policies, or whether we will be first destroyed by his foreign policy that will weaken our national defense, demonstrate weakness too our enemies and invite attacks and the destruction of America.

5. This all is more problematic in view of the demonstrated dishonesty of Sen. Obama in explaining his associations and positions. For more details see my column, "Obama Tells the Greatest Lies Ever Told, Even Before Beings Elected" (Oct. 30,) at www.thebulletin.us. Further adding to the grim picture is the whiff of corruption involving Sen.Obama and his campaign due to both of their connections to ACORN and its furtherance of voter fraud. During the debates, he said his only connection with ACORN was as a lawyer, but he omitted the more than $800,000 his campaign gave to an ACORN subsidiary and his work as an organizer for ACORN. It should also be noted Sen. Obama would have trouble getting a security clearance if he were applying for a federal job, due to questions about his loyalty and reliability flowing from his long standing association and collaboration with terrorists, subversives, radicals and hate-America types.

6. The best demonstration of how Sen. Obama's foreign policy would destroy America comes from Melanie Phillips, who wrote the classic book Londonistan, on the ongoing conquest of the United Kingdom by Islam. She writes in The Spectator, a British publication, that the impact of the financial crisis has obscured the most important issue facing America. She says if Sen. Obama becomes president, "U.S. defenses will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west."

Ms. Phillips writes that to understand the choice between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Obama you have to view each man in the round, and get a total picture of each man's world view, philosophy and values.
Here is some of Ms. Phillips' reasoning:

* "McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America's original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."

* "Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west's fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That's why he believes in 'soft power' - diplomacy, aid, rectifying 'grievances' (thus legitimizing them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America's defenses at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will 'cut investments in unproven missile defense systems'; he will 'not weaponize space'; he will 'slow our development of future combat systems' and he will also 'not develop nuclear weapons,' pledging to seek 'deep cuts' in America's arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling the nuclear deterrent as Russian and China engage in massive military buildups."

Sen. McCain knows we have to fight Islamofascism and win that fight. Sen. Obama sees the source of evil in the world as America. He has said, "A lot of evil's been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil." He has said Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat. He quickly reversed himself but that tells you something about his worldview. He said Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist organizations that have murdered Americans and are now doing so, have "legitimate grievances." Ms. Phillips doesn't know what those "legitimate grievances" are and I'd venture to say no other rational man does.

To solve the conflict, writes Ms. Phillips, "Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny." Sen. McCain knows better, and also knows Israel is the victim rather than the victimizer. Sen. McCain knows that Israel is surrounded by genocidal enemies that just want to destroy the Jewish state. He also knows Israel is the first line of defense of the free world and that Israel is the first target in the Islamofascists attack on the free world.

Sen. Obama's incredible naïveté is demonstrated many times, but no more dramatically than by his willingness to negotiate without preconditions with such genocidal maniacs as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by his opposition to declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. A move to so declare it passed the Senate by a wide margin.

His statements (often quoted in this column) show he believes "Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, and inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf." Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamofascists.

This drift of his thinking should surprise no one as he has closely associated with those in the Islamists' camp. He has multiple links to anti-Americans, terrorists, and subversives. The latest such association involves Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for a terrorist organization. Mr. Khalidi, Sen. Obama, and the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn all attended an Israel-bashing party when Mr. Khalidi left Chicago to go to Columbia University. What's worse, most of his foreign policy advisers have that typically radical liberal view of blaming the ills of the world on Israel and America. He brought in a few for cosmetic purposes, such as Dennis Ross, but his initial selection and his circle of collaborators and friends show where he really stands.

Ms. Phillips summarizes her views of the meaning of a Sen. Obama presidency for the future of America:

"There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can't sleep at night."

But we can still vote. And we better consider that vote carefully and not vote for a charismatic demagogue, who gives pretty speeches, but whose reality is the opposite of his rhetoric, who is inexperienced and shows it every time he gets off his teleprompter, who has a razor-thin resume, who has never done anything but run for office and self-promotion, and whose policies, advisers, and philosophy would destroy America as we know it.

 

Courtesy of William Long

 

I've been a Christian for 37 years. Before that I was a radical. I was tear-gassed 5 times in Chicago in 1968 as a Vietnam Veteran Against the War. I came back from Chicago and was co-founder of an anarchist club on campus called 'CHAOS' Committee for the Humane Appreciation of Students. After I became a Christian, I became more or less politically inactive except for voting and trying to stay informed.

 

A few weeks ago I watched "Obsession", a DVD about Islamic terrorism. That led me to read Brigitte Gabriel's book "Because They Hate". I've just finished David Horowitz's book "Unholy Alliance" about the alliance between radical Islam and the American Left. I decided to find out as much as I could about Barack Obama, just researching the internet. What I found is deeply disturbing. Any candidate who can support Odinga in his campaign promising Sharia in Kenya is someone I don't want as president. Here's some more of what I found.. I think it lays out a fairly complete picture of the underlying dynamic for this election. 

 

Start with the Big  Picture. Read Andy Martin’s expose of the Obama Ayers relationship going back to 1987 and watch the documentary on we will not be silenced about the fraud and abuse in the Democratic primaries. The financial crisis is influencing a lot of people to vote for Obama. So be sure to check out the links under ‘Financial Crisis’ to find out who and what really caused the crisis. Note the part that Barack Obama played, as a trainer for ACORN, as a lawyer suing Citibank to force it to make bad loans, and in his promise to let ACORN help shape his agenda. Read the cult of personality and listen to the 1985 interview with Yuri Bezmenov about ideological subversion. Also, note what Yuri Bezmenov and the Cloward Piven Strategy say about manufacturing a crisis. This election is so very important.. Look over some of the other links.

 

The MSM has a blackout on any negative information on Obama. The average American doesn't listen to or read conservative channels of communication. The best organized, and most knowledgeable, group I’ve found so far is PUMA (Hillary supporters who won’t vote for Obama). The average American doesn't even know about PUMA much less visit any of their websites. The fact that Shelly Mandell, President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization For Women, introduced and endorsed Governor Palin at a rally in Los Angeles County is encouraging. Even so, there’s still so much ignorance among the general population of this nation.

 

The question is, how does a person get enough information to vote intelligently?

 

Finally, (and most important) for those of us who believe in a living God who is actively involved in the affairs of men and nations – pray. And join together with others in prayer.

 

Bill Long

Stow, OH

Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'

(The real reason Barack is going to Hawaii to see Grandma!)

 

(T

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 


Philip J. Berg

The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for  president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.

The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii.

 

But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release. "This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."  He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

 

Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution.

"Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."

Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.

 

WND reported earlier this week Berg's claim that Obama has legally "admitted" the accusations included in his lawsuit, including that he was born in Mombosa, Kenya, by not responding to the allegations. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

His lawsuit is demanding that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate.  Berg has cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.

 

Since Obama filed only motions to dismiss the case and did not actually answer the claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen., asserted Berg, who has taken his information public through his website.  Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961.

 

But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement. Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election. The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place."  Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.

 

The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available. Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.

 

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of the Hawaii certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II. The Washington claim states, "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of 'natural born.'"

Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.

 

When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen. "If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said. Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign. "I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said.

"I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.

 

Is Barack Eligible to be President?

By Larry Johnson on June 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM in Current Affairs

I must admit I initially thought this was a farfetched question. But there is a significant body of evidence, some circumstantial, that suggests the answer may be “no.”

 

An internet friend (Katherine) has pursued this relentlessly. She sent me the following:

According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.

But only Barack’s mom was a U.S. Citizen. Papa Obama was a citizen of Kenya.

 

Well, the Hawaiian law stipulates:

…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.”

 

It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At what point was Barack Obama Jr., son of Barack Obama Sr., recognized by the U.S. Government as an American citizen? When he moved to Indonesia with his mother and step-father in the mid-1960s I am assuming he had a U.S. passport.

 

There is a law suit in the works. Of that you can be sure. As was noted in an early post today on No Quarter, Barack’s stubbornness on the birth certificate issue is keeping the matter alive. Not a good idea going into the General Election.

 

I am not a Constitutional scholar (nor is Barack for that matter). The relevant clause of the Constitution stipulates that:

 

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

 

Now, I had always assumed that a naturalized citizen (like Arnold) could not be President. but the clause, “or a citizen of the United States,” seems to open the door for people who become citizens. Any lawyers out there?

 

PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST OBAMA

 

Quote of the Millennium:  "...John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." - Senator Barack Hussein Obama  (Muslim Faith? WTF? Freudian Slip!)

 

"You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig" - Senator Barack Obama regarding Gov. Sarah Palin

(Isn't a male chauvinist known as a pig?)

 

Quote of the Decade: "I think he can be ready, but right now, I don't think he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training." - Senator Joe Biden (If his own running mate has doubts about whether he's ready for the job... shouldn't you?)

 

 

Quote of the Year:  "communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids" - Senator Barack Hussein Obama

(Federal Agents are compared to Terrorists? Barack, try showing some support for law enforcement.)

 

Quote of the Month: From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." - Senator Barack Hussein Obama  (This is not a shocker!)

 

Quote of the Week: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"  - Senator Barack Hussein Obama  (Again, not a shocker!)

 
Democrats Didn't "GET IT" about
Freddie & Fannie 4 Years Ago!
 		Obama was PAID OFF
by Fannie Mae
 

 

 

Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

 

Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

 

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

 

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.  Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.  But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.


The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

 


Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication
(Courtesy New Zeal blog)

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members)