Saturday, December 27, 2008
“Dr. Orly, Sandra Lines said nothing more than the obvious fact that images can be faked and to tell for sure one needs to look at the original. She said nothing to indicate that Barack Obama's COLB was genuine or not. And thereby she makes any analysis of the COLB image moot, including that of "Rod Polarik". You can't tell anything from an image.
The suggestion that Dr. Onaka, head of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, recent past president of the national organization of vital statistics agencies (NAPHSIS) would allow a forged Hawaiian birth certificate to be blown all over the Internet without a word from him (or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health or Hawaii's Republican Governor) is beyond credible. That alone is enough to raise a very high standard of proof for a document analyst trying to assert a forgery. "Polarik's" analysis is about as poor as one could imagine--more of a flight of imagination than science as he sees scans being sent to the one who would do the forgery, as he tries for the 700th time to guess what kind of scanner Obama used and matching it miserably.
First of all, what is it to you "Kevin"? Are you a paid Obama operative? Who are you? Why bother? Why do you care?
Second, how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?
Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case. And these affidavits are not from the Berg case, but from the Hochberg case. Sorry dude. These two might be completely different from the 3 forensic document analysts that Berg has assembled.
Also, having read the 139 page report from Polarik, and having advanced degrees in relevant fields, I would say that Polarik does not "only try to guess what sort of scanner" that Obama used. And how do you know that Polarik has "matched it miserably"?
How would you know ? Who are you? Tell me about your PhD in digital image processing why don't you Kevin. Where did you get your degree? Do you hold any patents? What is your publication record like? And what is any of this to you anyway? Why bother?
You ask, why would Onaka allow fake documents to be spread all over? I think the answer is pretty obvious. From the court proceedings in Hawaii, and the fact that the Hawaiian Health Department has turned down several subpoenas from courts in other states, one can conclude that the government of Hawaii has decided to make a huge stand on this issue.
From interviews in the press, and my own conversations with the officials at the Hawaii Health Department, it is obvious that Oanaka and others in the Hawaii Health Department feel bound by the laws of their state. They have clearly been told that if they talk about this, they will lose their jobs, be fined and/or go to prison. That, coupled together with confusion about what the constitutional requirements are to be president of the United States, and some disagreement about the definition of the term "natural born citizen", as well as a large number of people that believe the constitution is obsolete or optional or should be changed or ignored, and you have the perfect setting for someone like Onaka to behave as he does.
Would you be willing to risk prison time if you were Onaka? Onaka has climbed to his position by playing by the rules. You expect Onaka to break the rules now and maybe destroy his career and spend years in prison? Why? Would you?
And what if Onaka illegally releases Obama's birth record information, and it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii and Congress and the courts ignore this and confirm Obama as president anyway? Many have stated publicly that they favor making Obama president even if Obama is shown to be ineligible to assume the presidency. Even Ron Paul has stated this recently. What do you think would happen to Onaka then?
This could include things much much worse than prison; presidents like Clinton and Nixon have used the IRS and other government agencies to harass "enemies". Obama associates with people that advocate bombings and assassination. Not just one or two people, but lots of people. He even supported his cousin Odinga's campaign in Kenya that ended with widespread slaughtering of his opponents, even though his cousin Odinga lost the Kenyan election. Obama is even inviting his cousin Odinga to the inauguration.
What do you think that a President Obama would do to someone like Onaka if he illegally released such information? Do you know that most lawyers will not touch this case for fear of retribution for the same reason? Most judges? Do you expect a government bureaucrat in Hawaii to be braver than most lawyers and judges? To risk his life and the lives of his family to stop Obama when no law enforcement official, no court and no politician has stepped up to offer support and protection? You expect Onaka to voluntarily blow the whistle and then probably be punished for it? To spend every dime he has and every dime his family has defending his actions in court? To probably be fined, imprisoned or maybe even killed for it? What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?
Please "Kevin". You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.
“I guess that's why the military donated 6:1 for Obama during the election:
Or the retired Admirals and Generals that supported Obama
And it's funny how reports from other sources said nothing about the silence you claim.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it as more MSM propaganda.....as you do with anything that doesn't fit your myths and conspiracy theories.....
Unfortunately, we had to remove "A REAL American"'s post because we cannot let this blog turn into a platform for ridiculous pro-Obama propaganda. The internet is already full of such sites, replete with disinformation and lies. And there are many Obama operatives who frequent blogs and forums to try to spread their lies and poison and venom.
No, I will not claim that this story is necessarily accurate. You and I were not there. I did not see any video footage; did you? But this story is sourced to 3 different news outlets. So we have to wonder. It is interesting how all the stories in the media that make Obama look bad you just reject out of hand, and you only repeat the stories in the media that make Obama look good. Not very objective.
Clearly, reality is far more nuanced than you are trying to portrary it. If you just want to blindly believe that Obama is incredibly popular among the military because a few retired military leaders came out in his support, and a news report came out that Obama had more campaign contributions from deployed military than McCain, that is your prerogative. But frankly, I do not find your evidence particularly compelling.
Obama Support Among Military Leaders
To start with, this youtube video of what appears to be a press conference or campaign media event features 1 retired admiral and 3 retired generals. Two of the retired generals had "noncombat" positions in the military. One was in charge of
"civil works" and the other was a "chief of staff" for the National Guard. What was their basis for supporting Obama?
First, they support Obama because he had disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Allow me to point out that Obama had no access to the intelligence that many of the other senators and congressmen did; he did not have the clearance to hear the information. All of those with the clearance to hear the real intelligence (not what was reported in the press, which is badly misleading and deficient) voted to remove Saddam Hussein. Even Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which was passed by both houses of Congress, and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
However, is this a necessary qualification for someone to be president? Someone who voted against a war when he did not have access to the information the decision was based on? I was against the war myself. Do I fulfill the requirements to be president of the United States then?
The second reason the retired military leaders gave for endorsing Barack Obama was that Obama is always calm and has a placid demeanor. So that is a prerequisite for someone to be president? Someone should be passionless? The US has had stolid, resolute presidents before, and that is no guarantee that someone will be regarded as a good president (see an analysis of presidential temperament here).
For example, Calvin Coolidge was one of US presidents with a calmer temperament, but he is not remembered as one of the great US presidents. He is remembered as a bit of a disaster. He rose to prominence because of his union-busting activities. Many think his administration's policies set the US up for the 1929 crash. He is described by some as a "worried pessimist".
How many liked Gerald Ford as a president, particularly at that time? Ford was very calm and reasonable, which is why he was chosen to replace Nixon by the Congress. However, Americans thought he was dull. Ford presided over the start of what became known later as "stagflation".
Jimmy Carter might be viewed as a fairly imperturbable bloodless technocrat. Carter's presidency is perceived by many as a failure.
On the other hand, Kennedy, Reagan, and both Roosevelts, are all widely praised as presidents. All of them were passionate adventurers and temperamentally the opposite of someone "calm and placid".
Anyway, these 3 retired generals and 1 retired admiral who voiced support for Obama, in addition to retired generals Wesley Clark and Colin Powell, can be compared with over 100 retired generals and admirals who endorsed McCain. That is, retired military leaders support McCain in far greater numbers. Obama's military support is less than 5 percent of McCain's military support among retired military leaders. So basically trying to rely on these 4 guys in a youtube video to prove anything is beyond comical. It is ridiculous.
Retired General Wesley Clark, who once was reportedly being considered by Obama for a position in his administration and maybe even for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, was nominally an Obama supporter, but still did not give Obama a ringing endorsement. Clark was famous for stating on Face the Nation on CBS that "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." However, on another occasion, in a BBC interview, Clark had stated that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to be Commander in Chief and to end the war in Iraq. Clark said, "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path."
The Campaign Contribution Report
The report on the donations is very selective and a bit hard to swallow. First, if you count all donations, then according to the same report McCain supporters gave an average of 502 dollars each to McCain's campaign, while Obama supporters gave an average of only 310 dollars each to Obama's campaign. The numbers with the biggest differences were the overseas donors, but there were only 134 overseas Obama donors and 26 overseas McCain donors; the Obama donors represent 0.038% and the McCain donors represent 0.0071% of the roughly 364,049 US troops deployed overseas.
These numbers are so small that it is not clear if they mean anything, or if they are representative or even if they are accurate. It is not clear what time period this report covers, and if a different time period was chosen or a longer time period was chosen, if the results would have been different. All kinds of other factors could restrict these contributions such as the type of deployment and location, and so it is not clear what these donation numbers are even measuring.
Other reported contribution statistics paint a far more complicated picture. For example, military donors from January 2007 through March of 2008 favored Republicans over Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent; that is, Republicans raised 63 percent more money from the military than Democrats did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In addition, the CRP reports that during that period, Ron Paul raised 12.8 percent more money from the military than Obama did. So Obama is supposedly the troop's favorite, based on that widely hyped story in the mainstream press? Does that report mean that Obama is incredibly popular among the enlisted men and women? I doubt it.
I suspect if we looked even more carefully into the military campaign support data, we might find that the media had once again reported this story in a selective manner, or "cherry-picked" the data, or engaged in some other sort of misrepresentation. After all, the media have done it lots of times in the past in previous stories, right? Once the press loses its credibility, it is hard to rely on anything they claim, including this story about military campaign donations.
Other Signs Obama has a Military Image Problem
Barack Obama is also associated with many radical anti-military groups, like Code Pink. Code Pink has donated heavily to the Obama Campaign as a "bundler". Code Pink has "harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.”" Code Pink even donated over 600,000 dollars to the families of terrorists attacking American troops in Fallujah, because Code Pink views them as "freedom fighters". This association of Obama with Code Pink has been decried by Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com. This shows Obama's has great support from our military and will continue to enjoy this support?
The US military has solidly and repeatedly rejected a draft for many years and is happy with its current all-volunteer force. A lot of left wing attacks on McCain focused on bemoaning the potential of a draft if McCain were elected . McCain stated that he would not be in favor of a draft unless the US was faced with "World War III"  .
Obama on the other hand has stated repeatedly that he will call for "universal national voluntary service". That is not a draft? Well he does not call it a draft, but it is essentially a draft. Obama just presents it with a lot of double-talk. What is universal voluntary service? If it is universal, it is not voluntary.
Corrupt IL hospital board has given campaign contribution to Obama, he returned it only now, when scandal erupted
A 2003 Illinois Good-Governance Measure Supported by Obama Apparently Backfired in Hospital-Construction ScandalArticle
more in Politics »By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama helped enact an Illinois good-government reform measure while serving as a state senator in 2003 that appeared to inadvertently have aided Gov. Rod Blagojevich in an alleged corruption scheme involving hospital construction.
Mr. Obama backed legislation that revamped the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. The panel was responsible for approving major hospital expansion projects and was seen at the time as unwieldy and tainted by cronyism. The bill shrank the size of the board and set new limits on a governor's ability to stack the panel with members of his own political party.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
But Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, put together a friendly, five-member majority on the shrunken board that included members of both parties -- board members whom Mr. Blogajevich and his allies used to extract money from companies seeking approval to build medical facilities, according to the federal criminal complaint filed this month against the governor. The alleged health-board abuses were part of what prosecutors say was a broader scheme by Mr. Blagojevich to obtain money for political favors, including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated last month by Mr. Obama. Mr. Blagojevich has denied the charges.
There is no indication that President-elect Obama was involved in any hospital board wrongdoing. But his role in the legislation shows how he became a useful, though apparently unwitting, ally to Mr. Blagojevich's alleged schemes, sometimes conducted under the "reform" slogan that both men regularly invoked.
After the passage of the law, Mr. Obama received $15,500 in campaign donations from three hospital-board members who since have been identified by prosecutors as participants in the alleged abuses. As the Illinois political scandal that has now engulfed Mr. Blagojevich burgeoned, Mr. Obama gave that money to charity.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the 2003 law or the Blagojevich scandal. In a written statement, he said that "President-elect Obama's longstanding record of reform in the Illinois legislature is clear." He said that record included a sweeping 1998 ethics reform package and Mr. Obama's support this year for a state law to reduce special-interest influence in the legislature.
Mr. Obama and aides also have denied wrongdoing in Mr. Blagojevich's alleged abuse of his appointment power to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The Obama transition team released a report Tuesday saying Obama aides had some interaction with Mr. Blagojevich and his associates on the matter, but didn't discuss any deals.
Mr. Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 as a reformer. Changing the makeup of the hospital board was part of a general revamp of state panels.
Businessman and fund-raiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
The hospital board bill was introduced in the legislature in the spring of 2003 and won quick approval from a Senate committee that Mr. Obama chaired; it passed both houses unanimously. A subsequent email from an adviser to the governor named Mr. Obama as one of several legislators instrumental in getting the legislation passed.
Within months of the board's reduction to nine members from 15, Mr. Blagojevich had assembled a majority five-member bloc that was used to begin extracting campaign contributions from medical executives, prosecutors say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case says that the point man in this scheme was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a friend and major fund-raiser for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Blagojevich.
While Mr. Rezko wasn't a member of the hospital board, he provided instructions on behalf of Mr. Blagojevich to members on how to vote, according to the FBI affidavit. One member of that group, Stuart Levine, testified at the Rezko trial that Mr. Blagojevich had told him to discuss hospital board matters only with Mr. Rezko or another ally, adding that "you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself."
Mr. Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 to two criminal counts related to the misuse of his position on the hospital board and on another state panel and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Jeffrey Steinback, an attorney for Mr. Levine, declined to discuss the Blagojevich case. None of the four other members of the purported bloc have been criminally charged. Two have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony.
One example of alleged hospital-board abuses cited by prosecutors involved the effort by Mercy Health System to win approval for a new hospital in Crystal Lake, Ill. The board initially voted down the proposal. Later, it reversed its stance. Prosecutors say the reversal came after Mr. Rezko exercised "his influence at the Planning Board" in return for the hospital builder's promise to "make a substantial campaign contribution" to Gov. Blagojevich.
Mercy executives have denied any wrongdoing.
Mr. Rezko was convicted of influence-peddling earlier this year in Chicago federal court in connection with the hospital board and other matters. Prosecutors say Mr. Rezko has begun providing information to them about Mr. Blagojevich. A Rezko attorney declined to comment.
Write to John R. Emshwiller at email@example.com and Christopher Cooper at firstname.lastname@example.org
I wrote to Mr. Belz, and asked him:
Do you have a problem with following the rule of law?
Do you have a problem with the US Constitution?
Or do you think the US Constitution should be discarded?
Please answer that for me. I await your response and I
will publish it on the internet.
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in following the U.S. Constitution. I do not think the U.S. Constitution should be discarded.
I then replied:
Thank you for your response. Do you have any comment about this quote from the December 24, 2008 issue of Pravda:
"Any politician’s efforts to allow a person to take the Office of the President, who can not prove he is eligible is the highest violation of their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Anyone who violates the US Constitution has no authority to
Do you disagree with this excerpt? Agree? Thank you.
I have not heard back from Joel Belz. Please join me in contacting Mr. Belz if you agree with me that the Obama Eligibility Controversy is not some triviality. Following the US Constitution is not an attack on "orderliness". It is just following the rule of law. And I am just stunned that he does not seem to understand this. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Send your comments to Joel Belz at email@example.com.
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Hoping for a stumble
Nobody should want to destroy a presidency, but many do | Joel Belz
Nothing was uglier—bordering even on treasonous—during the recentIraq. Included among his "opponents" in that sense were the Democratic campaigns, for sure. But displaying the same despicable habit were many in the mainstream media. than the way George Bush's opponents seemed so regularly to welcome bad news from
Nor was the tendency limited to bad news about the war. Who will ever know the extent to which Democratic connivance and media lopsidedness didn't just respond to, but actually helped bring about, the current economic disaster?
But I mention that here not to heap still more criticism on Bush's opponents. I cite these issues instead as examples of behavior that biblically directed conservatives should take care to avoid in their own opposition in the months and years ahead to the presidency of .
I am hearing regularly from WORLD readers who seem intent on only one goal: They are zealous, already, for the failure of the Obama presidency. Indeed, nothing would make them happier than for the Obama presidency to be stillborn.
So, instead of quietly thanking God for a peaceful election and an apparently tranquil transfer of power—and then getting on with the monumental tasks before us—some of these folks won't be satisfied until they can prove that the Obama presidency itself is illicit. "In what sense," one Indiana subscriber asks me in an email, "am I biblically responsible to be subject to a man who unconstitutionally calls himself my president?"
Which makes me wonder: Did Nero have to produce a Roman Empirebirth certificate before there was binding force to Paul's instruction in Romans 13? He's pretty straightforward: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
But it's not just individual letter-writers. You get the impression that whole conservative watchdog organizations face extinction if you don't give generously—today!—to ensure their ability to maintain litigation that will finally expose our new president's Islamic faith and alien roots. To which I am inclined to say: Good riddance! Let them collapse of their own awkward weight. If there was once a time to explore such bizarre possibilities, that time almost certainly ended with the election.
It's not the risks to the direct mail operatives that should worry us. It's the risk to the republic if we set millions of folks over against each other debating such technicalities. Do folks have any sense at all how devastating to orderliness it might be for a challenge to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency to gain even minimal traction?
Here's the point: Never let it be legitimately said that our main goal is to destroy our opponent or his presidency. Always let it be said that our focus is on the issues themselves—and that, having debated those issues, we are content to leave in God's sovereign hands the political results.
Admittedly, such a distinction may not always be easy to maintain—and especially so with someone who has an agenda so unambiguously fastened to the liberal left. His support for abortion, for special privileges for homosexuals, for state-controlled education, for overweening government regulation, and a hundred other liberal causes is well established. And his calculated coolness in driving that agenda heightens the temptation to expose every conceivable weakness of the man instead of seeking, through the electoral and legislative process, to defeat the policy enactment of his program. It's time to prove it possible again to say: "We respect you, Mr. President—along with your office. And at the same time we think you are very wrong."
Unless we learn to do that, though—and not just in a trivial way—we demean the very office we want to uphold. Indeed, we demean the very Constitution some folks claim they are honoring in their efforts to prove an Obama presidency an illicit affair. We end up doing the very thing to our present opponent that we found so ugly and distasteful over the last few years when we were watching it in reverse.
And no more now than on the playgrounds of our youth will it count for much to say: "He hit me first!"
For example, we have seen widespread planting of false stories. Remember Wild Bill's fake VA lawsuit?
What about Obama's grandmother's death? Looks like that story might have been at least partially fake as well.
Of course, the Certificate(s) of Live Birth that were released appear to be fakes or at least altered in various ways: .
What about the statements that claimed that the Hawaiian Health Department had confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii? They were all incorrect; more fakes.
What about the "glorious stories" in the mainstream press about how Obama is the most popular president ever already, and that his presidency will be one of peace and universal harmony and love? (paraphrasing slightly, and only being slightly sarcastic). These claims were supposedly based on some polls showing that as many as four out of five Americans strongly support Obama and even most McCain supporters are switching over to support Obama.
When I looked into these stories carefully, again they turned out to be supported by nothing more than misrepresentations and exaggerations. The mainstream media reported the survey results very selectively, if nothing else. And the samples that were surveyed appear to be quite small and not at all representative.
What about the statements which were widespread in the mainstream media that World News Daily had hired experts to examine the birth certificate and had declared that the Obama birth certificate was geniune and that therefore Obama was born in Hawaii? These stories were also fake.
Therefore, I have strong suspicions about many other stories in the media about Barack Obama. It is only reasonable, after encountering a few false statements, lies and exaggerations, to be a bit skeptical. Particularly when Obama refuses to release his records and even spends a considerable amount of time and money fighting to prevent their release in court.
With minimal effort I have presented not one, not two, not three, but six examples of "fake" stories in the mainstream media. These stories are not minor but any means, but major stories. Sometimes repeated thousands upon thousands of times for months and months on end.
In many if not most of these cases, the public believes the "fake" stories. After all, why wouldn't they? They have heard them over and over and over. Or read them over and over and over. Even most of our politicians believe them for the same reason (see some responses of congressmen and senators here). Probably most of our judiciary also believe the fake stories.
Why does the public believe these "fake" stories? It is pretty simple actually, and quite reasonable and expected. There have been no retractions in the mainstream media. No "exposés". No special reports. No inquiries. No pointed questions at press conferences. No big announcements in the mainstream press or on mainstream radio or television that these widely reported stories are fake, phoney, misleading or hoaxes. Even our proud conservative media, including conservative talk radio, has been silent for the most part. Our alternative press has not carried much information about the Obama eligibility controversy except in a couple of belated instances of a supermarket tabloid running a story long after the election. Our "investigative journalists" have not investigated. They haven't even bothered to read the filed lawsuits, even though they have been publicly available for months now. The main figures in the Obama Eligibility Controversy Movement have had very few interviews in the mainstream press. The main opposing political party has not uttered a word about this. Almost no political leaders have brought any attention to this situation.
It takes effort to actually research this issue, and there is a lot of contradictory information to weigh. It is confusing and frustrating. It takes a lot of time and effort and most people do not have the resources or the patience to do this. So what else would you expect? Is there any wonder that this movement is treated as a fringe group consisting of a few nuts wearing tin foil hats?
Why do I believe that there is some substance to the Obama Eligibility Controversy? After all, I am highly skeptical of claims of other conspiracies. I enjoy debunking conspiracy theories. There is one big reason that I always return to; there is no other good reason for Obama to resist the release of his original birth documentation for week after week, month after month, in court case after court case, to the tune of many thousands of dollars. This leads to a loss of good will, and is done at the increasing cost of his credibility. The longer this goes on, the more he is hurt by it. Why would he hurt himself and his public image and his presidency on purpose?
It just is beyond any rational belief that a reasonable person would resist showing the personal papers that most citizens are required to show at least several times in their lives. The claims of "privacy" ring hollow since Obama has already supposedly shown a "valid" certificate of live birth. Has Obama not already given up his privacy in this situation? And why should privacy be a valid reason, when Obama is seeking a government position? "Privacy" is not accepted as an excuse in other circumstances when citizens are required to present their documents. Of course, there are also all kinds of other legal arguments about why a public figure has no expectation of privacy.
Obama could even show his documents to some authorities and forensic document experts in some secure closed setting and have a court seal the documents afterwords and only release a report containing a summary of the information of interest, if there is other embarassing material contained in the documents. This sort of thing is done all the time, after all. In this way, Obama can probably satisfy the constitutional eligibility requirements without releasing any other potentially embarassing information, as long as his documents state what Obama claims they do.
As I think about this situation, I would not be surprised if there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar "fake" stories that were planted, either by willful action, or appeared in the mainstream media because the journalists were biased or careless or did not have the time and resources to check on their stories. We have had armies of Obama supporters on blogs and in forums and other places on the internet spewing disinformation. I even recall a story in the mainstream media in which it was suggested that Obama had hired many hundreds of operatives to counter anti-Obama information on the internet (you can see some discussion of the Obama internet strategy at the following links: ).
Now I have even heard a rumor that hackers have altered some online versions of the Kenyan grandmother recording!
The very fact that such things are going on shows the Obama supporters were and are desperate and these very actions can be used eventually to discredit them. It is very very ugly. But the evidence of bad behavior by Obamites is everywhere. And uniquely damning.
Obama Visits Marines... Met With Silence
Let's face it.
The cut-&-runner is no George W. Bush.
Barack Obama with US Marines in Kailua, Hawaii. Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, made a Christmas Day stop at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii, where he greeted troops and their family members during holiday dinner. (AFP/Tim Sloan)
Barack Obama visited US Marines in Hawaii on Christmas.
...He was met with silence.
Political Punch and PL Forum reported:
President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.
“Just wanted to say hi, hey guys,” Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.
The diners represented seven military units -- Marine and Navy -- some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.
As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.
The message left:
More healthly dose of Thomas Jefferson "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper truth itself becomes suspious by being put into that polluted vechicle" 1786. Congress need to heed a lesson from the dead
The message left:
I agree with the comment that our government has spent billions/trillion(?) re: national security after 9/11. An enemy found a gaping loophole in our defense system and went after it big time. I see from this web-site and others that Pravda and other foreign countries are taking this issue very seriously. Why are our elected officials who are elected to serve the people of the United States of America and defend it taking such a cavilier attitude to this question of Obama's citizenship? I mean all (3)branches of our government. I don't think they are there for decorative purposes or to look "cute" at "photo ops" they have a job to do and they should do it. What if it does come out that Obama is not a citizen before (I hope) the "swearing in" or after? Do you think the American people would elect them to anything? Any found to be in collusion would be headed to jail forever. I think anyone who ignores that issue does so at its peril ! also included the Media. I think they are forgetting that the American people LOVE their country and LOVE their Constitution even if their elected officials do not. One final thought does anyone really believe that our Military who do take oaths and lay their lives down for our country really believe that they will allow a usurper to command them. These men and women have seen their friends die to protect our country and they all have very long memories, when they take an oath they're not kidding.
Dec 25, 2008
Indiana Men File Lawsuit To Challenge Obama's Eligibility
Men Claim Obama's Hawaii Birth Certificate Is Fake http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/18358575/detail.html
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed,
If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly,
You may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
How does BO expect to be taken seriously by Putin, when Pravda, newspaper of the largest circulation in the world, going to some 200 million Russians calls him the conmen of the century, openly asks what happenned to his grandmother and what about the reports of forgery of his selective service certificate.
How does he expect to build economic relations with Japan, when Japanese news papers are openly critisising US media for not reporting on this hoax of the Century.
People that are pulling the strings need to realize, it's time to cut their losses. This experiment didn't succeed, it will backfire against them as the investigations continue by all of the governmental agencies: IRS, FBI, US attorneys office, immigration and so on.
I have written an article, "New York Times uppmanar advokat Orly Taitz att sluta granska Barack Obama" on www.newsmill.se where I have included a Swedish translation of your open letter to chief justice Roberts.
Friday, December 26, 2008
OBAMA'S PERSONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY CANNOT TRUMP THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS
The whole reason the PUBLIC cannot get credible information as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii along with other information revealing his past experiences seems to be Obama asserting a privacy right over his personal information. This right to privacy comes from State law and maybe could also have a basis in Federal law. But how can someone running for President of the United States, a public position to say the least, have any reasonable expectation of privacy over his or her personal information regarding who he or she is or what he or she has done in the past. How could any person running for President not reasonably expect to have to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that he or she is a "natural born Citizen?" How could any such individual reasonably expect to put legal blocks up which prevent the public from learning whether he or she is in fact a "natural born Citizen?"
Being President of the United States involves protecting national security at its highest level. Given that the United States is a nuclear superpower which can destroy the world and send all its inhabitants to their respective afterlives, I believe that not only do the American people have a right to know who their President is but probably also the rest of the world. Would America want some unknown person gaining control of the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and other nuclear power possessing nations? I believe that the "law of nations" would demand that any nation which will give such power to one individual should at least know the most basic information about that person (like where he was born and what are his or her past accomplishments), even though such information is no guarantee on how that individual will act once he or she gains power. Surely, under these circumstances, a person's individual right to privacy, whether grounded in State or Federal law, must give way to the AMERICAN PUBLIC'S (and that of the international community's) much weightier right to know who such a person is, for not only is America's survival at stake but also that of the World.
The public officials who have so far managed to keep Obama's personal information secret need to really understand the consequences of their actions. This is not some little "frivolous" political game (sour grapes, etc.) that concerned Americans are playing in wanting to know who Obama is. Other than President Chester A. Arthur, I do not know when in American history such an ongoing debate about where the President was born came up. Which leads me to the next question as to why then all the alleged "sour grapes" in this Election? Some people argue that today's birth place issue exists simply because Obama is the first African American who stands to become President and that the losers just cannot get over having to have a “Black” President. First, McCain is "white" and the birth place issue was raised by his political opponents without much public fanfare. Also, President Arthur was "white" and the issue was also hotly contested when he ran for Vice President. Additionally, I do not believe that so many truly concerned Americans would be giving this issue so much importance simply because Obama is “Black.”
Let our Nation come together on this most important national security issue and put it to rest with WE THE PEOPLE having obtained the collective knowledge of who their next President is.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
December 26, 2008
Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama’s Birth and his mother’s marriage to BHO Sr.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Office of Public Records
From: Stuart Lau [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry
The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)
Sincerely, Stuart Lau
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
Commentary on University Emails:
For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:
1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.
This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.
WND explains how others have the house deed in their names and tax records are also in Rezko employees names, Obama people refuse to comment--the guy is shady here also
read more | digg
The Great Democrat Bear Trap Set For John McCain
There are some who say that Senator John McCain simply gave up during the last month of his .
This is why:
On April 10, 2008, Senate Resolution 511. (D-Vt.),Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary, introduced
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;..................
By passing this resolution, the Senate of the United States is attempting to amend the Constitution by defining Senator John McCain, theRepublican Party as a “natural born” citizen and therefore eligible to be President of the United States. of the
The resolution passed by the Senate did four things:
The resolution confirmed the well defined meaning of “natural born” by being born of parents both of whom were citizens “at birth”.
That John McCain did not meet Section II, Article I, Clause 5.
That Senator John McCain was, in fact, a naturalized citizen.
That was not “natural born”.
The resolution was a clever scheme . The measure only garnered one Republican co-sponsor, McCain supporter (R-OK).
The resolution passed unanimously!
John McCain, and the Republican Party, knew that if he won the vote on November 4, 2008 he would be challenged by every single Democrat Senator and Representative because the Senate, by unanimous vote, attempted to elevate him to natural born status, when in fact they knew that Senator McCain's citizenship status “at birth” made him constitutionally ineligible, a condition incurable by Congress or the Supreme Court.
Senate Resolution 511, by specifying that “natural born” meant that both parents were citizens “at birth” had also defined Obama's citizenship status since it was well known that his father was from Kenya.
Why didn't someone question Obama's status? Where was a similar Senate Resolution?
There could be none because Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary knew that it could not pass the constitutionality test of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 and Obama was already declared the Democrat candidate for President and it would create a disaster for the Democrat Party.
Obama was self-verified and has never released his actual Certificate of Live Birth nor any records from Occidental College, Columbia College or Harvard. Too much attention has been paid to Obama's birth certificate. It is totally irrelevant!
What is relevant?:
Posted on Obama's website is this admission:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States as he fails to meet the provision of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Both his parents were not citizens of the United States “at birth!
It is said “that what goes around, comes around”. Barack Obama has been able to disqualify his political opposition in the past, and now Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have been caught by the same bear trap they set for John McCain.