Sotomayor, Guns, and the NRA

While perusing the comments from a gun issue article, I stumbled upon this comment posted by John Warren on June 5, 2009 at 9:12 pm. The evidence is before the court, and it’s hard to refute the guy’s point of view. We are on the slippery slope of socialism, let’s hope we don’t see our 2nd amendment rights go the way of so many of our autonomies have since the inception of the “Bill of Rights,” and the initial logic contained in that same document, our Constitution. Between Charles Darwin’s concept of the” survival of the fittest,” and John Locke’s assertion of the “laws of nature,” there is plenty of illumination why socialism, hasn’t worked. Nature has a way of shedding it’s dead weight, or adapting and overcoming adverse circumstance. Americans cannot and will not be saddled with the burden of an unconstitutional governing body.

I got to admit, I’m not a big fan of the NRA, because I believe they’ve made concessions in the past that sold us down the river, and I believe that when they are faced with a tough decision they concede and choose the lesser of two evils. As for the whole gun regulation/ban, and infringement on the 2nd amendment . . .  I can only wonder when we are gonna start pulverizing all the rocks on earth into a fine powder, because stoning people to death is one of the oldest and traditional ways of being judged by your peers. How did David slay Goliath? If they take away the best method of protection, people are only going to resort to the second best method of protection . . . it may not be rocks immediately, but a baseball bat might be my second best choice. Who do they think they’re fooling? The idea of banning weapons is as dumb as Obama’s economic policy, and it don’t get much dumber than that!

As far as Sotomayor being a member of our supreme court . . . I think we need to base that decision on her qualifications and her positions on the issues, not on her life story, her gender, or her ethnic background. If “POTUS IGNORAMUS.” wants to impress me by making history, all he has to do is come clean about his whereabouts for the first twenty years of his life and produce a “live certificate of birth.” Anyhow from the keyboard of, to the retinas of your eyeballs, and beyond, let us take heed to what old John Warren had to say . . .

“In 2012 we must vote for Governor Mitt Romney to become our President starting on January 20, 2013, and we must vote for Governor Sarah Palin to become our Vice President on January 20, 2013 because of their superior rightwing conservative philosophy. Their superior rightwing conservative philosophy is shown in that they are pro God and Christianity, pro life, pro marriage; pro guns-second amendment, pro low taxes, pro low government spending; pro small government, pro unintrusive government, pro traditional and Judeo Christian values; pro Bible reading and prayer in our public schools, pro Christians schools and private education , pro private and free enterprise; pro military spending, anti arms agreements with Russia, pro creation; pro nuclear, pro conservative supreme court judges, pro American sovereignty; pro capitalism, anti communist, anti socialist; conservative on immigration, and pro constitution. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are of the inferior liberal and left wing ideology in that they are against every thing that Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are for and they are for every thing that Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are against.”                                          John Warren

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/04/klukowski_gun_issue_sotomayor/comment-page-19/#comments

Below is the article upon which John Warren commented

KLUKOWSKI: Gun Issue Heats Up for Sotomayor as NRA Appeals to Supreme Court

By Ken Klukowski

This week a federal appeals court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state or city gun laws. Supporters of Judge Sonia Sotomayor incorrectly argue that this affirms her recent gun-control case. Now the NRA is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, and in doing so heats up the gun-rights issue to potentially become the dominant topic in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.

On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its decision in NRA v. Chicago. The city of Chicago has a ban on handguns almost as severe as the one invalidated by the Supreme Court last year in D.C. v. Heller. The National Rifle Association filed suit, seeking to have the Chicago gun ban struck down.

The Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to state or city laws. All three judges on the panel hearing the case were appointed by Republican presidents. In January, Sotomayor was on a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit that similarly held that the Second Amendment affects only federal law, not state or local law. Supporters of Sotomayor are touting the Chicago ruling as proof that her Second Circuit case, Maloney v. Cuomo, was a mainstream opinion, arguing that the Seventh Circuit agrees with her.

But that’s not exactly correct. It’s true that both courts reached the same conclusion. It’s also fair to say that this is not a “pro-gun” opinion, so gun owners shouldn’t be thrilled with it. But it’s not an “anti-gun” ruling, either. The circuit court here released a nine-page analysis delving into this issue in an even-handed manner, written by one of the best-regarded appellate judges in the nation.

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Then during the 1900s, the Supreme Court began applying (or “incorporating”) most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before that time, the Supreme Court had held back in 1876, and again in 1886, that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. But it never had an occasion to revisit the Second Amendment during the 1900s incorporation cases. It also did not need to do so last year in the Heller case because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave, not a state, and is therefore directly controlled by the Bill of Rights.

As recently as 1997 the Supreme Court reiterated that even old precedents from the High Court bind all lower courts. The Seventh Circuit appropriately noted the Supreme Court’s instructions, and concluded that questions about whether the Second Amendment is incorporated, “are for the [Supreme Court’s] Justices rather than a court of appeals.” In other words, they recognized that after last year’s Heller case the Supreme Court appeared ready to incorporate the Second Amendment, but the Seventh Circuit considered their hands tied on the issue. They essentially have tossed the case up to the Supreme Court.

Contrast the Seventh Circuit’s opinion with Sotomayor’s Maloney case from the Second Circuit. This week the Seventh Circuit devoted nine pages to its analysis. The Ninth Circuit, which held in April that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, devoted 12 pages to its analysis.

Sotomayor’s Second Circuit devoted merely a single paragraph to the issue. The opinion does not even note that there has been a century of Supreme Court cases—15 cases, to be exact—incorporating various Bill of Rights provisions to the states. It simply embraced the 1886 Supreme Court case on the issue, said the Second Amendment does not apply whatsoever to the states, and then dropped the issue without further discussion.

Well-crafted judicial opinions lay out legal rules with clear reasoning to interpret the Constitution and provide guidance to other courts. The Second Circuit was the first appeals court after the Heller decision to consider whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. To routinely discard such an important question with a single paragraph is simply stunning.

Now this issue may become the single hottest issue in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, because one of these cases—most likely NRA v. Chicago—will almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court in the next 12 months. The NRA petitioned on Wednesday for the Supreme Court to take the case, and various groups are already lining up to support the petition.

That means that whoever sits on the Court will decide this issue that is so important to millions of American voters. This already red-hot issue now becomes white-hot, as gun owners realize that the future of their Second Amendment rights is likely to get a second look from the nation’s highest court.

Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

ITS OFFICIAL THE OBAMA BASHING CAN BEGIN: WAS FOULING UP THE OATH AN OMEN OR IS OUR NEW POTUS JUST A DUMB ASS?

Let the scrutinizing begin! It seems that the anti-right has been on an eight year tirade, invoked solely to slander and destroy the former president. Well now the official scrutiny of the Democratic Messiah can begin. No longer can he hide behind his words, now it is time for Barrack Hussein Obama to put up or shut up! Now is the time for Americans of any political affiliation to adopt the principles of those who live in the state of Missouri, that’s right Mr. President, “Show Me, Don’t Tell Me!”

obama-inauguration-lk0424d

Over the last several years, we have learned that it is more than acceptable to criticize our leader for even the slightest gaff or mispronunciation. I would certainly encourage anyone with the smarts to make a “chimpomatic” for Barak, just as Google had done for GWB. The chimpomatic, for those of you not in the know, was a computer generated program that Google allowed people to attach to their IGoogle page, and it unendingly displayed GWB’s gaffs.  Hmmm! I wonder if that would be politically correct. I’m sure the former head of the NAACP, the great Rev. Joseph Lowery, would frown upon the association of Obama and a chimp-omatic while he still exercises his rights to free speech with the likes of  his racial comment, “white would embrace the right,” during Obama’s divinization, i mean benediction, while being inaugurated. Nonetheless, his having to repeat his oath of office because he duffed it at the inauguration, would be a good place to start on an Obama chimpomatic.

 

Speaking of the inauguration, and returning to my original gibe at the new “POTUS ignoramus,” is it an omen of his presidency that he is already asking for a redo? I can’t speak for everyone, but it certainly appears that way in my eyes. I mean how big of a dumb ass do you have to be to fail to repeat the words that are spoken in front of you? Makes me wonder if he is truly married to Michelle, after all he did have to repeat some words there too. I guess he and the other great Reverend in his life, Reverend Wright, probably spoke some of the same Chicago style ebonics. Furthermore, I just like to state for clarification, when I say “ignoramus” I don’t mean it in the sense that G. Ruggle portrayed it in his play, “Ignoramus.”  No! No! No! I mean it in its original sense, ya know lawyerly like; rather than go on confusing you, I believe I shall just borrow the definition from dictionary.com. Along with the contemporary form of usage, here are the others listed at their website:

 

[From New Latin ignōrāmus, a grand jury's endorsement upon a bill of indictment when evidence is deemed insufficient to send the case to a trial jury, from Latin, we do not know, first person pl. present tense of ignōrāre, to be ignorant; see ignore.]

 

1577, Anglo-Fr. legal term, from L. ignoramus “we do not know,” first person present indicative of ignorare “not to know” (see ignorant). The legal term was one a grand jury could write on a bill when it considered the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. Sense of “ignorant person” came from the title role of George Ruggle’s 1615 play satirizing the ignorance of common lawyers.

 

(Law) We are ignorant; we ignore; — being the word formerly written on a bill of indictment by a grand jury when there was not sufficient evidence to warrant them in finding it a true bill. The phrase now used is, “No bill,” “No true bill,” or “Not found,” though in some jurisdictions “Ignored” is still used. –Wharton (Law Dict. ).

 

Even I am ferhoodled when I refer to Obama as, POTUS ignoramus,” after consulting the origins of the word, I find that there are actually three interpretations that are befitting. I’m certain someone else will find a different spin. Feel free to let me know.

 

Anyways, of the three, I must admit I like the reference to the Latin meaning, “we do not know,” the most. Simply stated, the man is like Wonder Woman, except he is a man . . . at least I think, as time will prove if he actually has any balls . . . or if he’ll straddle the fence for his entire presidency; anyway, I digress, but I know I’m in a state of wonderment about him, the guy hasn’t disclosed squat about himself, yet he holds the highest office in the land; therefore “we do not know.”

 

Moving on to the lawyerly analysis we can assert two separate meanings; although they are sort of entwined. First let us take a peek at the part of the definition that states, “we ignore; — being the word formerly written on a bill of indictment by a grand jury when there was not sufficient evidence to warrant them in finding it a true bill.”  Yea, I understand we are not exactly dealing with finances, however, the supreme court, when petitioned, failed to provide “sufficient evidence” that Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen, so I’m going to go ahead and call it like a lot of people see it. Until there is some form of factual proof, I’m going to treat him as an Ignoramus, and do like the Wharton Law dictionary does, that’s right, I’m going to IGNORE his pseudo-presidency.

 

Lastly, and although partially associated with the aforementioned ideology, I’m going to incite the “no true bill” definition. However I must admit I see it slightly different; I see the empty suit as a “bill of goods.” In one hue, I view him as a guy who is not legitimately the president as he failed to produce valid documentation proving his status as a natural born citizen; hence, he sold us a ”bill of goods,” which is no true bill. Tinted in a slightly different shade, the same assertation can be depicted to illuminate the fact that he ran off at the mouth with a million and one promises of what he is going to do for the lower and middle class people, when those of us who have even the slightest clue know that he sold us a “bill of goods,” or no good bill, if you will! Nonetheless, I’ll be amazed if he honors ten percent of all his campaign promises. And for those who will argue the point thatr the economy is failing and he can’t honor his promises, keep in mind that the economy crashed in September, yet he still peddled his wares after the fact to keep the votes rolling his way.  Feel free to apply whichever version that suits your needs, but understand that twas I who dubbed him POTUS ignoramus.”

 

Getting over the natural born citizen thing is not an impossible feat; that depends on how he handles his administration. However, what is enraging is the precedent that his disrespect for the electoral process has brought about; and that is not so forgivable. If there aren’t some serious checks implement-ed in time for the next presidential election, there will undoubtedly be some serious implications.

 

Obama has a long row to hoe. It was his decision to throw his hat into the ring at such an early stage in life, even when he said he wouldn’t because of his lack of experience; the consequence is that now he will have to reap what he has sown. Experience dictates that things that are forced, things that are not meant to be, usually end up in chaos, and you can fully expect that is what will happen. One of life’s little lessons is that respect must be earned; you cannot just take it, as the end result is resentment. Old Tom Cochran may have sung about life being a highway, but it sure as hell isn’t the Chisholm Trail, and the majority of us can’t be prodded along like cattle by the whimsy of a politician.

 

One can expect that there are going to be a lot of cloudy days in the no so distant future; the POTUS ignoramus,” will certainly reap what he has sown. Undoubtedly, greatness can be projected, but talking about it and achieving it are two different things. The biblical logic of not worshipping false idols is actually a two way street, first and foremost, if one holds to much praise for someone else, they tend to not value their own potential, as they view themselves as not worthy. On the other hand, from the idols perspective, I think I’ll borrow a phrase from the Kansas song Carry On My Wayward Son;” the phrase being, if I claim to be a Wiseman, it surely means that I don’t know.”

 

I don’t claim to be a wise man, however I do know that people like to destroy their idols, and even more so do they like to decimate those who are self-proclaimed to be special. If I may spout one more quip, I’d just like to say “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!”

 

Feel free to tune in for more witticism and banter, as I’ll be here all week, err … for the next four years, same Bat station, same Bat channel . . . “Its Official, the Obama Bashing Has begun . . . again!”

Like Rodney Dangerfield our flag gets no respect

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Only regimental colors, state flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

  1aaaoflag2

 

Pursuant to TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 (G) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

 

 

BERG FILES A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF A RETIRED COLONEL

The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further, OBAMA is named as “BARRY SOETORO” as that is his “real” name when he was legally adopted in Indonesia

01/02/09: The latest in the Berg vs. Obama Case No. 08 – 570 is that there are two conferences scheduled; one for January 9, 2009 to hear the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the other for January 16, 2009 to hear the Petition for Injunction.

http://www.obamacrimes.info/thelatest.html

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION TO STAY ELECTORAL VOTES ON DECEMBER 15, 2008

(Washington, D.C. – 12/08/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States today filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Application for an Injunction to Stay the Electoral Votes on December 15, 2008 and prohibit V.P. Richard B. Cheney, the House of Representatives and the Senate counting any votes for Obama until Obama Proves his is “Qualified” to be President.

Berg filed this while waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Writ of Certiorari that he filed on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants regarding “standing.”

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Berg continued , “Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified.”

Colorado State Troopers Still Waiting On Overtime Pay from DNC

Article by McKenzie Martin

 

Dozens of cops from southern Colorado put in long hours of work at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. More than three months later, some Colorado State Patrol troopers are still waiting for their overtime pay.

The fifty-six Colorado Springs Police officers received their pay for the week right away, as did the six El Paso County Sheriff’s deputies who went north to help out.

A State Patrol spokesperson in Denver says more than 300 troopers from across the state are still waiting on their overtime pay from the DNC.

“I think that’s a question that people have been concerned about, the DNC was in August, here we are in December,” said Jeremy Gudday with the Troopers Association.

The troopers affected are from all across the state, those who worked more than 160 hours in 28 days.

“Every member of our organization that worked the event is going to be compensated either monetarily or they will be compensated with time,” said Sgt. John Hahn with the Colorado State Patrol.

He says the troopers won’t have a choice though as to which kind of compensation they get and he says the $151,000 that’s involved was paid for by federal funds.

“Obliviously we are in a tough economic times for everyone involved, our citizens, members of the organization and throughout our communities,” Hahn said.

Which is why some troopers just want their money, others say time is more important. The troopers association is working with the chief’s office to resolve the hold up. Hahn says there are several reasons as to why it’s taken so long. They are hoping to have it resolved in the next couple days.

Hahn says they’re also working to find the right balance of compensation so public safety isn’t in jeopardy.

 

http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/35447549.html

Fox Toledo News airs Berg v. Obama story

    

 

 

Full Page Ad in Washington Times Weekly

November 17, 2008

 obamaad1

Three Unanswered Questions:

 

Was Barack Obama Born in Kenya?

Is He Really a Citizen of Indonesia?

Does the Constitution still Matter?

 

Electors are sworn to uphold it with their vote on December 15th in the Electoral College. But they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the Constitutional requirements for the office of President beginning with being a natural born citizen.

 

That’s what Philip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to verify. The Supreme Court has asked for a response from Senator Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until December 1st to respond. Other cases have been filed asking for the same thing.

 

Not extreme. Not fringe.

Just Constitutional.

 

Obama says he’s qualified. But, Berg, multiple legal suits and a growing number of American citizens are saying: “Prove it.” A basic, vital and Constitutional request.

 

Why won’t Obama answer such a simple and essential request?

 

Exhibit A: The Grandmother’s tape

 

Barack Obama’s own grandmother said he was born in Kenya. While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie. It’s recorded on tape:

 

“I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” – Sarah Obama, Obama’s paternal grandmother

 

Exhibit B: No Original Birth Certificate

 

Experts have called the Certification of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Berg reported “It’s clearly been altered,” which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Add to this the Hawaiian law at the time which allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor’s signature) up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

 

Exhibit C: Indonesian citizenship

 

Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended the Indonesian school where he was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian, his religion as Islam, and his

father as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was also no dual citizenship at the time. If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.

 

Exhibit D: U.S. Law

 

In addition, according to U.S. law pertaining to births broad, from “Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986,” in order to register he child’s birth as a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, he or she must be: 1. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR 2. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which must be after the age of 14. Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal require-ments of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 14. Either the Constitution matters or it doesn’t. If we are willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?

 

1. Sign the form below and send it in or sign the petition on the website www.ObamaCrimes.com

 

2. Call your Congressional Representative at: 202-224-3121. Ask them to verify that the Constitutional requirements have been met and request them to conduct Congressional hearings immediately.

 

3. Pray for all of the hidden things to come to light and call on the media to report this Constitutional crisis.

 

4. Donate to help defend our Constitution:

 

Philip J. Berg, Esq., 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 www.ObamaCrimes.com

 

The United States Constitution Article II, Section 1 includes these words:

 

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

 

WE DEMAND ANSWERS BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION MATTERS!

 

 

Obama Crimes Ad – Wash Times 20081117.pdf

This ad ran on page 5 of the November 17th, 2008 edition of the Washington Times National Weekly

 

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/065_Obama%20Crimes%20Ad%20-%20Wash%20Times%2020081117.pdf

    

Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama’s COLB

SO OBAMA WANTS IT TO GO AWAY?

SO OBAMA WANTS IT TO GO AWAY?

 

Globe Magazine has an article in the December 8, 2008 edition that provides details about Larry Sinclair and his new book “Obama & Larry Sinclair: Coke, Sex, Lies & Murder?”

 

Obama remained cool headed during his historic run for the White House shrugging off every nasty attack. But sources close to Obama now say he is incensed by the book and labels it as a “vicious and hurtful attempt to taint” the incoming president.

 

“Barack Obama is absolutely livid about this book,” reveals a Beltway insider. “He says its all a bunch of crap and he wants it to go away.

 

“This inauguration is not only important to the nation, it’s important to the entire world,” noted the insider. “We don’t want to see Larry Sinclair’s outrageous words take away from that one bit.”

 

“…sources say Obama’s wife Michelle is equally upset by the
allegations…”

 

Now people close to the President-elect declare “it’s time for Sinclair to stop making his lurid allegations and forget about writing a book.” “Enough is enough,” blasts the insider. “Our country is in trouble right now and we don’t need this nonsense.” But Sinclair says he has no plans to scrap his book.

 

OBAMA DOESN’T WANT THE WORD OUT ABOUT THE BOOK!

 

Barack Obama and the Obama team do not want word of my upcoming book to get out. Or is that Obama and the Obama team do not want the TRUTH about him revealed? I say it is the latter.

 

I believe the world that Barack Obama says is so in love with him, should know exactly what this man is about, how he and his associates manipulated the world media into giving him a free pass and suppressing this story and the attacks his organization leveled against me.

 

This book will give in-depth detail of every aspect of this encounter from the Chicago 1999 trip to current date.

Sorry Barack, but this book is going to come out, and I will make sure it is center stage in DC for the some 4 million you plan on busing in to witness you taking your “Throne.”

 

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

Past Controversies Hang Over Obama’s Cabinet Picks

Cabinet picks could produce bloody confirmation hearings

FOXNews.com

Saturday, November 22, 2008

As President-elect Barack Obama quickly selects officials for his administration, attention is starting to turn to the potential obstacles they face in Senate confirmation hearings.

The Associated Press, citing a Democratic source, reports that John Podesta, a leader of Obama’s transition team, had told Senate aides on Friday that Obama hoped for a speedy confirmation so the new administration could get to work quickly thereafter.

But past controversies involving some of his picks could make for bloody hearings.

The latest list of Obama’s expected Cabinet selections includes Hillary Clinton for secretary of state, Timothy Geithner as his Treasury secretary, Eric Holder as his attorney general, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for commerce secretary and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for secretary of the Homeland Security Department.

Senators will have to decide in the confirmation hearings whether to broach Richardson’s involvement, though marginal, in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, as well as Napolitano’s work in the Anita Hill sexual harassment case and Holder’s support of President Clinton’s controversial pardon of Marc Rich.

Although none of these nominations is expected to fail, it is possible some could be delayed.

Richardson’s nomination could be haunted by two incidents. 

First, he offered Lewinsky a job at the United Nations in what prosecutors called an attempt to buy her silence on behalf of President Bill Clinton, according to FOX News’ Washington Deputy Managing Editor Bill Sammon’s book, “Meet the Next President.”

Richardson also could face a Capitol grilling for accusations he faced from both Democratic and Republican senators for failing to properly safeguard nuclear secrets after he left his U.N. post to become energy secretary.

After delaying Richardson’s appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2000 for inquiries into security lapses at Los Alamos National Laboratories, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia told him he would never again receive Senate support for any office he sought.

“You have squandered your treasure,” Byrd told him.

And though Napolitano, who was re-elected Arizona’s governor in 2006, has spent all of her political career in that state, she is no stranger to Washington controversy.

As a private attorney in Phoenix in 1991, Napolitano was part of the legal team representing Anita Hill, a former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission colleague of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, whom Hill had accused of sexual harassment. Her work on that case postponed Napolitano’s own Senate confirmation as U.S. attorney but did not derail Thomas’ confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

At the time, some Republicans suggested she coached a witness for Hill into changing testimony. Napolitano refused to answer questions about that on grounds it would violate the lawyer-client confidentiality agreement.

She was the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney for Arizona when the Justice Department decided against prosecuting Sen. John McCain’s wife, Cindy, for stealing prescription drugs from her medical charity, but she took no part in that case because she was awaiting Senate confirmation, on which McCain was to vote.

The biggest obstacle facing Obama’s choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, could be his pardon of Marc Rich during the Clinton administration.

Rich was the fugitive billionaire who was given a pardon by Clinton on his final day in office. Rich’s estranged wife, Denise Rich, was a high-paying donor to Clinton.

Senate Republicans have told Obama aides that the Rich pardon would come up during hearings but that the nomination likely wouldn’t be held up, according to a person involved in the talks.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/22/past-controversies-hang-obamas-cabinet-picks/

Pro Obama Community Organizer Group Involved in (More) Voter Fraud

A community organization, with longstanding ties to Barrack Obama, has, according to numerous reports, repeatedly run afoul of voter registration laws both locally and nationally. Just a few of the headlines in circulation:

  • “Felony charges filed against 7 in Washington State’s biggest case of voter-registration fraud perpetuated by ACORN”
  • “Hampton police last week charged Brittany Wyatt and Jessica Lemon, both 18-year-olds working for Community Voters Project, who live in Newport News, with one count of voter fraud”
  • “Missouri ACORN Voter Fraud Scandal Makes the National News”
  • “Voter fraud case traced to Defiance County registrations volunteer”
  • “Pro-Obama Community Organizer Group Involved in (More) Voter Fraud”
  • “The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has been caught in another voter registration scandal, this time here in Milwaukee”

Reports are circulating that the recent financial bailout includes a sizeable contribution to the thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN. Under the original bailout proposal, apparently, a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would have gone to Barrack Obama’s good friends at ACORN. After being exposed in the national main stream media, legislators in congress have retracted any monies earmarked for ACORN. ACORN is currently is under investigation for its connection to a national voter fraud scam.

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/category/acorn/

http://www.palestra.net/blogs/read/18074

 

http://boycottoprahsponsors.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/uh-oh-confirmed-voter-fraud-in-new-mexico-palestra/

Surround yourself with the facts about Baraq

In an interview before the Republican National Convention, Niger Innis, the spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) expounded that “It was clear that Barack Obama’s ties to the left are familial, generational, and have lasted for several years.” He went on to say that “as a black American, he was exceedingly proud at the American people’s response to Barack Obama’s candidacy,” Innis expanded his perception by averring that “. . . to deny that he [Obama] has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kinds of questions, and he has to come up with the answers, hopefully they will be the truth.”

In conformity with this admonition, it is only prudent to acknowledge that the uncertainties that surround the democratic nominee for president must be brought to bear. As it is in the best interest of the public that. In the last 19 months, or so, that Obama has been involved in the bid for the United States Presidency, there have been many doubts expressed about Obama’s character and personal history. In some instances Obama has chosen to circumvent his obligations to provide specific answers that are defined by the certitude the American populace deserves. In other cases, he has chosen to simply ignore what has been asked of him. In light of his ambiguity, the only choice remaining for voters is to conceive what is likely to have transpired. His refusal to submit to the regulations encompassed in the requirements for presidential candidates is an insult to voters and to the United States Constitution.

There is something to be said about the aloofness surrounding Barack Obama. It’s not a pleasant thought; however, Obama’s misrepresentations and lack of transparency on numerous concerns surrounding his personal history, including his relationship with Bill Ayers, his lying about the extent of his relationship with Rezko, by not making his thesis public, by not making his State Senate papers public, by not making his medical records public, by not making his State Senate schedule public, by not making his Occidental records public, by not making his Columbia records public, by not making his Harvard records public, by never publishing his articles while he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, by never publishing his scholarly articles while at University of Chicago, by not making his law client list public, by not making any of his life associates and friends public, by resisting the call for the release of the Annenberg papers, and by precluding other transparencies while instructing people he associated to remain silent, and especially his refusal to present an original certificate of birth leave the public as though they are being hoodwinked. Most importantly, his lack of clarity about his ties to Middle Eastern interests has led some people to believe he is a ringer for the White House; accordingly his radical associations suggest that it is his intention to undermine the United States government, in favor of a less autonomous form of government. This mind-set is not just inherent skepticism; it is a genuine fear to some that Obama has been groomed for the presidency, by interests that are not beneficial to Americans.

Correspondingly, Obama also imparts the feeling that he has been planning a bid for the presidency since his being a community organizer. It’s decidedly apparent that his affiliation with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is not just happenstance. It’s evident that the experience he gained from “Project Vote” would serve him in running a political campaign at some point in the future. In addition his contact with and support for less fortunate people have made him out to be a hero championed by those people. His rise in stature in the eyes of the poor can be equated through his representation of ACORN, as part of a team of attorneys in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal law designed to make it easier for the poor and others to register as voters. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with these involvements, in fact they appear philanthropic; however, it also reveals the basic tenets necessary for a surreptitious strategy that could lead to “socialist construction” in a free market society. By rallying the poor through the pretense that they are being exploited by the rich, Obama and his friends have created a voting base that helped him to gain his seat in the Illinois State Legislature. It s that same strategy and base, he used to get elected to the U.S. Senate, and the exact same one he is using in his bid for the presidency.

It’s uncanny that all the ducks on the Obama pond are in such a straight line, and are so squeaky clean; what is unsettling, is that his public image appears painstaking arranged. There is something illogical about a person spending so much time and money obtaining a Columbia education, and then immediately pursuing a life as a community organizer. The idea that someone who grew up dirt poor would immediately become a philanthropist after obtaining higher education just doesn’t add up. The only plausible explanation is that Barack Obama had some sort of an ulterior motive. It leads one to believe that his involvement in A.C.O.R.N. was nothing more than a vehicle to shuttle him along the route to national celebrity. Likewise, his many years of education are only a mechanism for propping up his over all agenda. It’s no coincidence he has chosen a curriculum steeped in the art of twisting the truth and the law.

Moving on, we see that among the many radicals Obama has been tied to since before his political career is the very dubious Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, formerly known as Don Warden. He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, and an educator. His worldly resume reads as though he should be running for the presidency. He sits on numerous corporate boards, including the Chicago-based LaGray Chemical Co, which was formed to do business in Africa, the non-profit African Leadership Academy, Africa Venture Partners Saudi African Bank, Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia), Space Tech Inc., AmNet Corp. International, New Avenues Fund Ltd, United Bank for Africa, United Networks, and Landmark Entertainment, He is also an internationally acknowledged advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America and a representative of OPEC. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35 years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s Investment Company. He has also represented the Saudi Arabian interests of King Abdullah, Prince Alwaleed, Abdul Aziz, and Khalid al-Ibrahim. During his career, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a guest lecturer at Harvard University, Bombay University, Columbia University, UCLA, University of Kenya, London School of Economics and the University of Ghana. He is also listed in the Who’s Who in the World; the International Who’s Who in the Arab World, the Two Thousand Men of Achievement, the Royal Blue Book of London, and the World’s Who’s Who of Intellectuals and American Hall of Fame. Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University (Phi Beta Kappa) and Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of California at Berkeley.  

Indeed, Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour has a pretty impressive resume. And it is understandable that most of these labels are inconsequential as far as radicalism is concerned; but they are indicative of the influence and power that a man like Khalid al-Mansour can have over the people that surround him. Khalid al-Mansour’s far-reaching ideology is exhibited in the most impressionable years of life through his ties to the Black Panthers. “The Social Activism Sound Recording Project” has identified Khalid al-Mansour, A.K.A Don Warden, as the mentor of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, co-founders of the Black Panthers. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were also former members of the Revolutionary Action Movement. The same Revolutionary Action Movement, whose members were charged with conspiring to destroy the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, and the Washington Monument through the use of explosives. Such radical groups follow the basic tenets of “Maoism,” which is essentially a revolutionary struggle of the people for the purpose of promoting socialistic goals. Although the Black Panthers started out as an organization to promote Black Power and self-defense, they evolved into a militant organization that promoted socialist ideas. During their existence, various police organizations claim the Black Panthers were responsible for the deaths of at least 15 law enforcement officers and the injuries of dozens more. Although Khalid al-Mansour was not directly implicated in any acts of violence, the doctrinaire of radical ideas can be seen in the actions of the extremist faction; the potential influence he has upon people is made unmistakable.

What is more evident of Khalid al-Mansour’s radicalism is the principles outlined in his writings and articulations; they are littered with Muslim themes illustrating anti-American propaganda, outspoken effronteries against Israel, and anti-Semitic theories. On video he has advocated that white Americans should cut off the ears and noses, or whatever it takes to eliminate people of the Jewish faith. According to personal statements made at a New York City book signing, it is Khalid al-Mansour’s belief that the United States of America has committed genocide against persons of African dissent, and that America has future intentions “to remove 15 million Black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value, or benefit to the American society.” Granted, there is no doubting that slavery has existed in the past, but dark skinned people are not the only people to ever have been enslaved, as evidenced amongst the Germanic tribes and the Roman Republic-Empire; and there is also evidence that opposing tribes of the African continent have sold their enemies into slavery as well. Moreover, it is a safer bet to believe the reasoning for Khalid al-Mansour’s conspiracy theory surrounding genocide is merely subterfuge in order to inspire hate, thereby perpetuating the Maoist schema. Given this knowledge, it is not far fetched to surmise that there is a good chance that Khalid al-Mansour is not only a radical figure, but he has an unstable personality as well. It is frightening to think that he might hold influence over Barack Obama.

One example of Khalid al-Mansour’s sway is that in 1995 he was able to arrange a social gathering for the President of Ghana at the Clinton White House with the ostracized pop star Michael Jackson in attendance. If Khalid al-Mansour had the ability to wield enough power over Bill Clinton to entertain at the White House, what else is this guy capable of? Still, the real $64,000 question is why was Khalid al-Mansour, reportedly, sought out by Bill Ayers to procure funding for Barack Obama’s Harvard education? The fact that Khalid al-Mansour funded Obama’s education is evidenced in an interview with Percy Sutton on the news channel, “New York One;” Percy Sutton was a former lawyer for Malcolm X, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, former borough president of Manhattan, and a frequent speaker at Harvard University functions. Percy Sutton was a former business associate of Khalid al-Mansour; Khalid al-Mansour contacted Sutton for the purpose of writing a letter of recommendation for Obama to secure Obama’s admission to Harvard University, in the process it was revealed that Khalid al-Mansour had secured an undisclosed source for financing Obama’s tuition. It is thought that the Saudi Arabian interests of Khalid al-Mansour are responsible for sponsoring Obama’s tuition money. The unknown quotient is what Khalid al-Mansour and his benefactors will required in return for helping Obama to attend such a prestigious institution. In the same instance, the public is still in the dark concerning so of the major financial contributions to the Obama campaign; the donors are required to be disclosed, as the public has a right to know.

Paralleling the radicalism of the Black Panthers is a group led by William Ayers known as the weathermen. Granted, Ayers is not as well connected as Khalid al-Mansour, but he is equally as radical, if not more so. Along with Bernardine Dohrn, the group is most famous for a campaign consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots, from 1969 through the middle 1970s. The “Days of Rage“, the group’s first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago coordinated with the trial of the Chicago Eight. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization”

In any case, the ideologies practiced by Khalid al-Mansour, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and other left wing radical community leaders that Obama has been tied to, need to be called into question. In writing his book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama alludes to the fact that while in high school he purposely chose a Communist Party USA member as his socio-political counselor and while in college he purposely sought out Marxist professors; also, while in college he spent a great deal of time studying the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonial-ism,” authored by the infamous Frantz Fanon, who champions violence. He also mentions that, while at the University of Columbia, he neglected his studies to go to Cooper Union symposiums that had socialist themes. Given this knowledge, it’s not hard to identify that Obama had socialistic tendencies long before he met the likes of Khalid al-Mansour and William Ayers. 

          Commensurately, in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama tells us that, “It was into my father’s image . . . that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”  He goes on to say, “I did feel that there was something to prove . . . to my father” in his efforts at political organizing. All one needs to do is read the senior thesis, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” of Barak H. Obama Sr, to grasp the ideology that has been instilled in Barack Obama Jr. Some of the ideologies allowed for in Barak H. Obama Sr.’s senior thesis from UCLA are the nationalization and outright confiscation of foreign owned enterprises, the abolishment of free enterprise, the redistribution of wealth, price regulations for those businesses tied to the service industry, and 100% taxation of income as long as the people get benefits from the government. If that is not a radical approach to socialism then what is? More importantly, is the effect that ideology had on the young Obama. Off topic, but relevant is another mystery; why has Obama chosen to spell his name different from his father and why has he changed his name so many times? What is it that he is hiding from?

Further, his associations with leaders from organizations like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground who focused on socialistic ideas, masked as actions of self-defense, indicate his support for a socialistic society. There is no doubting that the ideologies espoused by these militant groups border on the communistic theories outlined in Friedrich Engels’ “Principles of Communism.” The Black Panther’s Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and Don Warden [a.k.a. Khalid al-Mansour], and The Weatherman’s Bill Ayers, relied heavily on the works of Karl Marx, Lenin, and Mao to obtain information for coordinating their efforts as insurgent activists. Intentionally working toward a national insurrection, they considered themselves front line factions, “committed to organizing support for socialist revolutions.”

Obama’s interest in the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonialism” authored by Frantz Fanon is not a fleeting ideology; his desire to rule and restructure our economy in socialistic ways is imbedded in his conscious and day to day actions, and his associations with leaders of radical organizations. Although he claims to be for unity, his driving a wedge between the populace in order to attract voters belies his real agenda.

The effect of the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonialism” can be seen in Obama’s campaign, in the concept of using the “lumpenproletariat” as a base for his national debut. “Lumpenproletariat” is of German etymology and refers to the raggedy proletariat, or those who live on the fringes of life including criminals, ruffians and those who choose not to be employed, it is a term first defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in “The German Ideology”. “The German Ideology,” written by Marx and Engels, is a restatement of their theories of history. In any case, Khalid al-Mansour and the Black Panthers did not fully agree with Karl Marx’s analysis of the so-called lumpenproletariat. Marx thought that this class lacked the political consciousness required to lead a revolution. Huey Newton, on the other hand, was inspired by his reading of post-colonial theorist Frantz Fanon and his belief that the lumpen was of utmost importance. Newton said about these “brothers off the block” that, “If you didn’t relate to these cats, the power structure would organize these cats against you.” Obama takes this to heart and utilizes it by blaming McCain and the Republican Party.

In light of his lack of transparency, his campaign tactics, his known associations, his corrupt campaign financing, his association with ACORN and their monkeyshines, his support and acquiescence of for his father’s ideology, and his voting record, or lack thereof, voters need to seriously consider why they are willing to elect Obama for the highest office in the land.

 

 

Will Obama’s Collection Plate Come Back Empty: Fearful Investors May Seek Shelter

I found this post in a comments section . . . hope I don’t get sued for using it, but I hope even more that those better off in our society don’t resort to using this strategy, as it would crush us. Even so, the guy has a valid point and you can’t blame him for looking out for number one. So without further ado . . .  

“I don’t think there’s too many people in this country that want to continue this downward spiral of greater debt, more corporate and bank bailouts, more borrowing from China, more foreclosures, more unemployment and layoffs, and more war. I believe that both Obama and McCain know that if they are elected and keep us on the current compass heading, they’ll be looking for a job in 4 years. They may argue about the best METHOD to get us back on track,”

Well, there you go. Analyze the economics involved and you will discover that Obama’s answer is more government spending, bigger bureaucracy, and higher taxes on the golden geese who make the economy work. As I said some time ago, in a post far, far away, the problem with Obama’s plan to tax the rich is that the rich are the people who ALREADY pay the majority share, per capita, of actual tax revenues collected. I saw a chart in the paper two days ago that said it all.

The top one percent of income earners, those who make more than $336,550 per year pay a 35% tax rate and actually pay 33% of the collected revenues the government gets. The top 50% of earners, those who earn more than $123,700 per year, pay 54% of the taxes collected. However, that top 50% comprises only SEVEN PERCENT of all tax returns filed.

Thus, we have seven percent of the taxpaying public paying 54% of the taxes, and 93 percent of taxpayers paying only 46 percent of revenues collected. How is that fair? Obama’s idea of fairness is “because they have money, and the middle class doesn’t.” Pure Socialist rhetoric.

On the other hand, 47% of the tax returns filed are filed by people who make between $15,100 and $61,300, and pay at a 15% tax rate, but they pay ONLY 20% of the revenue collected. That 47% of the taxpaying public consumes the lion’s share of public resources, so why do they only have to pay for 20% of the costs involved?

Twenty-four percent of taxpayers, who make less than $15,100, pay at 10% rate and pay 1 percent of the tax revenues collected.

To complete the list, four percent of taxpayers make $123,700 to $188,450, pay at 28%, and pay 11 percent of revenues, and two percent of taxpayers make $188,450 to $336,550, pay at 33% and pay 10 percent of the revenues.

So, under Obama, if you make less than $250,000 per year, which is somewhere in the middle of the 33% tax bracket, you’ll pay less taxes. This means that the upper third or so of taxpayers will be paying MORE than 54% of the tax burden, perhaps a LOT more, while the “middle class” will be getting a free ride. And all of this ignores the other, unstated percentage of citizens who don’t pay any taxes at all, who will be getting “free money” from the upper third of income earners. And the lower 75% of taxpayers will be consuming 99 percent of the public resources while paying less than their fair share.

Now, this is a lovely Socialist wealth-redistribution scheme perfect fitting Obama’s Socialist tendencies, but it ignores a major unintended consequence.

The top tier of income earners, those who pay ONE-THIRD of all the tax revenues collected, are wealthy enough to stuff their capital under their mattress (metaphorically speaking), stop earning ANYTHING for four years, and cause Obama’s utopia to collapse when ONE-THIRD (or 50% or more under Obama’s plan) of the money he’s counting on to hand out to the welfare statists among us simply disappears into thin air.

They can do this because the revenues collected are based not on how much cash some “rich” person has in the bank, but on how much they *earn* from their cash. I.e.: how much interest or return on their INVESTMENT they realize.

So, first, recognize that the amount of cash that this top-tier has is enough that they are not *required* to invest, they will only invest if it suits them and they will make a profit. Second, recognize that they already pay 33 percent of taxes collected from the INTEREST ON THEIR INVESTMENTS. Not the principle, the INTEREST.

Guess what happens to government income if they stop investing for four years, something they can easily do?

Guess how much new tax Obama can collect if the top-tier doesn’t make any income that can be taxed? You do the math.

Worse yet, it is the top-tier of income earners that ALSO employ everybody else, either directly through businesses and “evil corporations” they own, or indirectly through investment in those companies.

If you think the mortgage meltdown was bad, just wait till nervous investors (not just the top-tier, but at least the top 50%, and arguably the top 75% of taxpayers) dump their investments and stick their money in non-interest bearing bank accounts because they don’t want to be subject to confiscatory ObamaTax.

That’s certainly what I’m going to do (I HAVE savings because I’m smarter than Wall Street), because I’d rather spend my savings supporting myself for four years than give it to Obama to give to welfare slugs. This means that if Obama wins, I won’t be paying ANY taxes at all, because I won’t be earning any money at all, I’ll just be spending my savings to try to survive Obama’s reign. Heck, I won’t even have to file a return.

There’s no reason “the rich” can’t do exactly the same thing, in which case, his whole agenda collapses like the house of cards that it is. And I sincerely hope that the “rich” do exactly that, so that the Proletariat can experience “democracy” good and hard. That will guarantee a Conservative comeback big time in 2012.

On the other hand, if McCain wins, there is at least the *chance* that the economy will recover, because obviously, when tax rates on the “rich” are lowered, people are stimulated to invest because they see a potential for return on their investment that they don’t have to immediately turn over to the government. The more investment in the economy, and in small businesses, medium businesses and even “evil corporations” (you know who owns “Big Oil?” Ma and Pa, Grandma and Grandpa, Sister and Brother) the faster the economy grows. The faster the economy grows, the greater the tax revenues collected, even at lower marginal rates.

To make the analogy simple, what McCain wants to do is bake a much, much bigger pie by inducing investors to invest in the baking goods by giving government a smaller piece of that bigger pie, which actually results in a net increase in the amount of money government collects, because 15% of one pound is greater than 60% of nothing.

Obama wants to make the pie smaller and take 99% of it to give to the lower 50% of the people, while trying to charge the top 1% for all the baking supplies. Problems occur when the top 1% refuse to pay.

Obama’s plan simply will not and cannot work. He knows this, because he’s anything but stupid, but he will promise the Proletariat ANYTHING to get elected. Since he knows his plan will destroy the economy if he implements it, it therefore follows that he INTENDS to destroy our economy. We already know that he INTENDS to destroy our national sovereignty. So, destroy the economy and our national sovereignty and what do we end up with: The New World Order, where the UN runs the US, draining it of equity to enrich the “underdeveloped” nations of the world, because the US is evil and deserves to be chastised.

“but I don’t believe that Obama has some not-so-secret agenda to imprison all of us, make abortion mandatory, give America away to terrorists, part out our children to demons, kick our dogs and rape our wives.”

The fact is that Obama is a tax-and-spend, hard-left-wing Democrat who has absolutely no compunctions about imposing confiscatory taxes on people who make more than $250,000 per year NOT because it’s the “right thing to do”, but because it’s a populist tactic intended to win the election. He knows full well that he CANNOT do what he says he’s going to do, because he doesn’t set tax policy, and he knows (or he’ll find out) that the economy will tank even worse if he tries to punish the “rich” in order to enrich the middle-class. That’s not creation of wealth, that’s just redistribution, and it’s a temporary fix at best, because once the golden goose figures out it’s safer to sit on her eggs for four years than to invest it, only to have Obamastiltskin steal it away, the goose will fly the coop.

The original author stated that he/she was “(sorry about the mixed metaphors )” Perplexing? Yes! Do I care? No! After all they’re not mine! Fact is, I got it, and just maybe you need to revisit your nursery rhymes . . .

Obama Supporters Receive Sunshine, Rainbows, and the Inevitable Pot of Gold

rainbow_pot_of_gold_hg_wht

“I am my brother’s keeper”

Michelle Malkin summed it up when she wrote . . . “The phoniness reeks.

 

In my eyes, anybody that spends that kind of money and exerts that kind of effort to get elected needs to be questioned why. The fact that the guy reverted from the government funded campaign financing, when he said he would abide by it, says a lot about his character . . . he is a finagler of the worst sort. What raises my hackles more though, is that there is a good possibility that much of his campaign financing has come from foreign interests, who are not legally allowed to contribute to U.S. election campaigns.

What’s more maddening is that Obama has bent the truth an innumerable amount of times since campaigning for the oval office. From mistruths and omissions, to denials and outright lies . . . his message is always skewed. roughly stated to mean that he will solve all our problems, Obama claimed during the DNC that he would “heal the earth and calm the waters;” that political stunt was yet another of his skewed attempts to gain your vote. Last night, Obama held out another Romanesque attempt, this time without the styrofoam columns. This time, by parading sob stories of mortgages gone wrong, torrid tales of ailing health, and by exciting our fears brought on by our economic circumstance; his intention was to paint the world as a miserable place, and Obama has succeeded. Hardly even before the painting had a chance to dry, Obama began anew by splashing fresh paint on the gloomy future he had just illustrated; piously, Obama went on to add some of his patented and proprietary sunshine, the kind that Obama, and he alone, can only provide. After that, Obama added a few of his trademarked rainbows, and surprisingly, he stopped short of promising a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow; although Obama has recently alluded to the fact that we will actually have to wait until he is elected to receive our pots of gold.  Truth be told, Obama has already gleaned to us, his intentions with a different sort of rainbow, one where the colors are not so bright. All one needs to do is peer into the world of those related to our freshly resurrected “messiah,” and you will find out exactly how Obama cares for those around him.

 

Here is a brief excerpt from Michelle Malkin’s blog:

 

Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr. Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

The US press has repeatedly rehearsed Mr. Obama’s extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family’s American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Mr. Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

 

Read more of Michelle’s article at:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/29/obama-tv-dear-leaders-infomercial/

 

“OBAMA, NO MERCI BEAUCOUP” by Poor James and the Swamp Crows

 

Resisting Censorship and Advocating the Dissemination of Information

In light of the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release the video tape of Barak Obama at Rashid Khalidi’s going away party, the responsibility the press immediately comes to mind. It is ironic that the LA Times would quash the Khalidi video, while they utilize those same liberties that allow them the freedom to publish their opinion. To think that the press would align themselves in such a position is clearly self destructive and outright Anti-American in the mind of many U.S, citizens. After all, the sole reason for the existence of the press rests on the subscription of its viewers and on the autonomies of the 1st amendment, which were fought for by the many generations of America’s veterans. Over the last 8 years the Tribune Company’s stock, has tanked from excesses of $60 per share back in December of 2000, to less than $30 dollars a share in December 2006; in the last two years it has only rebounded by $5 per share at best. The enormous loss should be an indication to the media outlet that it has lost the respect of its readers, so why it would want to further its downward spiral, by actions that exemplify censorship and the repression of valuable information is beyond comprehension. What is more inconceivable is the lack of protest from their shareholders; of course there is a good chance that the majority shareholder has an agenda of his or her own, then that person should be publicly harangued as well. I, for one, don’t buy into the LA Times claims that they are merely protecting the source of the video. The fight to resist the censorship and dissemination of information that is vital to our nation’s capability to endure is a struggle throughout time that can be witnessed since before the existence of the Roman Empire. To think, that in this day and age, a news outlet would stand in the way of the truth, leads me to reminisce of the time that Daniels Shays led a group of revolutionaries carrying pitchforks and torches, who intended to “light a fire” that would illuminate the repressive nature of those who tread on their liberties.

Daniel Shay's Rebellion

Daniel Shay

 The following is an excerpt from the article, “The long history of censorship” that can be found at beaconforfreedom.org:

Censorship has followed the free expressions of men and women like a shadow through history. In ancient societies, such as China, censorship was considered a legitimate instrument for regulating the moral and political life of the population. In China, the first censorship law was introduced in 300 AD. The origin of the term censor in English can be traced to the office of censor established in Rome in 443 BC. In Rome, as in the ancient Greek communities, the ideal of good governance included shaping the character of the people. Hence censorship would have been regarded as an honorable task. The most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities. But it is fair to assume that Socrates was not the first person to be severely punished for violating the moral and political code of his time. This ancient view of censorship, as a benevolent public service in the best interest of the people, is still upheld by countries such as China, as it was advocated by the rulers of the Soviet Union (USSR), responsible for the longest lasting and most extensive censorship of the 20th Century. 

Given this retrospective look into the “honorable” intentions of censorship, it isn’t hard to dispel the reasoning propagated by those of times gone by. The line of reasoning, offered by these repressive regimes, to suppress the dissemination of information can be refuted in one single statement averred long ago by the Greek tragic poet, Euripides, who declared . . .  “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.” Euripides lived in a time when people were more focused on their surroundings, because they didn’t have the many material distractions in contemporary society. Euripides is known primarily for having reshaped the formal structure of the “traditional attic tragedy” by showing strong women characters and intelligent slaves, and by satirizing many heroes of Greek mythology. It has often been said that our social order has been based largely on that which was championed by the Roman Republic; so it’s not hard to see the ideologies advocated by Euripides some 2500 years ago, are some of the same values that guide us today. Pro-feminine values and [and I must admit I say this with a varying degree of contention] a respectable level of intelligence can be found at most levels of our society; the reason these things are prevalent in our society is that we are at liberty to speak our minds. Euripides’ twist on attic style tragedies, along with his aforementioned statement regarding the hazards of enslavement through censorship, exemplifies why America has become the great country it is. By reverting to those questionable antics endorsed by the likes of China, and the now defunct U.S.S.R., we have got to question the direction in which our country is headed. More disturbing is that this recent incident, where the LA Times has refused to release a pertinent piece of potentially incriminating evidence involving the current democratic presidential nominee, is not just a single isolated incident. As in recent months, Senator Obama’s campaign has attempted to stifle his opposition; listed below are just a few examples of those attempts:

 

Kevin Miller, a conservative talk show host on Pittsburgh’s KDKA-AM, was given an on-air CBS corporate reprimand Wednesday, read by his executive producer and prompted by listener complaints after Miller dared to interview guests critical of Presidential candidate Barack Obama and express his own negative opinions about the candidate. 

Former Hillary Clinton supporters from “Political Unity My Ass” [a.k.a --- P.U.M.A.], who now are throwing their weight behind the McCain/Palin ticket, initiated a blog titled “Count Us Out.” At their website the headline reads:

 Obama Attacks Free Speech – Attempts Censorship of Chicago Talk Radio Station

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an “Obama Action Wire” alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat. Monday night’s target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time. “The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don’t gain credibility,” an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads. “David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” the message said. “And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.” The station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers. A WGN producer said Monday night’s response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/obama-hates-free-speech-attempts-censorship-of-chicago-talk-radio-station/

At “joeschmoepolitico,” below a picture of Obama and his Storm Troopers accosting John McCain, writers exposed the truth about Obama’s “Truth Squad” by posting a reference to a lawsuit filed against the “American Issues Project” for airing advertisements that portray Obama in a negative light.

Washington, DC – September 26, 2008 – Barack Obama is now using local law enforcement officials to carry out his campaign of legal intimidation by assembling a group of high-ranking Missouri police officials and prosecutors – including St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce – to identify and target anyone the campaign determines is producing “misleading” political advertisements.

“This is an outrageous and shocking attempt by the Obama campaign to again employ Stalinist, police state tactics against those who dare to disagree with Barack Obama,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Projects president.   “I am frankly stunned to see public officials like McCullough and Joyce abusing their official prosecutorial positions to serve as attack dogs for a national political campaign.  I am quite certain Missourians elected these individuals to enforce the laws and arrest criminals, not to throw people in jail for daring to practicing free speech.

“The Obama campaign continues to provide a chilling preview of what would happen to political freedom in an Obama administration.”

This new effort is only the most recent attempt by the Obama campaign to crack down on free speech.  Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors.  The campaign also threatened stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot, and ran its own ad in response.

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/obamas-storm-troopers/ 

What are bloggers saying?

At conservablog.com the author wrote:

I disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it,’ which changed to, ‘If you don’t like it, turn the channel,’ and now we hear, ‘you’re inciting hate, so I will have you charged with a Hate Crime, you bigot!’”

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/10/17/pro-obama-censorship-at-blogtalkradio/ 

“In an ABC news blog, entitled, “Political Punch,” Pastor Swope commented:

So…I’m to believe that those involved in a “Truth Squad” have the corner on truth, and clearly see the right answers to all debate that running for the office of President of the United States generates? Am I perceived as mindless enough that I would want a man in the Oval Office who would allow such activities to be associated with his campaign? Wake up citizens of America…for you will certainly have to endure the rule of the one you vote into office. Shame on you, candidate Obama, for your inexperienced lack of understanding of the proper use of power, you who desire to head the Executive branch!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/attacking-obama.html

At another blogspot entitled, “Advance Indiana” the writer refers to Obama’s admitted drug use in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” and chastises the Obama “truth squad” with challenges to silence him. He writes:

“The Indiana campaign of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama announced the formation of an “Indiana Truth Squad” today to ‘debunk any unfounded attacks against Senator Obama in the final weeks of the Indiana campaign and show Hoosiers why Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who will bring change we can believe in’ . . .  Allow me to offer the first challenge to this so-called truth squad to tell Hoosiers and the American people the full truth about Sen. Barack Obama’s drug use.”
“Before the Obama people start jumping up and down screaming that this is just another “unfounded attack,” let me remind them that it was none other than Obama himself who injected the issue of drug use into this campaign. As an aspiring, young politician, Obama openly admitted his drug use in his 1995 book, “Dreams from My Father.” ‘Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though,’ he wrote. He talks about “smoking reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and “getting high.” As a candidate for the state legislature or the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Obama didn’t have to answer questions about his past drug use according to Sun-Times political columnist Lynn Sweet. As a candidate for president, Obama has answered few questions about his past drug use.”

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/04/will-obamas-indiana-truth-squad-address.html 

What is more discouraging is that it has been reported the Democratic Party has intentions to reinstate the “Fairness act. ” The “Fairness act” was formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, “The Fairness Doctrine” had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Sound like censorship to you? That’s because it is.        I assume that the Democratic Party missed that history lesson; a long time ago, the “Sedition Act” was enacted by John Adams, and it damaged his presidency bad enough that he was not reelected to a second term. The “Sedition Act” was used to attempt to limit criticism of government. It was later removed because of the unconstitutionality of the limitation to argument against the government. If this is what we can expect out of the press, our politicians, and the American people, themselves, we are without doubt headed for a downward spiral, from which we may never recover. Eerily enough, we may come to that uncertain fate where we may have to follow the actions of Daniel Shays and his cohorts, and get out the torches, pitchforks, and any other necessary means to prod those ne’er-do-wells in our society to fall back in line. If only Ben Franklin and his contemporaries could see us now, for certain they’d be proud . . . naught!

Cheer up, right wing: There is a bright side – feel the levity

cheer_up1

by Ed Duffy, Denver News Examiner

If you’re a fan of limited government, individual responsibility, individual freedom, property rights and free markets, you might be feeling a little down now that it looks like your adversaries will be in control of at least two, and soon all three branches of the federal government. But, there is a silver lining.

The designation: “The Man” will have been indisputably passed to the left. You get to be the radicals! When you “fight the power”, the power will refer to the granola eating, tree hugging, “spread the wealth” crowd. People sporting Castro hats and Chavez t-shirts will not longer be cool, they’ll be tools of the establishment. Free spirits will be sporting Reagan buttons and holding secret “Atlas Shrugged” discussion groups.

How hip and happening can a rock star be singing about how wonderful the government is? What are they going to shout on stage: “Are you ready to subjegate yourselves to the will of the state?” Do you think that’ll generate thunderous applause? What are comedians going to write jokes about? “Have you ever noticed how great everything is?” I don’t think so.

So, put away the suit and tie and break out your jean jackets. The revolution is over. Long live the revolution!  

fight_the_power

Berg vs. Obama: Has the Fat Lady Sung Yet? Why won’t Obama just give up his birth certificate? Why have we let it get this far?

In the words of Robert Plant . . . Ooooooooooo . . . it makes me wonder!

Phil J. Berg appeared on the Michael Savage radio program on October 23rd, 2008. Savage and Berg practically begged for the Obama campaign to prove them wrong, yet neither the Obama Campaign, nor any of his supporters made an attempt to defend the accusations made by Berg. Many of you will question Berg’s character, yet if you will watch the video or listen to the audio there is a long list of credentials that support Bergs charges that he is not just some kook. Berg is the former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General and a life long Democrat. The 2nd Video goes further into his credentials and dedication to the Democratic Party. Further, should you search his name at Wikipedia, you will see he has brought lawsuits against G.W. Bush as well. Here’s a link to the audio file, click on October 23rd, 2008. Mr. Berg was on the program for the first hour and thirty minutes.

 Understand, I am aware that the black eyed bumper sticker girl was bullshitting, and that Savage didn’t have the confession, as she didn’t confess at the time of the interview. But, just be patient or push the slider bar ahead to where Philip Berg’s interview starts.

Likewise there is video also, you tube is littered with video regarding the legality of Obama’s citizenship. Just search Berg vs Obama; anyway here are just a few, including Philip J. Berg making the accusations himself:

 

Really! They are two

different videos, I promise!

 

Berg’s original case, Berg v. Obama, et al. Civil Case No. 08-cv-04083, was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for lack of standing on September 24, 2008. In response to the dismissal, Berg implied that it was a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does? At that time he vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Moving onward, on October 30th, 2008 Philip J. Berg went to the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington, DC to file for an “Injunction” to Stay Presidential Election pending “Writ of Certiorari” regarding Obama who Berg believes is not qualified to be President of the United States.

Since then, Justice Souter’s Clerk had informed Mr. Berg that his application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election had been denied. However, the defendants, Obama and the Democratic Party, are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December 1st, 2008, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond. What is a “Writ of Certiorari” you ask? It is document filed by an attorney asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court.  It lists the plaintiffs and defendants, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ. In other words, Obama and the DNC will be required to respond with the documentation asked for.

 

As it stands now, Obama has been elected “President Elect,” however it is not a sealed deal quite yet. Listen to the audio from the Savage interview to see what options are still on the table. Should Obama actually be inaugurated on January 20th, 2009, he would need to be impeached to reverse the process, and it is unlikely that a Democratically controlled Congress would allow that to happen. Below the copy of the Supreme Court Docket is Berg’s website and some links to the original dockets at the U.S. District and Supreme Courts.  

 

Here is a copy of the actual U. S. Supreme Court Docket:

 

No. 08-570

Title:

Philip J. Berg, Petitioner

v.

Barack Obama, et al.

 

Docketed:

October 31, 2008

Lower Ct:

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

 

Case Nos.:

(08-4340)

Rule 11

 

 

~~~Date~~~ 

~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oct 30 2008

Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

Oct 31 2008

Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 3 2008

Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.

Nov 3 2008

Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

 

 

 

 

The full details can be found at: http://www.obamacrimes.com/

 

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

 

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072 

 

Berg vs Obama

Posted: November 04, 2008
6:51 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has rejected an emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the office, according to an attorney who brought the action that challenges the Illinois senator’s standing in the race.

However, the issue isn’t going away, at least for now, since Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama to the challenge from attorney Philip J. Berg.

Read more of this article at the worlnetdaily link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072

View berg vs obama video, audio, and actual dockets here:

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/berg-vs-obama-has-the-fat-lady-sung-yet-why-wont-obama-just-give-up-his-birth-certificate-why-have-we-let-it-get-this-far/

Shocking EX-KGB Video Discussing Ideological Subversion in the United States Media and the Demoralization of America

  

Ideological Subversion

and Demoralization of

the Democratic Ideology

in the United States of America

Interview with Yuri Bezmenov (ex-KGB)

by Edward Griffin

 

scroll down for more video links 

Partial Transcript:

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being “demoralization“. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism….

The result? The result you can see … the people who graduated in the 60’s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

ED: And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept – these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

YURI: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. [Now] you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident [and] for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will simply be [he makes a squishy noise] squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful [and] noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don’t understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course.

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

The next stage is destabilization…. It only takes 2 to 5 years to destabilize a nation. This time what matters is essentials; economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some… sensitive areas such as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast.

Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system train another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course – it’s the system. However, ridiculous it may sound, [it is] the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not, I don’t give a hoot. If you’re not scared by now, nothing can scare you.

ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?

YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government…. The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government… to stop aiding Communism. 

Want to view more of Yuri Bezmenov’s videos? Click here

 

Go get yourself a daily dose of patriotism at http://www.usa-patriotism.com/.  The site showcases love and pride of the United States of America with thousands of pages of patriotic poems, songs / music, articles, stories, quotes, photos…

 

Ever wonder what exactly defines patriotism? Socrates probably said it best: “patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”

 

 

 

Middle Easterners are more skeptical than anyone else about American politicians and their intentions, and already it seems Mr. Obama is no exception.

To provide a sense of what Middle Easterners are thinking about the American election, here are some excerpts

Land and People, Lebanon 

(landandpeople.blogspot.com)

People in the Middle East are expecting to see Obama act differently from previous U.S. presidents because he is darker-skinned. Time will show again that the color of the skin has little to do with politics, democracy and equity. Just look at the Arab world with its homegrown dictatorships. But the question that really interests me is about the relationship between Obama and the true center of world power, Kapital. There was an awful lot of money in Obama’s campaign … A great chunk must have come from carefully planned investments by C.E.O.’s and multinationals. Will Obama be able to confront the mega-corporations? Does he want to? The poor and the colored population of the world, including that of the U.S., is the one that suffers most from malnutrition and hunger and food insecurity. We know now that mega-corporations, pushing for more profit at any cost, are responsible for most of the damage. Will Obama do something about that? Does he want to? Can he?

An Arab Woman Blues, Iraq

(arabwomanblues.blogspot.com)

So Obama, the booma, won the elections. I had already predicted that in my post “A long American-Iranian Film.” I said the following, “My hunch is — and my hunches are rarely wrong — if Obama the booma wins, and he will, by a small margin, Iraq will be handed over to Iran …” I also said that Obama will strike a deal with Ahmadinejad on Iraq and in particular southern Iraq. And lo and behold, the vice president for the booma Obama is none other than J. Biden. J. Biden, the Zionist, is an ardent supporter of the partition of Iraq into three statelets. No wonder Maliki & Co. were also backing the booma along with Iran. I also know that Iran had generously contributed to the Obama campaign. … I shall not congratulate you on your 44th president. He will simply finish off what the other Zionists had started — the final partition of my country. To hell with all of you, and all of your presidents.

“Booma” in the Arabic language means “OWL”. Yes, like the bird. But its slang meaning in Arabic is: Someone who is being and absolute buzz-kill. Yet I suspect her use of the term is more associated with the nocturnal aspects of Barak than his inability to have fun.

Ali, Jordan

(alidahmash.blogspot.com)

Barack Obama is not a wizard either, he won’t be in the office until Jan. 20, and by then he must choose his cabinet wisely. It will take many months until the economy improves, which was the main concern for Americans in this election. Unlike the elections in 2004, terrorism (the Bush game) was the least concern. It will require a lot of time and sacrifices to get out of Iraq, though I doubt that American lobbyists are ready to give up the oil in Iraq and the Gulf region. As for the Middle East peace process, I will not only hope that Obama doesn’t side with the Israelis only and the Israeli lobby in America, but to put real effort on achieving a fair and just peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis. And hoping is not enough, as Arab leaders and organizations should move quickly towards building an alliance with Obama.

Mashrabeya, Egypt

(mashrabeya.blogspot.com)

Only time would tell if Obama is real, or just too good to be true! Sometimes, it is not enough to have a Big Dream. What matters is to have enough strength to resist the pressures to give up a Big Dream!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/08webdelap.html

Obamanomics Reaffirmed

During the 2008 Presidential Election I managed to scribble a few lines about the economics Obama would face upon his election, and with regards to his economic plans. Diana Furchtgott has managed to reaffirm my conclusions. Below her article is a list of a few of my articles and the ideals projected by others that I enlisted to support my opinions.

A Reality Check for Obama

 

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Pity President-elect Barack Obama. Today, only three days after his historic victory as the first African-American elected president, the Labor Department announced that the economy lost 240,000 jobs from payrolls in October and that the unemployment rate rose to 6.5%. This underscores the difficulties he faces in raising taxes on “the rich” to fund new spending.

Obama must recognize that his campaign promises are impossible to implement without making the economy sicker. The economy is weak and getting weaker, probably contracting now at an annual rate of 3-4 percent.

Obama’s promises include a combination of tax cuts and welfare for 95 percent of working Americans, an end to America’s foreign oil dependence, a costly healthcare plan, more education spending, and so-called pay equity for women. Much of this is supposed to be funded by levies on businesses as well as tax increases on those making over $250,000.

But, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Obama’s tax package would cost $2.9 trillion over the decade from 2009 to 2018. That includes increasing the tax rate on capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and raising the top two tax rates, 33-36 percent and 35-39.6 percent, on singles with taxable income exceeding $165,000 and married couples earning over $201,000.

The Tax Policy Center’s estimates do not include the effects of financial market chaos and the stock market decline, which has reduced taxable income. And with the economy worsening, tax increases on upper income earners would net less than the Center projected, increasing the 10-year deficit to over $3 trillion.

Here’s one small example. In 2005, the latest data available, the Internal Revenue Service recorded 3.5 million returns with $200,000 or more. About half those returns had capital gains income, which averaged $304,000, netting approximately $80 billion in taxes annually.

These revenues will be reduced by weak stock markets—as well as by disincentives to invest stemming from higher taxes. In addition, many Americans are losing jobs, meaning not only less wage and salary income to be taxed but increased government payouts for unemployment benefits.

As president, Obama will have difficulty paying for new projects such as an incremental $65 billion health care plan, a $30 billion addition to the Medicare prescription drug plan, and $37 billion in increased education and research spending—all estimates for one year.

The bill for some other proposals would go to employers, who are already struggling to survive the recession. Investments in alternative energy and electric vehicles, for instance, would be funded by requiring purchases of permits to emit carbon, estimated to raise $56 billion annually.

Obama would also require most employers to offer paid sick and maternity leave, vacation, and parental leave for school visits. Employers would be penalized for paying women less than men for “equivalent” jobs, however they are defined.

Of course, in a recession, federal deficits are desirable. The question is how to structure them to help the economy recover. By increasing taxes on upper-income earners, small businesses, and capital gains, President Obama would reduce incentives to work and invest. Additional requirements on employers would encourage them to open plants overseas, rather than in America, slowing job creation.

After the euphoria in the streets and the chants of “yes we can” have faded, the question will remain: do Obama’s promises make fiscal sense?

Diana Furchtgott-Roth can be reached at dfr@hudson.org.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, is a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor, and is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

original article: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/07/after-victory-a-reality-check-for-obama/ 

 

The Myth of Obamanomics

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/392/

Will Obama’s Collection Plate Come Back Empty: Fearful Investors May Seek Shelter

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/obamas-collection-plate-is-empty-savvy-investors-seek-tax-shelter/

Obamanomics

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/368/

economic woes

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/economic-woes/

 

 

 

MSNBC has the Jonestown Kool-Aid Drinkers on TV

Huh! How funny! MSNBC has the Jonestown Kool-Aid Drinkers on TV. It is not that I think what happened in Jonestown, Guyana is funny; what is ironic, is that MSNBC aired the documentary, after using their position to sway the election. As the saying goes, they are “a day late and a dollar short;” and I believe they know that. My question is, are they looking for redemption for forcing the public to drink their brand of bug juice? It is just like the liberal scumbag media to play the ends against the middle, and then capitalize on the outcome. MSNBC gets my nomination for scum-bag-rag of the year! Even if it is a TV based news service. Their ratings must be down, now that they don’t have McCain and Palin to kick around; I know they lost my viewer-ship.

 

The Washington Post is groveling for the return of disenfranchised readers as well, after admitting they had been biased towards Obama in regards to election coverage. As a independent minded conservative who feels disenfranchised by their incongruous bias during the election, they can pucker up and kiss my ass if they want, but like a true elephant I won’t soon forget or forgive their misgivings. It is my firm belief, we as Americans, should leave these pandering turncoats fall like the styrofoam columns at the DNC. They have chosen to no longer represent our best interests; therefore why should we be concerned whether they sink or swim. Do I hear a call for a boycott of those media outlets who abused their loyalty to the general public in favor of an exclusive story?

Sadly, with the election of Obama, it is ever so evident that the people of the Obama Temple have become comfortable with the practice of demagoguery. For, Obama is the sort of political leader who gains power by appealing to people’s emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is manipulative and dangerous; preying on the naiveté of the younger generation and the lack of insight of those who should know better but don’t, was Obama’s strategy to attract voters. We must remember that change is not necessarily always a good thing, especially when it administers the medicine of socialism, and government interference in our lives. Thomas Sowell, a distinguished authority on economics, once said “socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” Obama’s, unquestioned flattery and praise, is evocative of another socialistic demagogue. Obama is just as mesmerizing as Jim Jones, who dazzled the members of the “Peoples Temple” in 1978 at a little place called Jonestown, Guyana; the revolution they experienced there was “revolutionary suicide.” Now that the Obamabots have drunk the “flavor aid,” spiked by this spellbinding “cult of personality,” the freedoms and protections we all cherish so much, may go the way of the 909 people who committed suicide with the cyanide laced grape drink; our liberties may be just like the spirit of those people, and the essence of the 276 children among them. The fundamental nature of our liberties may vanish into the thin air, just as the prototypical souls of those who deified the false idol of the “People’s Temple” 30 years ago. Socialism, at the national level, is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. In the end when all is equal, and socialism fails and the coffers are bare, who will the poor and misfortunate people lean on then?

For Certain, I Fully Appreciate The Suffering That Those Associated With The Jonestown Massacre Have Suffered; Nonetheless, MSNBC’s Rehashing Of The Incident Is Purely Motivated By Their Loss In Ratings, Due To Their Biased Election Coverage. Below is One Family’s Personal Account:

Patty told us that Jimmy Jones had told them that God had told him there was going to be a nuclear war and God wanted him to take his church and these folks in South Charleston and a few other churches to Ukiah in northern California. It was a little town down in a valley where they would be protected from fallout, and the people there would be the people God would start the world over with. It sounded good. I believe it was just a couple of months later that most of Jerry’s family ­ and of course Patty ­ packed up and moved to Ukiah.

Right away Patty wrote Mom and told her how happy they were and how nice it was where they were living. Then she let us know that we were not to send any Christmas gifts because Jimmy taught that they should all be equal, that no one should receive more than the other.

After they moved out there, many poor people became a part of this group and some of them lived in bad situations. Patty and Jerry were able to get their own place, though. Both of them had jobs and worked hard.

In the early 70’s I went into the ministry and began to hear troubling things about Jimmy Jones and this cult that my sister and her family got wrapped up in. My mother and my older sister both went out to visit them, and my mom actually lived out there for a while. They said it was a little weird, that the people treated Jimmy Jones as though he were God and that they heard him say he was the Christ. My brother also visited while he was in the service, but he didn’t seem to understand what was going on.

Jimmy Jones wrote my mother after she came home and tried to talk her into leaving our father and moving back out there. This was what God wanted her to do, Jimmy said. I remember reading that letter and pointing out to my mom how many times he mentioned his name ­ about 30 ­ to how many times he mentioned God’s name …­ once.

I wrote Patty a number of letters telling her what I was hearing, but she just said she was happier than she had ever been and it was not really any of my business.

I was preaching in Indiana at this time and then moved to a ministry in Louisiana. We had heard that Patty and her family were going to a South American country to help start a children’s home. And then there I was watching TV and they broke in and told what had happened and it was there that I heard the horrible news about my sister being killed on some airstrip and they showed this video of people on a wagon being pulled by a tractor shooting at people trying to board the plane. This of course is where my sister was killed as her youngest daughter Tracy stood next to her side. Tracy was not hurt ­ and we thank God for that ­ but she did spend several days in the jungle hiding with others.

My wife and I recently went out to Ukiah to visit Patty’s and our family. We found that they are still devastated by what had taken place in their lives 30 years ago. They never really had any closure since Patty’s funeral was held before her family got back to the States. Patty was a good person and full of love. I know she was a good mother but somehow this nut Jones really had her brainwashed at least until they got to Jonestown.

read more personal accounts at:

http://www.topix.com/city/redwood-valley-ca/2008/11/survivor-recalls-the-horror-of-jonestown-ukiahan-travels-back-to-guyana/p3

 

Take note of the sign in the video? 

“Those Who Do Not

Learn From History are

CONDEMNED TO Repeat It”

Lil’ O’Reilly

The Holiday Has Only Just Begun: Hail Hitler Hail Obama

“Obama is a Pimp.” “I truly believe that Obama is the worst possible person for the

African American people at this time”  . . . Pastor James David Manning

 

Hail Hitler Hail Obama

A Call To Arms For White People Of Truth

Obama Drama Explained

Obama is a Mack Daddy

I’m willing to die to expose that Devil Obama

OBAMA AND OUR COMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

The Report from Washington by Ellis Washington

“was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961”

~ Obama’s paternal grandmother

“Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution”

~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)

As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.

Before I get into these variables, let’s examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:

·        be a natural born citizen of the United States

·        be at least 35 years old

·        have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).

Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.

Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:

·        The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;

·        The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

·        The allegation that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

·        The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

·        The allegations that “Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya,” the suit states. “Reports reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth.”

·        The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

·        Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship.

Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

·        In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

·        Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

·        “Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unless and until Obama’s citizenship question is definitively put to rest, then the proverbial sword of Damocles will continue to dangle precariously over his head and America will face 50 lawsuits from all 50 states demanding that President Barack Obama prove that he is an authentic American citizen according to the U.S. Constitution.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/berg-vs-obama-has-the-fat-lady-sung-yet-why-wont-obama-just-give-up-his-birth-certificate-why-have-we-let-it-get-this-far/

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-us-supreme-court-obama-not-eligible-supreme-court-justices-berg-appeal-help-defend-the-us-constitution/

Did Obama Forge His Selective Service Registration?

The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26. READ MORE at the following sites:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/obama-selective-service-application-real-or-fraudulent-debbie-schlussel-analysis-debbieschlusselcom-foia-request-federal-agent-opinion-signature-real/

THE EMPTY SUIT HAS BEEN FILLED WITH LAW SUITS

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status. An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded. “All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.” WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following:

 

Ohio – David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township, Ohio, filed suit in Warren Common Pleas Court in October to force Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported. Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach denied Neal’s request, saying, “The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation.”

 

Connecticut – Connecticut resident Cort Wrotnowski challenged the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate on Oct. 31, and asked the court to order Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz to verify Obama’s citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers threw out the case for lack of jurisdiction within a half hour of reviewing it. “I have not seen the ruling yet,” Wrotnowski told WND. “So, in reality, the case was not heard on its merits. … Currently, we are assembling information for another and better try.”

 

Washington – As WND reported earlier, Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to “prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters” who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Marquis said Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate isn’t evidence that the president-elect is a natural-born citizen because it doesn’t reveal the hospital where Obama was born, a doctor’s name or the baby’s footprint, the Associated Press reported. Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the secretary of state does not have authority to inquire about Obama’s birth certificate. He also said Marquis failed to name Obama as a party to the lawsuit.

 

New Jersey - In Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting three candidates from appearing on New Jersey’s ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero. Donofrio claimed the candidates are not “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency “even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since … Senator Obama’s father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ …” “Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama,” the request states. “Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent.” Donofrio said Panama has never been considered U.S. soil, and that McCain is merely a citizen at birth by statute, and not a “natural born citizen.” With three ineligible presidential candidates on ballots, Donofrio warned, New Jersey voters will “witness firsthand the fraud their electoral process has become.” Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application on Nov. 6. However, his case is still pending as an emergency stay application. Donofrio is resubmitting his request for an emergency stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

Pennsylvania – As WND reported earlier, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court three months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Berg claimed that by failing to respond Obama has legally “admitted” to the lawsuit’s accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed Berg’s argument on Oct, 24, ruling that he lacked standing to bring the case. He said Berg’s allegations were “too vague and too attenuated.” “This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution,” Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right blog. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States – the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?” Berg filed a writ of certiorari in “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama,” Berg wrote in a Nov. 7 statement. “I believe Mr. Obama is not a consitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of the President of the United States.”

 

Georgia – Rev. Tom Terry of Atlanta, Ga., appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president. “I bear no personal ill will against Barack Obama,” Terry, an independent, said in a statement. “In fact, his election solely on the basis as the first African-American president-elect is a very positive thing for our nation. However, as an American, I have very grave concerns about Mr. Obama’s possible divided loyalties since he has strenuously and vigorously fought every request and every legal effort to force him to release his original birth certificate for public review and scrutiny. I think that is significant.” On Oct 24, Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel. “I don’t think you have standing to bring this suit,” he said. “I think that the attorney general has argued the law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer.” Terry is appealing his suit even though Obama didn’t win Georgia because he said he wants to set an example for other states. He is asking the court to direct Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel to decertify all votes for Obama. “Hopefully, this action will be noticed by other states and they will also take a serious look at the meaning of Georgia’s Supreme Court’s actions,” he said. “It is apropos that the Latin motto in the Georgia Supreme Court is interpreted: ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.’ I think if the Court rules in my favor, that motto will come alive with meaning and impact.”

 

Hawaii – On Oct. 17, Andy Martin filed a writ of mandamus in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request to expedite the circuit court was denied on Oct. 22. Martin now has a pending case seeking access to Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate. The circuit court hearing is set to begin Nov. 18.

 

The saga continues …

 

Several unconfirmed reports also indicate that citizens of Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia have also filed lawsuits or requested court orders to verify Obama’s citizenship status. As reported earlier, WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth.

But his discoveries only raised more questions.

 

The governor’s office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin – leaving some to wonder if the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicates a Hawaiian birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.

 

The Obama campaign posted a certification of live birth, a document stating the baby was born on Aug. 4, 1961. However, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, there is a difference between the two documents. A certification of live birth is not an authentication of Hawaiian birth, and critics say the procedure could have allowed Obama’s mother to have the baby elsewhere, return to the U.S. and obtain the document in Hawaii.

 

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands makes a distinction between the two:

 

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

 

However, Andy Martin has specifically requested verification of the original 1961 type-written certificate of live birth – or, as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands describes it, the “more complete

record” of Obama’s birth.

 

Further adding to complications, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. But a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

 

Seeking to settle the issue, Hawaii Department of Health Director Director Chiyome Fukino released an Oct. 31 statement saying, “State law (Hawai’i 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 Hawai’i, 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 Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” The statement does not clarify whether “the record” is a certification of live birth or a Hawaiian certificate of live birth.

 

Before the election, WND retained a top private investigator in Hawaii with extensive FBI training and tasked him with visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center to investigate claims that Obama birth certificates existed at either hospital. However, the private investigator reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off press inquiries about Obama’s birth certificate. When WND asked the Obama campaign spokeswoman why Obama simply hasn’t released the original 1961 certificate of live birth to make the lawsuits go away, she replied, “I have no idea. I think they released what they chose to release, and Hawaii has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, so I don’t know what else you want.”

 

Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation,” personally autographed for only $24.95

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/obama-not-eligible-california-lawsuit-dr-alan-keyes-ambassador-dr-wiley-s-drake-sr-markham-robinson-ca-secretary-of-state-debra-bowen-barack-obama-senator-joe-biden-california-democratic/

FROM THE GREAT DECIDER TO THE GREAT DIVIDER

Obama spurs race crimes around country

Some writers, like in the article below, might try to force feed people the idea that all the hatred in present day America is because a negro president has been elected. Yet, contrary to popular belief, many people still believe it is “how he played the game” and not that he won the race. America’s recent outbreak of hatred doesn’t stem from a black person being elected, it stems from the way he went about getting elected. Granted, for some, the fact that he is black was enough to vote against him. However, in my humble opinion, for others it was Obama’s lack of transparency that left them feeling as though they had been duped; and nobody likes to be duped. As with the political group, P.U.M.A. – Political Unity My Ass, many citizens in the United States have found their selves in a frenzied state in regards to the rise of Barack Obama. Since Obama’s nomination as the democratic presidential nominee the amount of hatred in America has been steadily on the rise. The nation hasn’t seen this kind of racial divide since the civil rights movement in the 1960’s. Though some may disagree, during the presidential campaign there was an unmistakable tension in the air that undoubtedly smelled of reverse racism. An innumerable amount of newspaper articles fueled the fire, especially those written by the likes of Andrew Greeley and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Sun Times. It was as though they purposely wanted to inspire race related hatred to infuriate the public. The old divide and conquer tactic, is blatantly Maoist; and a page right out of one of Obama’s favorite books, the “Communist Manifesto of Neocolonialism.” As a result, the nation is in a state of unrest. Exactly how Obama plans on reuniting the people of the United States is a question on many minds of our nation’s populace. There is absolutely no question that there was racial tension in America before the presidential contest, but not near the amount we are currently experiencing. In fact, some might come to the conclusion that Obama used the racial tension to his advantage; the gist of it is that Obama has set the racial harmony in our country back 50 years. The 700 billion dollar question is will he just write it off as if it is only the status quo? Let’s just hope Obama can find a way to “calm the waters and heal the earth,” as he promised. IMHO, as far as presidents go, we have gone from the “great decider” to the “great divider.”

By JESSE WASHINGTON, AP National Writer Jesse Washington, Ap National Writer – Sun Nov 16,

Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting “Assassinate Obama.” Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America.

From California to Maine, police have documented a range of alleged crimes, from vandalism and vague threats to at least one physical attack. Insults and taunts have been delivered by adults, college students and second-graders.

There have been “hundreds” of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.

One was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: “I hope Obama gets assassinated.” That night, someone trashed her sister-in-law’s front lawn, mangled the Obama lawn signs, and left two pizza boxes filled with human feces outside the front door, Millner said.

She described her emotions as a combination of anger and fear.

“I can’t say that every white person in Snellville is evil and anti-Obama and willing to desecrate my property because one or two idiots did it,” said Millner, who is black. “But it definitely makes you look a little different at the people who you live with, and makes you wonder what they’re capable of and what they’re really thinking.”

Potok, who is white, said he believes there is “a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them.”

Grant Griffin, a 46-year-old white Georgia native, expressed similar sentiments: “I believe our nation is ruined and has been for several decades and the election of Obama is merely the culmination of the change.

“If you had real change it would involve all the members of (Obama’s) church being deported,” he said.

Change in whatever form does not come easy, and a black president is “the most profound change in the field of race this country has experienced since the Civil War,” said William Ferris, senior associate director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. “It’s shaking the foundations on which the country has existed for centuries.”

“Someone once said racism is like cancer,” Ferris said. “It’s never totally wiped out, it’s in remission.”

If so, America’s remission lasted until the morning of Nov. 5.

The day after the vote hailed as a sign of a nation changed, black high school student Barbara Tyler of Marietta, Ga., said she heard hateful Obama comments from white students, and that teachers cut off discussion about Obama’s victory.

Tyler spoke at a press conference by the Georgia chapter of the NAACP calling for a town hall meeting to address complaints from across the state about hostility and resentment. Another student, from a Covington middle school, said he was suspended for wearing an Obama shirt to school Nov. 5 after the principal told students not to wear political paraphernalia.

The student’s mother, Eshe Riviears, said the principal told her: “Whether you like it or not, we’re in the South, and there are a lot of people who are not happy with this decision.”

Other incidents include:

_Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: “Let’s shoot that (N-word) in the head.” Obama has received more threats than any other president-elect, authorities say.

_At Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: “Osama Obama Shotgun Pool.” Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. “Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count,” the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written “Let’s hope someone wins.”

_Racist graffiti was found in places including New York’s Long Island, where two dozen cars were spray-painted; Kilgore, Texas, where the local high school and skate park were defaced; and the Los Angeles area, where swastikas, racial slurs and “Go Back To Africa” were spray painted on sidewalks, houses and cars.

_Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted “assassinate Obama,” a district official said.

_University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. “It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork,” Houston said.

_Black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island, Maine, the Bangor Daily News reported. The president of Baylor University in Waco, Texas said a rope found hanging from a campus tree was apparently an abandoned swing and not a noose.

_Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.

_A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted ‘Obama.’

_In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his car windshield, saying “now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house.”

Emotions are often raw after a hard-fought political campaign, but now those on the losing side have an easy target for their anger.

“The principle is very simple,” said BJ Gallagher, a sociologist and co-author of the diversity book “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins.” “If I can’t hurt the person I’m angry at, then I’ll vent my anger on a substitute, i.e., someone of the same race.”

“We saw the same thing happen after the 9-11 attacks, as a wave of anti-Muslim violence swept the country. We saw it happen after the Rodney King verdict, when Los Angeles blacks erupted in rage at the injustice perpetrated by ‘the white man.’”

“It’s as stupid and ineffectual as kicking your dog when you’ve had a bad day at the office,” Gallagher said. “But it happens a lot.”

Associated Press writers Errin Haines, Jerry Harkavy, Jay Reeves, Johnny Clark and researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed to this report.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169311

Ayman Zawahiri: the negroes are in the house . . .

Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader

uses racial epithet against Barack Obama

 

In a video, Ayman Zawahiri says the president-elect is ‘the direct opposite of honorable black Americans’ and says Obama, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are ‘house Negroes.’

 

Associated Press

November 20, 2008

Reporting from Cairo — Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites. The message seems aimed at convincing Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman Zawahiri said in the message, which appeared on militant websites, that Obama was “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s black Muslim leader. In Al Qaeda’s first response to Obama’s historic victory, Zawahiri also called the president-elect — along with Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice — “house Negroes.” Speaking in Arabic, Zawahiri uses the term “abeed al-beit,” which literally translates as “house slaves.” But Al Qaeda supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as “house Negroes.” In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the message was just “more despicable comments from a terrorist.” The 11-minute, 23-second video features the audio message by Zawahiri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, Zawahiri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. air strike in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.

Left Cuts Obama Slack For Now

(The Politico) This story was written by Glenn Thrush and Ryan Grim.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama boasted of opposing the Iraq War from the start.

But as president-elect, he has come to the rescue of surge supporter Joe Lieberman and flirted with the idea of keeping on Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates – and now he seems poised to nominate war-authorizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as his secretary of state. 

The sound from the left: not silence, but no howls of betrayal, either.

“Anybody who has reacted after two weeks is not a serious person,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Members of Obama’s loyal liberal base – from the Netroots to campus liberals to Hill Democrats – are watching closely as the candidate’s vague incantations of hope coalesce into cold, concrete presidential decision making. It’s not a seamless transition, but so far the left seems to be cutting Obama some favorite-son slack. Then again, he’s been president-elect for only two weeks – even milk bought on the day he was elected hasn’t had time to go sour.

“People continue to be excited,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who represents an Oregon district he described as one of the five most progressive in the nation. “They’re still going to websites. There are campaigns they can be involved with. They’re still networking and raising ideas and moving forward.”

Anti-war voters are used to being disappointed. Some were flabbergasted when George W. Bush won a second term in the midst of the war in 2004; others were disillusioned when the Democrats didn’t do more to stop the war after capturing majorities of the House and the Senate in 2006.

And for some, that “here we go again” feeling came rushing back recently when Obama urged his soon-to-be-former Democratic Senate colleagues not to hold “grudges” against Lieberman, who infuriated liberals with his support for Iraq then picked at the scab by supporting John McCain – and opposing Obama – during the presidential race.

But in a sign that the left is willing to cut the president-elect some slack, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) – rather than Obama – has taken the lion’s share of the grief for this week’s decision to let Lieberman hang onto his chairmanship at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In a blog post, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said the Lieberman deal was proof that Senate Democrats are “tone deaf” to the views of “the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies.” Said Moulitsas: “I’m done with Reid as Senate leader.”

Moulitsas’ criticism of Obama’s role in the Lieberman proceedings was more muted. But there are signs that the benefit of the doubt won’t last forever. The list of potential flashpoints between Obama and the left wing of his party is growing, an inevitable development given the sky-high expectations and his need to recruit experienced lieutenants to deal with immense domestic and military problems.

Little that Obama has done has prompted as much anxiety as his flirtation with Gates, a proponent of continued ground operations in Iraq and longtime opponent of a date-certain withdrawal.

“Kind of makes you think that Democrats believe Republicans are better at managing both national security,” scoffed Chris Bowers at OpenLeft.com, a progressive blog.

Obama has also drawn considerable flak for enlisting so many battle-scarred Clinton White House veterans – led by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who helped engineer the passage of the now-unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement for President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Obama has also taken some heat for considering former Harvard President Larry Summers for Treasury secretary, while drawing milder rebukes for passing over outgoing DNC hairman Howard Dean for secretary of Health and Human Services. The job, according to reports, is going to Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

And while opinion about Hillary Clinton’s fitness to serve as secretary of state is divided, many lefty bloggers haven’t forgotten Clinton’s authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq in October 2002- or what they believe was her mishandling of health care reform 15 years ago.

“Sen. Clinton has been at the helm in two big undertakings – had two big executive leadership tasks,” wrote Josh Marshall, the influential founder of Talking Points Memo. “One was health care in 1994, and the other was her presidential bid in 2007-08. Each was something of a train wreck from an executive-level management perspective.”

Watching Obama stack his transition team and senior staff with Clinton-era operatives – and maybe an actual Clinton – has agitated many liberal lions who otherwise admire Obama.

“It tells me I’m going to have to be Frederick Douglas to his Abraham Lincoln,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), referring to Obama’s fascination with all things Lincoln.

In some corners of the left, there’s been downright dejection, but people there mostly were skeptical of him all along. Ali Abuminah, a Palestinian-rights activist in Chicago, says he’s seen Obama move to the right on Israel, is troubled by the possible selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and finds himself especially bothered by Emanuel’s pro-Israel views.

“The emerging direction of Obama’s Middle East policy is not going to do anything to unblock the peace process,” he said, calling Emanuel “to the right of George Bush in many respects.”

For the moment, though, such critics appear to be in the minority.

“At this point, a lot of people have a lot of confidence in him,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is a self-identified socialist.

“His behavior is concurrent with how he ran his campaign,” said Rep. Mike Honda, one of the more progressive members of California Democratic delegation. “Fingers crossed; this might work.”

When Obama has faced opposition from his left flank, he’s responded quickly.

In August, the Nation, the country’s oldest progressive magazine, published an editorial warning of “troubling signs” that Obama was reverting to a “more cautious, centrist stance,” citing his vote in favor of allowing telecom companies immunity in warrantless wiretap lawsuits.

Obama responded with an open letter to readers. I won’t always agree with you, he told the lefty magazine, but I will always listen.

John Aravosis, founder of the left-of-center AMERICAblog, says most liberals implicitly trust Obama more than any Democrat in recent memory – and they understand that not every compromise he makes is a sellout.

“He hasn’t really screwed up yet on these appointments,” Aravosis added. “And look at the Lieberman situation. It’s not like people aren’t pissed off at Lieberman or Reid. But they just don’t hold it against Obama because they know he needs to work with the Senate.”

By Glenn Thrush and Ryan Grim Copyright 2008 POLITICO

deuce

double-deuce1