Once again, Not Just our Words

Here is an example again on the case for Barack Obama’s citizenship.  For all those who doubt, riddle me this:  Why can’t he just present the certificate?  Carl sends me this from Family Security Matters and the article is by Joan Swirsky:

The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election

Joan Swirsky

 

This week, newscasters reported that al Qaeda’s #2 terrorist disparaged the election of Barack Obama, and hurled racial slurs at Obama himself. “The report has not been confirmed by the State Department,” they all said, but they reported it anyway.

 

Last week, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron told viewers that three “anonymous” insiders of Sen. McCain’s campaign said that Sarah Palin was, in essence, a diva and a dunce. He – and dozens of others who picked up the story on other channels – never identified, or even verified, the sources of the quotes, but they reported them anyway.

 

Contrast these shabby examples of “journalism” with the legions of identifiable, verifiable and credible sources who for months have been investigating the disturbing allegation that Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he has failed to meet one of the three requirements that the U.S. Constitution mandates, specifically that he provide proof of his “natural born” U.S. citizenship.

 

What follows is a partial list of people and organizations that have challenged Obama’s eligibility. Further on I will comment on how egregious the media’s failure to cover this story has been. And last, I will speculate on the reason for the cover-up of this full-blown scandal.

 

Attorney Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and a longtime Democrat partisan, sued Obama and the Democratic National Committee for what he alleged was the DNC’s failure to vet Obama, and Obama’s failure to provide an authentic and verifiable U.S. birth certificate. The suit was dismissed as “too vague…” Berg filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct.30, to force Obama to produce his birth certificate. On Nov. 3, Justice David Souter rejected Berg’s emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results, but set a schedule for a response from Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants on or before Dec. 1. Berg claims to have a tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, along with his half-brother and half-sister. Here is his website.

 

According to WorldNetDaily, blogger Jeff Schreiber said a second case was presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue, i.e., the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg, possibly – among other reasons – because they liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Berg said that if the FEC filed not solely on its own behalf but “on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion.”

 

Dr. T.B. Bradley, a forensic psychologist, stated, as part of the Berg case, that, “Upon reading all of the books written by or about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. aka Barry Soetoro (hereinafter Obama) Applicant discerned that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States or if he was a natural born citizen that he had lost his citizenship when his biological mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his mother’s expatriation of herself and her son, by self declaration on legal public educational records that Obama was formally known as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia [and] was not US Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the United States Senator from Illinois or the Office of the President of the United States.”

 

Author, radio host, blogger, and Chicago attorney Andy Martin filed a suit in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request was denied. On Nov. 18, he petitioned a judge in Hawaii for access to Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate, and reported that “the judge reserved judgment.” But when he arrived back in the states, he learned that Judge Bert Ayabe had dismissed the case.

 

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes filed a suit with the California Secretary of State asking that the state’s 55 Electoral College votes not be cast on December 15 until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. Keyes’ suit was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, along with California Electors Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson. The action states: “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States, and, thereby, his election declared void….(a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.” Former California Secretaries of State have reviewed background documents to verify the eligibility of candidates.

 

In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for POTUS. Then Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that according to Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the age needed to be on the ballot. Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California and to the Supreme Court.

 

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, a retired 23-year veteran of the Army, National Guard, and Air Force filed another suit in North Carolina, which claimed Obama should not have been on the state’s election ballot because his citizenship is in doubt.

 

David M. Neal of Ohio filed a suit in Warren Common Pleas Court to force the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

 

Cort Wrotnowski of Connecticut asked the court to order Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz, to verify Obama’s citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. The case was denied.

 

Steven Marquis filed a suit Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State, Sam Reed, to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day, claiming the Hawaii birth certificate reveals neither the hospital where Obama was born nor a doctor’s name the baby’s footprint. The case was denied.

 

Rev. Tom Terry of Georgia appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president. Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.

 

Author Jerome Corsi, who has written extensively about this case, traveled to Hawaii and Kenya. He learned that the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama campaign posted is, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, not the same as a Certificate of Live Birth, which authenticates Hawaiian birth.

 

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In November 2004 she said he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, but in February 2008, she said he was born in the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Before the election, the Internet site, WorldNetDaily, retained a private investigator in Hawaii to visit both hospitals, but he reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off inquiries.

 

Leo C. Donofrio a retired attorney, started a website (supporting link) and filed a suit in New Jersey on November 3, asking Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, for an emergency stay prohibiting Obama, Sen. McCain, and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero, from appearing on New Jersey’s ballot, claiming all three are not “natural born citizens.” On Nov. 6, Supreme Court Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application. But the case has now entered the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas has decided to send it to conference on December 5th! This means that only 10 days before the Electoral College votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet privately to discuss Donofrio’s case.

 

Douglas J. Hagmann, director of HomelandSecurityUS.com, has reported that 17 lawsuits in 12 states are challenging the eligibility of Obama to become the next President of the United States.

 

Numerous activist groups have undertaken letter-writing campaigns to the Supreme Court Justices, members of the Electoral College, and elected officials, as well as sending urgent appeals to the White House and the Department of Justice.

 

Websites like Citizens for the United States Constitution, We The People, PeoplesPassion, America Must Know, and Faith2Action have sprung up in passionate defense of our Constitution’s integrity. The last of these has even posted the names and addresses of Electoral College members from each state, as well as an ad in The Washington Times.

 

Dozens of petitions, like this one, have been circulated.

 

And dozens of mostly-conservative writers (including Devy Kidd and Miichelle Malkin), bloggers and journalists have written about his strange case and potential Constitutional crisis, as I have in a series of articles – here and here and here and here.

 

Coverage of the above by the media: Zero.

 

A DEAFENING SILENCE

 

It is no mystery that the leftist media have refused to mention this potentially looming Constitutional crisis in virtually all of their print and electronic coverage. Having shilled for Obama for the past two years – dismissing his longtime radical associations, obfuscating his radical voting record, and taking a pass at their jobs of vetting a presidential candidate - their failure to cover the most explosive story of the 2008 campaign speaks volumes about collusion of the highest order.

 

Then there are the late-night comics, as well as snarky “humorists” like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, who take pride in being irreverent and “outing” both people and subjects that others avoid. Not a word.   

 

But what about the failure of the powerful conservative media – how to explain their total blackout of this story? Let’s look at their reactions:

 

Fox News: Total Silence. Did the healthy shares that Saudi Arabia bought of Fox influence the network’s non-coverage of this story? After all, it’s no secret which candidate the Saudis endorsed! We know that TV shows, including Fox, are on a seven-second delay, the better to bleep out offensive or inappropriate material. Doesn’t it strike Fox viewers as strange that not one of their outspoken guests, even once, mentioned this story? Who warned them not to?

 

Rush Limbaugh: Total Silence. Why has the Excellence-in-Broadcasting’s “Dr. of Democracy” – the man who eats sacred cows for breakfast – not touched this story?

 

Mark Levin: Total Silence. Why has this popular radio host, commonly known as “the Great One,” abandoned his well-deserved reputation as a Constitutional scholar to studiously not address this Constitutional issue?

 

Laura Ingraham: Total Silence. Here is another radio powerhouse and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas taking pains not to mention this case…not a word!

 

Bill O’Reilly: Total Silence. Yes, the guy who claims he’s “just looking out for the folks”…voiceless!

 

Sean Hannity: Total Silence. The iconic radio and TV host who tackles every controversial subject under the sun…missing in action!

 

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. The very people – the so-called loyal opposition – who should have been shouting this story from the rooftops for months on end went mute. Ordinarily they would be the first to tell you that our Republic has no more precious document than the U.S. Constitution – a document that set the stage for the greatest experiment in human freedom since the beginning of recorded history. People like me – and multi-millions of others – are aware of what happens when the “salami tactics” of tyrants are employed in the service of leftwing ideology.

 

First, there is a charismatic character promising “change” and “hope,” but who changes his tune once in power. Second there is a whittling down of the laws of the land and the arrogant dismissal of the documents on which the nation was founded. Third there is the blacking-out of all media that disagree with Dear Leader’s message. And fourth there is the rounding-up and incarceration – or worse – of all dissidents.

 

This is not theory. This is history. But while both left and right media thought it appropriate to comment at length about Obama’s seven-page Questionnaire for those seeking work in his administration – a probing that makes a Pap Test, mammogram, colonoscopy, and endoscopy in one visit seem mild by comparison – not one of these cowardly journalists has asked the simple question: Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?

 

Or were they not cowards but patriots?

 

SCROUNGING FOR ANSWERS

 

I’ve written several books, not one of them fictional. And thousands of articles, not one of them based on sinister suspicions or conspiracy theories. But the case of the U.S. media’s complete non-coverage of this major story has gotten me to speculate on what – or who – may be behind this phenomenon. What force could be so powerful as to silence our country’s putative guardians of free speech – the titans of the Fourth Estate?

 

Perhaps the mystery goes back to 2004, when President Bush won his second term in office and in his first press conference in the White House said that he had “earned political capital and intended to spend it.”

 

Then – suddenly and inexplicably – he went into a year-long hibernation. He rarely appeared in public and gave no major speeches. Finally he reemerged – albeit weakly – in late November or early December of 2005

 

Could it be that shortly after the president’s reelection, he and major government officials received highly credible evidence from America’s ruthless Islamist enemies that they had a number of devastating (probably nuclear suitcase) weapons – set up and ready to be activated in as many as six-to-10 of our major cities – unless he (the president) tacked left and played nice for the following two years?

 

Was America taken hostage?

 

The president, one could speculate, had only two choices: (1) play “chicken” and possibly sacrifice the lives of millions of Americans and the destruction of major American cities, or (2) opt for the lesser of two evils, the second being to pave the way for a dangerous Trojan Horse – qualified or not – to capture the White House.

 

Could it be that the media blackout of the most explosive story of any presidential election in American history has been choreographed by none other than the current POTUS – the most powerful man in the entire world? This would certainly explain why President Bush has not “been himself” since January 20, 2005. It would also explain why the all-powerful media have taken his marching orders – including the New York Times, which takes particular pleasure in undermining and sabotaging the president, even when it comes to national security issues.

 

If this happened, it would have had to involve the highest echelon in our intelligence services, who might have paid personal visits to publishers throughout the United States, as well as to top TV and radio executives, who themselves would have passed down iron-clad orders – to their anchors, broadcasters, even comedians – to follow the blackout order or face Draconian consequences. Clearly, they followed their marching orders.

 

On November 4 – Election Day – the Dow was above 9,000. It is now plummeting to below 7,000, suggesting that even the “globalists” among us prefer tax cuts and capitalism to tax hikes and not creeping but galloping socialism – or what the esteemed Dr. Jack Wheeler insists is fascism. 

 

Buyers’ remorse is in the air. America has been hijacked. What a price we will pay if the Supreme Court and the Electoral College abandon their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution by capitulating – as the media have – to our enemies. God Save America!

Does Sharia Law Threaten America ?

---

---

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah code

Detroit billboard says religious law imposed by Islam threatens rights

---

Posted: November 28, 2008
1:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn’t going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee.

Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.

“SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA,” warns the sign.

The UAC says it’s “dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam” and works to “educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism.”

The group’s mission is to battle against “the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America.”

“Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights,” the organization stated.

Tom Trento, a spokesman, said, “Muslims are the biggest victims of Shariah law in the world. We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Shariah to stand up against it.”

The organization’s website, whose address is featured on the billboard, highlights a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped the Middle East and has become a fierce critic of Islam and Shariah.

“At times, it feels to me that Shariah is following me to the United States,” Sultan says in the video, referring to radical Islamic charities and organizations operating in the U.S.

Sultan also points out that in Britain and France Shariah is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Britain recently sanctioned the establishment of Shariah courts for civil matters among Muslims, the UAC noted.

“Our Constitution is not compatible with Shariah,” Sultan said. Under the religious rules, “Women and children are deprived of rights we in the West take for granted.”

“Homeless in America is more attractive to me than living as a woman under Shariah,” she added. “I don’t want to face again the hell that I had kicked off 20 years ago. My biggest obligation is to preserve the free spirit of this wonderful country and not allow destructive forces to ruin it.”

The UAC billboard is in Luna Pier, 10 miles north of Toledo and 20 miles south of Detroit on Interstate 75, officials said.

The announcement about the sign comes as Islam expert Daniel Pipes warns in a report in the Jerusalem Post Shariah is advancing one step at a time into Western Europe and North America.

Pipes cited the recent case of a Scottish judge who “bent” the law to acknowledge a polygamous household, a status allowed under Shariah.

“The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one’s driving license. The defendant’s lawyer explained his client’s need to speed: ‘He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis,’” Pipes reported.

“Sympathetic to the polygamist’s plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license,” he said.

The report said the ruling suggests monogamy, “long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law.”

Pipes reported at least six Western jurisdictions now accept harems, including Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia and Canada. Canada, for example, acknowledges “a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid.”

WND reported just days ago a Heritage Foundation expert’s warning the U.S. also needs to maintain active opposition to plans for “religious anti-defamation” laws both within its borders and on an international scale or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation’s website,  Steven Groves said the U.S. “must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the ‘defamation of religions’ concept.” The proposal primarily targets any criticism of Islam.

Proponents “will continue to push the ‘defamation of religions’ agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference,” Groves warned.

Groves is the Heritage Foundation’s Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

He also said within its own borders, the U.S. should refuse to recognize “a new legal cause of action that bans insults or criticism of religion,” because it would provide no benefit whatsoever.

States already have laws to condemn religious discrimination and prosecute acts of incitement to violence, he argued. The federal government “should tread extremely lightly where disputes over religious doctrine are concerned. The U.S. does not need a national speech code that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans, no matter how offensive that speech may be to any particular religious denomination.”

Groves cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with “dignity and respect.”

“Any attempt to establish a criminal or civil ‘defamation of religions’ law in the United States … must be strongly opposed,” Groves said. “Attempts to introduce such legislation may be incremental – notably, in May 2005, when a group of U.S. congressmen sponsored a resolution,” he said. “Such piecemeal legislation must be closely guarded against.”

WND previously reported the original U.N. plan that could turn ordinary Christians in America into international criminals.

U.S. Department of the Treasury

WND also has reported the Treasury Department has announced it will teach “Islamic finance” to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress and other parts of the executive branch.

According to its announcement, the “Islamic Finance 101″ forum is “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

The Treasury Department has collaborated with Harvard University’s Islamic Finance Project to coordinate its instructions.

Revealingly, a recent report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND, said Britain’s MI6 intelligence service identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a Shariah death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim.

The report describes how the group recently imposed the brutal punishment on a child in the Somalian town of Kismayo.

A 13-year-old girl, described in an intelligence report as “little more than a pretty child,” was sentenced to be stoned to death by the all-male court.

It imposed the sentence on Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow after she had complained to the local Shariah court that she had been gang-raped by, among others, her cousins.

But the court found her guilty of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning.

She was taken from the courthouse to a local sports stadium. There she was buried up to her neck in sand and then stoned in front of a 1,000-strong crowd.

Read the article at Worldnet Daily