The “Bin Laden” Endorsement of Obama?

Comments Off

Found this one on the examiner.com…made the hair on the back of my neck stand. It should yours too. This country needs a change in government from the ground up to expunge the corruption that Washington, DC is. Think very seriously about sending Obama or someone who will not change the status quo of present day Washington. Your legacy is worth a lot more.

The Muslim Brotherhood President:

Prior to his election in 2008 and even after his inauguration, President Obama has faced rumor, innuendo and attempts to discover his roots, his past, that he has carefully hidden. No one may ever know whether B. Hussein Obama is eligible to be President, but what the people of America deserve to know is whether or not he was put into office for a purpose and what that purpose is. Never mind the different birth certificates released by Obama, ignore the subterfuge surrounding his not releasing his college transcripts and that no one really remembers him at Columbia University, there is only one way to put those issues to rest and B. Hussein Obama is not willing to produce the documents to do so. All of this leaves Americans wondering, at least until American Idol comes on.

Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii. There is considerable discussion as to whether “Hawaii” is in reference to the fiftieth state, or to a moment in Kenya when someone held him up and said, “We shall call him Barack and we shall call this place Hawaii”. Either way, he was named Barack Hussein Obama II, after his father. Well, according to his mother. After all, only our mothers truly know who our fathers are. Young Barack, eventually became an adult, as most people do, who manage to get through childhood and not stick a fork in an electrical outlet or anger their fathers such that they die in a tragic hunting accident (But, this is not about my brother, may God bless his soul). During his childhood, his formative years, young Barack became known as Barry (allegedly short for Barack, or in honor of Mr. Manilow), and changed his last name to Soetoro, as he was adopted by his mothers husband of the same last name. It was at this time that Barry enrolled in Occidental College, often referred to as Oxy. After a stint there, that no one knows much about and Barry/Barack, whatever his real name is, left, he found his way to New York City, where he, by his own admittance was homeless and on drugs.

While in New York, young, stoned and with no place else to go, Barry decided that hanging out with a young Pakistani made sense. Barry and this Pakistani traveled to Indonesia to visit some of Barry’s family and from there, he and his male traveling companion, went on to Pakistan. Only Barry Soetoro knows what went on in Pakistan during that visit. However, anonymous sources, within and outside of the military have shared and shed light upon the transformation of Barry Soetoro, homeless drug addict, alleged homosexual and aimless college dropout, to Barackah Hussein Obama, world traveler and now President of the United States of America.

In 2005, the US Military became aware of certain allegations regarding Barack Hussein Obama. An al-Qaeda operative disclosed to an operator within the Military that in 2008 a man named Barackah Obama would be made President of the United States of America. When pressed further, the Jihadist stated that the title “Barackah” and all the power and influence that goes with it, was given to an American, by Bin Laden himself. In 1981 both Osama Bin Laden and Barry Soetoro were in Pakistan. Who vacations in Pakistan aside from a young man who left America as Barry Soetoro and returns Barack Hussein Obama? It isn’t like Pakistan is a vacation hotspot, face it, dirt and outdoor plumbing can be found in much more attractive parts of the globe and without all the Muslims. When the reports were written and moved along to Counterintelligence, they “went straight in the garbage can” said an anonymous source.

In 2005, the US Military Counterintelligence unit had information about a Barackah Obama, who was anointed with the title “Barackah” by America’s number one most sought terrorist and the reports ended up in the trash. The tossing aside of this information occurred well after the Philadelphia Meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood, in America, long after the horrors of September 11th, 2001 and long after the November 2002 letter, from Osama Bin Laden, to the American people and no one in the Counterintelligence Unit thought that something such as this warranted looking into? After all, it is common knowledge (which isn’t so common any more) that the Crusades, all three, were defensive measures, to push Islam back out of Europe, after its encroachment, that the basic tenets of Islam are global domination, wherein all non-Muslims have either converted to Islam, become slaves and pay the poll tax, or are killed and that under Islamic law, Sharia Law, Osama Bin Laden had to offer Americans the chance to willingly convert to Islam and had, in his 2002 letter to America. Counterintelligence personnel were armed with all of this information, or should have been (Did they not hear of this thing called Google, which makes finding things on the internets easier?), and they knew Osama Bin Laden was really named Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden and was a strict Wahhabi Muslim, yet they did nothing.

America now has Barack Hussein Obama as President, a man who was bestowed the title and blessings of “Barackah” upon him, by Osama Bin Laden, in Pakistan, in 1981 and not only is nothing being done about it currently, it could have been prevented. Americans, certainly not the media, have wondered aloud, why is it that B. Hussein Obama has fought releasing his records, his transcripts, how he funded a trip to Indonesia and Pakistan when he was destitute, how he qualified to get into Columbia University, much less Harvard Law School and then have a meteoric rise through the Senate, to be the leader of the greatest nation on earth and now it is known why Barackah has covered his tracks so well during the three years he has spent destroying America. Call it a conspiracy, call it a plot, call it anything you like, but the United States of America is now in a full blown Constitutional crisis and it is time Congress did something about it.

Bill Turner

Pastor/Journalist

First American Patriot Church Radio

Examiner.com

The Manchurian Obama..

Comments Off

I love it when my friends come back with a bang. I keep hearing how we’re “birthers” because we legitimately question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President. It wouldn’t be a problem if he would have shown the proof from day one. Now, before you call me another “birther” loon, you might want to consider the following. Thanks Carl, you never disappoint, as well as “Where are His Girlfriends” from Bill. Even liberals are questioning now…oh, and you shouldn’t take a photoshopped document as proof before you examine it either. If you look at this, you’d think I was Iron Man. Great photoshop tools… Enjoy the stories.

Oh, you can also believe that Obama is Superman…

 

 

51 Bullet-Pointed Facts That Dispute Barack Obama’s Identity & Eligibility to be President!
CatchKevin.com
[OBAMA-51 FACTS]

1. The Unenforced Definition of “Natural-Born Citizenship”

The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen in order to be eligible for the office of President.

In seeking to define the meaning of “natural born citizenship”, those who blindly support Obama desperately seek a minimalist’s definition of the term. They desire that a natural-born citizen is one to whom may be ascribed as few requirements as possible in order that a candidate, with whom they share ideological fetishes, can be president regardless of his actual fitness for the office. They seek to assume jurisdiction over the declaration of being “natural born” in the minds of as many as possible while contending that “natural born citizenship” means the fewest, most remedial natal circumstances possible, which will allow their politigod, Barack Obama, just enough legitimacy to squeak by and be eligible.

Their definition allows Obama to merely meet what they consider the most easily argued, though obviously unverifiable characteristics of Obama’s obscure citizenry, in this case, his birth place.

However, unfortunately for Obama supporters, the purposed intent of our founders was not so slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a natural born citizen the highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. After witnessing the corruption and inbreeding and treasons of monarchal rule, America’s founders desired that becoming President of the United States to be as difficult as possible…politically, socially and biologically.

All arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of serving one’s own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or upholding the value of the blood ransom paid by our people.

Hence, logically, our founders induced that the highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.

Consider the following:

Taking survey of all possible circumstances which, therefore, lend credibility to one’s claim to legitimacy, and thereby, eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one’s location of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we must also consider that biology must also meet this standard. Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.

Moreover, let’s consider further extension of this ideal by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their respect for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them, uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore, they seek to minimize the standard, not maximize the person.

Of course, this would disqualify many from being the President…as so it should!

However, let’s not even stop there. We should also assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also preserved their natural-born citizenship from “conception to election”, never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault of their own should bear up in faith that this is the intention of higher power, sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity for the man!

Let all of these metrics define the standards of natural-born citizenship in America. Bannish minimalism and seek the highest mark in the spirit of exceptionalism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest definition of humanity’s advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for eligibility to be President of the U.S.!

We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one’s own natural-born citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one’s birth. Historical writings, along with related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other than with the United States at the time they are elected as President. Research of America’s founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth.

Therefore, it is probable that one’s most authentic degree of natural born identity does not occur at birth, but at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed it was commonly understood that the definition of “natural-born citizenship” for a presidential candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not just acheived by the event of birth but that it was a maintained status from “conception to election” in order to qualify a sovereign candidate. This is the most complete definition of natural born citizenship possible. There is no other degree of more complete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one’s existence.

Therefore, theoretically, natural-born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be measured by three metrics:
1) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents
2) Birth in a geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution
3) Maintenance of that citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative procedure.

This means that their citizenship has never been achieved by any legal or administration process at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not natural-born citizens. Those who lose their natural-born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their natural born U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A natural-born citizen is one who was born within a geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen parents, they being either natural-born or legally naturalized through immigration or repatriation.

Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the requirements to be a natural-born citizen for two possible other reasons:
1) His alleged biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. Citizen
2) He was adopted by his muslim, Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian citizenship, thus forfeiting natural-born status.

“Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution…”

2. The Suddenness of Obama

The American public was essentially made nationally aware of Barack Obama following his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Obama’s emergence into national politics was not a gradual inception. It was a sudden, covert ascendance to power seemingly assisted by foreign-like forces as an assault on vintage American conscience.

Obama was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Democratic Senator from Illinois in November, 2004, after his candidacy was promoted in the state by a vastly corrupt, liberal, Chicago-based political cartel and a conglomeration of burned-out, 1960′s, radicals like Bill Ayers and Madeline Talbott. Then despite his lack of executive experience, in February, 2007, after only two years of serving at the federal level, Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election defeating Hillary Clinton, a 17-year veteran of federal politics and former First Lady, for the Democratic Party Nomination.

Obama went on to then defeat John McCain, a decorated war veteran and a 34-year seasoned expert in federal politics as a longstanding Arizona senator, having been elected by a bowing consensus of ashamed white liberals, Bush-hating radicals and angry, racist minorities seeking reparative justice.

By all observable metrics, Obama should have been considered nothing but a long shot to contend for the DNC nomination. Instead, he defied these odds and even his own advice when, in 2005, he said,

“In order to run for president, a person needs to know what they are getting into…I am not confident I have that experience yet.”

3. The Foundations of Natural Born Citizenry

When the founders of America wrote the Constitution, they included the “natural-born” mandate in order to ensure that no President would be subject to, or exercise, a plurality of political interests in their international relationships. Having experienced the corruption of a monarchy in Great Britain for generations, the founders of America, after declaring and defending their right to freedom from that corruption during the Revolutionary War, wrote the constitution within the legal framework of empowering inalienable rights and protection of the American people, not empowering the government.

Upon declaring independence from the crown, after seeing the destructive consequences of an intermingling of international loyalty through forced Royal intermarriage, in-breeding, monarchal polytheism, power sharing, birthright subversion and support of covert insurrections of inferior nations, the founders made it a law that any President had to be a natural-born citizen.

4. Logan Act Violated By Obama

With this mind, we learned, in October, 2008, that American author and columnist,Jerome Corsi was arrested while visiting Kenya during an investigation which revealed that Barack Obama had actively campaigned for and contributed money to Kenya’s Democratic Socialist Orange Party candidate, Raila Odinga, from 2006 to 2008. Corsi had traveled to Kenya and acquired correspondence and documented evidence showing that Odinga, a fellow Luo tribe descendant and alleged paternal cousin of Obama, had entered into a written agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a highly influential and radical Kenyan Islamic foundation, seeking Odinga’s support for, among other things, Sharia Law, in exchange for the Islamic group’s support of Odinga’s candidacy.

The evidence acquired by Corsi also shows that Obama was aware of this agreement even while he was raising more than a million dollars of American money to support Odinga’s campaign. The Orange Party Movement is the communist opposition party to President, Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU).

Obama’s involvement in the Kenyan election, while an elected official of the U.S., was clearly a violation the Logan Act which prohibits American politicians from influencing or participating in foreign elections. The Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to pursue any investigation of Obama’s activities with Odinga in Kenya in 2006 until 2008. In 2008, video of Obama’s speeches on behalf of Odinga surfaced on YouTube and several other websites which clearly show Obama stumping for Odinga.

In the aftermath of the December, 2007 election, which Odinga lost, the Orange party leadership and members of Kenya’s Luo tribe incited violence among his radical constituents. Kenyan Muslims engaged in a week long violent demonstration in which they burned nearly 1000 Christian churches and murdered almost 1000 of Odinga’s political opposition which are members of the predominantly Christian, Kikuyu tribe. Under the threat of this violence, with the support of Obama and the Bush administration, the Kenyan majority PNU Party was forced to take an unprecedented action in the history of its government by artificially amending its constitution in order to create a leadership position for Odinga who was ensconced as the country’s first Prime Minister in April, 2008.

The tragic events and violence of the 2007 Kenyan election were the exact consequences the founders of America were trying to prohibit U.S. government officials from instigating or being influenced by.

Obama’s geopolitical connections, along with his probable biological relationship with the Kenyan Communist Party, now an active part of the Kenyan government, creates a relationship vulnerable to illicit influence. Obama has now brought that illicit relationship, and all of its consequences, with him into the office of the U.S. Presidency. The founders wisely understood that the mandate of Natural born citizenry for a President is the best possible protection against such vulnerability.

5. Suspicious Nomination Certifications

In July, 2009, documents were revealed showing that Obama was never officially certified to run for president under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by the Hawaiian Democratic Party. On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the following words:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”
In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state’s Democratic candidate with the following words:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution…”

Notice that the wording of HDP’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words “…under the provision of the United States Constitution…”

Upon receiving Hawaii’s State Nomination Certification for Obama, which omits the reference to the Constitutional legality of Obama’s nomination, the National Democratic Party Office created two separate documents with the same header title, “Official Certification of Nomination”, both versions were signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, and Alicia Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention and notarized by a Denver notary. One of these versions was sent from the National Democratic Party headquarters to each of the 49 states’ Democratic Party headquarters.

However, only the State of Hawaii received an Official Certification of Nomination from the DNC containing the words:

“…the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…”

The document then lists Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the candidates. However, the rest of the 49 states received a different Official Certification of Nomination containing the words:

“…the following were duly nominated as candidates of said party for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively…”

Why was the state of Hawaii’s local Democratic Party headquarters sent a different OCON document from the National Party headquarters than the other 49 states?

There is strong evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s local Democratic Party officials refused to certify Obama’s nomination as being Constitutionally eligible. As a result, Hawaii’s Election Commission, headed by Kevin Cronin, jockeying behind closed doors, refused to place Obama on the Hawaiian ballot under Hawaiian Election laws mandating that every candidate seeking placement on the Hawaiian presidential election ballot must be certified as “Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States”.

Since the DPH refused to place this language in its Official Certification of Nomination, Obama, therefore, required that the National Party Committee, headed by none other than Nancy Pelosi, take responsibility for declaring the constitutional eligibility of his nomination under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though his eligibility had never been vetted or verified as legal.

This has never happened in the history of America’s vetting endorsement process and indicates that the Democratic National Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, was made aware that there was a legal problem with Obama’s candidacy. However, the DNC certified it anyway and, in doing so, committed federal election fraud.

6. State Ballot-Fail!

It is the responsibility of each states’ party head office to certify that their candidate is Constitutionally eligible to serve in coordination with their state’s laws. Since Obama was not Constitutionally certified to run in the state of Hawaii in 2008, no other Secretary of State, in any state, ever confirmed that Obama was vetted by federal or party authorities in their state prior to being placed on the 2008 Presidential ballot there.

In fact, nearly a dozen Secretaries of State, including Hawaii’s, have officially refused to reveal any information about the vetting of Barack Obama in their state because they simply cannot even show that he was actually proven to be eligible there.

7. PUMA: The First Birthers

In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” conspiracy theory was first created by renegade members of an ultra leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overturned on constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not be a natural born citizen.

Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not “right-wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.

8. Hawaiian Certi-Fiction

Shortly after PUMAparty.com began clamoring for a more thorough review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undisclosed sources, from an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme leftwing websites like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non-partisan reviewers, Factcheck.org and politifact.com.

One of the fact checking sites is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.

9. Certification of Identity, not Natural Birth

The 2008 document image was determined to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to those applying for copies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to changing its document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.

10. Cartoon Fun

In 2009, it was demonstrated by three separate document specialists that an image of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was easily constructed and falsely authenticated using two different medical imaging software programs. This demonstration discredited the State of Hawaii’s claims that its “Certification of Live Birth” provided better protection against identity theft than old paper copies of the Certificate of Live Birth.

11. Department of Hawaiian Native Homelands

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was found to be so unreliable in clarifying the bearer’s legal and demographic identity that the State of Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands refused to accept it as a primary source of identification for its applicants seeking to purchase Hawaiian land reserved for genealogically native Hawaiians. Before 2010, the agency’s website stated:

“In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…”

Only after it was determined that the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s policy against the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” conflicted with another Hawaiian state agency, the Department of Health’s, political endorsement of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, was the policy changed and the wording against the credibility of the document scrubbed from its website. This led many to accuse the State of Hawaii government of selling out to protect against exposing the ineligibility of Obama rather than upholding the eligibility of thousands of potential native land owners in Hawaii. Some actually accused Hawaii’s land management of selling out to a liar while native Hawaiians were at risk of being deprived of their right to purchase native lands because non-natives could now use a less credible version of identification when applying for a land purchase.

12. Hawaii Denies COLB Image

After all was said and done, the State of Hawaii has refused to ever confirm that it issued the 2008 document image. In light of sophisticated, digitally based document imaging technology, the authenticity of the image remains highly questionable, especially without the official endorsement of the Hawaiian Health Department. Some independent reviewers have, unequivocally, determined the image to be a forgery.
13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate
On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney, Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S. Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed similar suits including Alan Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases.

Some judges have even gone on record as saying the reason they dismissed their case was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility had already been answered on Twitter.”

Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth certificate, which costs about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.

14. Executive Order No. 13489

Obama was ensconced as President on January 20, 2009. Just one day after his inauguration, he signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially violates the Freedom of Information Act and prohibits the release of Obama’s personal and presidential records, during and after his presidency, by the National Archives without first being consulted by the National Archives Director and the Attorney General. Seven days later, Obama gave his famous “Transparency Will Be the Touchstone of This Administration” speech in which he hypocritically admonished previous administrations for what he feels are “too many secrets kept by government in Washington”. Obama vowed to change how government deals with secret information by making his administration more open.

Since this dishonest, landmark speech, the Administration has fought to keep Obama’s past secret more than any other President in American history.

15. Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin

In April, 2008, after the fraudulent dismissal of more than two dozen civilian court cases which had been filed against Obama attempting to force him to produce original documented evidence of his natal identity, a highly decorated officer with more than 17 years of unblemished service in the U.S. Army brought the Obama eligibility into the active military ranks. Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon serving the President’s Chief of Staff and working as a commanding ranked physician of a critical care facility, refused to deploy for duty in Afghanistan under his legal right to refuse orders that he, as an officer, believes are illegal.

According to Lakin, Barack Obama has not demonstrated provable, documented evidence that he is eligible to hold the office of President and is, therefore, not legally qualified to issue orders to the United States military as Commander In Chief. Lakin’s oath upon becoming an officer is to defend the constitution, not the president. His duty, as an officer to refuse deployment orders he believes are illegal, are legitimate based on clear and concise legal grounds. Despite this fact, however, Lakin pleaded guilty to a circus court under the command of the Obama administration’s military staff, and was sentence to six months in prison and dismissal from the service.

He has since been lauded and exalted for his sacrifice and commitment to his duty to defend the Constitution. Supporters may contribute to his fund at TerryLakinActionFund.com

16. The History Of Standard U.S. Certificates of Live Birth

As census and vital statistics documentation methods evolved, the U.S. Department of Health has utilized a document template with the header title, “Certificate of Live Birth” since the early 1900’s. The U.S. National Vital Statistics Division, since its first published data report in 1915, refers to the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” as “The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event.” This document has evolved throughout a 110 year process with input from the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, the National Vital Statistics Division, The Census Bureau and the municipal state agencies are assigned with the responsibility of gathering, storing and reporting natal statistics to the U.S. Department of Health. Although it has undergone state specific revisions to support municipal laws and identity protection, it is important to note that it has never undergone a reduction in vital data content.

17. Hawaii’s Rogue Document

The standard, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document template has been slightly revised by various states for the purpose of meeting identification and formatting needs, such as concealing the social security numbers of the parents. However, no state, except one, has ever reduced the overall quantity of information contained about the bearer’s natal identity, such that it is now impossible to determine their natural-born status, and then used that reduction of vital information in an endorsed document form. Only the State of Hawaii has created this form of independently published, digital documentation.

18. Hawaii Violates Federal Guidelines

In the entire 110 year history of the standard, official, federal, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document’s existence, only the state of Hawaii has gone astray from the standard version to such a degree that it actually conceals one’s full natal identity rather than reveals it. When comparing document forms, the use of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an unauthorized reduction of content otherwise prescribed to confirm the bearer’s natal identity and, essential to verifying one’s eligibility to be a candidate for president, the bearer’s natural born status.

19. Exploitation of Hawaii’s Lost Culture

Because of its remote, water-locked, geographic characteristics; its tumultuous indigenous history; and a vulnerable culture altered by a transference of sovereignty in the late 1800’s, the Hawaiian islands gained a reputation for maintaining a vague process for documenting immigration, vital events and indigenous population. Historical archives dating between 1890 and 1941 reveal that the Hawaiian Islands served as an unofficial, but widely pursued, sanctuary for thousands of foreign expatriates seeking protection from political persecution in China, Japan, Southeast Asiatic nations, the Middle East and, later, the United States.

This multicultural instability resulted in the implementation of less than thorough procedures for recording and differentiating native born, immigrant and indigenous populations.

One example of this surrogate nativity was granted to a Mr. Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese expatriate who received an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 stating that his birth had taken place in Hawaii in November, 1870. However, later evidence revealed that Mr. Sun’s birth had actually occurred in China in 1866. Archives reveal that the state of Hawaii has provided similar documentation to thousands of immigrants over the years without ever confirming their age, the birth place or their actual identity.This murky process was further complicated when Hawaii became a state of the U.S. which demanded that it begin implementing the federal documentation standards for U.S. citizens as well, in 1959.

Vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s documentation process created passive conditions which allowed unidentified inhabitants to later proclaim any identity, or multiple identities, they desired to serve their individual interests.

20. Hawaii’s Communist Past

Based on investigations in the 1950’s and 1960’s, a disproportionate concentration of pro-communist activity was found to have become a part of Hawaiian culture. This is substantiated by an increase in the population and activity of communist sympathizers identified by the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings conducted after WWII, during the beginning of the cold war between the U.S. and communist Russia. Evidence of pro-communist presence in Hawaii can be found in publications like the Honolulu Record in which one of Obama’s communist mentors, Frank Marshal Davis was a columnist.

Obama Sr. would later return to Kenya sometime in the mid 1960’s to promote his communist economic theories and work in government with his friend and leader of Kenya’s communist KANU party, Tom Mboya.

21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient

In August, 2008, a former U.S. Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth because

“…it does not contain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does not contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.”

Further investigation of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian Department of Health not only contends with federal law, it also contradicts its own self-declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity under HRS 338-17.

22. Hawaii’s Self-endowed Permission To Violate Federal Law

Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 338-17.8 states:

“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual location of the birth, to receive an original birth record which states that the location of birth is Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the certificate.

This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to his birth. He could have applied for this certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him an original birth certificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence.

Moreover, the evidence provided with Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the Director of the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii has empowered a state-level, municipal employee to determine the federal, natural-born status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.

23. Obama’s Own Words

On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s. This document was an official copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the office of Vital Statistics in the city where Obama was born, wherever that is. Why does Obama not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it? Where is the official, original birth record used to produce the document which Obama himself admits to having more than thirty years before being issued a fake document from Hawaii?

Why is Obama lying about this document? What information does this document contain?

24. Obama Loses Natural-Born U.S. Citizenship By Adoption

Barack Obama claims to have lived in Indonesia with his mother from approximately 1967 to 1971 where he assumed the surname of his step father, Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Obama became a citizen of Indonesia, he forfeited any claim he may have had to Natural-born citizenship in the U.S. Recall, a Natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is achieved by natural circumstances which, if unrevoked, make it impossible for them to have citizenship loyalties to any other governing power. If a Natural-born citizen becomes a citizen of another country at any time prior to running for the office of the president, he or she is no longer eligible.

Because of this forfeiture, Obama is not eligible to be president because his Natural-born status cannot be reclaimed once legal or administrative procedures are employed to repatriate him in the U.S.

Also, despite Obama’s claims that he remained in Indonesia during this time, there is photographic evidence placing him in Hawaii in 1969. Questions remain how and why Obama may have traveled to Hawaii at this time, including any documentation he used, which raises doubts about the validity of his origins narrative, and therefore, doubts about his identity.

25. What’s In a Name?

Barry or Barack, Soetoro or Obama, or Subarkah? Records from his time in Indonesia reveal that Barack Obama has used at least one other alias and possibly two. He was registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a muslim student. When Obama applied for state bar license in 1992 to practice law in Illinois, the application asked if he had ever used an alias. He stated that he had not at that time.

There is evidence that suggests Obama was not honest about his use of other names throughout his life. Recent passport application information submitted by his mother in the 1960’s reveals that Obama may have had a third surname of “Subarkah” which his mother had written on the application.

26. Dunham’s Secret Absence

Many records exist confirming Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii from late summer of 1960 until February of 1961. However, from February until September, 1961, there are no records or eyewitness accounts of her presence in Hawaii. In fact, the void is quite stark. Obama was allegedly born during this void of time in Dunham’s documented life. The next record indicating her possible location is a class registration record showing that she had enrolled in classes for fall term of 1961 at the University of Washington, just two weeks after allegedly giving birth to Obama in Hawaii.

27. Dunham Too Young To Confer Citizenship

Ann Dunham turned 19 years old in November, 1961, almost four months after Obama was allegedly born in August, 1961. Citizenship laws in effect in the U.S. in 1961 required the mother of a child born outside the U.S., to a foreign father, to have lived in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. Since Dunham had not yet turned 19, she was not legally able to confer citizenship to Obama if the birth occurred outside the U.S.

Therefore, Obama is, at a minimum, a citizen of Great Britain. The founding fathers, in writing the eligibility mandate, having fought a Revolutionary War against Great Britain, would have rejected Obama as a presidential candidate for this reason.

28. Hospital Mystery

No official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Not one administrative authority from Kapi’olani has ever verified or provided original patient records showing that Ann Dunham was ever a maternity patient there. As a testament to the longstanding controversy over Obama’s birth hospital, in the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center.

In 2006, it was omitted and remained blank until June, 2008 when editors stated that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. On January 24, 2009, Kapi’olani Medical Center, on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, allegedly received a letter in which Obama wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.” It was later admitted by administrators at Kapi’olani that the letter was a facsimile created in a digital format.

To date, no administrator, or official of the Obama administration has ever confirmed that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center.

To date, Obama’s operatives have failed to identify the identity of Obama’s actual birthing doctor.

29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers

In 2010, Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth. Moreover, Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was around 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses and start with 040 through 049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains, “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

In April, 2011, further investigation by ex-CIA personnel confirmed that Obama’s social security number was fraudulently issued after the original owner of the number, who had once resided in Connecticut, died in Hawaii in 1977. As a result, it is now supported by evidence that Barack Obama is committing social security fraud and that his number was issued through channels possibly provided by his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked in the financial and banking industry and who had ties to communist support organizations and international interests.

It is highly likely that Obama, when issued his current social security number, was not a legal citizen of the U.S. and, having access to records through his grandmother, was allowed to use the number after its original owner had died. It has been shown that the original owner of Obama’s social security number had opened at least one account at the bank where Madelyn Dunham was employed in Hawaii in 1965.

30. Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen

Obama’s alleged father was a Kenyan national with citizenship in Great Britain. His birth registration is recorded in the British National Archives, General Register Office “Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates of Africa and Asia, 1895-1965″. Obama’s children are also contained in these registers. He attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1961 before abandoning Obama Jr. and Dunham to attend graduate school at Harvard in 1962.

Since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, it is impossible for Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which has been misrepresented as the federally accepted, official document issued by the state of Hawaii for Barack Obama’s birth shows Obama’s father’s race as “African”. Unfortunately, this term violates the U.S. Department of Health’s acceptable classifications of race for official birth certificates. According to NVSD protocols, Obama Sr. is classified as a “Negro” in 1961, not “African”. The term “African” is not even an option in the NVSD manual. Africa is a continent not a race. For example, there are white people from Africa, but they would not be categorized as “African”. Using this premise, we could argue that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth should also list his mother’s race as “North American”?

If using geographic association in describing Obama’s mother’s race is so ridiculous, why is it acceptable to explain his father’s?

The use of the term “African” to describe the race of Obama’s father is yet another diminishment to the credibility and authenticity of Obama’s natal records. The inclusion of such a non-specific, vague, unclassifiable, misrepresentative term to describe an individual’s demography only raises yet more doubts about the ability of the Hawaiian Health Department to convey accurate vital statisics documentation.

31. Obama Marriage Mystery

To date, no documented evidence exists proving that a legal marriage between Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever occurred in the U.S. The two were allegedly married in Hawaii in early 1961, after Obama Jr. was allegedly conceived sometime in November, 1960. However, no public announcement, or eyewitness of the marriage or marriage license has ever been found.

In Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, he states,

“In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky. A bill of particulars I have never quite had the courage to explore. There is no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No family members were in attendance. It is not even clear that people back in Kansas were even informed.”

Obama’s admission that ‘There is no record of a real wedding’, raises yet another doubt about his long disseminated, life biography with regard to the status of the relationship between his parents. The unanswered questions about his parents marriage contradicts the accuracy of testimony and records declaring Obama’s identity, such as his birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers which undeniably state that his parents were married, and divorce documents which do not contain any reference to a legal marriage license.

There are fundamental questions about the relationship between Obama’s parents which no one has been able to answer. If they were married in Hawaii, what is the name of the officiate presiding at the wedding? Where did it take place? Does the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office possess a copy of the Obama’s marriage license which they used to determined their marital status for the birth announcements? If so, why was the Obama marriage never announced in those same papers? Why was the wedding kept secret?

Was the marriage even legal given the evidence that Obama Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya?

32. Divorce Decree and Custody Documents

In 2009, a set of what appears to be authentic document images of a Divorce Decree shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was awarded an uncontested divorce from Obama Sr. in March, 1964. The Divorce was granted in a Hawaiian civil Court on March 5, 1964 after a hearing to determine custody rights of the parents of Barack Obama Jr. According to the document images, Dunham had filed for divorce in January, 1964. The set of documents posted on the internet in 2009 are suspiciously missing the official birth certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which was requested by the court in order to confirm parentage.

33. Obama Sr. Already Married

Obama’s father was apparently a bigamist. He was allegedly already married to a woman in Kenya when he allegedly married Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s other wife’s name was Kezia Aoko (also found as other spellings). This would nullify any marriage to Dunham because it is illegal in the U.S. to be married to more than one person.

34. Suspicious Death

Obama Sr. died in 1982 after an alleged car accident. Recent investigations into his death reveal unanswered questions about his declining professional status and his strained relationship with Tom Mboya after he published a scathing report called, “The Problem with Our Socialism”, criticizing Mboya’s economic development plan for Kenya.

35. Birth Announcements

In early 2009, researchers discovered announcements of Obama’s birth in two separate Honolulu-based news papers. An investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements reveals that the information used by the news papers came directly from the Hawaiian Department of Health’s bi-weekly birth registration lists. These birth announcements are typically published for registrations over a two week period and do not contain the location of the birth. The announcements always assume, without exception, that the parents are married, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” reveals that of the 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, there were 1044 illegitimate births in which the father was not identifiable. An average of three per day!

In every case, without exception, both papers publish all announcements with the surname of the father as if they are always married and with the assumption that two parents always exist at the time of birth, even when the father is dead. The announcements do not publish the first names of the parents or child, nor do they identify the name of the registrant. They publish the sex of the child, the address of the registrant and the day and month of the birth. The announcements do not print the location of the birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the time of birth or the given name of the child.
36. The Paper Chase
An analysis of all of the birth announcements published along with Obama’s announcements in both newspapers reveals that both papers published the exact same announcements, including quantity of birth announcements, in the same exact order and in the same exact contextual format in both papers. The announcements are not published in alphabetical or chronological order which begs the question: What system was used to determine their order? They are obviously not randomly ordered since they appear in the same order in both papers. The possible answer: Geographic birth registration numbering. An investigation of the U.S. Department of Health’s archived natal data reports reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on the location of the registration office they are received in.

37. Obama’s Other Address

The birth announcements were published containing the registrant’s address at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, HI. This address has been proven by investigators to be the residence of Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madeline Dunham, as well as Obama’s mother. Directory records available in 1961 show that Obama’s father, Obama Sr., resided in an apartment at 625 11th Avenue, near the University of Hawaii. Why would a married man list an address for the birth of his son that was not his address?

38. Birth Registration Protocols

An investigation reveals that birth registration numbers are assigned based on their associated location to the regional vital statistics registration office in which the vital event is recorded. There were four such offices available in Hawaii in 1961, two of which served immigration processing and vital events originating outside the Hawaiian Islands. Obama’s alleged birth registration number, 151-1961-010641, indicates that his birth was registered in one of these regional offices.

39. Non-Sequential Birth Registration

Obama’s birth registration number appears to be non-sequential with other births recorded at the time of his birth. One example cites the standard “Certificate of Live Birth” records of twins born to Eleanor Nordyke, whose births occurred 19 hrs after Obama’s alleged birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center. The twins were assigned birth registration numbers ending in 037 and 038, respectively. Obama’s birth was assigned number 041 despite the fact that his birth allegedly occurred before the twins in the very same hospital. If no other births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke’s, one would expect that Obama’s birth registration number would end in 036, not 041. If other births did occur in the 19 hours between Obama’s and the Nordykes’, Obama’s registration number would be expected to be even lower.

40. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Reluctant Accomplice

On October 31st, 2008, and, again on July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two official statements by the government of the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her October, 2008 statement she release the following:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

The statement does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record and directly contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama. Fukino further clarified her statement eight months later with the following:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the “original vital records” documents she has seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural. Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other evidence is not disclosed by Fukino.

Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338-18 she cited in her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified birth place. If she is so willing to provide this private information, why not disclose the rest of it? Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii’s endorsement of Obama’s legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is NOT so favorable to Obama, as well, such as the title of the ‘original vital records’ or whether the certificate had been amended.

Third, and most grievous, as a state-level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii, Fukino neither has the federal authority, nor the qualifications to determine the Natural-born status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino’s audacious, bizarre proclamation is laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii’s fragile confidence in their documentation procedures, let alone its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural-born citizenship. That job falls under the federal authority of the Secret Service, the State Department in coordination with the state Elections Offices.

41. Hawaii’s Amazing Legitimate Birth Rate

Both papers also published the nearly two dozen announcements assuming that every child was born to married parents living at the same address, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1 – Natality” shows that there were 1044 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961 in which the father was not identifiable. This is an average of three illegitimate births per day! Over the nine day period of births covered by the announcements in these two issues, one would expect to see at least one single mother, or unmarried couple, giving birth among the more than two dozen announcements surrounding Obama’s birth from late July to early August, 1961.

In fact, a review of every issue of the newspapers in the entire year of 1961 shows that all birth announcements were published by “married parents”. If the newspapers indeed printed accurate announcements based on testimony from the actual parents or family members there should be some information which does not conform to this cookie-cutter identical format when comparing each announcement between newspapers. However, the rigidity of the format, and the possibility of inaccuracies, led investigators to conclude that the originating information used to publish birth announcements in 1961 was not conveyed from the parents or family directly to the newspapers, but instead was first processed by a single municipal source, before being provided to the news papers.

Therefore, since we know Hawaii registers foreign births as being native births, the announcements would be published without the location of the birth, or marital status of the parents, as a consideration. This then would suggest that if there is any inaccuracy originating with the source information, which occurs in the transference between the registrant and the municipal authority, the newspapers would never see the necessity to confirm the accuracy of the information. Why would a newspaper take official information certified from a government agency in the form of a list and then expend resources to get a second opinion about its accuracy from the original registrant? They wouldn’t.

The newspapers print announcements without ever knowing if they are accurate or not when the information comes from the local municipal authority.

Therefore, since the municipal authority does not create its birth list discerning between native birth and foreign birth registrations it employs the policy of only publishing the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Since the municipal authority treats all births as legitimate, by default, it would construct the birth registration list as though the parents are married in every announcement and submit the list to the newspapers who would publish what appears to be all local, native births to married couples. The problem with this flawed procedure is that the announcements are not an accurate account of the actual facts of the natal event.

Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that a birth announcement in a newspaper must match the metrics of an official birth certificate.

42. The Welfare of Baby Obama

Upon analyzing the procedures used to publish birth announcements, we discover vulnerabilities in the assumptions about the accuracy and content of the birth announcements. With a simple explanation, it becomes much more reasonable to assume that Obama’s birth announcements were never a part of some crazy-minded conspiracy but, instead, were simply the result of being included in the Hawaiian Health Departments birth registration lists after Obama’s birth was registered by Obama’s grandparents, more than likely, for the simple reason of making sure their daughter and grandson could receive state benefits as resident citizens of the U.S. Obama’s grandparents were indeed residing at the published address found in the announcements.

However, ignorant, hostile Obama supporters enjoy the opportunity to claim that so-called “birthers” believe a conspiracy of such magnitude that Obama’s birth announcements were planted in the Hawaiian papers in 1961 just in case Obama might run for president some day. This is a ridiculous canard. Only a blind ideologue would fail to realize that birth announcements do not verify Constitutional eligibility in the first place.

Therefore, both sides of the argument, either lauding birth announcements or ridiculing them, as a viable part of any conspiracy to promote the legitimacy of Obama is idiotic. If Obama’s birth announcements were not automatically conveyed by the registrar, they were more than likely submitted in collaboration with his mother or grandparents as a practical matter in order to simply share the news of Obama’s birth with the community and to, possibly, act to secure Obama’s eligibility for welfare and baby formula, not a nomination to the presidency.

However, without publishing the identity of the registrant, the editors of the newspapers printed all of the week’s announcements based on typically practiced protocols after receiving the official birth lists from the Hawaiian Department of Health. There was nothing premeditated or fraudulent about this. Municipal laws were followed and journalistic standards were correctly assumed considering the official source in the newspapers’ view. The possible breakdown in accuracy occurred as a result of the Department of Health’s legal ability to include foreign births in the Hawaiian birth registration lists and the registrant omitting birth location information, while the papers did not print it any way.

43. Obama’s Secret Natal Data

According to the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of theU.S. Volume 1 – Natality”, natal statistics were harvested using a “50% sampling method” and, furthermore, statistics were taken only from “even-numbered birth records” in 1961. Since Obama’s birth registration was allegedly an odd number, his unique natal statistics would remain ureported by the State of Hawaii, and unpublished as part of the U.S. Department of Health’s annual natal data report.

This is relative in the fact that, since Obama was a bi-racial, (categorized as non-white) baby allegedly born to an 18-year old, white mother and a non-white, non-citizen father, in an urban hospital in Hawaii in August of 1961, his natal statistics would be extremely notable and rare for this time and place. In fact, statistics show that less than 1 in 20,000 births occurred under these circumstances within the demographic classifications used by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961.

The unconventional circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth are very conspicuous.

44. No Witnesses of Obama’s Birth Still Alive

To date, no living eyewitness of Obama birth exists. It is assumed that his birth was witnessed by at least three people including his doctor and his mother. However, no documentation of the birth has been provided containing the name of the doctor or eyewitnesses.

45. Obama’s Radicalism

Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes,

“…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist Party and one of the era’s poetic pioneers of fierce anti-American radicalism, developed a paternal-like relationship with Obama, which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member.

Obama has maintained lasting relationships with radicals throughout his entire life. He worked with ACORN activist and chapter leader, Madeline Talbott in 1992. He had a close personal relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers and served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, a radical Chicago-based education activism organization. Obama attended a church for 20 years where radical pastor, Jeremiah Wright, still maintains an anti-American ministry under the guise of Black Liberation Theology.

As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, Senior Environmental Advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst a firestorm of controversy over his criminal and communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students.

46. The Deaths of Lt. Quarles Harris and Donald Young

Quarles Harris was a key witness in a federal probe into charges that Obama’s passport information was stolen from the State Department, when he was fatally shot in front of a Washington D.C. church. Harris had been working as a contractor at the State Department and was cooperating with federal investigators when he was murdered.

In December, 2007, Donald Young was a choir leader at Obama’s church, First Trinity Baptist, and school teacher, who many believe had carnal knowledge of Obama’s past. Young was found shot to death in his Southside Chicago apartment.

47. Larry Sinclair’s Bizarre, But Probable Story

Of all the sordid stories circulating about Obama’s past, the one told by Larry Sinclair is the darkest. Sinclair posted a YouTube video alleging that he and President Barack Obama engaged in sexual acts and drug use together in 1999, when Obama was an Illinois State Senator. He claims that then-State Senator Obama procured powdered cocaine for Sinclair, and crack cocaine for himself, which Obama allegedly smoked.

Sinclair also alleges that their drug use was followed by sex acts that included Sinclair performing fellatio on Obama. These acts were alleged to take place in a limousine from which Sinclair provided cell phone records to prove his location on the dates in question. Testimony from the limosine driver has never been publicly published. Sinclair was asked to provide “intimate details” about Obama’s physical features which would prove Sinclair’s claims. His testimony has never been published or made public. Sinclair confesses openly that he is a convicted felon having served time for check fraud and drug possession.

Sinclair repeated his claims about his relationship with Obama in a highly publicized press conference at the National Press Club on June 18, 2008.

48. Passport Documents Released

Documents released in July, 2010, and posted on the Scribd.com website, show that Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, applied for a passport in 1981, the same year Obama traveled to Pakistan. Dunham’s applications show that she had applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a General Services Administration directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other “non-vital” passport records, including Dunham’s 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.

The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry.

The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s circumstances at the time of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s original passport to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.

49. Tim Adams

In July, 2010, Tim Adams, a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu Elections Office in 2008, made the stunning claim Barack Obama definitely was not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, based on information he was told by the Vital Statistics Office in Hawaii that there is no original birth record on file for Barack Obama. In a televised interview, Adams reported that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State. Adams’ statements conflicted directly with repeated affirmations by public officials in Hawaii that they had seen or had inspected Obama’s birth records that would document his representations that he was born in the state.

“There is no birth certificate,” said Adams after leaving his position with the Elections Office and now teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green.

“It’s like an open secret. There isn’t one. Everyone in the government there knows this. I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters’ identity.”

50. Hawaiian Governor Offended

In December, 2010, newly elected Hawaiian Democratic governor, Neil Abercrombie proclaimed that he is undertaking an effort, in consultation with the Hawaiian Attorney General, to make Obama’s original birth documentation available to the public. In making his proclamation, Abercrombie claims that since he was a friend of the Obama’s during their attendance at the University of Hawaii and thereafter, he is personally offended by accusation from doubters that the Obama’s were involved in nefarious dealings with regard to Obama’s natal identity. Abercrombie said he also feels it is disrespectful to the office of the presidency to question Obama’s eligibility.

Despite being an alleged friend of the Obama family, Abercrombie was not invited to the couple’s alleged Hawaiian wedding in 1961, nor was he present at the alleged 1961 Hawaiian birth of Obama.

In response to Abercrombie’s proclamations, both Fox and MSNBC, while reporting on the story, admitted for the first time that Obama had not yet released an original version of his official, 1961, federal, U.S. Certificate of Live Birth signed by the attending physician bearing the name and seal of the hospital.

After exercising all of his gubernatorial power, Abercrombie later admitted to media that he could not find any official, original standard Certificate of Live Birth for Obama. Four months later, Hawaii released the image of the very document Abercrombie allegedly could not find.

51. Caught In the Lie

The Forgery of Obama’s “Long Form Certificate of Live Birth”. On April 27, 2011, the Obama White House confirmed the release of a digital image of a purported document claimed by White House officials and Obama himself as his official, original Long Form Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Hawaii Health Department.

In the months following the image’s release, multiple document analysts and computer experts have denounced the image as a forgery stating that it exhibits “…blatant and poorly concealed artifacts and characteristics which make it impossible to have been created in the 1960’s before printing and typographic technologies existed”… which are shown to have been used to produce the document.

One expert, with more than 30 years of experience with Adobe called the image a“literal joke”.

Among many of the document’s failures at authenticity are the artifacts revealing it was produced by a computer printer, not a typewriter, technology which did not exist in the State of Hawaii’s Health Department in 1961.

____________________

The aforementioned is an excerpt of an article by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen:“Congress Refuses to Investigate Obama’s Illegal Presidency Because They Fear “Black People Behaving Like Animals” – Sentiment Among Congressional and Judicial Leadership Insults Black Americans While They Ignore a Greater “Silent” Threat From Vintage American Wrath”

Now, the story from Billy:

Obama: Where are your girl friends?????

Where are his girl friends??? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being down right WEIRD!
OK… this is past the ‘birthers’ questions…. this is just plain old
common sense, no political agendas for either side.
Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.

We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our ‘fellow man.’ We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

Honestly, and this is a personal thing…but it’s niggled at me for ages that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity….
We all know about JFK’s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden’s aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton–we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?

Nope… not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy,” or
“What a great dancer!” Now look at the rest of this…. no classmates,
not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.
I just don’t know about this fellow.

Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.

Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging
that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president
gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has
he released?

And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?????
Does this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past, saying they
knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person
has ever come forward from his past.

This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.

Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?

Let’s face it. As insignificant as we all are… someone whom we went to
school with remembers our name or face … someone remembers we were the
clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something
about us.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008
campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches
on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia–the
class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
While he is such a great orator, why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college
class remember him? And, why won’t he allow Columbia to release his
records?

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia
University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there,
but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama,
a political science major at Columbia, who also graduated in 1983. In
2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that
knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew
Barack Obama at Columbia … EVER!

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, “Class of ’83
political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer
than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.”
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to
be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five
years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class
notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macha’ who knows
everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook, and Obama
consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia ,
provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or
friends while at Columbia …

NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school,
Thornton-Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983
as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.Some other interesting questions…

Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002?

Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order?

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one
Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.

WHAT?????????????????????????????????

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he
is never reported to have lived. No wonder all his records are sealed!

Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…before he “reorganized” Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.

But who is it, and where are they?

The Obama’s…uh, Lawyers?

Comments Off

I love it when my friend Carl comes back…he came back with the roar of a lion! Thanks Carl, and good to see you back my friend!!

LAWYER OBAMA

This is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler , TX .

This is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.orgStands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.

Big surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ; ;

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/

9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal .

10. Um, wrong citing , wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights . The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.

Oprah Wants Everyone to Respect Obama Despite their Differences

Comments Off

We can respect the office of President, but not his policies or his withholding of his Live Birth Certificate, passports, school records, thesis at Harvard and paying over a million $$$ to attorneys to seal all his records above and more. Disagreeing with the President doesn’t equate to disrespect, neither does questioning his legitimacy as President since he has sealed everything. That alone is very suspicious in itself. Oprah continues to shoot herself in the foot by things like this, along with saying there are many ways to God and continuing to push her New Age agenda on her networks.

Oprah wants ‘respect’ for Obama

Oprah wants 'respect' for Obama

 

Oprah called on President Obama’s critics on Friday to “show some level of respect.”

“I feel that everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart,” the influential TV host said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in Chicago.

Of the negative mood of the country, Oprah added, “I think everybody complaining ought to try it for once.”

She said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,” and that “even if you’re not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.”

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

1 Comment

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

June 12, 2010 · 103 Comments

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom.

While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.”

You will "change" to my liking!You will “change” to my liking!

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out ” lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications detailed in Sec. 6 (c) focus on:

  • smoking cessation;
  • proper nutrition;
  • appropriate exercise;
  • mental health;
  • behavioral health;
  • sedentary behavior (see Sec. 3 [c]);
  • substance-use disorder; and
  • domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past:

  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and
  • Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.”

Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!”

Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes in Sec. 4 (b). Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in:

  • worksite health promotion;
  • community services, including community health centers;
  • preventive medicine;
  • health coaching;
  • public health education;
  • geriatrics; and
  • rehabilitation medicine.

President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests.

Nanny State Liberation Front.net

Time to Quit Blaming George Bush

14 Comments

Thanks for a great article Carl!

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference without tripping over his tongue, would you have laughed and said this is just more proof of how inept he is on his own, and how he must really be controlled by smarter men behind the scenes, or would you have given him a pass because he was so sincere?

If George W. Bush had decided to spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved, making excuses for that?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of General Motors stock by 90%. and then had given the United Auto Workers union a majority stake in GM, would you have approved and gladly agreed with his action?

If George W. Bush had made a crude, insensitive joke at the expense of the participants in the Special Olympics, would you have approved and maybe laughed along with him at the joke?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs as a gift of state, after Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved and given him a pass because of his inexperience in office?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky – or would you have approved, laughing at his chutz-pah?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, thereby signaling his (and America’s) subservience to the King, would you have approved and given him a pass on it?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have just brushed it off as a minor slip of the tongue?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and his circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, many deliberately, would you have approved and applauded his selections?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Quatro” to the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried to say it again, would you have winced in embarrassment, mentally comparing him to Dan Quayle, or would you have simply brushed it off as a slip of the tongue?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice,” would you have hammered him for it for years, just like you did Dan Quayle and “potatoe,” as absolute proof of what a dunce he must be, or would you have simply and quietly given him a pass on it?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single symbolic tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite, or would you have applauded his gesture?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people in downtown Manhattan, followed by a jet fighter, thereby causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11, or would you have just ignored it as inconsequential?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest, where more people were killed or made homeless than in  New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence, or would you just ignore it as inconsequential?

If George W. Bush had created positions for 32 or more Czars who would report directly to him, ignoring the House and Senate and even his own cabinet about what is happening in America, would you have approved and cheered him on?

If George W. Bush had illegally ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation (GM), when he had no Constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved and cheered him on?

If George W. Bush had proposed and accomplished the doubling of the national debt – which, until he had taken office, had required more than two centuries to accumulate – in less than one year, would you have enthusiastically approved and cheered him on?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt AGAIN within 10 years, would you have enthusiastically approved and cheered him on?
If George W. Bush had spent more tax dollars than all the Presidents combined since the country was founded, would you have approved and cheered him on?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?  Can’t think of anything?  Don’t worry. the boy has done all this in just 10 months — so you have ANOTHER 3 years and 2 months to come up with an adequate answer.

President effectively becomes CEO-in-chief

Comments Off

Here’s are two very interesting,chilling  and truthful commentary I ran across.

President effectively becomes CEO-in-chief

Commentary: Daniel Howes

President Obama says he wants to save America’s auto industry. He says General Motors Corp., under a new CEO, has 60 days to sharpen its restructuring or submit to bankruptcy. He’s giving Chrysler LLC 30 days to complete an alliance with Fiat SpA of Italy lest Detroit’s No. 3 carmaker find itself in a federal court.

But what the president didn’t say Monday, as he detailed his administration’s prescription for Detroit’s two sickest automakers, is what he actually didoust a sitting CEO, GM’s Rick Wagoner, and begin the process of remaking a board of directors deemed to have done too little, too late to prevent GM’s slide into the arms of the federal government.

The terror of Wall Street, disgraced New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, would love it.

In one swift act, the president effectively overruled the oversight and fiduciary responsibilities of GM’s directors, duly elected by the automaker’s shareholders, because he couldand the federal government, officially a lender of $13.4 billion to GM, doesn’t own a single share of the automaker.

A chilling message? It should be if you run a bank recapitalized with Treasury money, lead an auto supplier likely to tap into a new $5 billion federal fund, are considering a pitch for a government bailout or are Fritz Henderson, the GM president-turned-CEO who has two months to accelerate the automaker’s restructuring.

“Firing a CEO is usually what a board does, says Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University who worked in the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. “We now have a CEO-in-chief … overseeing large sectors of the economy. We are certainly in a brave new world.”

And it looks like this: the federal government, in a bid to “save” companies determined crucial to the economy, is prepared to use whatever thin financial connections it has to them to broom management, void employment contracts, reload boards of directors and, if necessary, force bankruptcies.

Monday, the president’s people — the president himself — amped the threat of bankruptcy because without it there can be no deal between GM, its bondholders and the United Auto Workers. Should GM be forced into bankruptcy, as seems increasingly likely, White House pressure to replace the CEO and GM’s directors could enable the president’s allies to influence the shape and priorities of a new, leaner and smaller GM.

In the Detroit-based auto industry, a crisis crystallized by $4-a-gallon gas, the credit crunch and plunging consumer confidence offers a Democratic White House with close ties to the environmental wing of its party a golden opportunity to turn the General “green– even if doing so means beggaring the retiree health care promises of hourly workers.

The argument here isn’t whether Wagoner should have been pressured to resign to speed a concessionary deal with bondholders and the UAW that would keep GM out of bankruptcy. GM’s massive problems — $82 billion in losses this decade, a collapsed credit rating, massive outstanding debt made worse by its borrowing from the government — will partly define Wagoner’s legacy.

The issue is principle and the lengthening arm of government into commerce. How can corporate governance and the fiduciary responsibility of directors to shareholders be so easily usurped to satisfy the political exigencies of the day? Stunning is too mild a word to describe the precedent set here.

“Certainly they have a large investment in General Motors,” says spokesman Steve Harris, referring to the $13.4 billion-and-counting federal lifeline to GM. We certainly knew that would involve a certain amount of oversight and involvement of government in our activities.”

They just didn’t know how much. Not since World War II, with the arguable exception of President Harry S. Truman’s brief control of the steel industry, has a president exercised such forceful unilateral control over firms in the private sector. And the double-standards? Towering, as if that makes any difference.

What does it say that on the same day President Obama made nice at the White House with the nation’s leading bank CEOs – none of whom have lost their jobs despite sitting on vastly larger sums of taxpayer dough — the head of the president’s auto task force was urging Wagoner to “step aside?”

“There is no standard,” Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Livonia, told me. “You cannot look at what happened to Rick Wagoner and draw any policy certitude about what happened to the Wall Street CEOs. How do you reconcile the two images on Friday?”

You don’t because you can’t.

Read at DetroitNews.com

Editorial: Plan amounts to a de facto government takeover

The Detroit News

General Motors couldn’t possibly have imagined this outcome when it made the calculated decision last fall to ask for survival loans from the federal government instead of taking its chances on a bankruptcy filing. Now, GM may get the bankruptcy anyway, and its future will apparently be dictated by a White House whose vision for the company is driven more by ideology than the marketplace.

Chrysler has been told it must merge or else.

President Barack Obama tore up the turnaround plans of both automakers Monday and handed them plans of his own. While the president said repeatedly that he “has no interest” in running a car company, he appears to be very much running GM.

Obama placed both companies on very short notice for coming up with even tougher plans to revive their business. That means deeper and harsher cuts, which will impact most heavily the very autoworkers the president praised so effusively during his speech.

But the administration may not be done meddling in GM’s governance. A reshuffle of the GM board of directors is expected and we assume that will be directed by the White House, and not shareholders.

The government critique said GM is a “generation behind” Toyota in advanced, “green powertrain” development. And the administration said GM is still too heavily reliant on trucks and SUVs for its revenues, making it difficult for it to pivot to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

James Harbour, founding editor of the respected Harbour Report on auto firm productivity and a tough critic of the domestic industry in the past, disputes the administration’s finding. “Nobody is lagging anybody” on technology, Harbour says.

GM, it is true, must learn to turn more of a profit on smaller vehicles, as have the Japanese automakers. But the administration has to be careful not to push the firm too far too fast in the direction of smaller cars. One of the key requirements for continued aid for GM is that it become more profitable more quickly.

Curiously, the task force also dinged GM for devoting too much of its alternative-vehicle resources to the battery powered Volt, a vehicle developed almost solely to please the company’s Washington critics.

Chrysler, meanwhile, was ordered to complete a merger with the Italian automaker Fiat, or be prepared to shut its doors. Imagine the impact that threat will have on near-term Chrysler sales.

What was put on the table Monday goes well beyond a lender insisting on strict oversight of how borrowed money is used. In GM’s case, it is a de facto takeover by the government.(Fascism IMO) In Chrysler’s case, it is a shotgun wedding.

Obama has been harshly critical of the way Detroit’s automakers run their businesses. We’ll see now if he can run GM any better.

Also read at Detroit News.com

Chuck Norris-I May Run for President

1 Comment



I may run for president of Texas

On Glenn Beck’s radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, “I may run for president of Texas.”

That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.

From the East Coast to the “Left Coast,” America seems to be moving further and further from its founders’ vision and government.

George Washington advised, “The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible.” Yet the Obama administration just pledged $900 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

Thomas Jefferson counseled us, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” Yet the Feds have just skyrocketed our national deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, and it plans much more fiscal expansion with few expectations of resistance. Despite that George Washington admonished, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones,” we keep borrowing and bailing, while we watch the stock market plunge further every time we do.

Patrick Henry taught that, “Our Constitution is … an instrument for its people to restrain the government.” Yet our Congress and president stampede that founding document, overlook its explicitness and manipulate its words to abandon a balance of power and accommodate their own desires, partisan politics and runaway spending.

John Adams declared that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” Yet we’ve bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America’s religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America’s Declaration of Independence, which states:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When I appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show, he told me that someone had asked him, “Do you really believe that there is going to be trouble in the future?” And he answered, “If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.” Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, “And where’s that going to come from?” He answered his own question, “Texas, it’s going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?” I replied, “Oh yeah!” Definitely.

It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck’s radio show, “I may run for president of Texas!”

I’m not saying that other states won’t muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic. Washington-on-the-Brazos (river) served as our Philadelphia, Pa. It was there, on March 2, 1836, where a band of patriots forged the Texas Declaration of Independence. (We just celebrated these dates last week.)

On March 1, 1845, then-President John Tyler signed a congressional bill annexing the Republic of Texas. Though the annexation resolution never explicitly granted Texas the right to secede from the Union (as is often reported), many (including me) hold that it is implied by its unique autonomy and history, as well as the unusual provision in the resolution that gave Texas the right to divide into as many as five states. Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also declare that “All political power is inherent in the people. … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we’d do if the going got rough in America. Let there be no doubt about that. As Sam Houston once said, “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

Just last Friday, the Alamo celebrated its 173rd commemoration, when on March 6, 1836, Texans under Col. William B. Travis were overcome by the Mexican army after a two-week siege at the Alamo in San Antonio. But they didn’t go down without a hell-of-a-fight, as those roughly 145 Texans fought to their dying breaths against more than 2,000 Mexican forces under Gen. Santa Anna. (Casualties in the battle were 189 Texans vs. about 1,600 Mexicans.) They lost that battle, but would provide the inspiration to win the war. Their fighting spirit rallied the new-found republic, and still does to this day. So when you think all is lost in America, remember the Alamo!

For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News’ Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn’s website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we’ve invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It’s our way of saying “We’re united, we’re tired of the corruption, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”

Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, “We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father’s name.”

(Note: Speaking of showdowns, Chuck is also inviting anyone near the Houston area this weekend to see a good example of the raw Texas fighting spirit by joining him and others for the national martial arts event, “Showdown in H-Town.”)

Worldnet Daily.com

Just A Reminder as you Get The Vote Out

Comments Off

I can’t say it this well….thanks Carl!

My fellow Americans:


  
As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor’s relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.
  
I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.
  
I would also like to thank the Kennedys for coming out in support of me. There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a female employee with whom he was having an extra marital affair and who was pregnant with his child. And I’m not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively. And I’d like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support.  Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.
  
Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement, but because I make people feel good.  Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt.   I say things that sound meaningful, but don’t really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning.  If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them.

Americans are tired of thinking. It’s time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart.  So when you go to vote, remember don’t think, just do.   And do it for me.   
  
  
 
Thank You.
 
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. 

What’s Obama Reading on the Campaign Trail?

1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look very carefully at the title of the book…

he’s reading “The Post-American World”…it’s the Muslim’s view.  Think about this before voting for the “superstar”.
You can’t consistently perform in a manner that is inconsistent with the way you see yourself”   Zig Ziglar 
Be afraid, be very afraid!  Pictures say a thousand words.
Steve

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers