Thursday, July 30, 2009

Birth Certificate a symptom - SO IMPORTANT!!

Birth Certificate just a symptom of AKA Obama's disease.

Suborned in the U.S.A.The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.
Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”
Such was the ardor of Obama’s denials that jaws dropped when, once safely elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents,” an administration spokesman announced. “You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .” The “Muslim father” theme was an interesting touch: During the campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s Islamic faith reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of what’s-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him.” And, it turns out, the spokesman’s fleeting bit about “growing up in Indonesia” wasn’t the half of it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia — or, at least that’s what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).
These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”
The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.
The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff. Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president). In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”
To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”
To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.
Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.” (Italics original.)

That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.
Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious.
Before January 20 of this year, Barack Obama had a negligible public record. He burst onto the national scene what seemed like five minutes before his election to the presidency: a first-term U.S. senator who actually served less than four years in that post — after a short time as a state legislator, some shadowy years as a “community organizer,” and scholastic terms at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard that remain shrouded in mystery. The primary qualification supporters offered for Obama’s candidacy was his compelling life story, as packaged in 850 pages’ worth of the not one but two autobiographies this seemingly unaccomplished candidate had written by the age of 45.
Yet we now know that this life story is chock full of fiction. Typical and disturbing, to take just one example, is the entirely fabricated account in Dreams from My Father of Obama’s first job after college:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told me how they expected me to run the company one day. . . . The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors — see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand — and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve. . . .

As the website Sweetness & Light details, this is bunk. Obama did not work at “a consulting house to multinational corporations”; it was, a then-colleague of his has related, “a small company that published newsletters on international business.” He wasn’t the only black man in the company, and he didn’t have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie on the job, or conduct “interviews” with “Japanese financiers or German bond traders” — he was a junior copyeditor.
What’s unnerving about this is that it is so gratuitous. It would have made no difference to anyone curious about Obama’s life that he, like most of us, took a ho-hum entry-level job to establish himself. But Obama lies about the small things, the inconsequential things, just as he does about the important ones — depending on what he is trying to accomplish at any given time.
In the above fairy tale, he sought to frame his life as a morality play: the hero giving up the cushy life of the capitalist “enemy” for the virtues of community organizing. But we’ve seen this dance a hundred times. If Obama wants to strike a connection with graduating students in Moscow, he makes up a story about meeting his “future wife . . . in class” (Barack and Michelle Obama met at work). If he wants to posture about his poverty and struggle in America, he waxes eloquent about his single mother’s surviving on “food stamps” so she could use every cent to send him “to the best schools in the country” (Obama was raised by his maternal grandparents, who had good jobs and were able to pull strings to get him into an elite Hawaiian prep school). If he wants to tie himself to the civil-rights struggle of African Americans, he tells an audience in Selma, “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma . . . so [my parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born” (Obama was born in 1961, four years before the civil-rights march in Selma — by which time his parents had divorced and his mother was planning a move to Indonesia with the second of her two non-African-American husbands). If he wants to buy a home he can’t afford, he “unwittingly” collaborates with a key fundraiser (who had been publicly reported to be under federal investigation for fraud and political corruption). If he wants to sell a phony stimulus as a job-creator, he tells the country that Caterpillar has told him the stimulus will enable the company “to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off” (Caterpillar’s CEO actually said no, “we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again”).
The fact is that Obama’s account of his background is increasingly revealed as a fabrication, not his life as lived; his utterances reflect the expediencies of the moment, not the truth. What is supposed to save the country from fraudulence of this sort is the media. Here, though, the establishment press is deep in Obama’s tank — so much so that they can’t even accurately report his flub of a ceremonial opening pitch lest he come off as something less than Sandy Koufax. Astonishingly, reporters see their job not as reporting Obama news but as debunking Obama news, or flat-out suppressing it. How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in 2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem, displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos?
A MUSLIM CITIZEN OF INDONESIAThe aforementioned Indonesian interval in Obama’s childhood is instructive. Obama and the media worked in tireless harmony to refute any indication that he had ever been a Muslim. It’s now apparent, however, not only that he was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world’s most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia.

Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met — just as she had met Barack Sr. — when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.
Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child — he’d have been only Ann Dunham’s child.
In any event, the records of the Catholic school and the public school Obama attended during his last year in Indonesia identify him as a Muslim. As Obama relates in Dreams from My Father, he took Koran classes. As Obama doesn’t relate in Dreams from My Father, children in Indonesia attended religious instruction in accordance with their family’s chosen faith. Moreover, acquaintances recall that young Barry occasionally attended Friday prayers at the local mosque, and Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s half-sister (born after Lolo and Ann moved the family to Jakarta), told the New York Times in a 2008 interview, “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” In fact, back in March 2007 — i.e., during the early “Islamic ties are good” phase of Obama’s campaign — the candidate wistfully shared with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof his memories of the muezzin’s Arabic call to prayer: “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.” Kristof marveled at the “first-rate accent” with which Obama was able to repeat its opening lines.
The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the “Obama as Muslim Manchurian Candidate” canard. Obama was only ten years old when he left Indonesia; there is no known evidence of his having made an adult choice to practice Islam, and he is a professed Christian. The point is that he lies elaborately about himself and plainly doesn’t believe it’s important to be straight with the American people — to whom he is constantly making bold promises. And it makes a difference whether he was ever a Muslim. He knows that — it’s exactly why, as a candidate, he originally suggested his name and heritage would be a selling point. Obama’s religious background matters in terms of how he is perceived by Muslims (Islam rejects the notion of renouncing the faith; some Muslims, like Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, make no bones about regarding Obama as a Muslim; and — as the mainstream media took pains not to report during the campaign — it is suspected that significant illegal donations poured into the Obama campaign from Islamic countries and territories). Obama’s religious background also matters in terms of how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world.
While it is all well and good to belittle the birth-certificate controversy, without it we’d know only what the media and Obama himself would tell us about his multiple citizenships, which is nothing. As noted above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a citizen of Kenya (a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That’s something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama’s shocking 2006 conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don’t know about his Kenyan citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.
By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistan he took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.
There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question is: Why don’t the media — the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin’s Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records — want to dig into Obama’s background?
Who cares that Hawaii’s full state records would doubtless confirm what we already know about Obama’s birthplace? They would also reveal interesting facts about Obama’s life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn’t the press once in the business of interesting — and even not-so-interesting — news?
And why would Obama not welcome Hawaii’s release of any record in its possession about the facts and circumstances of his birth? Isn’t that kind of weird? It would, after all, make the whole issue go away and, if there’s nothing there, make those who’ve obsessed over it look like fools. Why should I need any better reason to be curious than Obama’s odd resistance to so obvious a resolution?
There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.
But we should know. The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?—
National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

Why Obama's birth certificate issue won't go away: Vanderbilt expert

The controversy over President Obama’s birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University.

“I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.” Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. “It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive,” she said.

Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue. Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business.

Carol Swain is available for media interviews at

Media contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens,


By Frances Rice
How do we decide who is a racist? The dictionary tells us a racist harbors feelings of antagonism and superiority based on biological differences, such as skin color. So, what demonstrates that President Barack Obama harbors such feelings toward white people?

Glimpses of Obama’s mindset can be obtained from reading his two books, “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams from My Father” where Obama describes his animosity toward white people.

In “Dreams from My Father” Obama wrote: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." This book also contains an explanation of why Obama joined and remained for 20 years in Trinity United Church of Christ, the church of black liberation theologian Rev. Jeremiah Wright who preached hatred against whites. Obama wrote: "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany". The core of black liberation theology is black separatism, a movement that, for more than a century, has been opposed to racial integration. Equally troubling is Obama’s church giving a lifetime award to one of our nation’s most racist men, Louis Farrakhan.

Obama’s belief system on race was on full display during the 2008 campaign when, on a Philadelphia radio sports program, he described his grandmother as a "typical white person" who fears blacks.

From the roots of Obama’s enmity toward white people sprang his gratuitous attack on Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley. Obama declared that the sergeant “acted stupidly” while doing his duty, when all Obama knew, admittedly, was that the sergeant was white and the person arrested, Obama’s friend Harvard Processor Henry Gates, was black. Without bothering to learn the facts, Obama used the power of his position as President of the United States to demonize an American citizen because of his race. Details of the arrest are in the article “Obama Plays the Race Card” by Ronald Kessler that is on the Internet at:

A video featuring the testimonial of two black officers in support of Sergeant Crowley, including the comments of Officer Kelly King who states that she supported and voted for Obama, but would not vote for him again, is posted on YouTube at:

Obama, in his rush to judgment, ignored pertinent facts, such as one of the arresting officers is black, the Cambridge Mayor is black and the Massachusetts Governor is black. From his lofty perch as the leader of the free world, Obama focused like a laser beam on the skin color of one man and engaged in grievance mongering about “racial profiling,” a charge that hampers law enforcement in black communities and was not even a factor in the Cambridge case. In an instant, Obama abandoned any pretense of being “post racial” and, before our very eyes, was transformed into our “race-baiter-in-chief”.

How ironic that the wrongs against blacks that are the genesis of Obama’s racial hostility were committed by the whites who supported the racist agenda of the Democratic Party (not that many years ago), the party Obama now heads. During his research, author Wayne Perryman uncovered documents which reveal that the Democratic Party was once proudly called the “Party of White Supremacy”. According to Perryman, Democratic Party campaign posters issued from 1868 to the early 1900’s declared: "This is a white man's country - let the white man rule". Perryman further pointed out that Democratic Senator Ben Tillman in 1909 said: "We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely, that this is a white man's country and the white men must govern it."

Today, Obama is changing the Democratic Party into a party with the sinister premise that America is a black man’s country and the black men must govern it. Perhaps this is why Obama refused to prosecute Black Panthers who wielded weapons, hurled racial insults at voters and blocked the entrance at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 Election. “Protecting Black Panthers” is an editorial by “The Washington Times” that reveals how Jerry Jackson, one of the Black Panther defendants, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Obama and the Democratic Party. That article can be found on the Internet

The intimidation tactics by Black Panthers are a chilling reminder about how the Democrats not long ago used the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, to intimidate and terrorize Republican voters, black and white. Democratic Party racism is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, was fighting against. In Obama’s world, the civil rights accomplishments of Dr. King have been abandoned, and we are now encouraged to judge people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. An analysis of Obama’s embracement of racial bigotry is provided in the article “How Our Post-Racial President Uses Race Card As Both Sword And Shield” by Larry Elder and is on the Internet at:

The article “A Post-Racial President?” by Thomas Sowell reveals in stark relief how destructive to our national fiber is Obama’s racial politics and can be found on the Internet at:

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at:


Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice (more by this author)
Posted 08/16/2006 ET

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at

New lows for Obama - New reasons to cheer!

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That is the lowest level of total approval yet recorded for this President. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove. A plurality of voters now believe the President views American society as unfair and discriminatory.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

Like I said; Obama is a big city con-man - Ben Stein

We've Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein
7.24.09 @ 9:45AM

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

Dating, Mating, Sex, and Gender Differences – Part III

Please Share and Post:

Dear Friends,

Sam & Bunny’s “Call The Shrink” online radio program for
Friday, July 31st (8-10 PM ET) will focus on:

Dating, Mating, Sex, and Gender Differences – Part III

Our special guest will be Dr. Selwyn Mills, author of “The Odd Couple” a best selling book about left brain and right brain differences that was a book of the month featured in Psychology Today.

Please consider calling in with your questions & comments this week on our blogtalk radio show. Our listening audience is expanding. We would like more listener-audience participation! Call in and share your observations about yourself, your friends, your boss, or world leaders!

The support blog for “Call The Shrink” (with visual materials we discuss during the show) is at

We then encourage you to call in on Friday evening from 8-10PM and share some of your thoughts and feelings with us, and we’ll help you to understand the significant way in which those experiences affect our future.
Call-in Number: (646) 727-2652
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To listen to this program online, go to:

All the programs will be auto-archived for seven days, so if you miss us live, you can always hear the program later in the week by going to the site above. While the national call-in line is a New York number and subject to long distance charges, most people have free evening long distance if they use their cell phones. Or email us for an MP3 link:

Our friend, Selwyn Mills, wrote up a nice introduction for the “Call The Shrink” Radio Show Page. As you can see from Selwyn’s report, we are open to discuss almost anything from the list below, so don’t feel obligated to restrict your calls to mental health issues or relationships.

Dr. Selwyn Mills tells you all about Sam and Bunny:

· Sam and Bunny Sewell are fascinating people. They are both active in MENSA the High IQ Society, so their interests and expertise are deep and wide
· They operate a Counseling and Life Skills Clinic, Best Self USA.
· Sam is the Gifted Child Coordinator for MENSA.
· Bunny facilitates women’s groups which discuss everything from Ansel Adams to Zen Buddhism.
· Sam is an aviation enthusiast. He is also a Hot Rodder, with a trophy winning, best in show, car.
· Bunny does organic gardening and operates an Organic Foods Co-op.
· They do seminars on Marriage and Family issues, their award winning research on Family Issues is published in several languages.
· They serve on the faculty of Naples Theological Center, and teach Comparative World Religions and Biblical Scholarship.
· They serve on the Adjunct Faculty for the Clinical Pastoral Education program at Naples Community Hospital
· They do many personal appearances and radio and TV interviews for their newly released book “I Fired My Doctors and Saved My Life”
· They do Health and Fitness Coaching and Nutritional Counseling
· Their interests range from Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion, Literature, the Arts & just about anything else that makes it worth waking up each morning.
· They are eager to discuss these topics and topics you are interested in on “Call The Shrink” Internet Blog Talk Radio.

I encourage you to call their show with your questions & comments
on Fridays from 8-10PM EST.

The Alchemy of Democrat Cover-ups

The Alchemy of Democrat Cover-ups
Lance Fairchok

I have no idea whether Barrack Obama is a natural born American. I'm not a "birther" and I haven't spent a lot of time on the issue, but I have noticed a lot of people are curious, not just fringe "kooks", but reasonable people who seem to have logical reasons for their curiosity. I do not know if Obama fits the constitutional requirements for the Presidency, but I do know Democrats, and when then work hard to hide something, that something is usually a doozy.

Think for a moment of other recent examples of Democrat cover-ups. John Kerry comes to mind. The press excoriated anyone who questioned his military record. Yet, despite the very public promises to release his full record, most notably to the late Tim Russert, he has never done so. He never will, because in that record one would find just what a liar John Kerry is. Apparently, he never actually made the trip to Cambodia that is seared in his memory, but he did take one to Paris to talk to the Viet Cong. So far, thanks to President Carter reinstating his medals, it has been a very successful cover up.

John Edwards portrayed himself as the quintessential husband and father. His boyish good looks, his empathy for the downtrodden and his abiding love for his cancer stricken wife made him a vice-presidential shoo-in, except for that mistress and love child that he visited regularly. Despite his staffers covering for him and the press spiking reporting on the affair, it came out, a very unsuccessful cover-up for Edwards. We are assured however, that even though he admits the affair, the child is not his. Oh, and there will be no DNA testing of the child.

How about all the assurances that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good order? No audits or reforms necessary, everything is just fine. How many members of Congress blocked meaningful regulation for many years? The Democrats have profited and continue to profit greatly from the two enterprises, costing the taxpayers billions. Yet a majority of Americans blame President Bush for the financial crisis. Yet another successful cover-up, as well as an effective propaganda campaign courtesy of the party of coincidence. Do you remember that financial crisis that miraculously popped up last November? You know, just before the election. Pure coincidence, really, you can trust the Democrats.

And last but not least, is the record of the Clinton administration's contribution to 9-11. We know that members of the administration actively built barriers to data sharing between intelligence and law enforcement. We know the Clintons viewed terrorism as a law enforcement matter. We know that Madeleine Albright warned Pakistan before Clinton's half-hearted cruise missile strike on Bin Laden, thereby giving days of warning to Al Qaeda.

We know that soon after the formation of 9-11 commission was officially announced the Clinton administrations National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, went to National Archives over a period of weeks to steal and destroy highly classified records of the Clinton administration decision-making process in handling Al-Qaeda and terrorism. He stuck them in his pants and socks and later burned and shredded them. You can bet they held incriminating evidence, evidence that would have tanked the Democrats on security issues and ripped away the "Clinton Legacy." It was a very successful cover-up, about which the press is remarkably silent. Berger received what amounts to a wrist slap, while old Bill laughed it off saying; "That Sandy, he's so absent minded."

By all reports, Obama and his administration have gone to great expense to prevent examination of his birth record outside of carefully staged statements from loyal Democrats. When Presidential spokespersons ridicule and demean Americans, even political enemies, in a public forum, they are purposely inserting ideas into the public psyche, and when those ideas are choreographed with the press you can bet it was cooked up among the likes of ABC's George Stephanopoulos, CNN's James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The message appears on leftist web-exchanges like Journo List and it is off to the political smear races. If you say a thing often enough, people will eventually believe it, for example; the press is in the Democrats' pocket, the press is in the Democrats pocket, the press is in the Democrats pocket... Well, that one is real.

Now, conveniently, we have Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii's Department of Health, telling us she's seen the documents and they are legitimate. If one wanted to conspire to protect a Democrat President, who is from Hawaii, where else would you go for eager supporters. So the controversy continues until impartial credible observers review the documents. Maybe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. Could the controversy be more accurately about who his father was and not his birthplace? It would certainly be an embarrassment after all the "Dreams of my Father" hagiographies and "my souls from Africa" shtick.

Conservative elites sniff in arrogant distain at the birth document "conspiracy theory, "of course, and admonish us not to fall into the Democrat trap. The controversy is not helping us they complain, the left is painting us as kooks. I hate to break it to you Professor, but the left always paints conservatives as kooks. They also fabricate, lie, manipulate and intimidate. It is standard practice, it will not stop, and you will see any conservative personality that gets traction get the "Ann Coulter" treatment for anything they say. Sarah Palin for example is the target of a well funded, well attended (by the press) smear campaign. It is organized, focused and financed by the Democrat machine. They view her as the chief threat to Obama in 2012. We have years of Sarah smearing to look forward to. The Obama birth records controversy will be similarly exploited for any political advantage, and used to demean and ridicule any on the right who pursue it. I'm no"birther," but I smell a cover-up, I'm just not sure of what. With the Democrats you can be sure, where there's smoke, there's fire, and they are working overtime to hide it.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Scare the devil out of RINOs and Libs

Poll: Nearly 80% Support Palin 2012 Run
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:48 AMBy: Jim Meyers

An Internet poll sponsored by reveals that nearly four out of five respondents would support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
A slightly larger majority believe the then-Alaska governor helped John McCain in the 2008 presidential race — while only 31 percent think McCain did a good job running for president.
The poll drew more than 600,000 responses, and Newsmax will provide the results to major media and share them with radio talk show hosts across the country.

Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your opinion of Sarah Palin?
Favorable: 83 percent
Unfavorable: 17 percent
2) Do you believe Sarah Palin as a running mate helped or hurt John McCain?
Helped: 80 percent
Hurt: 20 percent
3) In the election between McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden, who did you vote for?
McCain-Palin: 81 percent
Obama-Biden: 16 percent
Other: 3 percent
4) Would you support Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for president in 2012?
Yes: 78 percent
No: 22 percent
5) Do you believe McCain did a good job running for president?
Good Job: 31 percent
Bad Job: 69 percent
6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain?
Yes: 72 percent
No: 28 percent

You Can Still Vote in the Newsmax Poll on Sarah Palin - Click Here Now

Lib Policy more dangerous than Global Warming Itself

Video: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis explains the truth about global warming in his film Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself. The movie includes cameos from Heritage’s Ben Lieberman and David Kreuzter and is full of talking points to debunk the common catastrophic global warming stories you always hear. The entire forty minutes is well worth watching.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Blank Birth Certificate Form - AKA Obama fill it in!


In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the "Vital Statistics of the United States

Here is a copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. The "Standard Certificate of Live Birth" contains the father's race in block #8 and the mother's race in block #13. Hawaii's "Certificate of Live Birth" contains the the father's race in block #13a and the mother's race in block #12a.

Now, here comes the good stuff. Page 231 contains the requirements for "Race and color."
"Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite."

Do you see a classification for "African?" I certainly don't.

Now, let's look at the document that Obama has provided for certifying his eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States and that is displayed on Annenberg
FATHER'S RACE is "African" -- an incorrect entry for that data field.


And of course, other birth certificates from that era are filled out properly.

Just a typo? I don't think so. The Obot who created the bogus Certification of Live Birth just couldn't type the word "Negro." Negro is just not politically correct, don'tcha know.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

This information was provided by Steve Cee, a genealogist, who has also authored this new analysis (graphics-heavy MS Word document) of the Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Steve's contribution adds to Dr. Ron Polarik's extensive forensic examination.
Obama's COLB is demonstrably counterfeit. It's a fraud -- as is Obama.

Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born"?
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”

AKA Obama’s Birth Certificate through a glass, darkly.

Looking through a glass, darkly, at AKA Obama’s Birth Certificate.

The latest announcement from Hawaiian Officials isn't any more help than their original announcement. Today this was released:

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

I don’t doubt that Dr. Fukino is accurately reporting that the document she saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.
Excerpt from:

Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.


Dr. Fukino was safe making her first statement because it didn't really say any thing:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

In her recent statement the good doctor may have Fukinoed herself.

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

In this statement she actually revealed information about what was on the Birth Certificate.

She may have unintentionally obligated herself to reveal everything that was on the document.

Like, what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.

The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.”

Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

Ask a lawyer.

"We don't destroy records." - Hawaii DOH

CNN wrong once again –
birth record not destroyedHawaii contradicts network boss' claim that Obama certificate no longer exists

By Jerome R. Corsi© 2009 WorldNetDaily

CNN's Jon KleinDirectly contradicting CNN chief Jon Klein – who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing President Obama's birth certificate – the Hawaii Department of Health affirmed that no paper birth certificates were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping.

"I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records."

Monday, July 27, 2009

Rescue AKA Obama - A Coordinated Media Campaign

A Coordinated Media Campaign

For months and months, the discussions about Obama's eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief have simmered like a teapot on a back burner set to simmer.

Recently, someone's switched the heating element to high, and the teapot is now screeching like it's 5 o'clock at the factory.

Every major news source is publishing articles defending the Obamamessiah on a daily basis.

And, yesterday's item, "CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent," focused on CNN/US's president Jon Klein's dictum that, "It (Obama's eligibility) seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."

Now, the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, called anyone who has concerns about Barack Obama's eligibility a "racist."

Is it simply just a coincidence that the presidents of two of America's largest, if least trustworthy, television networks entered the eligibility discussion, as vigorous defenders of the Usurper, within 24 hours. I don't think so. As Jethro Gibbs says, "I don't believe in coincidences."

Klein chose to fabricate his defense of Obama, while Griffin, just goes all-in with the race card..

One has to wonder if these guys, who rarely are seen or heard commenting on current events, are deciding to run interference for Obama on their own, or did they get a phone call?

I just sent an email to a Gannett reporter, writing at, who claimed, "Such allegations have been refuted by state officials in Hawaii, who say they have checked health department records and verified that Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961."

That statement is a damnable lie. Hawaiian officials never, ever did any such thing.

Identifying her as a propagandist, not a journalist, I provided her with the official Hawaiian statement and demanded a correction be published. I also commented that I didn't believe there would be one.

Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

We are currently at Ghandi's stage three.

Hat tip to Don Fredrick at

Obama Birth Certificate Story Is Growing Huge

WASHINGTON, July 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by Joseph Farah of

How did a supposedly "bogus" story questioning Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency get to the top of the news budgets of every major media outlet in the country?

It didn't happen by accident

Three months ago, Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of, the largest independent news source on the Internet, hatched a plan to do just that.

Frustrated by the lack of coverage of what he considered to be an issue of extraordinary importance, Farah launched a national billboard campaign asking the question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"The plan was to create some buzz -- to get people talking about a grave constitutional issue," he explained. "Before that campaign began, this really was a dead story, other than in WND. Now, every major media outlet is covering it -- if only in covering the tracks of their previous ineptitude and negligence."

The facts are simple, says Farah

No controlling legal authority in America ever checked to see if Obama was a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires. They took at face value Obama's story as told in his autobiography and accepted a document he released that could never prove his eligibility.

Farah says the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate is vitally necessary even to begin proper vetting as to his constitutional qualifications.

As has reported, Obama has also failed to release his school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records and his files from his years as an Illinois state legislator.

"A Question of Eligibility," The first major DVD documentary will debut on Obama's birthday:

Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click appropriate link.

Joseph Farah

CONTACT: M. Sliwa Public Relations, +1-973-272-2861,

Big Media watching their own funeral

Exclusive: Joseph Farah hears sound of Big Media watching their own funeral

By Joseph Farah

I love the way the media enterprises that have never investigated the eligibility story when it was alive now feel compelled to pronounce it dead.

CNN President Jon Klein sent an e-mail to his staff last week explaining, "This story is dead." Apparently he felt compelled to make the official statement because one CNN rogue, Lou Dobbs, had recently discovered the fact that Barack Obama had never established his bona fides as a constitutionally eligible president – failing to prove he was a "natural born citizen" as his Republican opponent was forced to do in Senate hearings.

Why was Klein so sure there was nothing to it?

His reasoning was very strange indeed – and his logic even more twisted.

It seems CNN researchers contacted the Hawaii Public Health Department about the missing long-form birth certificate – the only document absolutely essential to determining where Obama was actually born. What they were told was stunning.

The long-form birth certificate no longer exists! It was destroyed in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless.

Now, what's shocking about that?

The same media outlet that claimed the story was dead because the birth certificate hasn't existed in eight years previously claimed that a Hawaiian official had personally inspected it to determine its authenticity.

Now maybe I'm an unusual newsman, but when I get two entirely contradictory statements from public officials, it makes me more suspicious and curious, not less.

How is it that state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino was able personally inspect the birth certificate in November 2008 when it had been destroyed seven years earlier?

How is it that was able to have "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate" around the same time if it was destroyed in 2001?

These supposedly first-hand observations have heretofore been used as prima facie evidence that a long-form birth certificate confirms Obama's story about a Hawaiian birth Aug. 4, 1961.

But somebody's lying.

How can both stories be true?

How can they both be used to suggest there is no story here?

Where is the natural curiosity by the rest of the press?

How is it that they can accept at face value two patently contradictory statements and claim they both provide evidence of Obama's natural born citizenship and eligibility for the highest office in the United States?

I've got to tell you: I've been in this business a long time – 30 years of full-time professional news reporting and editing. I've never seen anything like this. We don't have a free press left in America – aside from the one you're reading. What we have is an official press – one that doesn't want any rogue journalists rocking the boat, challenging authority and watchdogging government at all levels.

This story isn't dead at all.

And that's what scares the management of CNN, the New York Times, the Associated Press and other Big Media who only recently were forced to cover this story at all through the sheer tenacity of WND, which has chronicled it tirelessly for 11 months.

What they mean is they want it dead. They're getting their butts kicked, and they don't like it. Their phones are ringing off the hook from disgruntled, disbelieving members of the public. They're losing what little credibility they had left.

The establishment press is sounding as shrill as the Obama activists. They ridicule anyone who has a mind of their own. They call people names when they don't fall into line. They attempt to humiliate those who actually do the job of a free press.

It's not the story that's dead. Instead, what you're hearing is the sound of the Big Media watching their own funeral.

SEE: CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent - Hawaii does the avoid/evade dance

Sunday, July 26, 2009

AKA Obama poll hits double digit negatives

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

Our Privilege, Our Right & Our Duty

Our Privilege, Our Right & Our Duty

by Leo Patrick Haffey

We were blessed from our beginning as a Nation under God. Our Founding Fathers bestowed on We the People the most profound privileges in the history of mankind. In Our Declaration of Independence, Our Founding Fathers succinctly stated our basic rights: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As with all Privileges and Rights, Duty comes. In the 233 years of our existence as a Nation by the People, we have lost sight of our Duty. I am as guilty as anyone of wanting to have the privileges and rights without having to perform the duty, but all of that changed for all of us on January 20, 2009. On that infamous date, a puppet of the puppet masters, alien to Our Constitution, was inaugurated as the 44th "President" of the United States of America.

The Socialists, Communists and others alien to Our Country and Our Cause say that this "change" to our Nation is forever, but is that so? I don't think so.

To dispel that alien notion of "change," We the People need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.

Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?

An executor of the Constitutional Contract is anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.

Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.

When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution, immediately, upon the taking of the Oath? In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.

As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.” Thus, Barack Hussein Obama having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law.

Furthermore from Marbury, “Specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has the right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. The question whether a right has vested or not, in its nature, judicial and must be tried by the judicial authority.” This means that anyone that can show that they were injured by BO’s actions has a right to sue him for said injury.

Most of the eligibility cases have focused on the “individual injured” theory which is an inherently weak legal argument in terms of present day law and a case involving the President of the United States, particularly in terms of getting standing.

Consequently, most of the cases previously filed have been dismissed for lack of standing. Simply stated, the lawyers did not include Plaintiffs who had a present contractual right or detriment recognized by law; or, the lawyers did not include Defendants who owed a present duty to the Plaintiffs or had somehow injured the Plaintiffs.

As you might have concluded, a Marbury argument overcomes the standing problem in that, all citizens got standing by the contractual commitment that Barrack Hussein Obama made to us all on January 20, 2009.

When the right case with the right Plaintiffs (with standing) and the right Defendants (with a duty owed to Plaintiffs) is brought in a Court with jurisdiction, then the case will be heard.

In SCOTUS, I dare say there is already a majority theoretically inclined to rule for the proper Plaintiffs. It is, after all, the Constitution which the Supremes are all sworn to uphold. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices are all “just” citizens of this Great Nation, and it is arguable the BO is not even a citizen and it is certain that BO is not Natural Born in the USA.

Now, you might think that this lawyer's restatement of the words of Our Founding Father's are high minded, but what can I as a single Citizen do to help take my Country back from those who aim to destroy it.

This is what We the People can do:

As provided by Our Founding Fathers in Our Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to Our Constitution, Patriots can form Grand Juries to exercise self governance and take Our Country back from those who aim to destroy it.

In the First Amendment, we the People are given the unalienable right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In the Ninth Amendment, it is unequivocally stated that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In the Tenth Amendment, it is clearly stated, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are the people.

What does that mean in the context of the power of Citizen Grand Jurors?

Simply stated it means that Citizens can form Grand Juries with or without the consent of any branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State. Furthermore, it means that any and all Federal or State Rules or Laws of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional to the extent that they limit the formation of Citizen Grand Juries to prior or post approval by any Branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State.

It gets better for the Power of the People over Our Judiciary in the Eleventh Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizen of another State..."

In reading the Eleventh Amendment as it pertains to Citizens Grand Juries, one must remember the legal context under which it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, most Criminal prosecutions were commenced by Citizens utilizing the services of private Citizen Attorneys. You see, Our Founding Fathers never intended for us to be subjugated and controlled by district attorneys and judges. Quite the contrary, Our Founding Fathers intended for We the People to have control over Our Judiciary by action of the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury.

Seen in its true, original context, the Eleventh Amendment clearly states that Citizens can form Federal or State Grand Juries without interference by the Federal Government.

Furthermore, the Citizen Grand Juries can subpoena any and all of Barack Hussein Obama's personal records held in any State or Federal Government Office or Department and said Office or Department is compelled by the Supreme Law of the Land, Our Constitution, to produce said records for said Grand Juries.

Perhaps all of the foregoing is still too esoteric and abstract for some, then just follow these simple instructions:

1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.

Remember Patriots, the case against Barack Hussein Obama will be over in Discovery, therefore, let us commence with Our Discovery of the Truth regarding the suspect commonly known to us Citizens as Barack Hussein Obama of unknown Citizenship, Allegiance and Alliances.

For those for whom this simple article has not been erudite, esoteric or abstract enough please read:

Aristotle the Hun's Definitive Documentation of the High Crimes of Barack H. Obama

Right Side of Life Article on Fourth Branch of Government, the Grand Jury

Steven Winter’s Landmark Essay on Standing

Essays on Chief Justice Marshall


Leo Donofrio's Essay on the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury

Somethings coming - Something big! Obama's going down!

Leo Patrick Haffey is a lawyer in Nashville, Tennessee who has worked in the music, motion picture and television industries as a producer. Mr. Haffey has done extensive legal research on the Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America.

CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent - Hawaii does the avoid/evade dance

CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent

Thanks to Hat tip to Don Fredrick of the Obama File at

Yesterday's stuff contained a statement extracted from an email memo composed by CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein and sent to a handful of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" staffers.

In the email, Klein states that birth data is now in electronic form and, "It seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."

Klein's memo clearly implies that, because birth data is now in electronic form, the COLB, produced from this electronic data, is all there is. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can take it to the bank, Hawaii maintains an archive of Certificate of Birth documents.

Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein's statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii -- here are their replies, that contains facts that lay lie to Klein's assertions.

Hawaii's initial response to Steve's request for a copy of a long-form birth certificate was the standard crap we've been hearing for several months now, that "We issue only a computer-generated copy of the certificate, with limited information."

Unsatisfied, the tenacious Steve decided to to inquire further and dig deeper. Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked, "What does a person do in order satisfy (sic) a Long form or Vault requirement? Prompting the State of Hawaii’s second, and more detailed, reply, that provides the process necessary to obtain a copy of a vault-copy Certificate of Birth.

"The only records that can be photo-copied are those with diacritical marks which cannot be printed by computer. Otherwise, it would require an order signed by a judge specifying what record was needed..."

In every single statement coming out of Hawaii, the words are carefully chosen and structured, but this one clearly says, if you got a judge, we got the document. Eligibility
7/26/09 Hawaii Dances Around The Truth

Janice Okubo's comment to John Klein, "In 2001 -- the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless," is being used by the Obot community AND Hawaii to imply that Hawaii no longer has vault-copy Certificates of Birth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Documents may be batch scanned into a microfiche system, but the data in a computer database, converted from Hawaii's Certificate of Live Birth must be hand entered -- keystroke, by keystroke. The document can't be scanned because there is typed, stamped and hand-written entries on that document, and those entries are placed randomly within the document's fields.

According to the 2000 Census, there were 1,211,537 residents in Hawaii -- 999,308 were born there -- that's one million birth certificates that had to be handed encoded as part of Hawaii's transition to a "paperless" system.

There's approximately 50 entries that need to be transcribed from each document (names have several parts), so that's 50,000,000 transcriptions. Some of the data, such as "date of birth," needs to be converted into standard formats. If a data entry clerk were to transcribe one certificate every 15 minutes, the level of effort would be approximately 250,000 worker-hours. That's 125 data entry operators for a year -- if they have no meetings, and take no coffee, lunch, or comfort breaks. So you're really looking at 200 key-entry operators for a year -- plus a management team to oversee the project.

That's a BIG project, with a BIG budget. It should be relatively easy to verify such a project occurred because this project would be done by outside contractors. The project lifecycle includes request for proposal, proposal, contractor selection, organization, planning, training, execution, validation, etc. This is a 3 to 5-year project -- remember, we're talking state government here.

Now, when 50,000,000 transcriptions are made, errors will be made.

When documents, such as birth certificates, are converted to electronic media, the originals MUST be archived because of those errors. There must be backup, because these documents are used as a basis of all other documents and are often required for legal processes.

The prudent person would be required to preserve the source document as backup for challenges to the database content. Government bureaucrats tend to be the most prudent people on the planet. Their primary work function is to cover their ass.

There is no way, in hell, that the directors and managers of Hawaii's health department destroyed those original documents. Their exposure would be enormous.

So Klein's statement, "that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless," is a damnable lie. He's saying the paper documents don't exist, and Hawaiian civil servants are implying the same thing -- unless the issue is pressed -- then they admit they still have them, reluctantly.

Remember, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands required Certificates of Birth, for services and benefits as recently as June 8, 2009. They can't destroy documents that are a requirement for government services and benefits.

But the clincher is Fukino's statement, that she personally saw and verified Obama's original birth certificate on October 31, 2008.

Hawaii has the documents. They're down there somewhere in a clean, air-conditioned building -- and they're accessible.

The Obots can lie, lie, lie and otherwise obfuscate until the cows come home, and it won't change that fact.