Does anyone have more info on transactions that Ann Dunham handled, particularly with Annenberg foundation, Ford foundation, health foundation.
Here's the letter
this info was available prior on the internet, but I did not save it and now it is gone. All I have are my notes. Madelyn Dunham headed the Escrow department. Any and all transactions that required escrow went through her department. Escrow accounts are required for real property transactions. Contracts often have escrow accounts (good faith money), AND depending on the agreement between foundations and banks escrow accounts are used to hold grant, and loan program monies before they are disbursed to the bank (s) who are in the area where the recipient of the loan or grant is located. It is esqrow who releases the funds, if everything is in order.
Ann Dunham, was the individual who identified and approved who would receive these microeconomic loans, and grants. She funneled these fundsthrough (BRI) to 3,500 banks in Indonesia, Pakistan and the World Bank. She also handeled the funds for these projects that came from the World Bank.The Annenberg Foundation, also contributed about the time that Dunham was working with womens issues and education.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Man of the Year: Geert Wilders
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, January 02, 2009
For the original article, see this link.
It's a safe bet that Geert Wilders won't be Time magazine's Man of the Year any time soon. If anything, the unusually coiffed Dutch MP is a favorite hate figure of the Western media, which has spent years vilifying him as a "reactionary," a "particularly dangerous type of demagogue," a "racist" and an "Islamophobe." Wilders would almost certainly plead guilty to the last charge, and with ample reason. His tireless campaign to sound the alarm about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has turned him into a target of Islamic jihadists and the object of untold assassination plots. A 2006 death threat, one of hundreds he's received, declared that his "infidel blood will flow freely on cursed Dutch streets." Al-Qaeda has specifically singled him out for slaughter.
Against this menacing background, it would have been no failing in his character if Wilders had decided that the price of speaking out about Islamic fundamentalism was too high; others in his prominent position would have reached just that conclusion. Instead, Wilders has persevered. Braving daily death threats and sacrificing the security that his critics take for granted, he has opted for the often-thankless task of saving Western civilization from its Islamist discontents – beginning with the valuable reminder that the demands of Islamic zealots are not only not congruent with Western values but are, in fact, in direct conflict with them. For his impressive personal courage, his steadfast political commitment, and his refreshing disdain for the suffocating pieties of political correctness, Geert Wilders is Front Page Magazine's Man of the Year in 2008.
The steep risks involved in Wilders's anti-Islamist campaign are tragically illustrated by the fates of two of his countrymen. Pim Fortuyn, the popular Dutch politician who warned against the Islamisation of Dutch society and railed against the "backwardness" of certain Islamic traditions, was gunned down by a crazed animal-rights activist in 2002. His killer later claimed that he had shot Fortuyn in order to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.
Next on the hit list was Dutch provocateur and documentarian Theo Van Gogh. In 2004, Van Gogh was gruesomely murdered in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born Islamist who judged Van Gogh's film on the mistreatment of women in Islam, Submission, to be a crime deserving of death. To Van Gogh's butchered body, Bouyeri pinned a list of "infidels" who "deserved to be slaughtered." Among the names singled out for execution was Geert Wilders.
The threats were all too real. Shortly after Van Gogh's murder, Dutch authorities discovered an Islamist network with advanced plans to kill Wilders, and an internet video surfaced promising 72 virgins to anyone who carried out the deed. As police investigated, Wilders was forced into 24-hour protection, traveling from safe house to safe house to avoid his pursuers. Even today he is never without dark-suited bodyguards by his side. "There's no freedom, no privacy," Wilders says. "If I said I was not afraid, I would be lying."
Yet, Wilders remains undaunted. This March, he again incensed Islamists when he released a short but explosive film called Fitna, which seeks to show that Islamic terrorism is directly inspired by the Koran. Artistically rough, the film is nevertheless effective, juxtaposing graphic footage of Islamic terrorism – including the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid train bombings, and the beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg – with Koranic verses and clips of Islamic clerics preaching the murder of non-Muslims. If nothing else, the film makes it impossible to argue that Islamic texts have nothing at all to with the terrorist violence committed in their name.
Fitna is often translated from the Arabic as "persecution." That's grimly appropriate, because the film's release unleashed a veritable war on Wilders, as jihadists and their unwitting allies in the West sought in different ways to silence the Dutch politician. Anticipating Fitna's release, muftis across the Middle East promised violence if the film were released. The Taliban pledged to step-up attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan. In Indonesia, a group calling itself the Islamic Defenders Front surrounded the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta with signs urging "Kill Geert Wilders." An al-Qaeda linked website duly ordered his death.
Less bloodthirsty – but more spineless – was the response in the West. Dutch television stations flinched from airing the film, forcing Wilders to release it on the video hosting site LiveLeak.com, which soon pulled it due to "threats to our staff of a very serious nature." (LiveLeak later restored the film.) Political leaders meanwhile went out of their way to denounce Wilders. Thus Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende insisted that Fitna "serves no other purpose than to cause offense," while U.N .Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it "offensively anti-Islamic." A white flag was also unfurled by Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, who urged Wilders to give in to Islamist demands not to show the film, warning that it could "endanger the lives of Dutch nationals" abroad if he did. Dutch Muslims – inadvertently proving Wilders's point about the incompatibility of Islamic beliefs and Western freedoms – demanded that the film be banned.
But just as the tide of elite Western opinion was turning against him, Wilders was vindicated by an unlikely observer: Libyan-based jihadist cleric Omar Bakri. Not only were Fitna's attempts to link terrorist violence with Islamic teachings not offensive, Bakri explained, but they were entirely accurate. Indeed, Bakri said, Fitna "could be a film made by the mujahedeen." In other words, Wilders was exactly right.
He's been right about a lot of things. To take one example of many, Wilders has been resoundingly right about the dangers of surging Islamic radicalism in Europe. While he has been condemned for calling for the closure of radical mosques and the deportation of militant clerics, back in 2004 Wilders accurately pointed out that 25 Dutch mosques had terrorist connections, while their resident imams preached against the evils of democracy and Dutch values. One such preacher, Tilburg-based Syrian imam Ahmad Salam, first came to Dutch public attention with sermons urging Muslim men to beat their wives, then refused to shake hands with Dutch Integration Minister Rita Verdonk in 2004, and again courted notoriety when he urged his followers to avoid paying taxes in order to "damage the state." Despite his undisguised contempt for Dutch laws and culture, Salam continues to call Holland home. It would be hard to find more telling confirmation of Wilders's warnings.
Wilders has also been correct that Western ideals of tolerance and equality are under assault by Islamic radicals. European police report that Islamic honor killings are on the rise. In 2005, for instance, a review by British police of 22 domestic homicides led to 18 of the cases being reclassified as "murder in the name of so-called 'honor.'" Polls routinely find that a disturbingly large percentage of Muslims – one in 10 according to a 2006 BBC poll – would condone the murder of someone seen to have disrespected their families honor. The situation is equally dire in Wilders's native Netherlands. In Amsterdam, once the "gay capital of Europe," gays are frequently attacked and beaten up by roving gangs of Muslim thugs. An August 2007 survey by current affairs program EenVandaag found that nearly half of Dutch gays feel less safe in the country's streets.
No wonder that many Dutch citizens are coming around to Wilders's view of the Islamist threat. According to a May 2005 poll, 43 percent of the Dutch now believe that Islam is incompatible with Western society. Similarly, a 2006 poll found that the majority of native Dutch regard Islam as intolerant, violent, and hostile to women. Not that Wilders has gotten credit for bringing these matters to national attention. For his troubles, he has been tarred as a "far-right" bigot and xenophobe.
The truth is that Wilders is a liberal in a uniquely European sense. What he champions are quintessentially Western values: separation of church and state; equality of the sexes; free expression; the right to provoke and even, yes, to offend. His proposal to ban the all-covering burqa owes more to the ideals of gender equality than to religious discrimination. Even his more controversial measure to stop the Islamisation of Europe – an end to all Muslim immigration – is more about safeguarding Western traditions than locking out foreigners. That is why he has always stressed that Europe should remain a place of refuge, including, for instance, for gay Muslims fleeing persecution. True, Wilders is an unabashed believer in the superiority of Western culture. But the fact that this is now considered a thought crime is more of an indictment of the contemporary Western world than it is of Wilders.
Given the great personal costs he has suffered, it must be asked: Has it all been worth it? It is a measure of Wilders the man that he never struggles with the question. "Speaking out boldly cost me my personal liberty, with 24-hour security and police protection for more than four years now," Wilders told Front Page Magazine last week. "But if I and others don't at least try, and if I would not do my modest bit, millions of westerners will lose their liberty. You see, there is so much at stake. Our liberty and freedom are being bargained away and only so few speak out against it. I am no hero but I would rather be killed for what I say and believe than submit in silence to Islamic totalitarianism. If I regret anything at all, it's is not being too bold but not being bold enough."
Geert Wilders has made all the right enemies. At a time when many counsel accommodation of Islamist demands, Wilders remains defiant. In an era of civilizational self-loathing, he defends the West without apology. Despite the threats to his life, he refuses to be silenced. For all this, Wilders deserves the praise of many – including the many in the West who scorn his name.
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, January 02, 2009
For the original article, see this link.
It's a safe bet that Geert Wilders won't be Time magazine's Man of the Year any time soon. If anything, the unusually coiffed Dutch MP is a favorite hate figure of the Western media, which has spent years vilifying him as a "reactionary," a "particularly dangerous type of demagogue," a "racist" and an "Islamophobe." Wilders would almost certainly plead guilty to the last charge, and with ample reason. His tireless campaign to sound the alarm about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has turned him into a target of Islamic jihadists and the object of untold assassination plots. A 2006 death threat, one of hundreds he's received, declared that his "infidel blood will flow freely on cursed Dutch streets." Al-Qaeda has specifically singled him out for slaughter.
Against this menacing background, it would have been no failing in his character if Wilders had decided that the price of speaking out about Islamic fundamentalism was too high; others in his prominent position would have reached just that conclusion. Instead, Wilders has persevered. Braving daily death threats and sacrificing the security that his critics take for granted, he has opted for the often-thankless task of saving Western civilization from its Islamist discontents – beginning with the valuable reminder that the demands of Islamic zealots are not only not congruent with Western values but are, in fact, in direct conflict with them. For his impressive personal courage, his steadfast political commitment, and his refreshing disdain for the suffocating pieties of political correctness, Geert Wilders is Front Page Magazine's Man of the Year in 2008.
The steep risks involved in Wilders's anti-Islamist campaign are tragically illustrated by the fates of two of his countrymen. Pim Fortuyn, the popular Dutch politician who warned against the Islamisation of Dutch society and railed against the "backwardness" of certain Islamic traditions, was gunned down by a crazed animal-rights activist in 2002. His killer later claimed that he had shot Fortuyn in order to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.
Next on the hit list was Dutch provocateur and documentarian Theo Van Gogh. In 2004, Van Gogh was gruesomely murdered in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born Islamist who judged Van Gogh's film on the mistreatment of women in Islam, Submission, to be a crime deserving of death. To Van Gogh's butchered body, Bouyeri pinned a list of "infidels" who "deserved to be slaughtered." Among the names singled out for execution was Geert Wilders.
The threats were all too real. Shortly after Van Gogh's murder, Dutch authorities discovered an Islamist network with advanced plans to kill Wilders, and an internet video surfaced promising 72 virgins to anyone who carried out the deed. As police investigated, Wilders was forced into 24-hour protection, traveling from safe house to safe house to avoid his pursuers. Even today he is never without dark-suited bodyguards by his side. "There's no freedom, no privacy," Wilders says. "If I said I was not afraid, I would be lying."
Yet, Wilders remains undaunted. This March, he again incensed Islamists when he released a short but explosive film called Fitna, which seeks to show that Islamic terrorism is directly inspired by the Koran. Artistically rough, the film is nevertheless effective, juxtaposing graphic footage of Islamic terrorism – including the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid train bombings, and the beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg – with Koranic verses and clips of Islamic clerics preaching the murder of non-Muslims. If nothing else, the film makes it impossible to argue that Islamic texts have nothing at all to with the terrorist violence committed in their name.
Fitna is often translated from the Arabic as "persecution." That's grimly appropriate, because the film's release unleashed a veritable war on Wilders, as jihadists and their unwitting allies in the West sought in different ways to silence the Dutch politician. Anticipating Fitna's release, muftis across the Middle East promised violence if the film were released. The Taliban pledged to step-up attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan. In Indonesia, a group calling itself the Islamic Defenders Front surrounded the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta with signs urging "Kill Geert Wilders." An al-Qaeda linked website duly ordered his death.
Less bloodthirsty – but more spineless – was the response in the West. Dutch television stations flinched from airing the film, forcing Wilders to release it on the video hosting site LiveLeak.com, which soon pulled it due to "threats to our staff of a very serious nature." (LiveLeak later restored the film.) Political leaders meanwhile went out of their way to denounce Wilders. Thus Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende insisted that Fitna "serves no other purpose than to cause offense," while U.N .Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it "offensively anti-Islamic." A white flag was also unfurled by Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, who urged Wilders to give in to Islamist demands not to show the film, warning that it could "endanger the lives of Dutch nationals" abroad if he did. Dutch Muslims – inadvertently proving Wilders's point about the incompatibility of Islamic beliefs and Western freedoms – demanded that the film be banned.
But just as the tide of elite Western opinion was turning against him, Wilders was vindicated by an unlikely observer: Libyan-based jihadist cleric Omar Bakri. Not only were Fitna's attempts to link terrorist violence with Islamic teachings not offensive, Bakri explained, but they were entirely accurate. Indeed, Bakri said, Fitna "could be a film made by the mujahedeen." In other words, Wilders was exactly right.
He's been right about a lot of things. To take one example of many, Wilders has been resoundingly right about the dangers of surging Islamic radicalism in Europe. While he has been condemned for calling for the closure of radical mosques and the deportation of militant clerics, back in 2004 Wilders accurately pointed out that 25 Dutch mosques had terrorist connections, while their resident imams preached against the evils of democracy and Dutch values. One such preacher, Tilburg-based Syrian imam Ahmad Salam, first came to Dutch public attention with sermons urging Muslim men to beat their wives, then refused to shake hands with Dutch Integration Minister Rita Verdonk in 2004, and again courted notoriety when he urged his followers to avoid paying taxes in order to "damage the state." Despite his undisguised contempt for Dutch laws and culture, Salam continues to call Holland home. It would be hard to find more telling confirmation of Wilders's warnings.
Wilders has also been correct that Western ideals of tolerance and equality are under assault by Islamic radicals. European police report that Islamic honor killings are on the rise. In 2005, for instance, a review by British police of 22 domestic homicides led to 18 of the cases being reclassified as "murder in the name of so-called 'honor.'" Polls routinely find that a disturbingly large percentage of Muslims – one in 10 according to a 2006 BBC poll – would condone the murder of someone seen to have disrespected their families honor. The situation is equally dire in Wilders's native Netherlands. In Amsterdam, once the "gay capital of Europe," gays are frequently attacked and beaten up by roving gangs of Muslim thugs. An August 2007 survey by current affairs program EenVandaag found that nearly half of Dutch gays feel less safe in the country's streets.
No wonder that many Dutch citizens are coming around to Wilders's view of the Islamist threat. According to a May 2005 poll, 43 percent of the Dutch now believe that Islam is incompatible with Western society. Similarly, a 2006 poll found that the majority of native Dutch regard Islam as intolerant, violent, and hostile to women. Not that Wilders has gotten credit for bringing these matters to national attention. For his troubles, he has been tarred as a "far-right" bigot and xenophobe.
The truth is that Wilders is a liberal in a uniquely European sense. What he champions are quintessentially Western values: separation of church and state; equality of the sexes; free expression; the right to provoke and even, yes, to offend. His proposal to ban the all-covering burqa owes more to the ideals of gender equality than to religious discrimination. Even his more controversial measure to stop the Islamisation of Europe – an end to all Muslim immigration – is more about safeguarding Western traditions than locking out foreigners. That is why he has always stressed that Europe should remain a place of refuge, including, for instance, for gay Muslims fleeing persecution. True, Wilders is an unabashed believer in the superiority of Western culture. But the fact that this is now considered a thought crime is more of an indictment of the contemporary Western world than it is of Wilders.
Given the great personal costs he has suffered, it must be asked: Has it all been worth it? It is a measure of Wilders the man that he never struggles with the question. "Speaking out boldly cost me my personal liberty, with 24-hour security and police protection for more than four years now," Wilders told Front Page Magazine last week. "But if I and others don't at least try, and if I would not do my modest bit, millions of westerners will lose their liberty. You see, there is so much at stake. Our liberty and freedom are being bargained away and only so few speak out against it. I am no hero but I would rather be killed for what I say and believe than submit in silence to Islamic totalitarianism. If I regret anything at all, it's is not being too bold but not being bold enough."
Geert Wilders has made all the right enemies. At a time when many counsel accommodation of Islamist demands, Wilders remains defiant. In an era of civilizational self-loathing, he defends the West without apology. Despite the threats to his life, he refuses to be silenced. For all this, Wilders deserves the praise of many – including the many in the West who scorn his name.
THE TWO REASONS WHY OBAMA WILL NEITHER PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN NOR PRODUCE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Statements have been made in the public domain that if Obama was not born in Hawaii but rather in Kenya, that he actually committed a crime involving fraud. That leads me to think that if that were true, then Obama has a Constitutional and state common law right to avoid further self-incrimination and to remain silent. That could explain why he has neither talked publicly nor wants to talk in any court of law about where he was born. But his right to remain silent would not extend to withholding his original Certificate of Live Birth. Disclosure of documents is not testimonial (coming from a person's mouth) and his 5th Amendment and state common law right to remain silent and to not incriminate himself would not prevent such disclosure. This leads me to the main point.
Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby "perjure" himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.
The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:
(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his "natural born Citizen" status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.
(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the lawsuits and internet chatter questioning his eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or "tinfoil hat" conspiracy nonsense. These "explanations" for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.
The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby "perjure" himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.
The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:
(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his "natural born Citizen" status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.
(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the lawsuits and internet chatter questioning his eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or "tinfoil hat" conspiracy nonsense. These "explanations" for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.
The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
More questions
Is there any relation between Allison Davis (Obama's former boss at Davis and Miner and Rezko's partner) and Frank Marshall Davis, that used to live in Chicago and was BO's mentor? Maybe it's just a common name, no relation, I don't know.
Does anyone have info on BO's exact address in Sommerville, MA?
Does anyone have info on BO's exact address in Sommerville, MA?
Does anyone have info on Barry Scott Turkowitz or Terkowitz
This name popped up in Boston, Cape code, NY, VA and CA. Can be either Scott of Barry Scott. Two different spellings of last name Turkowitz and Terkowitz. Also, does anyone have info on Barrack A Obama. Notice middle initial A.
Need more help: what did Madelyn Dunham do as a vice pres of Bank of HI?
Does anyone have info, what did Madelyn Dunham exactly do with the bank of Hi? She was a vice president of the bank, but I need more info
1. did she deal with pension funds?
2. did she deal with foundations? Which?
3. micro financing?
4. Hi exemptions for native owned lands?
Orly
1. did she deal with pension funds?
2. did she deal with foundations? Which?
3. micro financing?
4. Hi exemptions for native owned lands?
Orly
More help in research needed
Obama's house is sitting in a trust: Northern Trust Co, attorney Kelly Dibble. I got info that there are other properties sitting in that trust. Does anybody have addresses of these properties, legal descriptions, any info on these properties? What type of a trust is it: Charitable trust? Revocable? Irrevocable? Who are the beneficiaries? Who is listed as a trustor? Can smbd check microfish in county recorders office and get certified copies of tax payments?
Orly
Orly
Write to Pres Bush: "Appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a Special Prosecutor"
As of now the only person that is actively investigating New Chicago Mafia is Patrick Fitzgerald.
Keep in mind, God works in mysterious ways. Elliott Ness didn't get Capone and old Chicago Mafia on murder, he got them on tax evasion.
Unless things change, as of now, Fitzgerald is hard at work cleaning up new Chicago mob and corruption. Obama might be forced to resign or will be removed before his Natural Born status is adjudicated in courts. There is more and more evidence coming and being evaluated on the issue of public corruption, financial dealings, tax evasion. The investigation might last past the 20th. Just to be on the safe side, please write to Pres. Bush, asking him to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a special prosecutor. That will asure us that BO will not fire him come 20th. Of course the best assurance is indictment before the 20th. Let's work hard
Orly
Contact Information
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Email:
comments@whitehouse.gov
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chairman Patrick Leahy (D), contact information (senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov)
Ranking Member Arlen Spector (R), contact information
House Judiciary Committee:
Chairman John Conyers (D), contact information
Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R), contact information
Remember that House and Senate members are more likely to pay attention to contacts from constituents.
Keep in mind, God works in mysterious ways. Elliott Ness didn't get Capone and old Chicago Mafia on murder, he got them on tax evasion.
Unless things change, as of now, Fitzgerald is hard at work cleaning up new Chicago mob and corruption. Obama might be forced to resign or will be removed before his Natural Born status is adjudicated in courts. There is more and more evidence coming and being evaluated on the issue of public corruption, financial dealings, tax evasion. The investigation might last past the 20th. Just to be on the safe side, please write to Pres. Bush, asking him to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a special prosecutor. That will asure us that BO will not fire him come 20th. Of course the best assurance is indictment before the 20th. Let's work hard
Orly
Contact Information
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Email:
comments@whitehouse.gov
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee:
Chairman Patrick Leahy (D), contact information (senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov)
Ranking Member Arlen Spector (R), contact information
House Judiciary Committee:
Chairman John Conyers (D), contact information
Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R), contact information
Remember that House and Senate members are more likely to pay attention to contacts from constituents.
Is Google "PageRank" a good proxy ?
The struggle over the Obama Eligibility Controversy essentially amounts to a propaganda war. The pro-Obama forces have essentially a huge advantage, being much better organized and better funded.
Those of us wanting to see the Obama Eligibilty Controversy addressed are a rag-tag group of volunteers and amateurs. We do not have the support of the mainstream media, which is still powerful but represents a slowly waning influence. We do not even have the support of most mainstream conservative media, for the most part, including Fox News and conservative talk radio. We do not have the support of the Republican Party, which one would expect to be our natural ally [1]. The conservative special interest groups, advocating controlled immigration, gun ownership rights, a pro-life agenda, etc have mostly avoided us so far, and been essentially silent, although we have reached out to them. We have been branded as fruitcakes, flakes, nutjobs and conspiracy theorists; lunatics who wear tin foil hats, worry about One World Government and the end of the world. Even in the "new media" arena on the internet, getting the message out about potential problems with Obama's eligibility has been an uphill struggle.
Since Google has a huge market share among search engines[2][3], ranking of links in Google searches is a vital way to get information out on the internet. At the moment, the top 10 hits on a Google search for the phrase "Obama birth certificate" are heavily weighted towards pro-Obama sites. Here are the current links that I obtained:
1. A "Politifact" article from June 27, 2008 debunking rumors that the Obama birth certificate posted online is suspect (supposedly owned by St. Petersburg Times). There is no evidence that "politifact" is neutral or the result of any scholarly effort. It references the "Fight the Smears" website, the official Obama Campaign website, as a reliable "authority".
2. An LA Times blog article from June 16, 2008, and supposedly updated in August, 2008, presenting the "Fight the Smears" Certification of Live Birth as a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, allegedly "proving" eligibility. I would not trust the LA Times editorial page in this matter, and I have even less respect for an LA Times blog article.
3. A "snopes.com" article, last updated November 15, 2008 but apparently originally written in June of 2008, quoting material from the websites "Fight The Smears" and "Factcheck.org" (uncredited) and quoting the dismissal of the first Berg case. Although the Berg case was dismissed on the issue of "standing" and not for the substance of the evidence or arguments presented by Berg, the supposedly neutral "snopes" site spun their article in a completely partisan way. Snopes was started by a husband and wife at home, although might have been purchased later. We do not know who owns snopes at this point. However, the credentials of the original founders has never been ascertained with any degree of confidence. Do you trust two essentially anonymous and self-appointed bloggers writing a website at their kitchen table to determine the eligibility of someone who will occupy the most powerful office on the planet?
4. A Google news news article; depending on what is the top news item judged by the Google algorithm at any given time, this entry might be favorable to Obama, or it might not be, or it might be irrelevant. At the moment, the search I just performed produced an irrelevant news article.
5. The "Factcheck.org" article purporting to show that Obama's Certification of Live Birth is an unaltered official copy that proves Obama's eligibility. Many questions have been raised about this article and the document presented. An investigation into the staff at factcheck.org shows that the team consists of theatre majors, political science majors, undergraduates and other nonexperts. This were no forensic document experts involved. Connections of factcheck.org with the Annenberg Foundation at least give the appearance of impropriety.
6. An Israeli Insider article describing in detail some reasons the presented Obama COLB(s) appear to be fraudulent.
7. A link to a Youtube video describing reasons that the Obama COLB is suspicious
8. The original Fight The Smears article about the Obama birth certificate. This is the official Obama campaign website.
9. A link to the Chicago Tribune article about the dismissal of the Donofrio Case on December 8, 2008.
10. A second link to the original Fight The Smears article.
11. A list of 3 blog posts on the issue:
a. The left-wing Huffington Post's December 8, 2008 article on the dismissal of the Donofrio case
b. A December 4, 2008 article from Latest News blog about the flourishinng of lawsuits
c. A December 9, 2008 article from the left-wing Huffington Post entitled "Obama Birth Certificate Kooks In Court"
So at the moment, on the first page of Google-retrieved links, I find seven out of ten are pro-Obama articles, 2 of which are from Obama's official campaign site, and all seven of which are somewhat doubtful. In addition, Google retrieved three blog articles, and two out of 3 the blog posts are pro-Obama articles. Most of these articles are weeks if not months out of date.
I know that the Googlebots update rankings more frequently than that. It is awfully hard for me to believe that the top-ranked articles from the Google PageRank algorithm on this issue remain two articles from June of 2008, namely the politifact article and the LA Times blog article.
Previous searches using the Google search engine over the last 2 or 3 months showed that the LA Times blog article was the top-ranked hit for weeks on end and has never dropped out of its top ranking until this "politifact" article replaced it. At that point, the LA Times blog article assumed its current position in second place.
Of the three remaining articles, one is the result of a feed from Google news, so does not quite count. One is from Youtube, so again it does not quite count. Of the 8 "regular" articles chosen by the Google algorithms for top-ten ranking, 7 are pro-Obama. Of the 3 blog articles chosen by the Google algorithms to display, 2 are pro-Obama. The pro-Obama articles are almost all wildly out of date. Ancient history, by internet standards.
This is probably the result of either (1) "pagerank engineering" or (2) intervention by Google. It is fairly easy to get a link to rise in search engine ranks. It mainly involves linking to the site from other highly ranked sites, at least in the case of Google Searches. It would not be too difficult to believe that the Obama internet team, with its funding and depth and resources, would easily be able to accomplish.
Less likely, but still possible, is that Google itself has "pinned" certain articles to be high ranking. Reportedly Google CEO Eric Schmidt backs Obama, has campaigned for him, and even is being considered for a position in the Obama administration.
Even if I go to the second page of Google-chosen articles, I find something similar going on, although it is not quite as extreme. I find 3 pro-Obama articles (again, mostly out of date), 5 links associated with the Obama Eligibility Controversy, and 2 news articles.
Maybe I am confused and misleading myself, but I put a fair amount of stock in the reports of uneasiness of the US military with Obama's presidency [4][5][6], the informal AOL survey showing 53 percent believe there are some unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and accounts that Obama's base of support is fracturing. When I look at reporting of polls in the mainstream media, the results appear to be "cooked" to make Obama look more popular than he is.
I suspect we are observing what is essentially a "new age" publicity campaign, using the internet, to convince us that Obama is universally wildly popular and there are no serious questions about his eligibility. Even the numerous "o-bots" that turn up on our comment pages here seem to be extraordinarily driven to spread disinformation. Why is that?
What are they so afraid of? A little openness and transparency?
Those of us wanting to see the Obama Eligibilty Controversy addressed are a rag-tag group of volunteers and amateurs. We do not have the support of the mainstream media, which is still powerful but represents a slowly waning influence. We do not even have the support of most mainstream conservative media, for the most part, including Fox News and conservative talk radio. We do not have the support of the Republican Party, which one would expect to be our natural ally [1]. The conservative special interest groups, advocating controlled immigration, gun ownership rights, a pro-life agenda, etc have mostly avoided us so far, and been essentially silent, although we have reached out to them. We have been branded as fruitcakes, flakes, nutjobs and conspiracy theorists; lunatics who wear tin foil hats, worry about One World Government and the end of the world. Even in the "new media" arena on the internet, getting the message out about potential problems with Obama's eligibility has been an uphill struggle.
Since Google has a huge market share among search engines[2][3], ranking of links in Google searches is a vital way to get information out on the internet. At the moment, the top 10 hits on a Google search for the phrase "Obama birth certificate" are heavily weighted towards pro-Obama sites. Here are the current links that I obtained:
1. A "Politifact" article from June 27, 2008 debunking rumors that the Obama birth certificate posted online is suspect (supposedly owned by St. Petersburg Times). There is no evidence that "politifact" is neutral or the result of any scholarly effort. It references the "Fight the Smears" website, the official Obama Campaign website, as a reliable "authority".
2. An LA Times blog article from June 16, 2008, and supposedly updated in August, 2008, presenting the "Fight the Smears" Certification of Live Birth as a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, allegedly "proving" eligibility. I would not trust the LA Times editorial page in this matter, and I have even less respect for an LA Times blog article.
3. A "snopes.com" article, last updated November 15, 2008 but apparently originally written in June of 2008, quoting material from the websites "Fight The Smears" and "Factcheck.org" (uncredited) and quoting the dismissal of the first Berg case. Although the Berg case was dismissed on the issue of "standing" and not for the substance of the evidence or arguments presented by Berg, the supposedly neutral "snopes" site spun their article in a completely partisan way. Snopes was started by a husband and wife at home, although might have been purchased later. We do not know who owns snopes at this point. However, the credentials of the original founders has never been ascertained with any degree of confidence. Do you trust two essentially anonymous and self-appointed bloggers writing a website at their kitchen table to determine the eligibility of someone who will occupy the most powerful office on the planet?
4. A Google news news article; depending on what is the top news item judged by the Google algorithm at any given time, this entry might be favorable to Obama, or it might not be, or it might be irrelevant. At the moment, the search I just performed produced an irrelevant news article.
5. The "Factcheck.org" article purporting to show that Obama's Certification of Live Birth is an unaltered official copy that proves Obama's eligibility. Many questions have been raised about this article and the document presented. An investigation into the staff at factcheck.org shows that the team consists of theatre majors, political science majors, undergraduates and other nonexperts. This were no forensic document experts involved. Connections of factcheck.org with the Annenberg Foundation at least give the appearance of impropriety.
6. An Israeli Insider article describing in detail some reasons the presented Obama COLB(s) appear to be fraudulent.
7. A link to a Youtube video describing reasons that the Obama COLB is suspicious
8. The original Fight The Smears article about the Obama birth certificate. This is the official Obama campaign website.
9. A link to the Chicago Tribune article about the dismissal of the Donofrio Case on December 8, 2008.
10. A second link to the original Fight The Smears article.
11. A list of 3 blog posts on the issue:
a. The left-wing Huffington Post's December 8, 2008 article on the dismissal of the Donofrio case
b. A December 4, 2008 article from Latest News blog about the flourishinng of lawsuits
c. A December 9, 2008 article from the left-wing Huffington Post entitled "Obama Birth Certificate Kooks In Court"
So at the moment, on the first page of Google-retrieved links, I find seven out of ten are pro-Obama articles, 2 of which are from Obama's official campaign site, and all seven of which are somewhat doubtful. In addition, Google retrieved three blog articles, and two out of 3 the blog posts are pro-Obama articles. Most of these articles are weeks if not months out of date.
I know that the Googlebots update rankings more frequently than that. It is awfully hard for me to believe that the top-ranked articles from the Google PageRank algorithm on this issue remain two articles from June of 2008, namely the politifact article and the LA Times blog article.
Previous searches using the Google search engine over the last 2 or 3 months showed that the LA Times blog article was the top-ranked hit for weeks on end and has never dropped out of its top ranking until this "politifact" article replaced it. At that point, the LA Times blog article assumed its current position in second place.
Of the three remaining articles, one is the result of a feed from Google news, so does not quite count. One is from Youtube, so again it does not quite count. Of the 8 "regular" articles chosen by the Google algorithms for top-ten ranking, 7 are pro-Obama. Of the 3 blog articles chosen by the Google algorithms to display, 2 are pro-Obama. The pro-Obama articles are almost all wildly out of date. Ancient history, by internet standards.
This is probably the result of either (1) "pagerank engineering" or (2) intervention by Google. It is fairly easy to get a link to rise in search engine ranks. It mainly involves linking to the site from other highly ranked sites, at least in the case of Google Searches. It would not be too difficult to believe that the Obama internet team, with its funding and depth and resources, would easily be able to accomplish.
Less likely, but still possible, is that Google itself has "pinned" certain articles to be high ranking. Reportedly Google CEO Eric Schmidt backs Obama, has campaigned for him, and even is being considered for a position in the Obama administration.
Even if I go to the second page of Google-chosen articles, I find something similar going on, although it is not quite as extreme. I find 3 pro-Obama articles (again, mostly out of date), 5 links associated with the Obama Eligibility Controversy, and 2 news articles.
Maybe I am confused and misleading myself, but I put a fair amount of stock in the reports of uneasiness of the US military with Obama's presidency [4][5][6], the informal AOL survey showing 53 percent believe there are some unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and accounts that Obama's base of support is fracturing. When I look at reporting of polls in the mainstream media, the results appear to be "cooked" to make Obama look more popular than he is.
I suspect we are observing what is essentially a "new age" publicity campaign, using the internet, to convince us that Obama is universally wildly popular and there are no serious questions about his eligibility. Even the numerous "o-bots" that turn up on our comment pages here seem to be extraordinarily driven to spread disinformation. Why is that?
What are they so afraid of? A little openness and transparency?
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
On doing some web surfing, I came across what I believe is one of the most cogent discussions I have encountered on this issue. Someone who writes as "Joe the Farmer" contributed a piece titled "Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate", which was published November 26, 2008 in American Thinker. I highly recommend it to all.
Friday, January 2, 2009
I wrote to Chief Justice Roberts: Did you?
I sent off a letter to Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court, as suggested by Reverend Manning. I asked Roberts to please consider hearing one of these cases before the Court on the Obama Eligibility Controversy. I asked the COurt to affirm the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" and define more clearly what Congress' role is in interpreting or redefining this phrase.
His address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
I have also written to "Senator Snopes" (i.e., Senator Jon Kyl) and the other Congressmen and Senators in the Congressional Hall of Shame. Did you?
I have also written repeatedly to Congress and their aides about this matter. Did you?
I have contacted my state and federal elected representatives in writing and by phone repeatedly. Did you?
Join me in making them aware of how important this is. The Congressional January 8th meeting is very soon. The Supreme Court meetings on January 9th and January 16th are all too close.
Let's contact them to let them know we are concerned
His address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
I have also written to "Senator Snopes" (i.e., Senator Jon Kyl) and the other Congressmen and Senators in the Congressional Hall of Shame. Did you?
I have also written repeatedly to Congress and their aides about this matter. Did you?
I have contacted my state and federal elected representatives in writing and by phone repeatedly. Did you?
Join me in making them aware of how important this is. The Congressional January 8th meeting is very soon. The Supreme Court meetings on January 9th and January 16th are all too close.
Let's contact them to let them know we are concerned
2007 Jefferson Award winner, African-American Activist Berryhill to Obama"Show your vault BC"
From Citizen Berryhill
Diary Entry by Vivian Berryhill
vote nowBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
1 1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue. Mr. Obama, show your birth certificate for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who deem your Presidency 'illegitmate'
::::::::
Dear Mr. President-elect Obama,
With out a doubt, your history making ascension to the highest office in the land has brought, and continues to bring, unexplainable pride to millions of people of color, not just in America... but around the globe. People are rooting for you, as they want you to be a good President.
But on the other hand... there are also millions of others who do not like you, respect you, or want to see you confirmed as the 44th President of these United States. Please understand that for some in that category, it's personal. But there are many, who have not accepted your position, operating out of fear because there remain 'questions' about your life that have not been thoroughly answered.
I am writing this open letter to you today on behalf of both sides. Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue.
For months now across bloggersville, and... now the issue is surfacing in main line media outlets as well, American citizens–– yes, the ones who voted for you... and the ones who did not–– are 'bewildered' that you feel the need to pay money (in the midst of a recession) to three major law firms to make sure that the American people, who you wish to serve, cannot have access to your birth records in Hawaii or your college transcripts. Speculation is running rampant that you received aid as a foreign student. So, instead of relishing in your victory, those who supported you are having to confront these allegations daily...without documentation or ammunition to counter the claims.
Americans believe you when you say you 'love this country'. However, to allow this birth certificate brouhaha to reach the Supreme Court on December 5, causes many to question your love for the country you want to lead. Why would you allow this issue to proceed to the Supreme Court, knowing the national scab has not fully healed from the Bush vs Gore election which was decided at the SCOTUS level? Unfortunately, Mr. President-elect, whichever decision is handed down by the Justices, will not make this issue go away. And, quite frankly, a Constitutional crisis may be imminent... which could further divide an already divided nation.
I know this birth certificate issue may seem trivial in the scheme of things: National Security briefings, world threats, picking a cabinet, an economic crisis looming large... but to many of our fellow Americans, 'nothing' is more important than the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, you Sir, are the only one who can bring closure to the issue at this juncture.
So, please Mr. Obama... for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who already deem your presidency 'illegitimate', do like Senator John McCain did, and present your birth certificate to the American people today.
Our prayer is that you will do the right thing, put an end to this nonsense... so America can come together and tackle the real issues that face this country.
Vivian Berryhill, founder of a national service organization, is a renown speaker and travels extensively throughout the United States and abroad. She has addressed audiences in Thailand, Nigeria, Honduras, Peru, Chile, and has traveled to Kenya, Uganda, Camaroon, Zambia, Rawanda, France and the U.K.
She was selected as one of the premier partners for Walden Media's internationally acclaimed movie: Amazing Grace, http://amazinggracemovie.com/_pdf/ag_faithguide_uk.pdf and the worldwide movement Amazing Change, www.theamazingchange.com/music2.html, lending her voice and talent, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Right Reverend Patrick O'Donoghue, and other notable world leaders, to end modern day slavery.
Mrs. Berryhill, a 2007 Jefferson Public Service Award winner, also received the prestigious Presidential Service Award in 2006. She is married to Rev. C.L. Berryhill, Jr.
Diary Entry by Vivian Berryhill
vote nowBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
1 1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue. Mr. Obama, show your birth certificate for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who deem your Presidency 'illegitmate'
::::::::
Dear Mr. President-elect Obama,
With out a doubt, your history making ascension to the highest office in the land has brought, and continues to bring, unexplainable pride to millions of people of color, not just in America... but around the globe. People are rooting for you, as they want you to be a good President.
But on the other hand... there are also millions of others who do not like you, respect you, or want to see you confirmed as the 44th President of these United States. Please understand that for some in that category, it's personal. But there are many, who have not accepted your position, operating out of fear because there remain 'questions' about your life that have not been thoroughly answered.
I am writing this open letter to you today on behalf of both sides. Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue.
For months now across bloggersville, and... now the issue is surfacing in main line media outlets as well, American citizens–– yes, the ones who voted for you... and the ones who did not–– are 'bewildered' that you feel the need to pay money (in the midst of a recession) to three major law firms to make sure that the American people, who you wish to serve, cannot have access to your birth records in Hawaii or your college transcripts. Speculation is running rampant that you received aid as a foreign student. So, instead of relishing in your victory, those who supported you are having to confront these allegations daily...without documentation or ammunition to counter the claims.
Americans believe you when you say you 'love this country'. However, to allow this birth certificate brouhaha to reach the Supreme Court on December 5, causes many to question your love for the country you want to lead. Why would you allow this issue to proceed to the Supreme Court, knowing the national scab has not fully healed from the Bush vs Gore election which was decided at the SCOTUS level? Unfortunately, Mr. President-elect, whichever decision is handed down by the Justices, will not make this issue go away. And, quite frankly, a Constitutional crisis may be imminent... which could further divide an already divided nation.
I know this birth certificate issue may seem trivial in the scheme of things: National Security briefings, world threats, picking a cabinet, an economic crisis looming large... but to many of our fellow Americans, 'nothing' is more important than the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, you Sir, are the only one who can bring closure to the issue at this juncture.
So, please Mr. Obama... for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who already deem your presidency 'illegitimate', do like Senator John McCain did, and present your birth certificate to the American people today.
Our prayer is that you will do the right thing, put an end to this nonsense... so America can come together and tackle the real issues that face this country.
Vivian Berryhill, founder of a national service organization, is a renown speaker and travels extensively throughout the United States and abroad. She has addressed audiences in Thailand, Nigeria, Honduras, Peru, Chile, and has traveled to Kenya, Uganda, Camaroon, Zambia, Rawanda, France and the U.K.
She was selected as one of the premier partners for Walden Media's internationally acclaimed movie: Amazing Grace, http://amazinggracemovie.com/_pdf/ag_faithguide_uk.pdf and the worldwide movement Amazing Change, www.theamazingchange.com/music2.html, lending her voice and talent, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Right Reverend Patrick O'Donoghue, and other notable world leaders, to end modern day slavery.
Mrs. Berryhill, a 2007 Jefferson Public Service Award winner, also received the prestigious Presidential Service Award in 2006. She is married to Rev. C.L. Berryhill, Jr.
More information for US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, FBI and IRS
illinoisreview.typepad.com — According to the Cook County Assessor's website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn't exist...there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.
on 11/07/2008 This post removed due to Cook County Government Intimidation
According to the Cook County Assessor's website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn't exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel's residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections' website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.
The Cook County Assessor's and Cook County Treasurer's online records indicate Emanuel's Chicago neighbors pay between $3,500 and $7,000 annually. However, Illinois Review has been unable to locate any evidence that the former Clinton advisor and investment banker is paying his fair share of Cook County's notoriously high tax burden.
Why wouldn't 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule pay property taxes?
One reason may be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their personal non-profit foundation called the "Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation". As the non-profit's headquarters, their home could be exempt from paying property taxes.
In January 2007, USA Today reported on Emanuel's foundation:
The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in 2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only donors. Emanuel was an investment banker after serving in the White House.
The trust reported having $2,900 on hand at the end of 2005 after receiving $34,000 from Emanuel and donating more than $31,000.
During the past three years, Emanuel's charity gave nearly $25,000 to the Anshe Emet synagogue and school [a private school that the Rahm/Rule children attend]..., and $15,000 to the foundation run by former president Bill Clinton. It also gave $14,000 to Marwen, a Chicago charity that provides art classes and other educational help to low-income children. Rule is on Marwen's board.
Emanuel's 4228 North Hermitage home is one of the largest in the neighborhood, with a side yard that appears to be a vacant lot, making the Emanuels' property the largest portion on the block.
Other North Hermitage homes on Emanuel's block are valued in the $500,000 plus range. According to Cook County Treasurer's website, the Chicago owners of nearby 118 year old 4222 North Hermitage pay almost $6800 annually. The family at 4224 North Heritage pays $6000 each year in property taxes.
President Elect Obama - himself a connected, Chicago insider who has benefited from questionable land deals - may find it difficult to explain why his very own Chicago-based chief of staff doesn't pay property taxes like the "little guy" he claims to represent. Or perhaps allowing his wealthy friends to avoid taxes is part of Obama's trickle down redistribution economics. It's certainly the kind of "change" we Illinoisans can believe in...since we're quite familiar with it here in the federal indictment land of Daley, Blagojevich, Madigan, Jones, Cellini, Rezko, etc., etc.
More to come...
on 11/07/2008 This post removed due to Cook County Government Intimidation
According to the Cook County Assessor's website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn't exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel's residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections' website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.
The Cook County Assessor's and Cook County Treasurer's online records indicate Emanuel's Chicago neighbors pay between $3,500 and $7,000 annually. However, Illinois Review has been unable to locate any evidence that the former Clinton advisor and investment banker is paying his fair share of Cook County's notoriously high tax burden.
Why wouldn't 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule pay property taxes?
One reason may be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their personal non-profit foundation called the "Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation". As the non-profit's headquarters, their home could be exempt from paying property taxes.
In January 2007, USA Today reported on Emanuel's foundation:
The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in 2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only donors. Emanuel was an investment banker after serving in the White House.
The trust reported having $2,900 on hand at the end of 2005 after receiving $34,000 from Emanuel and donating more than $31,000.
During the past three years, Emanuel's charity gave nearly $25,000 to the Anshe Emet synagogue and school [a private school that the Rahm/Rule children attend]..., and $15,000 to the foundation run by former president Bill Clinton. It also gave $14,000 to Marwen, a Chicago charity that provides art classes and other educational help to low-income children. Rule is on Marwen's board.
Emanuel's 4228 North Hermitage home is one of the largest in the neighborhood, with a side yard that appears to be a vacant lot, making the Emanuels' property the largest portion on the block.
Other North Hermitage homes on Emanuel's block are valued in the $500,000 plus range. According to Cook County Treasurer's website, the Chicago owners of nearby 118 year old 4222 North Hermitage pay almost $6800 annually. The family at 4224 North Heritage pays $6000 each year in property taxes.
President Elect Obama - himself a connected, Chicago insider who has benefited from questionable land deals - may find it difficult to explain why his very own Chicago-based chief of staff doesn't pay property taxes like the "little guy" he claims to represent. Or perhaps allowing his wealthy friends to avoid taxes is part of Obama's trickle down redistribution economics. It's certainly the kind of "change" we Illinoisans can believe in...since we're quite familiar with it here in the federal indictment land of Daley, Blagojevich, Madigan, Jones, Cellini, Rezko, etc., etc.
More to come...
I wrote to Chief Justice Roberts: Did you?
I sent off a letter to Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court, as suggested by Reverend Manning. I asked Roberts to please consider hearing one of these cases before the Court on the Obama Eligibility Controversy. I asked the COurt to affirm the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" and define more clearly what Congress' role is in interpreting or redefining this phrase.
His address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
I have also written to "Senator Snopes" (i.e., Senator Jon Kyl) and the other Congressmen and Senators in the Congressional Hall of Shame. Did you?
I have also written repeatedly to Congress and their aides about this matter. Did you?
I have contacted my state and federal elected representatives in writing and by phone repeatedly. Did you?
Join me in making them aware of how important this is. The Congressional January 8th meeting is very soon. The Supreme Court meetings on January 9th and January 16th are all too close.
Let's contact them to let them know we are concerned.
His address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
I have also written to "Senator Snopes" (i.e., Senator Jon Kyl) and the other Congressmen and Senators in the Congressional Hall of Shame. Did you?
I have also written repeatedly to Congress and their aides about this matter. Did you?
I have contacted my state and federal elected representatives in writing and by phone repeatedly. Did you?
Join me in making them aware of how important this is. The Congressional January 8th meeting is very soon. The Supreme Court meetings on January 9th and January 16th are all too close.
Let's contact them to let them know we are concerned.
Letter from a reader Carol
Isturiz is an Afro-American Venezuelan politician with national recognition.
***
Dr. Orly,
You posted what looks like a Venezuelan driver's license or identity card, and it seemed to have Obama's last name as "Obama Isturiz". Did you notice that?
It has his first name on the next line, "Barack Hussein."
I googled Isturiz, wondering what that word was there for. I found the above link to a well-known Venezuelan politician who is Afro-Amercan. Were they falsifying Barack's last name, making him look connected to a famous politician, to help him move about?
Pretty odd. He now has about 6 aliases.
Your note on the immigration officer who was an eye witness looks promising. Hope you can locate the Immigration office who feels he saw Obama enter as a foreign student, and he could sign a notarized statement, for lawyers to back up their suspicions of Obama as an Indonesian immigrant.
Also, I bet Obama went to high school in Hawaii, then Lolo told him how he went to El Camino HS and maybe Lolo went on to a free education for foreign students at Occidental (the free needs verified, but I read that somewhere), and so Obama enrolled at El Camino as Barry Soetoro (in the alumni yearbook 1980 under that name) and it facilitated his free education at Occidental as an Indonesian. Coming from a Hawaiian high school may have prohibited him. Just a guess.
God bless,
Carol
HUGO CHAVEZ, COLUMBIAN LEFTIST REBELS, OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, AND ROGUE URANIUM IN SOUTH AMERICA
http://thebigfeed.blogspot.com/2008/05/hugo-chavez-columbian-leftist-rebels.htmlHUGO CHAVEZ, COLUMBIAN LEFTIST REBELS, OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, AND ROGUE URANIUM IN SOUTH AMERICA
Yesterday, Interpol confirmed the authenticity of Raúl Reyes's computer files. Reyes was a top commander of Colombia's left-wing guerrillas the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) killed during a Colombian military operation in Granada, Putumayo, on March 1, 2008. In the aftermath of the attack on Reyes and FARC, the Columbian government claimed that it seized computers belonging to the rebels that contained emails and other information detailing support for, and the goals of, the leftist rebel group. Hugo Chavez took the opportunity to accuse Columbia of military aggression against Venezuela and massed thousands of troops on the Columbian/Venezuela border while threatening war. Chavez also claimed that the information contained on the laptops was a fabrication. Interpol, however, says Chavez was wrong.
According to Interpol:
The information found in the computers of the deceased leader of the rebel Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), Raúl Reyes, was not manipulated by Colombian authorities, according to an Interpol's report to be released next May 15, as disclosed by Bogota El Tiempo daily newspaper.Based on the information found on the laptops, the Colombian National Ministry of Defense reported last month that authorities had seized 60 pounds of uranium that belonged to FARC.
The report stated that a committee comprising computer science experts from Korea, Australia, and Singapore working for the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) completed last May 2 the investigation into the three computers found in Reyes' camp in Ecuador, Efe reported.
'The first finding was that Reyes' files were not manipulated and that security agencies and citizens who had the computer in their hands kept them safe,' the Colombian newspaper stated.
The fact that the information has now been confirmed as authentic is horrible news for Colombia's FARC supporting neighbors and US Democrats.You can draw your own conclusions about the danger of 60 pounds of uranium in the hands of marxist terrorists. And you can draw your own conclusions as to the importance of this passage that was allegedly found on the seized laptops, now confirmed authentic by Interpol:
Here is a partial list of what Colombian investigators found on the FARC terror leader's computer:
-- FARC connections with Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa
-- Records of $300 million offerings from Hugo Chavez
-- Thank you notes from Hugo Chavez dating back to 1992
-- Uranium purchasing records
-- Admit to killing the sister of former President Cesar Gaviria
-- Admit to planting a 2003 car bomb killing 36 at a Bogota upper crust club
-- Directions on how to make a Dirty Bomb
-- Information that led to the discovery of 60 pounds of uranium
-- Letter to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi asking for cash to buy surface-to-air missiles
-- Meetings with 'gringos' about Barack Obama
-- Information on Russian illegal arms dealer Viktor Bout who was later captured
-- FARC funding Correa's campaign
-- Cuban links to FARC
-- Links to US Democrats
-- $480,000 of FARC cash in Costa Rican safe house
-- $100,000 to President Correa's campaign for election
The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.You can draw your own conclusions. But in light of his Reverend Wright and William Ayers ties, his adherence to the Marxist black liberation religion, his stance on free trade agreements, and his despising of free-thinking, gun-toting small town America, I will draw my own conclusion too. Obama is a marxist. And while you may not see it, marxist rebels with uranium do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACORN International has offices in South America. Obama has been a community organizer with ACORN for years. He even headed up the start of Project Vote for ACORN in 1992.
Background on ACORN here: http://blog.newyorkcitycommunity.us/2008/09/23/voter-fraud--how-many-of-you-have-heard-of-acorn.aspx
ACORN International is even working the Get Out The Vote effort for DemocratsAbroad.
An article from the New Media Journal.US
Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
Why the POTUS Needs to
Be a Natural-Born Citizen
December 3, 2008
The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.
To be clear, I have no decided position on whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or otherwise. I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.
The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).
On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the full compliment of the United States Supreme Court will hold a Rule of Four Conference hearing on the issue of Donofrio v. Wells; a lawsuit alleging that New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells was delinquent in disqualifying ineligible candidates for President of the United States from the November 4th, 2008 General Election Ballot. The US Supreme Court Rule of Four states that before a case is put on the docket, four out of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree in conference to hear the case. If four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices agree, Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full United States Supreme Court and our nation will stand on the brink of a Constitutional Crisis.
There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.
Allegiance
It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.
Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive -- the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments -- it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to "country first."
A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.
Sovereignty
In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.
With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.
When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.
Foreign Intervention
In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.
To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be naïve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.
Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.
Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom
Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.
Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.
Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.
While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow.
Why the POTUS Needs to
Be a Natural-Born Citizen
December 3, 2008
The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.
To be clear, I have no decided position on whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or otherwise. I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.
The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).
On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the full compliment of the United States Supreme Court will hold a Rule of Four Conference hearing on the issue of Donofrio v. Wells; a lawsuit alleging that New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells was delinquent in disqualifying ineligible candidates for President of the United States from the November 4th, 2008 General Election Ballot. The US Supreme Court Rule of Four states that before a case is put on the docket, four out of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree in conference to hear the case. If four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices agree, Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full United States Supreme Court and our nation will stand on the brink of a Constitutional Crisis.
There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.
Allegiance
It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.
Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive -- the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments -- it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to "country first."
A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.
Sovereignty
In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.
With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.
When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.
Foreign Intervention
In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.
To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be naïve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.
Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.
Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom
Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.
Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.
Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.
While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow.
FS-1 - foreign student visa and Barack Obama??
From this forum:
http://www.reagan.com/forum/view_thread.cfm?postid=1101&forum=38&category=25
“Obama has also failed/refused to release any records pertaining to school, college, and medical. Why? Was he registered as a foreign exchange student at both colleges? A retired INS agent who worked when Obama came into the United States stated he distinctly remembered Obama because of his ‘slick’ manners and speech. The agent says that he went back into the INS files and found the information and that Obama came into the USA on a FS-1 pas sport/visa. FS-1 is a foreign student visa clas sification, not a US citizen passport. So, who out there can get into the INS files and find Soreto/Obama’s record of entry into the USA?“
These pictures are of Barack Obama's stepfather who was a student at the El Camino HS in 1963 as an exchange student.
The step-father was going by a couple different names too; Lolo Soetoro, Soetoro Moestabjab, Soetoro Mangunharjo, and his nickname was "Toro"... I guess using the different aliases is a family trait.
University Library | California Legal Research Guide: Legislation ...
Journal of the Assembly, Legislature of the State of California (Ref KFC14 .C
3512),
1942-current. (1989-current in Reference; earlier in the ARS. ...
library.sonoma.edu/research/subject/callaw.html
1 page matching SOETORO MOESTABJAB in this book Page 6488
University Library | California Legal Research Guide: Legislation ...
Journal of the Senate, Legislature of the State of California (Ref KFC14 .C3522),
1942-current. (1989-current in Reference; earlier in the ARS.) ...
library.sonoma.edu/research/subject/callaw.html
1 page matching SOETORO MOESTABJAB in this book Page 1052
From the World Library search engine. Here are all the places that carry the Senate version of this book:
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/6622752&referer=brief_results
And here is the Assembly version:
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/6622899
HatTip to the team at Country First for helping with this
BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further
www.obamacrimes.com: "For Immediate Release: - 12/30/08
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08) - 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 which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel."
Read more.
Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports
As reported by DecaLogosIntl.org:Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):
Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …
Read more.
OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.
The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o 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 . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.
Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.
(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
ATI News President O'Leary-"Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech"
"... ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, "Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign.""* * http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84939 Obama radio critic finds talk show time slashed
Program host: 'I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 01, 2009, 11:50 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says. Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris' coverage of local issues as well as national issues. But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism. Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama's demand in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported. In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force." A video of his comments is here: Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn't new at all. "We called them the 'peoples' militia,' (in Czechoslovakia)" he told WND. He said he's reviewed Obama's speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government, and discussed those issues on his program. "I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said," Dzuris told WND. "I'm just taking what he says, his influences, background…," he said. "I lived all those things." [Dzuris] said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989. Radio station administrator Kim Pruitt confirmed that a number of individuals within the board structure of the 100-watt community station are active campaigners for Obama. But she said a recent decision that sparked Dzuris' outrage to cut his show from two hours to one hour wasn't made on that basis. She said Dzuris show had been extended from one hour to two months ago in order to allow time for discussion of "local events." She said, however, Dzuris didn't fill the additional time with local issues. "The situation was he actually was not spending very much time on the local events and he was spending time on the national events. Elections were of interest to him," she said. So a decision was made by a programming committee to reduce the program time, she said. Dzuris appealed to the full board of directors for the station, which included some members of the programming committee, and ultimately they compromised and restored another 30 minutes of his program time, Pruitt confirmed, even though there are those in the station's coverage area who would "like to see him off the air." WND e-mails and telephone messages for the chief of the station's board, as well as Obama's transition team, did not generate a response. One board member, Dave Repetto, was contacted by WND but declined to discuss the issue. He referred WND to coverage in the area Three Oaks and New Buffalo newspapers. In the New Buffalo Harbor Country News, Dzuris said, "I was told to tighten up my show, but no help or suggestions were given to me about how to do this, and I feel the real reason my time on the air is being reduced is because of my political views that differ with many people on the board of directors and programming committee." Former station program director Linas Johansonas agreed. "This issue is about content," Johansonas told station committee members, according to the News. "I've had board members tell me that they hate Martin's guts. This decision is political, and I hope you can get past that and see the good Martin does in the community." Dzuris confirmed to WND he attended a program committee meeting where members vocally expressed their opposition to the program's political position including its criticism of Obama. But fellow program host Dennis Snow said that wasn't an issue. "If you want to call Obama a communist on the air, you have a right to do that, and I'll defend to the death your right to do that, even though I don't agree with that," Snow said in the News report. "I know you feel we're all a bunch of liberals here, and that we're ganging up on you by reducing your time on the air, but that's not true. I just really feel your show would be better if it was one hour instead of two hours, that's all." Dzuris said the move to reduce his show time came after Obama volunteers, including some from the station, concluded a round of several thousand telephone calls in the region trying to generate support for the Democrat. People would respond that they weren't voting for Obama and then reveal they got information about Obama's links to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his Saul Alinsky influences and other factors, from Dzuris' program. "On the programming committee, there are people, one that presented the motion, the other seconded the motion to cut my show … many of them were involved as volunteers in our local Obamam campaign," Dzuris told WND. "They've been after my show. Now it came to a head," he said. Many questions about Obama's stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military remain unanswered. But Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has said there will be a mandatory "force" for Americans. "If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News. WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs. That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposal. The new wording reads, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. WND also previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth. The apparent censorship also raised questions about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which, if re-adopted in Congress, could be used to severely limit conservative talk radio in the United States. If would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law's repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law's return would decimate the industry's marketability. Many fear the "Fairness Doctrine" would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business. As WND reported, ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, "Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign." Obama's presidency, he said, could "allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."
Program host: 'I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 01, 2009, 11:50 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says. Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris' coverage of local issues as well as national issues. But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism. Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama's demand in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported. In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force." A video of his comments is here: Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn't new at all. "We called them the 'peoples' militia,' (in Czechoslovakia)" he told WND. He said he's reviewed Obama's speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government, and discussed those issues on his program. "I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said," Dzuris told WND. "I'm just taking what he says, his influences, background…," he said. "I lived all those things." [Dzuris] said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989. Radio station administrator Kim Pruitt confirmed that a number of individuals within the board structure of the 100-watt community station are active campaigners for Obama. But she said a recent decision that sparked Dzuris' outrage to cut his show from two hours to one hour wasn't made on that basis. She said Dzuris show had been extended from one hour to two months ago in order to allow time for discussion of "local events." She said, however, Dzuris didn't fill the additional time with local issues. "The situation was he actually was not spending very much time on the local events and he was spending time on the national events. Elections were of interest to him," she said. So a decision was made by a programming committee to reduce the program time, she said. Dzuris appealed to the full board of directors for the station, which included some members of the programming committee, and ultimately they compromised and restored another 30 minutes of his program time, Pruitt confirmed, even though there are those in the station's coverage area who would "like to see him off the air." WND e-mails and telephone messages for the chief of the station's board, as well as Obama's transition team, did not generate a response. One board member, Dave Repetto, was contacted by WND but declined to discuss the issue. He referred WND to coverage in the area Three Oaks and New Buffalo newspapers. In the New Buffalo Harbor Country News, Dzuris said, "I was told to tighten up my show, but no help or suggestions were given to me about how to do this, and I feel the real reason my time on the air is being reduced is because of my political views that differ with many people on the board of directors and programming committee." Former station program director Linas Johansonas agreed. "This issue is about content," Johansonas told station committee members, according to the News. "I've had board members tell me that they hate Martin's guts. This decision is political, and I hope you can get past that and see the good Martin does in the community." Dzuris confirmed to WND he attended a program committee meeting where members vocally expressed their opposition to the program's political position including its criticism of Obama. But fellow program host Dennis Snow said that wasn't an issue. "If you want to call Obama a communist on the air, you have a right to do that, and I'll defend to the death your right to do that, even though I don't agree with that," Snow said in the News report. "I know you feel we're all a bunch of liberals here, and that we're ganging up on you by reducing your time on the air, but that's not true. I just really feel your show would be better if it was one hour instead of two hours, that's all." Dzuris said the move to reduce his show time came after Obama volunteers, including some from the station, concluded a round of several thousand telephone calls in the region trying to generate support for the Democrat. People would respond that they weren't voting for Obama and then reveal they got information about Obama's links to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his Saul Alinsky influences and other factors, from Dzuris' program. "On the programming committee, there are people, one that presented the motion, the other seconded the motion to cut my show … many of them were involved as volunteers in our local Obamam campaign," Dzuris told WND. "They've been after my show. Now it came to a head," he said. Many questions about Obama's stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military remain unanswered. But Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has said there will be a mandatory "force" for Americans. "If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News. WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs. That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposal. The new wording reads, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. WND also previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth. The apparent censorship also raised questions about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which, if re-adopted in Congress, could be used to severely limit conservative talk radio in the United States. If would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law's repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law's return would decimate the industry's marketability. Many fear the "Fairness Doctrine" would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business. As WND reported, ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, "Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign." Obama's presidency, he said, could "allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."
Army times poll: only 25% of military voted for Obama, only30% are optimistic about him as a Commander in Chief
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/
Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable
By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 1, 2009 11:06:56 EST
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in
chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or
pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack
of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap
of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,”
said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.
For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican
commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led
them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command
as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and
values.
Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for
pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military,
according to survey responses and interviews.
“How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force
1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations
Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out
combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens
if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing
the same thing over again?”
When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George
W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has
lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their
best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a
decline from 69 percent in 2004.
Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service
members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.
Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported
him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times
subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief
“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old
strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who
said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able
to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.”
The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of
subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps
Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8,
included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.
The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a
whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and
junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.
But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the
challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists
with different political and cultural attitudes.
In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described
their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more
than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents
and 13 percent Democrats.
Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has
written extensively about civil-military relations, said a degree of
uncertainty among service members toward Obama is appropriate, given their
questions about how he will govern as commander in chief.
“Those numbers don’t convince me he has got a big problem on his hands
because what he is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military
caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the
position of this office,” Feaver said. “It’s sensible and understandable
that they have doubts about him.
“They respect the office of the commander in chief,” Feaver said. “As long
as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into
a problem.”
David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said
respondents’ optimism toward Obama can be partially attributed to confidence
in his military advisers, including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the
Navy, and retired Gen. James Jones Jr., former commandant of the Marine
Corps and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
On Dec. 1, the day the survey was released, Obama announced his national
security team, including Jones as national security adviser and Robert Gates
a holdover from the Bush administration, as defense secretary.
“There is an understanding that the president doesn’t do all his own
paperwork,” Segal said. “The quality of any president is going to depend on
the quality of the people he has around him.”
When to leave Iraq
While nearly half of the respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s
proposal to withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking
office, a slightly higher percentage said they support the Status of Forces
Agreement calling for U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.
Army Spc. Robbie Blackford, an infantryman with C Troop, 1-71st Cavalry
Regiment, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, who returned from a 14-month
tour in Iraq in late October, said Obama should gradually reduce the number
of U.S. service members in Iraq.
“In my mind, things were changing to the point where we could get out of
there and the Iraqis could take over their own country,” Blackford said. “I
think that he should just pull out a little at a time.”
Although realistic about the challenges ahead, troops overwhelmingly support
the mission in Afghanistan.
Eight out of 10 respondents said the U.S. should have gone to war in
Afghanistan. Nearly the same amount support plans to boost the number of
troops there by more than 20,000, for a total of more than 50,000.
“We just don’t have enough manpower to be out there doing what we need to do
winning the hearts and minds and so forth,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4
Jay Brewer, a meteorological and oceanographic officer with Marine Forces
Pacific who has twice deployed to Iraq. “In Iraq, when we increased the
number of troops, we were able to increase our presence full-time in certain
areas.”
While the majority of respondents expressed some degree of optimism the U.S.
will succeed in Afghanistan, 30 percent said troops will need to stay for
more than a decade to achieve its goals.
The survey results also suggest that despite the military’s efforts to
address mental-health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and
traumatic brain injury, stigma associated with the conditions lingers.
About 15 percent of active-duty respondents said they are suffering from or
have suffered from PTSD, TBI or other mental health issues.
Most of those respondents said they sought help with the treatment. But four
out of 10 said they believed seeking care for such disabilities would
negatively affect their career.
Navy Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class William Rioseco, an instructor at Center for
Security Forces, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, said mandatory post-deployment
screening across all services would help to reduce stigma associated with
mental health disorders.
“Like PT, it should be mandatory. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in action
or you’re doing support,” he said. “If you’re in a combat zone, you’re
subject for mandatory psychoanalysis because people can get affected by
different things.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/
ReplyReply All Move...CARSGo to
Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable
By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 1, 2009 11:06:56 EST
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in
chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or
pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack
of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap
of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,”
said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.
For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican
commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led
them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command
as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and
values.
Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for
pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military,
according to survey responses and interviews.
“How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force
1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations
Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out
combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens
if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing
the same thing over again?”
When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George
W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has
lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their
best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a
decline from 69 percent in 2004.
Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service
members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.
Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported
him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times
subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief
“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old
strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who
said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able
to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.”
The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of
subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps
Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8,
included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.
The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a
whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and
junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.
But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the
challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists
with different political and cultural attitudes.
In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described
their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more
than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents
and 13 percent Democrats.
Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has
written extensively about civil-military relations, said a degree of
uncertainty among service members toward Obama is appropriate, given their
questions about how he will govern as commander in chief.
“Those numbers don’t convince me he has got a big problem on his hands
because what he is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military
caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the
position of this office,” Feaver said. “It’s sensible and understandable
that they have doubts about him.
“They respect the office of the commander in chief,” Feaver said. “As long
as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into
a problem.”
David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said
respondents’ optimism toward Obama can be partially attributed to confidence
in his military advisers, including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the
Navy, and retired Gen. James Jones Jr., former commandant of the Marine
Corps and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
On Dec. 1, the day the survey was released, Obama announced his national
security team, including Jones as national security adviser and Robert Gates
a holdover from the Bush administration, as defense secretary.
“There is an understanding that the president doesn’t do all his own
paperwork,” Segal said. “The quality of any president is going to depend on
the quality of the people he has around him.”
When to leave Iraq
While nearly half of the respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s
proposal to withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking
office, a slightly higher percentage said they support the Status of Forces
Agreement calling for U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.
Army Spc. Robbie Blackford, an infantryman with C Troop, 1-71st Cavalry
Regiment, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, who returned from a 14-month
tour in Iraq in late October, said Obama should gradually reduce the number
of U.S. service members in Iraq.
“In my mind, things were changing to the point where we could get out of
there and the Iraqis could take over their own country,” Blackford said. “I
think that he should just pull out a little at a time.”
Although realistic about the challenges ahead, troops overwhelmingly support
the mission in Afghanistan.
Eight out of 10 respondents said the U.S. should have gone to war in
Afghanistan. Nearly the same amount support plans to boost the number of
troops there by more than 20,000, for a total of more than 50,000.
“We just don’t have enough manpower to be out there doing what we need to do
winning the hearts and minds and so forth,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4
Jay Brewer, a meteorological and oceanographic officer with Marine Forces
Pacific who has twice deployed to Iraq. “In Iraq, when we increased the
number of troops, we were able to increase our presence full-time in certain
areas.”
While the majority of respondents expressed some degree of optimism the U.S.
will succeed in Afghanistan, 30 percent said troops will need to stay for
more than a decade to achieve its goals.
The survey results also suggest that despite the military’s efforts to
address mental-health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and
traumatic brain injury, stigma associated with the conditions lingers.
About 15 percent of active-duty respondents said they are suffering from or
have suffered from PTSD, TBI or other mental health issues.
Most of those respondents said they sought help with the treatment. But four
out of 10 said they believed seeking care for such disabilities would
negatively affect their career.
Navy Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class William Rioseco, an instructor at Center for
Security Forces, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, said mandatory post-deployment
screening across all services would help to reduce stigma associated with
mental health disorders.
“Like PT, it should be mandatory. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in action
or you’re doing support,” he said. “If you’re in a combat zone, you’re
subject for mandatory psychoanalysis because people can get affected by
different things.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/
ReplyReply All Move...CARSGo to
Letter from a reader on more possible indictments
I got this e-mail from a reader, Carol. Does anybody have more info on these transactions? Can one of you forward this to Patrick Fitzgerald and the rest of the authorities?
Dr. Orly,
This may be old news for you, but I read somewhere that somebody researched Rahm Emmanuel's house and the property taxes related and found his address was listed as a charity, and it turned out that he and his wife turned their home into a nonprofit foundation and they therefore did not have to pay property taxes. I guess their way of spreading the wealth.
Annual tax records on Obama and Emmanuel might show a lot....if not sealed, of course. Blagovich might be doing something similar with his house.
Wonder if a "Lant Trust" for a historic home pays taxes.
Oh, I also read that Blagovich's wife was a realtor, and was involved in Obama's house....that is not a verified fact, of course, but worth seeing who the realtor was.
God bless,
Carol
Dr. Orly,
This may be old news for you, but I read somewhere that somebody researched Rahm Emmanuel's house and the property taxes related and found his address was listed as a charity, and it turned out that he and his wife turned their home into a nonprofit foundation and they therefore did not have to pay property taxes. I guess their way of spreading the wealth.
Annual tax records on Obama and Emmanuel might show a lot....if not sealed, of course. Blagovich might be doing something similar with his house.
Wonder if a "Lant Trust" for a historic home pays taxes.
Oh, I also read that Blagovich's wife was a realtor, and was involved in Obama's house....that is not a verified fact, of course, but worth seeing who the realtor was.
God bless,
Carol
Thursday, January 1, 2009
More help in research needed
If you remember a convicted felon Tony Rezko has helped Obama to purchase his house. A deal was made, whereby the house was bought in 2 pieces: Obamas bought the house for 1.6 million or 300k below the asking price and Rezkos bought the backyard as a separate lot for a fee that was much higher then the going rate. Their defense was that somebody else put an offer on the house for less, and Obama's price was the best and, what is more interesting, is that somebody else put an offer on the lot equal to Rezkos, meaning they couldn't buy the lot for less, therefor it wasn't really a bribe to the government official, it was a good real estate deal. This last fact got me thinking. A few years ago I passed the state boards and got a real estate brokers license. I didn't have time to deal with it lately, but I remembered reading at the time about stealth offers.
Can anybody, particularly our friends in Chicago or people dealing with Real Estate currently, check who made those back up offers. Were those real offers from people that were actively looking for properties of this type and actually bought such properties, or were those stealth offers, coming from some of Obama's or Rezko's associates or relatives and were done just to cover somebody's back.
I remember that an appraiser from the bank recently sued the bank because he has written a statement that the values of the properties in question were wrong and he was abruptly fired. Can anybody get in touch with this appraiser and his lawyer?
Orly
Can anybody, particularly our friends in Chicago or people dealing with Real Estate currently, check who made those back up offers. Were those real offers from people that were actively looking for properties of this type and actually bought such properties, or were those stealth offers, coming from some of Obama's or Rezko's associates or relatives and were done just to cover somebody's back.
I remember that an appraiser from the bank recently sued the bank because he has written a statement that the values of the properties in question were wrong and he was abruptly fired. Can anybody get in touch with this appraiser and his lawyer?
Orly
Please watch this video and forwrd to everybody
Thursday, January 1, 2009 10:49 AM
From: "Carole Richard"Add sender to Contacts To: dr_taitz@yahoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
From: "Carole Richard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
another possible indictment of Obama and his team-Norman Hsu campaign
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1231082hsu1.html
President-elect's name may emerge in Norman Hsu fraud trial
l DECEMBER 31--As if being linked to one high-profile criminal case weren't enough, President-elect Barack Obama's name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu's lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu's trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the "extraordinary level of negative publicity" generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff). In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you'll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already "notorious for his political activities" and that it was "inevitable" that his client's "connections" to Bill and Hillary Clinton "and other democratic notables--including perhaps the president-elect--will be introduced at trial." Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama's political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign's national finance committee. Prosecutors allege that Hsu directed his investors to donate money to specific candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal campaign laws. Unswayed by Cohen's argument, Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama's inauguration. (6 pages)
(Click on LINK above to see the Letter)
President-elect's name may emerge in Norman Hsu fraud trial
l DECEMBER 31--As if being linked to one high-profile criminal case weren't enough, President-elect Barack Obama's name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu's lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu's trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the "extraordinary level of negative publicity" generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff). In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you'll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already "notorious for his political activities" and that it was "inevitable" that his client's "connections" to Bill and Hillary Clinton "and other democratic notables--including perhaps the president-elect--will be introduced at trial." Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama's political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign's national finance committee. Prosecutors allege that Hsu directed his investors to donate money to specific candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal campaign laws. Unswayed by Cohen's argument, Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama's inauguration. (6 pages)
(Click on LINK above to see the Letter)
Patrick Fitzgerald extends investigation for two more months
It was reported yesterday that Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has extended his investigation of Blagoevich and delayed indictments for 2 more months (90 days instead of usual 30 days)and what is more encouraging, is that Blag's attorney is not objecting. Fitzgerald has stated that he received a large amount of information from witnesses, that need to be processed, and he needs more time. I believe that this is great news.
I've seen some Obots reporting that this means that the deal was made and no indictments are coming against Blag and Obama, that Obama is being protected, I believe, on the contrary, it shows an active comprehensive investigation that will include a number of members of BO's team and it will end with indictments of a number of people, including BO himself.
Let's look historically. Fitzgerald indicted Rezko. Rezko was convicted, however now Rezko is in solitary confinement awaiting sentencing. Sentencing was delayed and Rezko's attorney is not objecting. Why would a person agree to have his sentencing delayed? If a deal was made to cut his time in exchange for singing. By all accounts Rezko is singing like a canary. Who did he and Iraqi businessman Auchi support? Blag and Obama.
Now let's look at Blag. Why isn't his attorney objecting to 60 day extension? The only reasonable explanation, is that the deal was made that if he cooperates and sings about BO and his team, US attorney's office will go easy on him.
Obama's thugs are simply trying to discourage you. Just like a day before the election they came up with this manufactured decision of Virginia judge, saying that Bo's BC is genuine and legal actions about the BC are frivolous. You didn't listen to BO's garbage then and filed 31 legal actions all over the country demanding answers and more yet to come.
You should not believe BO's thugs that are implying that Patrick Fitzgerald is on the take like everybody else and nothing will come out of this investigation. No, not everybody is crooked in this country. There are still some decent people in law enforcement and judiciary. Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the public for information and by god you should give it to him. He would not be going on TV and asking for the help from the public, if he was on the take and was looking to bury this investigation.
Hundreds of people have reported to me that they mailed and faxed and called Patrick Fitzgerald's office and provided information. A lieutenant Colonel from Florida has sent a 60 page report to Fitzgerald and hand delivered a copy to the FBI headquarters in Pensacola,Florida. This lieutenant colonel should call periodically and check on the progress and handling of this report. Real patriots of this country have submitted info to the US attorney, FBI, Attorney General offices, Congressmen, Senators, President Bush. The investigation and possible indictments have extended to dozens of areas. Please, make sure you download on the hard drive and make paper copies of all info gathered on Internet. A number of people have reported to me that material damaging to BO and his thugs is being scrubbed.
One thing I know, they can scrub all they want. They are dealing with 320 million decent American citizens, there is an enormous power in this number. 260 million did not vote for Obama. 60 million that voted for him didn't have information that is brought in the open now, and many are saying that if they had all of this information, they would not have been voting for Obama and would have been voting for another Democrat, like Hillary or for McCain.
Keep working hard, it is just the matter of time until these people are indicted and convicted. Let's hope that indictments come before the 20th. If not, keep in mind that it took some time to uncover Watergate, but it was uncovered in the end. The end to this nightmare called Obamagate is coming. Just be patient and keep your eyes on the prize.
Orly
I've seen some Obots reporting that this means that the deal was made and no indictments are coming against Blag and Obama, that Obama is being protected, I believe, on the contrary, it shows an active comprehensive investigation that will include a number of members of BO's team and it will end with indictments of a number of people, including BO himself.
Let's look historically. Fitzgerald indicted Rezko. Rezko was convicted, however now Rezko is in solitary confinement awaiting sentencing. Sentencing was delayed and Rezko's attorney is not objecting. Why would a person agree to have his sentencing delayed? If a deal was made to cut his time in exchange for singing. By all accounts Rezko is singing like a canary. Who did he and Iraqi businessman Auchi support? Blag and Obama.
Now let's look at Blag. Why isn't his attorney objecting to 60 day extension? The only reasonable explanation, is that the deal was made that if he cooperates and sings about BO and his team, US attorney's office will go easy on him.
Obama's thugs are simply trying to discourage you. Just like a day before the election they came up with this manufactured decision of Virginia judge, saying that Bo's BC is genuine and legal actions about the BC are frivolous. You didn't listen to BO's garbage then and filed 31 legal actions all over the country demanding answers and more yet to come.
You should not believe BO's thugs that are implying that Patrick Fitzgerald is on the take like everybody else and nothing will come out of this investigation. No, not everybody is crooked in this country. There are still some decent people in law enforcement and judiciary. Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the public for information and by god you should give it to him. He would not be going on TV and asking for the help from the public, if he was on the take and was looking to bury this investigation.
Hundreds of people have reported to me that they mailed and faxed and called Patrick Fitzgerald's office and provided information. A lieutenant Colonel from Florida has sent a 60 page report to Fitzgerald and hand delivered a copy to the FBI headquarters in Pensacola,Florida. This lieutenant colonel should call periodically and check on the progress and handling of this report. Real patriots of this country have submitted info to the US attorney, FBI, Attorney General offices, Congressmen, Senators, President Bush. The investigation and possible indictments have extended to dozens of areas. Please, make sure you download on the hard drive and make paper copies of all info gathered on Internet. A number of people have reported to me that material damaging to BO and his thugs is being scrubbed.
One thing I know, they can scrub all they want. They are dealing with 320 million decent American citizens, there is an enormous power in this number. 260 million did not vote for Obama. 60 million that voted for him didn't have information that is brought in the open now, and many are saying that if they had all of this information, they would not have been voting for Obama and would have been voting for another Democrat, like Hillary or for McCain.
Keep working hard, it is just the matter of time until these people are indicted and convicted. Let's hope that indictments come before the 20th. If not, keep in mind that it took some time to uncover Watergate, but it was uncovered in the end. The end to this nightmare called Obamagate is coming. Just be patient and keep your eyes on the prize.
Orly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
