Sunday, November 30, 2008

Mr. Obama: Don’t Miss Next Week’s Chicago Tribune

Mr. Obama: Don’t Miss Next Week’s Chicago Tribune
Full-Page Citizenship Challenge To Run Twice,
December 1st and 3rd

D.C. National Press Club Event: Dec 8th

Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here and see PDF copy or below to view a text copy of the final ad.

Chicago is Mr. Obama’s hometown. His transition team is operating out of the Kluczynski Federal Building in downtown Chicago. He is known to be a regular reader of the Tribune, Chicago’s principal newspaper, with a daily circulation of over a half-million readers.

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama.

As a formal “Notice of a Constitutional Violation,” the Petition naturally includes the People’s inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

For the D.C. press conference the WTP Foundation has reserved the Edward R. Murrow Room at the National Press Club from 1-4 pm on Monday, December 8, 2008. We are hopeful that C-SPAN may cover what could be a pivotal, historic event.

The Petition for Redress/Open Letter to Mr. Obama is also expected to have a significant impact on the deliberations of the Electoral College as it proceeds toward selection of the U.S. President as provided for by the Constitution.

Many, many thanks to the many individuals who donated the money needed to cover the costs of publishing the Open Letter and conducting the Washington press conference.

We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate (assuming he responds to the Petition for Redress by directing the Hawaiian officials to provide access to the birth certificate). The budget for this task is currently estimated at $20,000. We need to raise the money quickly. Unfortunately, we are starting from zero and we have but one week before the scientists would need to be in Hawaii.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm

December 1, 2008
Mr. Barack Obama
Barack Obama Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 So. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Obama:
Representing thousands of responsible American citizens who have also
taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America,
I am duty bound to call on you to remedy an apparent violation of the
Constitution.

Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding
the Office of President by the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S.
Constitution. For instance:

• You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly
discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form
that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed
Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of
attending physician and age of mother.

• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born
in Hawaii.

• Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.

• Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth
in Kenya.

• U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born
in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19
years of age.

• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S.
citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming
a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence of your eligibility when
challenged to do so in a number of recent lawsuits. Instead, you have
been successful in having judges declare that they are powerless to order
you to prove your eligibility to assume the Office of President.

Incredibly, the judge in Hawaii actually said it would be an invasion of
your privacy for him to order access to your original birth certificate in
order to prove your eligibility to hold the Office of President.

Before you can legitimately exercise any of the powers of the President
you must meet all the criteria for eligibility established by the Constitution.
You are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence.

Should you assume the office as anyone but a bona fide natural born
citizen of the United States who has not relinquished that citizenship, you
would be inviting a national crisis that would undermine the domestic
peace and stability of the Nation. For example:

• You would always be viewed by many Americans as a
poseur - a usurper .

• As a usurper , you would be unable to take the required “Oath or
Affirmation” on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or
false swearing, for being ineligible you cannot faithfully execute the
Office of the President of the United States.

• You would be entitled to no allegiance, obedience or support from
the People.

• The Armed Forces would be under no legal obligation to remain
obedient to you.

• No civilian in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of
your proclamations, Executive Orders or directives, as such orders
would be legally void.

• Your appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court would be void.

• Congress would not be able to pass any needed legislation because
it would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President.

• Congress would be unable to remove you, a usurper , from the Office
of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos
including a potential for armed conflicts within the General
Government or among the States and the People to effect the
removal of such a usurper.

In consideration of the escalating constitutional crisis brought on by the
total lack of evidence needed to conclusively establish your eligibility,
I am compelled to serve you with this First Amendment Petition for a
Redress of this violation of the Constitution.

With all due respect, I ask that you immediately direct the appropriate
Hawaiian officials to allow access to the vault copy of your birth
certificate by our forensic scientists on Friday, Saturday and Sunday,
December 5, 6 and 7, 2008.

In addition, I ask that you deliver the following documentary evidence to
the National Press Club in Washington DC by 10 am on December 8, 2008,
marked for my attention:

• A certified copy of your original, signed “vault” birth certificate.

• Certified copies of your reissued and sealed birth certificates in the
names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack
Dunham and Barry Dunham.

• A certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.

• A certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.

• Certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College,
Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

• Certified copies of any legal documents changing your name.

Each member of the Electoral College, who is committed to casting a vote
on December 15, 2008, has a constitutional duty to make certain you are
a natural-born citizen. As of today, there is no evidence in the public
record (nor have you provided any) that defeats the claim that you are
barred by law from assuming the Office of President because you fail the
Constitution’s eligibility requirements.

All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary
evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility,
they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled
if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent,
the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people
by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz
Chairman

ATTN: SW FLORIDA - FRIENDS OF LAURA

FRIENDS OF LAURA
SPECIAL FORCES MOTORCYCLE CLUB, INC.
A 501(C)(19) NON PROFIT VETERANS CORPORATION
IS HOSTING A BENEFIT FOR ALICIA MEGARD. DAUGHTER OF
LAURA MEGARD, A LOCAL ENTERTAINER, WAS SERIOUSLY INJURIED
BY A 7 TIME DWI DRIVER IN A HEAD ON COLLISION AND NEEDS OUR HELP.
PLEASE COME OUT AND SUPPORT THIS EVENT.

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7TH - UNTIL
TOP LOCAL MUSICIANS FEATURING
MARIO INFANTI AND CATMAN DOOZ
HEATHER BROOKS BAND
BETTY PORTER
MIKE ROGERS
DARRELL NUTT
STEVE ANTONY
JEFF JODICE
JOHN BERNIER
THE BAND SYNTHESIS
AND MANY OTHERS
THE FLORIDA CALENDAR GiRLS @ 3 pm

ALL THIS ENTERTAINMENT FOR YOUR $20 CONTRIBUTION
YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS EVENT!
plus
FOOD-BEVERAGE-RAFFLES-50/50 DRAWING

12200 PALOMINO LANE, FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33912
OFF I-75, ON DANIELS PARKWAY, 3 BLOCKS WEST AND TURN NORTH
For more information contact Bo McCormick @ 239-994-7584

Another reason why people don't trust newspapers - Global warming reporting

When the warmest year in history isn't
Debra J. Saunders

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Here's another reason why people don't trust newspapers. When science reporters write about, say, hormone therapy or drinking red wine, they report on studies that find that hormones or red wine can be good for you, as well as studies that suggest otherwise. Any science involving complex organisms is rarely black and white.

When it comes to global warming, newspapers play up stories that reinforce the prevalent the-sky-is-falling belief that global warming is human-caused and catastrophic. But if a study or scientist does not portend the end of the world as we know it, it rarely rates as news.

In that spirit, many papers (including The Chronicle) have reported on a UC San Diego science historian who reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, and concluded, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Over 10 years, not one study challenged the orthodoxy - does that sound right to you? If that were true, it would strongly suggest that, despite conflicting evidence in this wide and changing world, no scientist dares challenge the politically correct position on the issue.

No wonder David Bellamy - an Australian botanist who was involved in some 400 TV productions, only to see his TV career go south after he questioned global warming orthodoxy - wrote in the Australian last week, "It's not even science any more; it's anti-science." Bellamy notes that official data show that "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002, Arctic ice actually increased." Exhibit B: MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard S. Lindzen recently wrote, "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995."

Such findings rarely are reported, even though - as Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told me - "Scientists keep coming out of the woodwork" to challenge the so-called consensus. "It's almost like a bandwagon effect."

The Global Warming Petition Project urges Washington to reject the Kyoto international global warming pact because there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. So far, the Politico reports, more than 31,000 scientists have signed it.

The latest skirmish in the global warming war - barely reported in America - occurred after two bloggers found that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data wrongly cast October as the warmest in recorded history. It turns out that the mistake was due to an error that wrongly tapped September temperature records from Russia. Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph of London found the mistake startling in light of other contrary climate statistics, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration findings of 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month.

In an e-mail, Goddard researcher Gavin Schmidt said, "The incorrect analysis was online for less than 24 hours." (Thank bloggers Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, for catching the mistake.) The error occurred because a report "had the wrong month label attached. There is quality control at NOAA and GISS but this particular problem had not been noticed before and the existing QC procedures didn't catch it. These have now been amended."

As for the snowfall records and low temperatures cited by Booker, Schmidt chalked them up to "cherry picking" data. He added, "Far more important are the long-term trends."

Now honest mistakes happen - even in high-powered, well-funded research facilities. Just last year, again thanks to the vigilance of Watts and McIntyre, Goddard had to reconfigure its findings and recognize 1934 - not 1998, as it had figured - as the hottest year on record in American history.

Alas, it is hard to see Goddard as objective when its director, James Hansen, testified in a London court in September in support of six eco-vandals. A jury then acquitted the six Greenpeace activists on charges of vandalizing a British coal-fired power plant based on the "lawful excuse" defense that their use of force would prevent greater damage to the environment after Hansen predicted the one Kingsnorth plant could push 400 species into extinction.

Of course, he could be wrong.

You can e-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Very misleading MSNBC Citizenship Story

The media is still attempting to legitimize the slick talking con-man. The commentator on this video has his emphasis in the right place. No matter where Obama was geographically born he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom since UK law passes citizenship through the father. That makes Obama not a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

The Controversy Surrounding Obama's Birth - Red Herring!

This is a well writen objective editorial. Liike so may other commentators this writer may be missing the main point. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii (not likely given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret) he would still be ineligible to serve as President because he has duel (perhaps triple) citizenship. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph from:
http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/22/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen-by-leo-donofrio/

"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President."


The Controversy Surrounding Obama's Birth

by adeeba folami

Critics File Suit Claiming He’s Constitutionally Ineligible to Be President

As President-elect Barack Obama, his family, staff and supporters prepare for his January move into the White House, a growing number of critics are voicing support for a campaign which is underway and, if successful, will prevent him from taking office. Should that happen, it would also dash the risen hopes of millions of people around the world who were energized by Obama’s candidacy and believe him able to bring about “change you can believe in.”


For months now, “conservative” bloggers and commentators, along with some Democratic supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton, have attempted to focus attention on Obama’s birth, particularly the Hawaiian birth certificate posted on his fightthesmears.com website; an image meant to disprove all allegations about his birth not taking place in the United States.

The certificate, however, has a number which has been redacted, and contains no signatures or identification of the birth doctor – things which lead Obama’s critics into more questioning since one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency is that a candidate must be a “natural born citizen. The other two requirements are that an individual must be at least 35 years-old and have been a U.S. resident for 14 years. Obama meets the latter two qualifications but it is the “natural born citizen” clause which critics say disqualify him. The constitution does not further define the phrase and therefore, some feel a constitutional crisis is ahead if Obama is allowed to assume the office of president.

“Does the constitution matter?” asks a full page ad which ran in the Nov. 17 Washington Times National Weekly edition; a newspaper popular with politicians in Washington, D.C. and readers nationwide. Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney and former attorney general, placed the ad and months ago was one of the first to take legal action to demand Obama present proof that he is a U.S. citizen. The Clinton supporter’s activities and efforts are being tracked on his website, obamacrimes.com, where a recent news release states that his recent filing to the U.S. Supreme Court is in process and a deadline date of Dec. 1 has been given to Obama and his team to respond to the Court.

In his ad, Berg presents four exhibits on which he bases his case: (1) claims that Obama’s paternal Kenyan grandmother is on record as saying she was present when the president-elect was born in that African country; (2) an original birth certificate has never been produced for review and “experts” have called the online image a “forgery”; (3) Obama may still hold Indonesian citizenship since, as a child, he attended school in that country where laws would not allow non-citizen children to attend and also forbade dual citizenship; (4) Obama’s mother was too young to meet the residency requirements of U.S. law which would have enabled her to declare her son a “natural born citizen.”

In another case, Dr. Alan Keyes – who was the American Independent Party’s (AIP) candidate for president – has also filed a suit in California along with Dr. Wiley Drake, his vice presidential pick, and Markham Robinson, an AIP representative. They filed against the California Secretary of State (SOS), that state’s long list of electoral college members, and Obama.

Electoral college members are important because it is they, despite the popular vote cast on Nov. 4, who decide and certify who will be the next president of the country. Their decision is set to be made on Dec. 15 and will be certified by each state’s SOS office. The lawsuit outlines that candidates for president have, in the past, only submitted written notice that they were citizens but “this practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded when requesting a drivers license.” Keyes and company then go on to request a court order barring the SOS from certifying California’s electoral vote until such time as Obama has produced proof that he is a natural-born citizen and not one of Kenya, Indonesia or England.

“In case Senator Obama cannot present proper documentation, he cannot be elected President and SOS has a duty to bar the casting of votes by California electors in support of his candidacy,” the document continues, adding that more than a dozen other legal actions have been filed across the country. “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President, and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper [sic] will be sitting as President, and none of the treaties, laws or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

Since the issue would be easily laid to rest with the showing of Obama’s original birth certificate, some are asking why the former Illinois senator has not produced it and take his refusal to mean he “has something to hide.” Meanwhile, as with the many other controversies that came Obama’s way during his campaign – and which he successfully overcame - he appears to be handling this one in the same manner. It remains to be seen what Dec. 1 will bring when his response is due to the Supreme Court but his Fight the Smears website still proclaims the same message that it has for months. “Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper – they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen,” the site reads. “Truth is, [he] was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native of the United States.”

Interestingly, Obama’s rival, Senator John McCain, also faced similar charges and lawsuits about his birth which occurred in the Panama Canal Zone where his father was on assignment for the U.S. Military in 1936. The matter is of no consequence now other than to highlight that the Constitution may be in need of Congressional clarification and reform when it comes to the presidential “natural born citizen” qualification and who can, or cannot, become president of the country.

What happens to Obamabots when they find out they have been had.

Gravest Threat to Obamaland: Disillusionment

Posted By Kyle-Anne Shiver On November 29, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Feature 01, . Positioning, Elections 2008, Politics, US News 54 Comments

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,

Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.

— William Shakespeare

If Billy Shakespeare were still with us, I’m quite certain he would do us the favor of coining some nifty expressions to describe Obamaland and its inhabitants. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the talented English bard would relentlessly pick the beast of Obama-worship down to the very marrow of its bones.

I’ve no doubt either that the witty Bill S. would take his first, perfectly aimed quill-strike at the inevitable disillusionment of Obama followers, possessed by utterly unrealistic expectations.

In the absence of William Shakespeare, I’ll have a whack at it myself:

Obamaland has no rage like love to hatred turned,

Nor hell a fury like a supporter scorned.


Oh, where to begin? Obamaland is proving to be such a target-rich environment.

Let’s start with Hillary, shall we? If there is a single, starry-eyed American who does not understand that the price of Bill and Hill on the stump for wet-behind-the-ears Barry O. was the [1] cabinet post where Hill could most brightly shine and most aptly prepare for her own run in 2012 (or 2016), the Guinness Book folks would like to find him.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton are anything, they are perhaps the most astute political minds in the country today. The economic meltdown we are in had a foundation directly [2] traceable to Bill Clinton’s modifications of the Community Reinvestment Act and both Clintons understand well that once an economy as large and diverse as ours spins out of control, there is no way a single president — even a two-term president — can bring it back to its pre-meltdown status.

If anything, I imagine that Hillary Clinton is quite thankful that she is off the hook on the economic disasters that wait like ticking bombs in the disillusioned minds of Obama’s maniacal voters.

Hell truly hath no fury like that awaiting Obama as he fails to eradicate the worries and responsibilities of his delusional followers. The woman made famous by her [3] YouTube proclamation that, once Obama is elected, she will no longer need worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage will perhaps be first to explode.

Then there is the “I’ll-fix-all-your-schools-with-gobs-more-money” Obamaland promise. Is there a single starry-eyed, literate parent out there who believes that [4] catering to the teachers unions, who bear the brunt of responsibility for creating the problem, is actually going to fix it?

The first dent in Obama’s knightly education-fix-it armor is the fact that he and Michelle would [5] rather walk over hot coals and don sackcloth and ashes than send their own daughters to one of the nation’s public schools. Of course, the excuse they’re offering now is the overarching “security concern” that goes with living in the White House.

However, what “security concern” was there in Chicago, when the Obamas were just another nothing-special couple having kids? Barack and Michelle have never trusted the public schools with their own children. The girls have [6] always attended pricey private schools. They always have and they always will.

But what of the millions of voters who are actual parents, whose children are literally trapped in public schools more intent on pleasing union bosses than on teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic? When little Johnny and Janie still can’t read two years from now, I predict another explosion of wrath aimed at Barry O. Money has never taught a child to read and it never will.

Perhaps the real cake-taker in Obamaland promises, however, is the one that our enemies will now like us and will no longer wish to make war on our homeland. Once President Obama conducts his miraculous diplomacy with our sworn enemies, they will not be our sworn enemies any more. They will be our friends.

Was there a more balderdash-ridden promise in this entire campaign season?

Obama did not promise to meet with al-Qaeda, of course, but most of our sworn enemies are Islamo-fascist terrorist groups and nations, all of a similar mindset to be sure. Al-Qaeda was first off the starting block with its new and utterly [7] disgusting video calling our president-elect a “house negro.” (For the record, I would join up myself to fight those who mock our president on that kind of slimy ground.) This slime talk from al-Qaeda does give one the idea that Barack Obama is not seen in the Arab world as the “[8] lightworker” — a name given him by some of his followers.

The Iranians did not even wait for the ink to dry on our electoral returns before [9] testing a new set of super-duper missiles capable of hitting Israel. And, in case it has slipped from the astute American memory, Palestinians have also [10] mocked our African-American secretary of state, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, on racial grounds. Clearly, these folks are not enamored with our new president-elect, and that’s before his magic-working diplomacy.

David Ignatius, of the Washington Post, has already begun the [11] new spin on our war with Islamo-fascist terrorists. Ignatius’ spin seems right in keeping with Obamaland’s surreal expectations.

On the matter of motivation for the Islamic terrorists, Ignatius seems to believe that it’s all a matter of “rhetoric” and President Bush’s incendiary invasion of Iraq.

To which, Ignatius issues his own challenge to President-elect Obama:

Seize the moment; “turn a page,” and thereby transform the intellectual battlefield; keep the military pressure on al-Qaeda’s hard core, but discard the “war on terrorism” rhetoric.

Ignatius, among other Obama followers, is setting the stage for perhaps the biggest-bang disillusionment in all of Obamaland. For back-up, Ignatius quotes one of al-Qaeda’s own:

“The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it. … They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body,” observes al-Qaradhawi.

I believe that Jimmy Carter was the first to demonstrate this “Democrats-kill-you-slowly” axiom of terrorist wisdom. He began in 1979 and has been attempting to develop such a poison for the past 32 years, has received [12] enormous funding from Arab Muslims for this purpose, and yet still appears a bit short of success. Yet he keeps trying.

And not to worry because Jimmy Carter has already volunteered his own expert assistance to President-elect Obama.

Bill Clinton, too, worked at this Democrat slow-poison development for eight straight years and made so much progress that 9/11 never really happened.

I must stop now as my side is splitting and I need to call 911.

I’ll simply ask the medics to give me the same hallucinogen that Obamaland inhabitants are taking. We can all take our stroll down the yellow brick road together, arm in arm with harmony as we sing kumbaya and hope we won’t feel a thing.

I’m certain that Wizard Obama will bring peace on earth and goodwill to all right after he fixes the global economy and the failed public schools, and fills every gas tank and pays every mortgage.

Don’t wake me till it’s over.

Disillusionment of this magnitude is too violent to watch and Shakespeare is laughing his head off somewhere.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gravest-threat-to-obamaland-disillusionment/

URLs in this post:
[1] cabinet post: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/11/21/report-hillary-clinton-accepts-secretary-state-
nod/

[2] traceable: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1432/pub_detail.asp
[3] YouTube proclamation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
[4] catering: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNmNzg2M2QzMzkzZjQ2OTY2ZWI4ZjMyNTJjNWJhZWI=&w=MA==
[5] rather: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008422524_elexdig22.html
[6] always: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Laboratory_Schools
[7] disgusting video: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_al_qaida_obama
[8] lightworker: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL?
[9] testing: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/13/2418191.htm
[10] mocked: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51298
[11] new spin: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10979020
[12] enormous funding: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D7B261EF-A52C-428E-9E5F-D6BBF5C49132

Science disproves global warming

Science disproves global warming
By Dick Little
Posted: 11/25/2008 01:00:00 AM PST


We have not heard much about global warming lately. Politicians and social engineers are no longer urging us to prepare for the worst. Self-proclaimed climate scientist, Al Gore has been silent. What's happening here?
Canadian columnist, Lorne Gunter, has been following this story closely. In Canada, unlike the United States, there's still some honest journalism being practiced. Gunter is skeptical of the theory. His anti-global warming data has been widely distributed north of our border.

He also notes scientists who don't believe the theory is correct are having difficulty being heard in Canada, but it's not as bad there as it is here. The opposition south of the Canadian border, is led primarily by social scientists who are using the issue to influence our thinking and our lives. Even the newspapers appear to be fearful of this group, who can rally students to protest at a moment's notice.

Gunter says Canadian newspapers are actually publishing information that dispute the theory that we, and the rest of this nation, are responsible for warming because we drive cars that produce the CO2 that allegedly contributes to global warming.

The number of global warming skeptics is expanding, largely because new data shows temperatures are not going up, but rather, " they're coming down!"

For instance, on Sept. 5 scientists in Southern Brazil reported, " their heaviest snowfalls ever! They are entering what has turned out to be their coldest September


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in a century." It seems something called the, "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" has a lot to do with these phenomena.
This information comes from Brazilian Climatologist, Eugene Hackbart. He says, "El Niño's produce warmer climates, while El Nina's produce cooler climates."

Hackbart further points out periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on the South American continent. According to Gunter, American scientist, Dr. Craig Locehle, who conducts modeling on global climate change, confirmed the findings, " the so-called Medieval Warm Period of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th century temperatures."

New research confirms the warm period of 1,000 years ago produced temperatures higher than today's temperatures. The conclusion, confirmed by tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores, and early records written on climate, particularly in Northern Europe. Remember, there were no vehicles to create tons of hydrocarbons at that time.

This was the period when Leif Erickson and other Danish seafaring adventurers, discovered Greenland, Iceland, and Vineland, which is now part of Canada and the north eastern tip of the United States.

Gunter claims supporters of the Kyoto conference, which forecast global warming as a "threat" to our existence, had to bury information on the Medieval Warm Period in order to obtain credibility. That's a serious accusation.

Western Washington University geologist, Don Easterbrook says today's warm temperatures will drop, and we will enter a period of "global cooling," as the Sun enters a particularly inactive phase."

In addition, Easterbrook says he's studied temperatures and climate back 400 years and has found, "an almost exact correlation between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth."

He believes there is virtually no correlation with increased hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and global warming (sometimes referred to as "climate change," a term now used by the press).

Also involved in this research are scientists, Dr. David Douglass of the University of Rochester and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Last month they dealt global warming enthusiasts a stunning blow when they produced data that shows hydrocarbons produced by humans are not behind any warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

In a joint statement the two scientists concluded, " variations in global temperatures since 1978 cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." These two scientists have been working together to produce a paper using data from weather satellites. They reportedly measured 300,000 temperature readings around the globe, and conceded our hydrocarbons may have a "slight impact, (but) variations in global temperatures since 1978 cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

In addition, their chart shows rising temperatures beginning in 1979 - have all but disappeared, largely due to reduced solar activity. Now, you would think the press would report on these investigations to balance what appears to be propaganda from the pro-global warming crowd including Gore, but it's not happening.

Gore has been silent about, climate change lately and the press certainly is not picking up on it either. Their silence is deafening! A growing database is showing exaggerated global warming fears in an effort to scare the public.

The press is not printing stories on accusations that Gore, along with social engineers on college campuses, may have reacted too quickly to early reports of climate change.

http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_11065860

The "eligible" President-elect Obama

To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution.


The "eligible" President-elect Obama - Or the great pretender to the Presidency?

The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.

"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.
Meanwhile, as many as 110,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.

The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to registered the birth there.

WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
It calls on all controlling legal authorities to take seriously the matter of where and when and to whom Obama was born and whether he qualifies as a "natural-born American citizen," according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

To participate, sign the petition here.

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of the leading independent online news source, said the highly unusual step was needed because the argument cuts to the core of the clear and simple meaning of the Constitution.

Learn about what America can expect from an Obama presidency in Brad O'Leary's blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."
Farah used his daily column to explain more fully the importance of the issue.

"No news organization or anyone else has investigated this matter more thoroughly, devoted more manpower to it, committed the financial resources to it or taken it more seriously," Farah said. "Yet, despite the obvious lingering questions out there haunting the American conscience, Barack Obama appears ready to waltz to the inauguration and swearing-in ceremonies without so much as proving he was born in America as he claims. That is simply unacceptable. I decided that if no one else was going to take this matter seriously, we would," Farah said.
In WND's forum, the division of opinion seemed unbridgeable.

Said one participant, "The Constitution means what we today decide it means. The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the Constitution. … The precise nature and meaning of particular Constitutional clauses is a political question, to be decided by the people through our elected representatives, and through the judges appointed by the president we elect. That president will be Barack Hussein Obama, for at least the next four years."

Another reader responded: "The Constitution is NOT whatever we decide that it is. Such a concept is nonsense by which we could declare up to mean down and in to mean out. In such a worldview language loses all meaning and purpose and it becomes impossible to know anything at all. The Constitution is what is actually written down in its body and its various amendments. It is NOT whatever the judges declare it to be, no matter how fervently those judges desire for you to believe otherwise. There is a reason that the very first paragraph following the preamble states unequivocally that only Congress is allowed to make law. It means that judges do not get to tell us what the law is. Their Constitutional role is to decide cases, not to fold, spindle, and mutilate whatever they don't like."

Continued another, "We are a nation of laws, not what individuals might wish. And the Constitution is the first and foremost law. … BO has indicated in interviews that he thinks that founding document is too restrictive. Apparently he hopes to operate outside that law, beginning with his refusal to just present his original, long form 'vault' birth certificate and his university records or other documents to prove that he is actually a natural born citizen of the U.S."
"He could very well be pulling off the biggest fraud in U.S. history and thinks he can get away with it," said yet another.

The comments were in response to the forum question: "Barack Obama may have won the presidential election, but is he eligible to serve? That's a question on the minds of millions of Americans eager to see his birth certificate and find out for sure if he was born in the U.S., as he claims.

"At least two of his relatives in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. In addition, the Obama machine has scoffed at requests to see the form of the Hawaiian birth certificate that includes the specific hospital in which the delivery took place. The form released by the campaign does not include that information, leading to suspicions Obama might have been one of the foreign-born babies of the 1960s who were, nonetheless, provided birth certificates by the state of Hawaii."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=82222

Friday, November 28, 2008

Efforts to support global climate-change falls:

Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll

Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent
Canwest News Service


Thursday, November 27, 2008



CREDIT: Roland Schlager/Getty Images
A file photo showd snow cannons blasting artificial snow on a slope in Kitzbuehel, Austria. Due to the uncommonly warm weather many European alpine ski resorts have no snow.

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.

Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.

Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.

And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.

The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren't included in the global study in 2007.

The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.

The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.

"There's consumer reluctance that's creeping in, and we've seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task," said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.

Results of the poll suggested that 55 per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.

That's more than double the 27 per cent who wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.

In Canada, the same portion favoured renewable-energy options, while 32 per cent supported collective international efforts.

"People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol," the report said.

"More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be."

The poll helps explain why outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had so much difficulty during the election campaign trying to sell his Green Shift platform that proposed a carbon tax in order to encourage emission reductions.

Earthwatch's Winser said the silver lining in the poll was that it stresses public dissatisfaction with the performance of all governments.

"We welcome this survey because it shows that individuals want their governments to do more."

HSBC was unable to provide the poll's margin of error.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe&sponsor=

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Gay Lifestyle a "Sewer" of Casual Degrading Sex, Drug Abuse and Misery

ALsO: See this recent study from Pubmed
Re-evaluation of the "no differences" hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting

Homosexual U.K. Documentarian Says Gay Lifestyle a "Sewer" of Casual Degrading Sex, Drug Abuse and Misery

By Hilary White

A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to "burn every bridge in the gay world I've got."

Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television, questions the emotional and psychological immaturity, narcissism, nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of many in the homosexual community. Fanshawe says he wants homosexual men to "grow up" and get beyond their state of "extended adolescence."

Fanshawe, who was involved in the early homosexualist political movement, says, "We've fought discrimination and prejudice, only to wreck ourselves with drugs and wild sex."

In his documentary Fanshawe admits that the homosexualist movement has in the main achieved its political goals of equalising homosexuality with natural sexual relations, in abolishing laws against sodomy and creating legal equivalency with marriage and adoption. Given these achievements, Fanshawe asks, "Why do we seem hell bent on behaving like eternal teenagers?"

"We're hooked on vanity, and regard older men with contempt. Despite AIDS we're still chasing the ultimate sexual high and what's more are determined to wreck ourselves on designer drugs. We're happy to assist the straight world in keeping alive the image of all gay men as limp-wristed queens."

He says that he has recently "started to worry" about the ways in which "gay liberation is celebrated" in his hometown of Brighton, a major centre of the homosexual subculture. At the annual "Mr. Gay" beauty pageant, which he describes as a "pathetic display of self-delusion", Fanshawe tells a contestant, "I'm old enough to remember when all those women were fighting against Miss World...What we're all saying about ourselves is that actually to be really gay, properly gay, what you've got to be is cute, and young."

"Extreme vanity" he says, has been "sewn into gay culture." It "is now so mainstream in the gay community that otherwise intelligent young men are happy to be treated as sex objects on a demeaning meat rack."

Gay men, he says, are so "hardwired" towards finding casual sexual encounters, some going as far as plastic implants to enhance their appearance, that finding genuine intimacy is "practically impossible."

"Vast amounts of our leisure time are organised around sex, straight or gay. But what gay men have done is organise our identity around sex. And that is corrosive. And to make things worse, promiscuity has become the norm."

The documentarian asks the proprietor of a gay sex bath house, "Paul", who had just related some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in the establishment, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"

For objecting to the lifestyle of pursuing casual and "extreme" sex and for holding genuine human intimacy as a goal, Paul told Fanshawe that he is "the closest thing to a straight person in a gay man's body I have ever met. There should be an operation for you, dear."

Paul was adamant and forthright in his belief that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, expressing his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation. "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship."

Fanshawe says he is horrified at the lack of emotional involvement and at the willingness of men to engage in "unsafe sex." The film includes statistics that show the deadly consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. One in nine gay men in London is HIV infected and new cases of HIV have doubled in the city in five years. Incidences of syphilis have increased in the same time period 616 per cent.

"Unsafe" sex, he says, is not the only way in which gay men are self destructive. "If there's a new drug, gay men will find it and take it," he states.

At one point Fanshawe interviews a homosexual man who has "done all the drugs" and now campaigns in gay clubs against the growing use of crystal methamphetamine. The man, who could not be identified for fear of reprisals from drug dealers, said that crystal meth is preferred in the gay community because it reduces the inhibitions and allows sex to be brought to an "animalistic" level "devoid of emotion." The film says that one in five gay men in London use crystal meth.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

Veterans Continue To Voice Concerns On The Obama Presidency

After election reports indicate that veterans and active duty service persons voted for McCain over Obama by an 80% to 20% margin.

Single women voted for Obama over McCain by an 80% to 20% margin.

Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Veterans Continue To Voice Concerns On The Obama Presidency
November 26, 2008
by Thomas D. Segel

Harlingen, Texas, November 26, 2008: When it comes to forming beliefs among those in the veteran community it is a very hard sell. It matters not if they are retired from a career in uniform or just served under the flag for a single tour of duty, most have a very strong "show me" mentality.

This attitude has, over the passage of time, proven to them that little to nothing can be believed if uttered by politicians, printed in the main stream press, or flashed across their television screens by the major networks. Because of this, they have also migrated to talk radio and the Internet, feeling these are the sources where they can find answers to many of their questions. The answers have been there, but so have misinformation, half-truths and a collection of unproven myths. When it is pointed out that the information they collect may be wrong, their usual response is to say all the other side needs to do is provide them with proof their facts are in error.

George Jurjans is a retired Marine who shows his anger at the upcoming presidency and the remarks of more moderate military retirees saying, "...it appalls me to read these comments that echo nothing but complacency, rationalization and the immature - childish ‘wait and see, things might actually not be all that bad' attitude. I read no passion of commitment, no expressed concern. I don't know what else to say except George W. Bush spent more on veterans care and the military in general during his first term, than the previous two administrations put together. Anyone who believes BHO will do even one tenth of that, or keep any other constructive promise he made might as well admit he also believes in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and that ‘check is in the mail' statement."

Bill Hemmingway, a veteran in North Carolina says, "I didn't vote for Obama, but he needs to be given an opportunity to show us what he believes he can accomplish."

Ray Madonna is a Marine veteran who would like to hear retired General Tony Zinni weigh in on the mixed feelings veterans have about the next president. "The way I look at it", he says, "Obama will be our Commander in Chief and he deserves a chance to do the job well."

Dough Berry, another former Marine doesn't even want Barack Obama to take office. He claims Obama, "has no legitimate birth certificate and that means he is a non citizen, means he does not meet the requirements established by law, which equals no job. His failure to present required documents means I do not have any trust or confidence. He carries too much baggage from too many groups to be effective."

Nihil Smith is another non-supporter. He writes "I took an oath many years ago to Protect, Preserve and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, Foreign or Domestic. I repeated that oath several times and was proud to serve my country in the U.S. Navy Submarine Service for the next 23 years. I later took a (similar) Oath of Allegiance to the State of California. I then pinned on a Deputy Sheriff's badge." With that information as a background he says, "I did not vote for Obama and I personally do not believe he has the experience required for the office of president, based upon his performance as a senator. He failed to make any commitment on any bill except one related to live birth abortion. His associations with Rev. Wright, who if he were a white man talking about black people the same way, would have been a card carrying member of the KKK and investigated by the government... That association is a big unanswered question."

Mathew Ford is an infantry veteran and seems to accept the words in his Pennsylvania newspaper, The Morning Call. He writes, "In the Morning Call, November 12, 2008 President Elect Barack Obama stated ‘As your next commander in chief I promise every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served.'

Not so accepting, but not totally negative is one veteran who signs off as "Gramps". He writes, "I pray that God provides him the wisdom to govern responsibly and that as a Christian he seeks divine guidance. Having said that it should come as no surprise he is reaching backward to the failed Clinton administration to fill key posts - not exactly "change" as he said he would make. Still, I hope he is able to turn around the economy, keep American safe, and bring us together as a Nation. While I am skeptical he can do it, I will pray that he can. Only time will tell."

Retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Bill Buss say of Obama, "With all the garbage circulating on the Internet about him - outright lies, deliberate misrepresentations, and things taken out of context, it is hard to know what to believe. I do believe that he can't possibly pull off a lot of the things attributed to him, true or not. At least not without the full cooperation of Congress and even with his party in control that is not likely to happen. So, any problems we are going to have will be instigated by Congress. It is my impression Democrats spend money like there is no tomorrow and everything they touch turns to s... But, then Republicans aren't much better."

Rick Redmon spent a career in Special Operations. His thoughts..."The incoming administration, given the manner in which things took place, I have to say we are indeed facing some scary times ahead. There is something seriously wrong with those who fail to see a problem with the lack of full disclosure on all aspects of Mr. Obama's life. There are many things that came to light that should have been seriously challenged and were not.

"Obama preached bringing about change, but didn't say what kind of change. His lineage is in question. He has no legitimate experience to speak of in many areas. To be quite brutal, he doesn't know the Constitution as well as he professes to. No sir, I don't trust the guy. Too many unanswered questions."

Mike Bailey is a disabled Army veteran who has been fighting for needed VA benefits for many years. He sees good possibilities in the new Obama Administration. "President Elect Obama has an 80% positive voting average on veterans issues. He has shown through his actions that he cares about the veterans' medical care and compensation. I have watched him when he was Chair of the Senate VA Committee. Obama is on the side of the veterans. I may be wrong but I think in President Elect Obama we may have a real Commander in Chief who will surprise the military community."

Ron Whaley is a 100% disabled Navy retiree. He reflects, "All I can do from here is try my best to support our new president and hope he is wise enough to NOT lean to the left as the Democrats want him to. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. We will see what happens in the first 100 days. After that...all is fair in politics."

Another Marine, John W. Collick, Jr. closes out the veteran comments with these words,
"There is nobody more furious about Obama's election than I. That being said, I am very concerned but am holding fire and praying he does a good job...I will never treat Obama the way the Left treated President Bush. I will only attack on the issues when I disagree - and will explain why I disagree. I expect Obama supporters will call us "hateful" whenever we disagree, so there must be substance to our disagreements."

Collick ends with a thought that seems to reflect the mood of most retired military and veterans. "I don't believe Obama loves our nation and more or any less than I do. I believe he wants to take us down a much different road than I want for our nation. I think he is going to take us down the wrong road, but he will be our President and we need to show him proper respect."
-----------------
Semper Fidelis
Thomas D. Segel
Tom@thomasdsegel.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
http://www.thomasdsegel.com/



http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811262775/editorial/veterans-continue-to-voice-concerns-on-the-obama-presidency.html

Americans unfit to vote! - Look what they have done this time.

Voters Fail the Test

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, November 26, 2008; 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON -- So much for the wisdom of The People.

A new report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) on the nation's civic literacy finds that most Americans are too ignorant to vote.

Out of 2,500 American quiz-takers, including college students, elected officials and other randomly selected citizens, nearly 1,800 flunked a 33-question test on basic civics. In fact, elected officials scored slightly lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent compared to 49 percent.

Only 0.8 percent of all test-takers scored an "A."

America's report card may come as little surprise to fans of Jay Leno's man-on-the-street interviews, which reveal that most people don't know diddly about doohickey. Still, it's disheartening in the wake of a populist-driven election celebrating joes-of-all-trades to be reminded that the voting public is dumber than ever.

The multiple-choice ISI quiz wouldn't deepen the creases in most brains, but the questions do require a basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works. Think fast: In what document do the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people" appear? More than twice as many people (56 percent) knew that Paula Abdul was a judge on "American Idol" than knew that those words come from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (21 percent).

In good news, more than 80 percent of college graduates gave correct answers about Susan B. Anthony, the identity of the commander in chief of the U.S. military, and the content of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

But don't pop the cork yet. Only 17 percent of college grads understood the difference between free markets and centralized planning.

Then again, we can't blame the children for what they haven't been taught. Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world. And college adds little civic knowledge, the ISI study found. The average grade for those holding a bachelor's degree was just 57 percent -- only 13 points higher than the average score of those with only a high school diploma.

Most bracing: Only 27 percent of elected officeholders in the survey could identify a right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Forty-three percent didn't know what the Electoral College does. And 46 percent didn't know that the Constitution gives Congress power to declare war.

What's behind the dumbing down of America?

The ISI found that passive activities, such as watching television (including TV news) and talking on the phone, diminish civic literacy.

Actively pursuing information through print media and participating in high-level conversations -- even, potentially, blogging -- makes one smarter.

The ISI insists that higher-education reforms aimed at civic literacy are urgently needed. Who could argue otherwise? But historian Rick Shenkman, author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" thinks reform needs to start in high school. His strategy is both poetic (to certain ears) and pragmatic: Require students to read newspapers, and give college freshmen weekly quizzes on current events.

Did he say newspapers?! Shenkman even suggests government subsidies for newspaper subscriptions, as well as federal tuition subsidies for students who perform well on civics tests. They could be paid from a special fund created by, say, a "Too Many Stupid Voters Act."

Not only would citizens be smarter, but also newspapers might be saved. Announcements of newsroom cuts, which ultimately hurt quality, have become routine. Just this week, USA Today announced the elimination of about 20 positions, while the Newark Star-Ledger, as it cuts its news staff by 40 percent, lost almost its entire editorial board in a single day.

In his book, Shenkman, founder of George Mason University's History News Network, is tough on everyday Americans. Why, he asks, do we value polls when clearly The People don't know enough to make a reasoned judgment?

The founding fathers, Shenkman points out, weren't so enamored of The People, whom they distrusted. Hence a Republic, not a Democracy. They understood that an ignorant electorate was susceptible to emotional manipulation and feared the tyranny of the masses.

Both Shenkman and the ISI pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation's health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?

Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502104_pf.html

HOW TO "T" OFF DEMOCRATS

HOW TO "T" OFF DEMOCRATS

Democracy in Action [5 steps] You know what would really "T" OFF the Democrats...

1-Bush should resign now.

2-Then Dick Cheney becomes President ... (that would really "T" OFF the libs)!!!

3-Then he appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.

4-Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and

5-Condoleeza Rice, A Republican, is the first BLACK President!!! ************

Feds Warn of Terror Plot Against New York Subways

Feds Warn of Terror Plot Against New York Subways

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:04 AM


Federal authorities are warning law enforcement personnel of a possible terror plot against the New York City subway system during the holiday season.

An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/NY_subway_terror/2008/11/26/155489.html?s=al&promo_code=721F-1

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
By Joe the Farmer

Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?


Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?


Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?


Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?


Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?


Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.


Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:


1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.


A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).


B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.


C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.


D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.


E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.


F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."



2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.


A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."


B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.


C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.


D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.


1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.


2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."


3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."


3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.


4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.


A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:


1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;


2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);


3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.


B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?


C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.


The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.


The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html

Obama gets away with it? Not without a fight!

Orders from new president to spark lawsuit every time
Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed

By Bob Unruh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily

A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state's 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved says he's organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama.


Barack Obama

"We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today.

"We're already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs," he said.

As WND reported, Kreep filed the California challenge with presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff.

The complaint urges the California secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast until Obama's citizenship and related eligibility to hold office is resolved.

It is just one of more than a dozen legal challenges brought forward so far over Obama's citizenship. The cases all cite Obama's clouded history and the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

Sign the petition to insist on release of birth certificate.

There have been allegations he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has reported, that he could be considered a British subject because of his father's residency in what then was a British protectorate that later became Kenya, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his website simply shows his mother registered his birth in Hawaii after he was born but does not document a location.
Alan Keyes

There also have been questions raised about his travels as a youth, including the years he spent registered as a Muslim in an Indonesian school, and his later travels to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports weren't welcome in that nation.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

(Story continues below)


The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya.

The California action was filed on behalf of Keyes, as well as Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

Kreep told WND today he's now working with several groups that could serve as plaintiffs to challenge Obama's actions, even from the Oval Office, should the issue remain in dispute.

"There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

The issue is much more important than a single candidate, said Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a WND columnist. He now runs the Foundation for Moral Law.

Moore had his own constitutional confrontation when he was removed from his position Alabama Supreme Court chief justice after he refused to remove from state grounds a monument recognizing the Ten Commandments as the foundation for U.S. law.

"We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution," he told WND. "This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake."

Moore said the requirement for a president to be a natural-born citizen is clear in the Constitution. The document, he added, provides procedures to amend the requirement, but that hasn't been done.

"We live under the rule of law," he warned, "If we start ignoring that. ..."

A WND reader agreed in a letter to the editor.

"If Obama is allowed to take office without proving his citizenship, then we have no Constitution. America as it's been will be dead. If an easy to understand rule is ignored, then the others harder to understand will be easy to ignore," wrote Tony Costello.

Moore said, "If a person is not qualified, he's not qualified. It doesn't matter who it is, Republican, Democrat, black or white, rich or poor."

He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama's qualifications before voting for him.

But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.

"The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it's the rule of law," he said.

"I don't see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born," Moore said.

"The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window," Moore said.

"[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that's untrue that's another matter. It's not an Obama issue, it's an American issue. It's about the Constitution of the United States."

U.S. State Department officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about the process for keeping a U.S. citizenship while attending schools in Indonesia, or the possibility of a U.S. citizen keeping that status while traveling on another nation's passport.

But several online "fact" sites have reported that the concerns over Obama's citizenship are much ado about nothing.

Factcheck.org, for example, has posted an image described as Obama's "birth certificate." But within the image can be seen the words "Certificate of Live Birth," which is not the same document. In Hawaii at the time Obama was born the state would issue a "Certificate of Live Birth" to a parent registering a birth, but it does not indicate the location of the birth.

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate," the group said in a statement accompanying the image of the "Certificate of Live Birth."

Snopes, also, attested to Obama's U.S. citizenship, citing information from the campaign itself.

However, WND columnist Janet Porter, who has investigated the dispute, wrote in her column today that there are too many questions to ignore.

"In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child's birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital," she said.

She cited the work of Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters.

"Polarik has submitted a signed affidavit and has now released his findings on video at www.ObamaForgery.com with his identity masked and voice altered to guard against the carrying out of threats, which he has already received," Porter wrote.

"The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama's website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged," she said.

The researcher cited problems with pixels in the image and a fold line and a blurry border. He asserts the border is a 2007 version while the seal and signature are from 2008.

She also cited issues beyond the birth certificate.

"There's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit," Porter wrote.

"There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens," she wrote.

"If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen," she wrote.

Porter encouraged residents to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee with a request to hold congressional hearings and write to the U.S. Supreme Court to request a ruling.

On the FederalistBlog the writers concluded:

"A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father."

Obama's mother held U.S. citizenship, but his father never did.

WND also reported that Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996 and recognized authority on the U.S. Constitution, said it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.

"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he told WND.

"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.

If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.

On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:

"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"

Other comments included:

"Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He's all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn't it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!

"Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"


"Obama's refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he's in the Oval Office he's hit a home run and he's 'safe.' Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."


"There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=82033

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery

FAITH2ACTION
Rathergate II: Certification
of Live Birth a clear forgery
Exclusive: Janet Porter seeks readers' help
in forcing congressional hearings on issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Janet Porter

The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama's "birth certificate" has been posted online.

Not so.

What was posted was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove "natural born" U.S. citizenship. You see, in Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child's birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital.

It's Rathergate all over again with more amiss than a 1970s Selectric typewriter. But before I tell you what the experts found, let me ask you a few questions:

If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?


If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?


If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a "Certification of Live Birth" and tell the public it was a real "birth certificate"?
If someone were to violate the law by manufacturing a forgery in order trick the public, would that be enough evidence for members Congress to conduct hearings and for a court to issue an order for the critical records, including the original long-form birth certificate (signed by the doctor) to ensure that the U.S. constitutional requirements for office were not violated? After all, Congress is sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution, and the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are "guardians" of the Constitution. That's their job, isn't it?

Ron Polarik, holds a Ph.D. in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters, and has come forth with proof more definitive that the word processor that tried to simulate a 1970s Selectric typewriter.

Polarik has submitted a signed affidavit and has now released his findings on video at www.ObamaForgery.com with his identify masked and voice altered to guard against the carrying out of threats, which he has already received.

The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama's website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged.

The problem of the pixels: When you have a green patterned document such as this, there should be a lot of green pixels from the background showing up between the letters that appear on the certification. But in this case, instead of green pixels, there are white and grey pixels between the letters, which result when you replace existing text with other text.


There is no second fold line. The pictures show two folds – necessary to fit any COLB into an envelope for mailing, but the document itself shows only one fold. This is another indication of document alteration.


There's a blurred border. The border has a lower resolution than the rest of the document, which is another indication that it has been altered.


The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. That is fine except for the problem that …


The seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year!
Like with Rathergate, when you're creating documents, make sure you use only a typewriter that was invented at the time you report the document was manufactured. When posting a "Certification of Live Birth," make sure you "borrow" only from documents used in the same year!

Be sure to sign the petition demanding evidence of Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications.

But beyond the birth certificate issue, there's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit.

There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens.

If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.

That's quite possible since under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son – in this case Obama – to be an Indonesian state citizen, which was also recorded by Obama's school record.

So, if he didn't go to Indonesia in 1981 to visit mom (who had returned to Hawaii by then), might it have something to do with the fact that Indonesian passports expire every five years and it was time for renewal?

Why does that matter?

If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state ... after having attained the age of eighteen years," in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Simply put, since Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship, if Obama got that passport in 1981, when he was 20 years old, he effectively renounced any U.S. citizenship he may have had.

So, if the experts are right, Obama forged a Certification of Live Birth to fool America. In addition to the automatic Indonesian citizenship granted to a child acknowledged as a "son" by an Indonesian male citizen, and the Indonesian citizenship listed in Obama's school records, Obama then traveled to a place where Americans weren't allowed to go, but citizens of Indonesia were. If he obtained an Indonesian passport on his trip in 1981, he effectively renounced any American citizenship he may have had and cannot serve as president (or "rule" as president, as members of his campaign have stated). These are serious questions that must have answers.

If Obama gets into office without verification that he has met the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, if you care about life, liberty or the family, you're going to have to make hundreds of calls to try and fight an agenda that seeks to silence you.

There is a way to help prevent this. Our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. I'm asking you to do three things.

Fast and pray for all the hidden things to come to light.


Call the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee – in their district offices while they're home this week for Thanksgiving. Ask them to "Please hold congressional hearings to investigate whether Barack Obama meets the basic constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land."


Write a letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court (names are listed below) and put them in a FedEx (or other overnight) envelope to:
U.S. Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E
Washington, D.C. 20543

Our Constitution matters and defending it is going to take an outcry from the public. The electors vote on Dec. 15. The numbers are below and your immediate action is critically needed right now. Do it before defending our liberties costs a lot more than making some phone calls and writing a few letters.

The Republican House Judiciary members: Call them toll-free: 877-851-6427 or 202-225-3121, AND most importantly reach them in their district offices:

Lamar Smith (Texas), ranking member, critical in any hearings: 512-306-0439 Austin, 830-896-0154 Kerrville, and 210-821-5024 San Antonio.

James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin) 800-242-1119 or 262-784-1111 Brookfield

Howard Coble (North Carolina) 336-333-5005 Greensboro, 336-626-3060 Asheboro, 336-886-5106 High Point, 226-229-0159 Graham, 704-209-0426 Granite Quarry

Elton Gallegly (California) 800-423-0023 or 805-497-2224 Thousand Oaks, 805-686-2525 Solvang

Bob Goodlatte (Virginia) 540-432-2391 Harrisonburg, 434-845-8306 Lynchburg, 540-857-2672 Roanoke, and 540-885-3861 Staunton

Steve Chabot (Ohio) 513-684-2723 Cincinnati

Dan Lungren (California) 916-859-9906 Gold River

Chris Cannon (Utah) 800-571-2971 Provo, 801-569-5125 West Jordan

Ric Keller (Florida) 407-872-1962 Orlando, 888-642-1211 Eustis, 888-642-1211 Ocala

Darrell Issa (California) 951-693-2447 Temecula, 760-599-5000 San Diego

Mike Pence (Indiana) 765-640-2919 Anderson, 765-962-2883 Richmond, 765-747-5566 Muncie

Randy Forbes (Virginia) 757-382-0080 Chesapeake, 804-526-4969 Colonial Heights, 434-634-5575 Emporia

Steve King (Iowa) 641-782-2495 Creston, 712-580-7754 Spencer, 712-325-1404 Council Bluffs, 712-224-4692 Sioux City, 712-732-4197 Storm Lake

Tom Feeney (Florida) 386-756-9798 Port Orange, 407-208-1106 Orlando, 321-264-6113 Titusville

Trent Franks (Arizona) 623-776-7911 Glendale

Louie Gohmert (Texas) 866-535-6302 Lufkin/Marshall/Nagadoches, 903-236-8597 Longview, 903-561-6349 Tyler

Jim Jordan (Ohio) 419-522-5757 Mansfield, 419-999-6455 Lima, 419-423-3210 Findlay

Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John Roberts

Associate Justices:

Samuel A. Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
David H. Souter
John Paul Stevens
Stephen G. Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsberg

How important is the Constitution to you? Forward this to all you know.

Be sure to sign the petition demanding evidence of Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=81943